CC Minutes - 01/11/11 Work Session

Home Browse Search

Mr. Zelenka pointed out that Eugene would need multiple Venetas to perfect its water rights for the first 25 percent, which suggested to him that the region needed a planning context for that to occur. He suggested there were benefits from a regional water master planning approach, including cost savings and the mitigation of environmental impacts. Responding to a question from Mr. Brown, Ms. Wilson indicated that the courts had ruled in the past that municipalities have five years to perfect their water rights. Because of the difficulty of doing so, the legislature was trying to modify the law. One of the League of Oregon Cities' top three legislative priorities was clarifying and protecting the amount of time municipalities have to perfect their water rights. She said no one knew precisely when EWEB had to perfect its rights, but it had to be soon. EWEB had asked for an extension to provide more information to the State proving it was moving toward the next 25 percent. She did not know if the State would grant the extension. Mr. Brown pointed out that even if the City approved a resolution of support, the contract did not get EWEB closer to the next 25 percent. He said EWEB would need more customers and he questioned if they were out there. He said that when EWEB first applied for water rights in the 1960s the community was going through a growth period and many believed that its population would reach San Francisco levels, but that had not occurred. He asked how long EWEB projected it would take to perfect the third water right. Ms. Wilson said that it was not likely to happen in 5 or 20 years, but the community just needed to meet the first 25 percent. She said that EWEB General Manager Roger Gray had noted out that beneficial use was not just the use of water, but also the mitigation of the risk of having a single source of water. In the case of an emergency, the community could lose water for weeks. EWEB hoped to demonstrate to the State that it had a plan to mitigate that risk by showing part of the water right could be used as a back -up source. Mr. Brown believed it would take more than 100 years for EWEB to fully perfect the third water right. He thought the water right was too big and added to a false sense of pressure, making the issues difficult to sort out. Mr. Brown suggested that Veneta and EWEB could change the contract at any time without consultation with Eugene to increase the amount of water. Mr. Clark suggested a well -done regional water master plan would include the voices of people from around the region and would not be filtered through the City's growth management policies. He said Eugene was not the ultimate arbiter of the discussion and he anticipated the State would have a say in many of the issues. Ms. Taylor did not want to confuse the subject of the Veneta contract with the subject of a second source of water. She thought they were separate topics. She believed that EWEB should talk to the Springfield Utility Board about sharing sources of water. Mr. Zelenka thought it important to protect EWEB's water rights, particularly the first 25 percent because it gave the community a reservation on the next 25 percent. He suggested a regional water plan could help answer the questions before the council, would create benefits through regional cooperation, and would address the risk of infrastructure costs. He reviewed his proposal for a regional water planning process, included with the council's meeting materials. Mr. Farr determined from Ms. Wilson that Veneta could not sell excess water or allow other cities to tap into the pipeline. MINUTES— Eugene City Council January 11, 2010 Page 7 Work Session