Laserfiche WebLink
regional problem; he considered this to be a local problem. He also disputed the assertion in the AIS that the water <br />contract would not encourage growth, saying that without water Veneta could not grow. According to his <br />calculations, if all three of the water rights were perfected, the community would get 193 MGD and, given that 30 <br />MGD were used currently, this would mean that the population (in order to use all of that water) would be about a <br />million people. <br />Mr. Taylor clarified that water rights were not based on average use, a water right was based on what the utility <br />might need on a day -to -day basis. He said in order to determine accurately the size of the water needs, one would <br />have to divide the total usage by the maximum use, 78 MGD, and not average use, which was 30 MGD. <br />Mr. G. Brown understood that EWEB had filed a lawsuit asking the court to declare that EWEB had independent <br />authority to enter into the contract without council approval. He asked if this was normal; was this how the <br />contracts had been made with the other water districts. Mr. Taylor responded that he would defer the legal <br />questions to legal counsel. He added that EWEB had engaged in multiple existing wholesale contracts, all of which <br />predated the charter amendment that occurred in 1976. He said there was no reason for EWEB to bring up this <br />issue in regard to the charter amendment. He stated that prior to 1976, it was EWEB's understanding, as it <br />continued to be in the present, that wholesale water provision was in its purview because that was given to all <br />municipal entities within the State of Oregon according to Oregon water law. He pointed out that there were <br />numerous examples of communities having wholesale water arrangements. <br />Mr. Fanner said, regarding the Envision Eugene process and doing this on a regional basis, this pointed to the heart <br />of the matter which was whether they could cooperate as a region or would there be ten different communities with <br />ten different treatment plants sitting on the edge of the river. He believed that for the benefit of the citizens of <br />Eugene there should be one plant and they should work together in partnership with other communities. He <br />disagreed with the position that without the water contract Veneta could not grow. He understood that one could <br />extrapolate this, but another outcome could be that Veneta would build its own water treatment plant and ship their <br />own water there. He felt they should view the contract as being good neighbors and good stewards and that they <br />were working together for a regional benefit. He related that every time EWEB took on a water or electric project <br />he asked for a comparative cost analysis. He had learned through the analyses that water costs in Medford were <br />well below those of Eugene and that this was because of the excellent job they had done of spreading their water <br />costs on a regional basis. He supported planning on a regional basis, as it would provide the greatest benefit to <br />everyone. <br />Ms. Smith stated that the City had two primary issues of concern regarding water: the water rights that EWEB was <br />working hard to perfect and that it had a single source of water. She shared EWEB's belief that having <br />collaborative relationships with outlying communities would provide a benefit when EWEB engaged in the <br />discussion regarding a second source. <br />Mr. Cunningham noted that EWEB was coming up on its 100th anniversary and commented that the boards and <br />councils of 100 years earlier would not have imagined that Eugene would have a population of 137,000 one day. <br />He felt that everyone had been a good steward of the water supply. <br />Mr. Taylor noted that the first water right on the McKenzie River had been from 1927, but EWEB also had a water <br />right on the Willamette River that dated to 1887. <br />Mr. Cunningham averred that it was in the City's best interest to sell wholesale water to Veneta. <br />Mr. Zelenka said there were two issues before them: the perfecting of the water rights and the legal issue of City <br />Council approval. It seemed pretty clear to him that extension of water service outside the city limits would require <br />council approval. He asked City Attorney Glenn Klein to comment. <br />MINUTES —Joint Meeting - Eugene Water & Electric Board and Eugene City Council June 7, 2010 <br />Page 6 <br />