Board Members present: Sandra Bishop, Dorothy Anderson; Susie Smith, Patrick Lanning. Commissioner Peter Bartel was excused.

Others present: Randy Berggren, Dean Ahlsten, Ken Beeson, Jay Bozievich, Dick Helgeson, Cathy Hamilton, Dave Koski, Jim Origliosso, Brenda Sirois, Jim Wiley, Dick Varner, Ken Wedin, and Krista Hince of the EWEB staff; members of the public; and Kim Young, City of Eugene Minutes Recorder.

President Bishop called the Work Session of the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) to order.

GROUNDWATER FEASIBILITY STUDY

Dick Helgeson, Director of Water & Steam Divisions introduced the item. He termed the Groundwater Feasibility Study as a culmination of a two-year effort derived from earlier work on the Water Supply Plan, which resulted in an examination of groundwater as a backup water supply. Mr. Helgeson said that staff would ask the Board to take action on a resolution regarding the study later in the meeting.

Brenda Sirois, Water Planning Analyst, introduced members of the staff and consultants who had worked on the study. She provided the Board with a Powerpoint presentation on the study. The presentation included a summary of the elements of the project, staff recommendations, and a summary of the resources needed to implement the study and a time line for doing so.

At the request of Ms. Sirois, Ken Wedin, Right-of-Way Agent, identified the potential well fields and noted their owners.

Jay Bozievich, Senior Engineer/Water Engineering, discussed the results of water testing in the potential wellfields, focusing on the levels of arsenic and radon found in the water. Ms. Sirois anticipated that the arsenic levels would be lower when the wells were developed. The samples analyzed came from a well with a thin sand pack, which could explain the differences staff found in the different samples.

Mr. Bozievich discussed the processes for removing arsenic and radon from water.

Responding to a question from President Bishop, Mr. Bozievich said that the runoff containing the arsenic would be disposed of by companies with expertise in the field.

Ms. Sirois discussed the modeling of groundwater done for the study. She showed the Board a cross-section of a well design.

Commissioner Smith noted that the Springfield Utility Board had a couple of wells shown in the draft Public Facilities Plan on the west side of I-5, and asked if the proposed wells would compete with those wells for water. Ms. Sirois said that those wells were intended for back-up purposes as most of Springfield's development is on the east side of the freeway. She believed that EWEB would have to discuss the issue with the Springfield Utility Board (SUB). Mr. Helgeson added that SUB had the wells for contingency purposes. He said that SUB had no specific plans to develop wells in the designated area. Staff had discussed identifying the wells as merely municipal wells with LCOG staff in the context of the Public Services and Facilities Plan. He was unsure of what designation in the plan entailed.

Commissioner Lanning asked if there were private wells in the area. Ms. Sirois said that there were some wells, most of which were shallow. She did not anticipate that EWEB would impact any of those wells. Commissioner Smith did not think that EWEB would be able to secure a water right permit from the State if it threatened other wells. Ms. Sirois concurred, adding that was why it was important for EWEB to do its homework in this area.

President Bishop asked if there was a way for staff to quantify the phrase "no significant impact" as she thought it sounded somewhat flippant. Mr. Helgeson suggested the phrase "no quantifiable impact." Mr. Wedin suggested that the term be further defined in the study.

Mr. Bozievich provided information on system design and the cost estimates for the system, noting the assumptions behind the estimates. He noted that estimating the cost of the land was difficult as it was largely vacant. He showed the Board a slide showing the site plan for the two potential well fields.

Mr. Bozievich reviewed the results of hydraulic modeling, saying that it appeared adequate pressure could be maintained through the system if the wells were used. There could be some impact on the pump station at Hayden Bridge when the fields were used as a supplemental source.

Ms. Sirois recommended that the utility secure property interests for the wellfields. She also recommended that the Board take into account some permitting strategy and community relations issues, which would involve a number of steps that included identification of all permits and the time needed to secure them, briefings to local community agencies; briefings for State and federal agencies; and preparation and submittal of water rights applications. Ms. Sirois said that staff also proposed to establish a test well and monitoring program.

Ms. Sirois reviewed the staff recommendations for the implementation phases of the study.

Ms. Sirois noted that there were additional environmental and engineering requirements that the utility would continually track. She identified some of those requirements, which included a wetland inventory and selection of best management practices for disposing of well water following pump tests and well maintenance.

Ms. Sirois provided the details of two possible implementation approaches, Plan A and Plan B. She distinguished between the two plans by noting the accelerated time line for Plan B.

Responding to a question from Commissioner Smith, Mr. Helgeson said that staff believed an aggressive schedule was manageable, and he thought there were bridging strategies the utility could use that would not impact the rates too much. He said that staff was concerned that there was currently some significant reliability exposure in a system without a secondary source.

Mr. Bozievich discussed the impact of a winter shutdown at Hayden Bridge, suggesting a shutdown would mean that there was only 48 hours worth of storage. The existence of the wellfield would double the amount of time that EWEB had to address the emergency and communicate with its customers about the problem. He discussed the impact of a summer shutdown, which had a more pronounced impact. The utility would be out of water in a little over a day, and the wellfield would give EWEB about 12 more hours to address the problem.

Responding to a question from President Bishop, Mr. Helgeson said that EWEB did not have an emergency plan in place. It had the elements of a emergency plan but it needed to be refined. President Bishop asked if EWEB had any contracts that required it to deliver water to that customer before residential customers were served. Mr. Helgeson said no.

