My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CC Minutes - 06/07/10 Work Session
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Minutes
>
2010
>
CC Minutes - 06/07/10 Work Session
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/23/2012 11:45:43 AM
Creation date
2/28/2011 3:33:08 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Minutes
Meeting_Type
Work Session
CMO_Meeting_Date
6/7/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
8
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Ms. Smith stated that for many years municipalities had unlimited water rights but now this had fallen under more <br />scrutiny. She said part of Mr. Taylor's work was trying to figure out what the best path forward was given an <br />uncertain set of rules. <br />Mr. G. Brown asked the total water use at this time. Mr. Taylor replied that average use on an annualized basis was <br />approximately 27 to 30 MGD. He said EWEB had used up to 78 MGD in a day, which was the requirement for <br />showing beneficial use, in other words demonstrating that EWEB needed to have access to that quantity of water. <br />Mr. Pryor appreciated the chance for the two government bodies to get together. He was impressed with the <br />safeguards included in the agreement. He likened the contract to "killing two birds with one stone." He said they <br />could provide the wholesale water contract and use it to perfect the water right. He observed that there was plenty <br />of capacity for everyone. <br />Mr. Pryor said they had not had the conversation about the relationship between the Eugene City Council and the <br />Eugene Water & Electric Board around wholesale water contracts. He did not want to micro - manage but he did <br />want to be clear on the relationship between the two jurisdictions. He was encouraged by the conversation thus far. <br />Ms. Ortiz thanked EWEB for responding to the request to meet. She was a little concerned that they had not had a <br />conversation about wholesale water contracts prior to the information about the Veneta contract being published in <br />the newspaper. She remarked that this was about more than the City's relationship with EWEB, it was about its <br />relationship with its intergovernmental partners. She suggested that the council also discuss this issue with the City <br />of Veneta. She considered the McKenzie River to be a pearl and wanted to continue being good stewards of it. <br />Mr. Zelenka thanked the EWEB Board for joining the council in this discussion. He had been one of the councilors <br />that had been disappointed that EWEB had not contacted the council earlier. He wished the board had come to the <br />council before filing the petition. He asked how EWEB would perfect its water right without the City of Veneta's <br />contract. Mr. Taylor replied that there was no other way to put water to beneficial use other than to use it. Even <br />before he had been hired by EWEB he was aware that it was in EWEB's best interest to be a regional water <br />provider. He underscored that EWEB did not have a lot of pathways to perfecting the water right and had to pursue <br />this kind of use to do so. <br />Mr. Zelenka asked if the water rights could be perfected without the City of Veneta wholesale contract. Mr. Taylor <br />responded that it was a matter of time. He said the regionalization was a plan that EWEB could show to the state <br />that demonstrated EWEB's diligence in how the issue was being approached. He pointed out that Coos Bay/North <br />Bend had been sued for keeping water rights undeveloped and unused. <br />Mr. Zelenka understood that there was no time limit to perfect water; it was simply defined as a reasonable amount <br />of time. Mr. Taylor responded that the argument made in the Coos Bay/North Bend case was that the water right <br />should be developed within five years. He said this was why the legislation had come back with the 20 -year <br />window for all new water rights. He related that the legislation also had incorporated a conservation management <br />plan in which municipalities were given green light water and red light water. He explained that green light water <br />was only given for water that was demonstrated in a plan to be used within 20 years. He stated that water outside <br />of the 20 -year window was put into a red light status and provisions in the law would put at question whether or not <br />additional conditions would be placed on this water into the future. <br />Mr. Zelenka asserted that EWEB could probably perfect the water right without the contract with Veneta. <br />Mr. Taylor asked Mr. Zelenka to clarify how the water right could be perfected without demonstrating additional <br />use. Mr. Zelenka responded that EWEB "would probably figure out some other way to do it." <br />MINUTES —Joint Meeting - Eugene Water & Electric Board and Eugene City Council June 7, 2010 <br />Page 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.