Public comment: Watershed Bill of Rights can help EWEB with Leaburg Dam, data centers, second source

Presenter: Public comments March 3 suggest the Watersheds Bill of Rights can help EWEB with the Leaburg Dam, data centers, and the forthcoming second source on the Willamette. Nick Squires:

Nick Squires: My name is Nick and I’m an EWEB customer-owner.

Every one of you sits in that chair because the people of Eugene put you there, and they put you there with the understanding that your promise is to them—not a corporation, not a timber company. I’m here tonight because I’m not sure that promise is being kept.

Commissioner Barofsky has introduced a resolution asking this board to oppose Measure 20-373, to stand against the people trying to protect our water, and the people deserve to know why.

On Oct. 7, Commissioner Barofsky asked staff for a report on 20-373. Exactly one week later, according to public filings, he received a $2,500 contribution from timber executive Dan Giustina.

Giustina is the largest single donor to both his EWEB and City Council campaigns. This accounts were roughly one-quarter of his total contributions. I will let that speak for itself.

But it goes deeper. Public records show that Barofsky’s own campaign treasurer, Jef Green, is also the alternate finance filer for Protect Our County, the political action committee organized to defeat Measure 20-373.

That PAC is run by the president of Oregon Forestry Industries Council. Its treasurer, Erik Parrish, personally contributed to Barofsky’s city council campaign.

I don’t know whether this board was made aware of these connections, but the people weren’t.

The chief petitioners of our measure never heard from them—not five minutes, not five seconds. If Commissioner Barofsky did not disclose these financial ties to his colleagues, that is a failure of transparency. If this board knew and moved forward anyway, that’s a failure of accountability. Either way, the people deserve better.

I’m not here to question anyone’s character. I’m here asking for the integrity of this vote. Recusal for Commissioner Barofsky is the only way to preserve it.

McKenzie River does not write campaign checks. It only gives us our drinking water. Protect it. 

Doug Myers: I’m Doug Myers, and thank you EWEB for considering Ballot Measure 20-373. EWEB provides good services and I know you make good efforts at communicating with your constituent ratepayers.

However, I strongly oppose your draft resolution. And in my judgment, you have failed spectacularly to communicate with me why I should believe your drafted position is any other than one adverse to me in protecting the watershed from which I am provided water.

It appears to me that you’re simply unable or unwilling to raise the bar.

Before I grant you the benefit of the doubt, it will be necessary for EWEB first to communicate the specific history of their position on each of the acts and the rules cited in your draft resolution when each of these were under consideration and prior to their effectivity.

Second, have you now engaged in good faith with the proponents of Measure 20-373 as your specific concerns with that measure? Communicating after you’ve adopted this resolution will be considered by me to be an adverse action by EWEB, inconsistent with your best efforts to maintain good communication with your rate-paying customers.

I respectfully urge you to table this item until you fully communicated with us as recipients of the water from our watershed. Thank you for considering my views. 

Rob Dickinson: Hi, I’m Rob Dickinson speaking in support of Measure 20-373.

Last month, this board delayed action on a resolution opposing a measure, so there would be time for clarification and dialogue.

We took that seriously. We asked EWEB to identify the three or four specific projects or programs they believe would face increased legal risk if Measure 20-373 was passed and to explain why that risk is greater with the measure than without it.

We also asked for our staff contact so we could review the concerns quickly with legal counsel. We had our pro bono legal counsel standing by ready to respond to whatever we would learn.

We never received those specifics. Instead, we heard only the general claim that the measure is too broad and therefore could have implications for EWEB.

That leaves the public and us, , responding without the information needed for a fair and deliberative process.

And the ‘too broad’ critique isn’t persuasive on its own. Many of our most important protections are written broadly. The First Amendment doesn’t spell out every circumstance, what you can say, what you can’t say, where you can say it, or every limit. It sets a principle that courts apply to real situations.

