CC MInutes - 06/14/10 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

th Howard Bonnett , 1835 East 28 Avenue, was concerned about the planning implications of the proposal and recalled that he had been on the Planning Commission in the 1960s and 1970s when the commission discussed the urban service boundary. It was called an urban service boundary because it was intended to restrict service outside the boundary and facilitate infill and restrict sprawl. He objected to giving water to Veneta so it could grow, particularly in light of projected water consumption. Veneta residents often drive to Eugene for their work, which is antithetical to the community’s attempts to combat climate change. He felt it was a big mistake to move forward. He averred that the McKenzie River kept the water quality of the Willamette River acceptable, and suggested that such use was more important than Veneta residents having drinking water. Mr. Bonnett recommended that the council study flow projections for both rivers to determine how much water was really available. Jan Wilson , Western Environmental Law Center, submitted her comments in opposition to EWEB’s proposal to sell water to Veneta in writing. Karen Booth , 3015 Emerald Street, did not want EWEB, as the City’s agent, to act without the City’s consent in selling water to Veneta. She was also concerned that City water rights would be used to facilitate urban sprawl. She said that it was a way of getting around the urban growth boundary, which was established for a good reason. Mayor Piercy closed the public hearing. Councilor Clark recalled that during the recent council work session, he had heard that it would take 120 years to perfect the next McKenzie River water right and that the sale to Veneta went toward furthering that end. He asked what would be required to perfect the water right in its entirety. Intergovernmental Relations Director Brenda Wilson said she did not have exact figures, but believed that the third and final water right on the McKenzie River was divided into 25 percent chunks. EWEB did not believe that current growth projections would allow the community to hit the target that triggered the first 25 percent mark. In order to secure the water right, EWEB would have to certify the water in 25 percent chunks, and the service to Veneta as well as projected growth would give EWEB a better chance of hitting the first 25 percent, which guaranteed the community the use of the water and gave it time to figure out how to secure the next 25 percent allocation. She said that EWEB could certify a smaller amount, but the community would then lose its rights to seek the remaining rights up to 100 percent of the right. In the future, if the community wanted additional water, it got into the “back of the line.” Councilor Brown stated there was no date from the Water Commission for perfecting the rights. Ms. Wilson said the State Legislature passed new laws regarding water right perfections for Oregon municipalities because of water hoarding issues. Currently, the time line was not clear; it was somewhere between five and twenty years. She suggested the State would realize if a community was not moving toward certification of its water rights; if it appeared a municipality was moving toward certification, the State was more likely to issue an extension of time for certification or moving toward the next 25 percent than it would if the municipality was not making a reasonable effort toward certification. Councilor Brown asked if EWEB had an estimate of when Eugene growth would achieve the target without water sales to another community. Ms. Wilson said that those projections would not be realized for more than 50 years, and EWEB did not believe that the State would consider that a reasonable amount of time. Councilor Brown concluded that EWEB did not believe that but he suggested it had not been told that by MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 14, 2010 Page 7 Regular Meeting