Ms. Sirois indicated that Plan A was slightly more costly than Plan B; Plan B could require the use of reserve funds in fiscal year 2001 to buy land; and Plan B reduced the risk of a supply shortage.

Ms. Sirois called the Board's attention to the draft resolution prepared by staff.

Mr. Helgeson said he felt good about the work done by staff and the consultants. The effort involved a new source of supply which the utility was not familiar with. He thought that EWEB was in the position to answer questions that had been raised during the water supply planning process. Mr. Helgeson termed the decision a significant one for the Board, and said it would lead to significant activities on the part of staff.

Mr. Helgeson briefly reviewed the elements of the resolution.

Noting that President Bishop had contacted him earlier in the day with a concern about the resolution, Mr. Helgeson clarified that the utility did not intend to use the well fields on a regular supply basis to meet its demand load. The well fields would serve as an alternate source if Hayden Bridge was unavailable or constrained. He offered example situations that might trigger the use of the wells, stressing that the use of the word "supplemental" in the resolution was intended to address those situations. He invited Board discussion about the topic.

Commissioner Smith asked if the wells must be used periodically to maintain the rights. Mr. Helgeson said yes. He said that, for example, the utility could not leave the wells dormant for a ten-year period.

Vice President Anderson interpreted the resolution as meaning what Mr. Helgeson indicated it did.

President Bishop did not interpret the resolution in the same way. She referred to the third "Whereas" and said the Board had never agreed the wells would be a back-up supply source. She said that the Board had not agreed to integrate the water into its system. People wanted to drink McKenzie River water. She also objected to the phrase "or at other times that supplemental production capacity may be required" as overly broad. She did not want a new business to come into town and argue that there was plenty of water available. She preferred to eliminate the last line and the Board could determine what an emergency was. Commissioner Smith thought the resolution should be modified to indicate the wells would be operated nominally to maintain the water rights.

Ms. Sirois said that staff had struggled with the concept. She said that the citizens committee had indicated a high value for 100 percent reliability, acknowledging the cost. She thought the issue of supply and reliability was very important. President Bishop said the board needed to accurately reflect its decision in the resolution and be clear that the wells were for emergency back-up only.

President Bishop suggested supplemental emergency capacity may be required.

Commissioner Smith expressed concern about the resolution's specificity about the minimum capacity increment of 10 million gallons per day given the uncertainty of production. She did not want to establish a performance target that may not be met. She suggested a target capacity of 10 to 13 million gallons per day that staff might be held responsible for. Responding to a suggestion from Mr. Helgeson that the target year be changed to 2007, Commissioner Smith said she preferred to wait on that change pending more information.

President Bishop asked that the phrase "preferred back-up" be changed to "emergency back-up."

Ms. Sirois reviewed next steps in the process, noting a public hearing was scheduled for December 5, after which the Board could adopt the resolution. She said that development of financial strategies, land acquisition strategies, water right strategies, and public information strategies would follow. Responding to a request for information on timing, Ms. Sirois indicated the next steps were in the phased schedule and some of the elements must be refined.

Commissioner Lanning asked for more information about the public input that went into the study. Mr. Helgeson discussed the water supply effort and the formation of the Water Resources Working Group, which had recommended that the Board consider a back-up source. Several public hearings and open houses had been held, during which residents expressed concern about the use of groundwater as a regular supply source. In June 2000, staff met with the Board and solicited input on what it wished to see in terms of input; the Board indicated there was no need to reconvene the working group, but there was a need for an extensive public information and education effort. He noted that an article about the study was included in the most recent edition of Pipeline. If the Board wished to do additional outreach, staff could identify more opportunities.

President Bishop noted that Commissioner Smith and former Commissioner Mike Dyer served on the working group. Commissioner Smith said that the working group had heard several concerns from the public about water quality; the interactions between the river and the groundwater, including concerns about contamination from the gravel pits; concerns about the taste of the groundwater; the metaphysical life energy of the McKenzie River; and what Commissioner Smith termed the conspiracy theory, which she summarized as "once you put this in as a backup we don't trust you to keep it that way, you'll just go ahead and do it." She thought the follow-up work done by staff had addressed the first three concerns. She termed the last concern a Board accountability issue, and said she did not know how to address the fourth concern.

Commissioner Smith said she thought that, if the working group had the graphs staff showed the Board, she believed that the working group would have made the choice of groundwater sooner than it had.

Commissioner Smith said that the Board should keep in mind the infrequency that the well fields would be used. Mr. Helgeson agreed. He said that modeling indicated a very small percentage of the total water in a ten-year period would come from the wells.

President Bishop asked if there was a possibility the wells could be designed in a way that the water could be sold to other customers or water districts. Mr. Bozievich said yes. Staff was developing close to the boundaries of a water system that was experiencing a water shortage. He added that staff was not charged with the task of exploring that possibility. General Manager Randy Berggren said that it was at odds with the original intent of the working group's and suggested there was some hypocrisy in saying that the water could not be used by Eugene residents but could be sold.

Mr. Helgeson indicated that staff would bring the revised resolution back to the Board on December 5. The Board could act on the resolution then or defer it to the January meeting if it agreed that changes were justified by the testimony it received.

Commissioner Smith suggested that for the benefit of those who intended to testify, staff review the history of the water supply plan, note the public concerns raised, and described how those concerns were addressed.

The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.

_____________________________________ ______________________________________

Assistant Secretary President