Broad does not mean unworkable. Broad often means durable and adaptable. In fact, many of the essential laws that we rely upon to protect our community and ourselves and our public and our health and safety were broad when originally introduced.

In fact, for some major projects, the rights of nature principles that are encoded in our measure could actually help you.

Take for example, the possible Leaburg Dam removal. We’ve heard commissioners acknowledge that EWEB may be sued by adjacent residents regardless of this measure. Our legal advisors believe recognizing watershed rights could strengthen the case for removal because it benefits river health and the species that depend upon it.

In other words, this measure can reinforce rather than undermine the legal and moral basis for actions that restore a river system.

And in fact, if this Leaburg Dam project, for example, is one of the more important or the biggest projects that you’re doing in a long time, having a stronger legal footing there is probably as important of an action as you could take.

Ultimately, any claim under Measure 20-373 would still turn on evidence of real harm to the watershed. If EWEB is operating responsibly and protecting water quality, then the measure shouldn’t create meaningful new exposure. It targets actions that pollute, impair, or degrade watersheds, not the everyday work of providing, clean, drinking water, and stewarding the public trust. 

Erin Nelson: My name is Erin Nelson, a Eugene resident and EWEB customer. I’m here as a supporter of Measure 20-373 to protect Lane County’s watersheds, a goal I presumed EWEB and I would share.

In the face of the very real climate crisis, we need to have courage to make new choices that reflect the benefit of communities, the environment, and local economies over profit, corporate greed, and extraction.

This bill allows for community members to demand accountability for harm caused to the watershed via corporate pollution in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt, founded on credible science that doesn’t use uncertainty as a delay tactic when evidence of harm exists.

This is not writing a blank check for lawsuits. Judges still retain the authority to dismiss meritless cases and litigants can be held financially responsible for frivolous findings.

If EWEB is doing everything in its power as the water utility to protect the watershed, this measure should strengthen their position in the community with environmental protection projects, not weaken it. It therefore stands that EWEB is not being transparent about where their loyalties lie.

Oregon is one of the handful of states that places no limit on how much corporations can give to political campaigns, and the timber industry has for years donated more to lawmakers in this state than anywhere else in the nation.

A 2021 analysis by the Oregonian / Oregon Live found these are the same timber industry executives that donated to John Barofsky’s current campaign for City Council, and also when he ran for the commissioner of EWEB. 

These are the same timber companies that had their own taxes cut to cost local governments $3 billion to be able to provide services like libraries, prosecutors, and sheriff patrols. Yet it’s our bill to protect the watersheds that will bankrupt the community and lead to service cuts?

Corporations want to privatize the profits from their extractive activities and then leave the public to shoulder the costs. Ratepayers shouldn’t have to choose between healthy watersheds and a healthy economy and access to services. They should be able to have both.

Polluters need to pay their fair share and be held accountable for harm caused so ratepayers don’t have to shoulder the burden. Vote yes on Measure 20-373. Thank you. 

Sue Pileggi: Hi, I am Sue Pileggi. And I’m here in support of Measure 20-373. 

We need better protection for our watersheds. We all know that the limited protections that we now have—if they are enforced—are not enough, and allow continued degradation of our water and the natural systems that support it.

I’m going to bring up another illustration of how things can go awry. Morrow County in Eastern Oregon is a cautionary tale of what could come.

Their water table is contaminated many times over what is considered safe levels of nitrates causing an unprecedented number of cases of cancer and miscarriage. Morrow County is an agricultural area where Amazon built an enormous data center that uses massive amounts of water to cool their computers.

The evaporation caused by this process increases nitrate levels from agricultural runoff many times over safe levels. Today, megatech companies are in a land race as they rush to build capacity. These giant companies increased investment in data centers by 81% in 2024. Who will protect Lane County from this type of development and pollution?

We all know that corporations are not people and that giant corporations with Wall Street addresses only pretend to care about local communities with fancy window dressing. This kind of real threat from these types of companies is what EWEB should be concerned about. Measure 20-373 will help. 

