CC Minutes - 01/11/11 Work Session

Home Browse Search

The resolution would reflect a specific amount of water and could include a provision that ended the resolution should the City be unsuccessful in its appeal or a regional water supplier come into existence. It could also include a provision that no one could tap into the pipe line without council approval. Veneta City Administrator Ric Ingram discussed the terms of a contract between EWEB and the City of Veneta as it regarded the amount. The contract currently called for 4 million gallons per day; that amount was based on a 20 -year horizon. However, 3 million gallons per day was acceptable for the immediate future. Veneta would maintain a redundant system and have its own capacity. Councilors asked questions clarifying the details of the proposed contract. Mr. Clark asked the average daily flow of the McKenzie River. Jeannine Parisi of EWEB indicated that the utility took about 3 -1/2 percent of the flow from the river at the Hayden Bridge intake on an August day of highest usage, and adding Veneta to the flow was .02 percent more. Mr. Clark said the purpose of the contract was to perfect more water rights for Eugene and to help Veneta find a solution to its water supply problem, and the question was whether it was a good idea. If it was a good idea, he questioned why the City would limit the amount of water that EWEB could sell to Veneta since it did not appear to significantly impact the supply. It would also generate more revenue for EWEB. Speaking to whether the contract should be for more water, Ms. Wilson pointed out that to perfect its water rights, EWEB must demonstrate beneficial use of the water and it would not help to sell Veneta more water than it needed. The amount could be more if Veneta could show the need for more water. City Attorney Klein added the City could increase that amount in the future if the pending litigation was settled in its favor. Mayor Piercy suggested the quandary before the council was the precedent being set for infrastructure expansion and growth without a broader discussion of regional water needs. She acknowledged that Veneta had a grant and a time line to address. Mayor Piercy also acknowledged concerns about the community's claim on additional water rights in the McKenzie River. Mayor Piercy asked if the contract should also include conservation agreements and stipulations about water reuse in the future. Ms. Wilson pointed out that the contract included requirements about water conservation, including water reuse. Mr. Zelenka agreed with Mayor Piercy's summary of the issues. He asked City Attorney Klein if the resolution threatened the City's appeal, given that the amount of water included seemed arbitrary to him. City Attorney Klein said there needed to be a significant difference between what the council and EWEB authorized. He believed that the courts would accept 3 million gallons a day as a sign of significant differences in position, keeping the lawsuit alive. Mr. Zelenka recalled he had asked for staff input about how the contract affected the City's growth management policies and its relationship to State land use planning laws. He acknowledged that for him the issue was not about Veneta, which had its own urban growth boundary (UGB) and was responsible for growth inside that. Instead, it was about Eugene's role as regional provider of water and how it related to the City's growth management policies and State land use planning goals. After discussion with Ms. Wilson, Mr. Zelenka came to the conclusion that the growth management policies and State planning rules did not apply because the pipeline would run between the two communities. He considered that a bit of a disconnect, but acknowledged the issue did not come up often. He believed that the council needed to consider the spirit of those policies and laws as opposed to the letter of the law. MINUTES— Eugene City Council January 11, 2010 Page 6 Work Session