Laserfiche WebLink
City Attorney Klein, responding to a question from Mr. Clark, described the relationship between the City of <br /> Eugene and EWEB with particular emphasis on how that relationship affected the utilities provided by EWEB. <br /> City Attorney Klein further noted that while EWEB was technically a part of the City of Eugene, under the <br /> Eugene City Charter, certain City powers were delegated to EWEB. <br /> City Attorney Klein specified that the water rights under discussion belonged to the City of Eugene and that <br /> EWEB was not an independent legal entity. <br /> asked if EWEB shared City Attorney Klein's understanding Clark as ty y g of the relationship between itself and the <br /> City of Eugene. City Attorney Klein responded that he had not asked EWEB if it agreed that it was part of the <br /> City of Eugene, but that he had identified legal precedent that demonstrated that it was. <br /> Mr. Clark recognized that the discussion at hand concerned EWEB's authority with respect to local water rights <br /> and whether or not EWEB had the authority to sell water outside the Eugene city limits without the approval of <br /> the Eugene City Council. <br /> Mr. Poling asked if City Attorney Klein's plan to file court pleadings would establish a good faith effort to <br /> perfect the City of Eugene's water rights. Ms. Wilson replied that such legal action would not solely perfect the <br /> d to perfect its water rights. Ms. <br /> water rights but would demonstrate to State officials that the City intended p g <br /> Citys g h' <br /> Wilson restated that the City needed to put water to a beneficial use before the rights concerning the water <br /> would be perfected. <br /> Ms. Wilson, g n res ondi to a comment from Mr. Poling, stated that she did not believe it was likely that the City <br /> P <br /> of Eugene would lose its water rights as a result of any legal actions relating to EWEB's water sale to Veneta. <br /> staff was not more directly involved in the council's discussion. <br /> Ms. Ortiz indicated her frustration that EWEB sta y <br /> She hoped that EWEB representatives would be provided the opportunity to present their rationale for their <br /> current course of action with respect to the water sale to the City of Veneta. <br /> Ms. Ortiz supported EWEB's efforts to provide water to the citizens of Veneta. <br /> Mr. Zelenka indicated his disappointment with the EWEB Board of Directors for their reluctance to involve the <br /> Eugene City Council in their proposed contract with the City of Veneta. <br /> Mr. Zelenka briefly discussed his understanding of the City of Eugene's current water rights and asked for <br /> further clarification from Ms. Wilson. Ms. Wilson replied that municipal water rights functioned differently <br /> from individual and agricultural water rights in that municipalities normally were tasked to develop a long -term <br /> water management conservation plan as part of their water rights that was required to be continually updated. <br /> City Attorney Klein, responding to a question from Mr. Zelenka, noted that he had not yet discussed the water <br /> sale to Veneta with EWEB's attorneys but generally understood that EWEB intended to sell the water wholesale <br /> to the City of Veneta rather than directly to consumers. <br /> Mr. Brown agreed with City Attorney Klein's determination that the authority regarding EWEB's proposed sale <br /> ultimately rested with the Eugene City Council. <br /> Ms. Wilson, responding to a question from Mr. Brown, noted that partial certification with respect to water <br /> show State officials that a municipality was moving was intended to s p ty g forward with its efforts to <br /> demonstrate the beneficial use of its entire water allotment. <br /> MINUTES— Eugene City Council May 12, 2010 Page 4 <br /> Work Session <br />