As board members, I urge you to take a stand in support of this measure. You as the EWEB board need to be forward-thinking, muster moral courage, and do the right thing. 

Katie Geiser: My name is Katie Geiser and I’ve been an EWEB ratepayer for almost 40 years. In that time, I have been amazed to watch your crews at work out in our community, especially in times of storm recovery. The public has much at stake in the quality of service provided by EWEB.

I see this recognized in your recent comments in the Eugene Springfield Lookout on March 2. You have voiced concern that Measure 20-373 will ‘detract from the public trust in service providers.’

Very little needs to be mentioned in response to this, as we recently learned that the author of the board’s resolution is backed by funding from our opponents.

This is not a trust-building experience regarding a public entity. The board has the ability and power to move beyond this situation and lead our community forward in supporting our environmental rights-based measure.

We live in times that are rapidly changing and we are being called upon to embolden our actions and find new leadership.

The public is ripe for such change. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, protecting our nation’s healthy watersheds makes economic sense. Healthy intact watersheds provide many ecosystem services that are necessary for our social and economic well-being. Preventing impairments in healthy watersheds protects valuable ecosystem services that provide economic benefits to society and prevent expensive replacement and restoration costs.

Measure 20-373 is in many ways an ally of EWEB. We encourage you to support our measure. 

Peter Dragovich: Peter Dragovich, regarding opposing the watersheds bill of rights: If the language in the Bill of Rights is overly broad and vague, as your resolution claims, the measure—if passed by the public—will be tested in the courts.

If the courts agree with your assessment, it will be struck down and your perceived problem goes away. If the courts uphold the measure, then you are wrong in your assessment.

If it is in conflict with other laws, as your resolution claims, it will be tested in the courts. If a court strikes it down, your perceived problem goes away. If the court upholds the measure, then you are wrong in your assessment.

The resolution states the Bill of Rights ‘could hinder existing conservation efforts and ultimately detracts from the public’s trust in water service providers.’ This is the most non-trusting fear-mongering anti-public statement I’ve come across in a while.

If an issue arises, explain it to the public and either succeed in convincing the public your position is just or not. Don’t make a statement that presupposes passage of the measure will ultimately detract from the public’s trust in water service providers. Public trust is earned issue by issue with engagement, not by avoidance.

Consider where in day-to-day life is ‘will ultimately detract from the public’s trust’ a valid statement? Does the possibility of a fender bender ultimately detract from public trust in transportation? Does the possibility of a bank robbery ultimately detract from public trust in banking? Divorce from marriage? Bruises from sports?

This feels like reaching for a reason when there is no substance behind the thought. The public needs to decide if the measure aligns with their desires without (I say this respectfully) without your misleading, ill- reasoned heavy thumb on the scales of public debate.

Michelle Holman: I’m Michelle Holman. I’m one of the three chief petitioners for Measure 20-373.

Current environmental protections are insufficient to protect Lane County’s watersheds from corporate harm. Do you think it’s right that big corporations from outside of Lane County should have more power and privilege to do harm in our communities than we have to protect ourselves from those harms?

We wrote this law because we want better protections for nature and for all nature’s creatures, including ourselves. We want a new baseline based on rights of the entire watershed. 

Measure 20-373 is not vague. It’s fundamental. All fundamental rights are broad by design, so they can respond to new threats, including the Bill of Rights.

The right to clean water is no different. Courts interpret broad rights every day. What this measure does is set a clear priority. Watershed health is not subordinate to convenience or incremental damage. Current laws regulate pollution rather than prohibit it. Toxic chemicals in our watersheds and water supplies pose measurable risks to communities.

The real danger is pollution, not protection.It is reasonable to promote stronger protections that are long overdue to safeguard public health and the environment.

There are 668 reported nature-protective initiatives in 60 countries across the globe, including 179 in the U.S., according to the Eco Jurisprudence monitor.

Now we have the very real threat of big AI data centers considering our county. Data centers require vast amounts of water for cooling, which constrain local resources and lead to health issues in nearby communities.

Measure 20-373 is needed. It’s clear that current environmental protection laws are not robust enough to protect Lane County from data centers.

Measure 20-373 will be on the May 19 ballot. EWEB should remain neutral. Let the voters decide and let the democratic process play out. 

Bernadette Bourassa: My name’s Bernadette Bourassa and I’m aware of a project that EWEB is working on to pump water from the Willamette in the near future to supplement what is now available from the McKenzie.

Well, since the Willamette is not as clean as what you currently obtain from the McKenzie, I’m guessing that there’s going to be a large increase in the cost of filtering and purifying the water for your customers (unless your customer is going to be a big data center).

Our measure comes into play as some of the entities who are currently adding pollutants to the Willamette would now be, if this passed, they would now be required to clean up their act and any pollution they add to the Willamette. Your ratepayers wouldn’t bear the cost of cleaning that up. It would be on them.

I know Eugene’s sewage treatment plant is downstream from where you currently pull water for your rate payers. So that’s not an issue. But what about the sewage treatment that goes into the Willamette from Cottage Grove and Goshen and all of the rural places that feed into the Willamette?

There’s more, like, cattle grazing, agricultural pollutants from people who don’t grow organically. I made a short list. There’s been gold mining going on down in Cottage Grove area for decades and pollutants that have been ongoing and seep into the river over time.

It’ll be on EWEB to clean that up, but there would be a little help if our measure passed.

Anyway, and kind of the way that we’re envisioning it is, that people don’t get to pollute the water in the first place, so then it doesn’t cost so much to clean it up.

Anyway, I’d like to really applaud all the people who spoke before me. They speak a lot of truth and I especially was impressed with, Nick Squires and the gentleman whose name I didn’t get. And anyway, everybody did a good job and I hope you’re listening and the recusal part seems like a real decent thing to do. 

Jim Neu: My name’s Jim Neu. I’d first like to congratulate EWEB on their ODOE, the charging grants for your vehicles. That was good to see that.

I find it ironic that the proponents and opponents of the watershed Bill of Rights, Measure 20-373, all want the same result for our county: clean and safe water, drinking water protections, and effective management of our watershed and ecosystem.

The folks who gathered thousands of signatures to get clean water security on the ballot have tirelessly advocated for our county’s watershed much like EWEB since the early 1900s. 

This measure looks to secure existing laws that ensure the integrity of water resources that are being stripped and dismantled by the current federal administration as well as local polluters.

Just last year, the EPA removed Clean Water Act protection for millions of acres of wetlands and streams, enacted a dirty water rule that undermines state water quality improvements, allowing the destruction of water bodies that serve drinking water to over 117 million Americans, and repealed the endangerment findings that will increase air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.

EWEB claims the watershed measure bill of rights is vague and broad in language, and that it poses unwarranted risks to efficient management of water resources, could hinder conservation efforts, and detracts from the public’s trust.

That quote and the mention of anticipated significant legal complications and increased regulations from EWEB doesn’t get much broader and vague in scare-tactic messaging than the claim EWEB has of the watershed measure.

Robert Macfarlane writes in his book, ‘Is a River Alive,’ I sometimes wonder if the rights of nature is just serving as a proxy in an asymmetrical power situation that already exists, irrespective of the river’s actuality. For it not be happening, not just among Indigenous communities or among artists and writers and fringe weirdos like us, but also actors, corporate actors, industrial actors, the whole cast, the power holders.

We need to quit being actors and to work collectively and embrace the Watershed Bill of Rights. 

Patty Hine: So my name is Patty Hine. I’m here on behalf of 350 Eugene in support of Ballot Measure 20-373.

350 Eugene has been educating our community about the effects of global warming and advocating for solutions for over a decade. Our goal is to avoid the catastrophic breakdown of ecological systems caused by an overheating planet.

As you may know, 350 is the safe upper limit of parts per million of climate warming carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Before the Industrial Revolution, the PPM was 280, and now is hovering around 430 and rising.

We’re setting temperature and drought records every day, and the earth has exceeded the 1.5 C limit set 10 years ago at Paris. All the indicators of a healthy planet are accelerating in exactly the wrong direction.

We need bold policy changes now to reverse these trends. This measure will not solve climate change, and neither will it stop all corporate harms, but it is a step in the right direction and frames a more holistic way of addressing environmental harms.

For example, our coastal rainforest is one of nature’s greatest climate solutions for its natural sequestration and storage of CO2. But we’re racing to clearcut these irreplaceable forests at an alarming pace at exactly the moment we need them most. 

Despite the devastating effects on humans, animals, and plants and water, we also spray poisons on these areas from helicopters. We know this practice is harmful and this measure can address such harms.

Detractors, especially those funded by the timber industry, say that this law will bring about lawsuits and litigation. But that argument is the default response whenever a new law limiting corporate power is introduced.

We see this measure as a step in the right direction. We support establishing greater protections for water and watersheds. We support holding corporations to higher standards for their industrial activities. We must insist on new laws to protect our communities and nature from harm because the laws we have now are not doing the job.

The environmental challenges we face are unprecedented. The window to act is closing. Nature is not a commodity to be monetized. Unlike corporations, nature’s alive and we must stop slowly killing it. We must change our thinking now, and we should start by protecting watersheds.

Joe Moll: Joe Moll, McKenzie River Trust. I’m not here to speak on the aforementioned described proposal. I will just say though, that on Tuesday, April 7, the McKenzie River Trust and several of their partners in the Upper Willamette Stewardship Network are sponsoring an open public forum with both pro and con.

And we’re trying to get somebody to speak to governance at the state and local and national level at a site to be determined, likely one of the high schools in town. We just have some logistics, so Tuesday April 7.

We are also in June going to have Robert Macfarlane here as a speaker. He has done far more than his latest book and look forward to that.

I’m here tonight because I can’t be here in April and probably not May. So I wanted to thank (EWEB General Manager) Frank (Lawson) for the leadership that you’ve shown, and encourage the commissioners to follow the lead under his leadership that has seen great investment in the McKenzie River watershed. 

With the aforementioned development of the water site on the mainstem Willamette just below the confluence, something you’ve heard me encourage before: continued growing investment in the health of the Middle Fork and the Coast Fork rivers.

I think many of you know that we are in the midst of a community engagement / partner engagement at this stage for the development of programs at the Willamette confluence.

Yesterday, members of the Springfield Utility Board staff were in one of our conference rooms, meeting with a number of other partners, talking about how we can use that larger area at the Willamette confluence for both protection of drinking water by investing upstream in both forks, working with the (U.S.) Corps of Engineers who is manipulating dams differently, changes in sedimentation.

And again, it was just a perfect example of the collaborative spirit and meaningful action that has been taken under your leadership, Frank. So just wanted to thank you for all you’ve done for us, and it’s been hard.

You’ve done two things. You have consistently supported staff by baking that investment in watershed health into the annual EWEB budget, and that goes miles.

But you also pivoted really quickly and very creatively following the Holiday Farm Fire in a way that made a big difference in our ability to invest in nature-based solutions in the Upper McKenzie River watershed that’s paying off now as we’re starting to see more sedimentation following the fire and we’re going to see a lot more, there’s no question about it. So I hope that, the commissioners and all of the staff will continue to see that legacy and build upon it. 

Presenter: Following public comment, the EWEB board unanimously voted to oppose the Watershed Bill of Rights. Commissioner John Barofsky:

Commissioner John Barofsky: Contributions to my campaign for city council are completely unrelated to my vote tonight. 

Presenter: Public comments say passage of the Watershed Bill of Rights, Measure 20-373, can help EWEB with the Leaburg Dam, potential data centers in Lane County, and the second source on the Willamette.