Vanport was the second largest “city” in Oregon prior to 1948.  Located within the Columbia River flood plain, the unofficial city housed thousands of war-time defense employees working primarily in the shipbuilding industry.  Its short-lived existence came to an end, however, in the spring of 1948 when uncharacterstic rain and warm weather caused widespread flooding in the Columbia River.  The river claimed Vanport along with a number of lives, resulting in added attention for the need for flood control within the Columbia River basin.  The event prompted not only the Flood Control Act of 1950, but also vigorous discussion with Canada regarding flood management north of the border where in excess of 35% of Columbia River flow originates.

In 1964, the United States and Canada entered a treaty providing for the construction of dams for the purpose of storage and flood control.  As a result,  3 Canada dams were constructed to withhold and store large volumes of water during run-off months.   The stored water is then released throughout the year to sustain hydro-power generation downstream in the United States.  In return, the United States grants energy entitlement to Canada that carries an estimated value of 250-350 million dollars per year.  By its terms, the first opportunity to change or cancel our Treaty with Canada occurs in 2024.  However, either side must provide at  least 10 years advance notice to the other.  Hence, 2014.

A lot has changed since 1964.  Therefore, a colloborative effort between stakeholders, the Bureau of Reclamation, Corps of Engineers, Tribes, and numerous federal, state, and local governments is developing a recommendation as to whether the United States should seek to continue, cancel or change the Treaty.  Those involved are reviewing data and modeling with respect to how continuation, modification or termination of the Treaty may affect key interests such as flood control, water supply, hydro-power, and ecological goals.    The process is now entering its final stages.  A recommendation will be forwarded to Department of State and Oval Office by the end of 2013. 

Additional information is available  at www.crt2014-2024review.gov.

The history of Dubai begins in the mid-1800’s with a tribe settling here for fishing and pearls. Later organized as the United Arab Emirates, tribal leaders of the collected provinces worked together to build their future. Desalination plants now provide 97% of the water used in Dubai, a City whose wealth is moving from oil to an international business center.  Water attracts and Dubai Creek is no exception, attracting businesses from around the world.

Arrived in Dubai after a four hour flight from Portland to DC, a short layover, and a thirteen hour flight. Warm here at 83 degrees until the sun went down shortly after I arrived at my hotel.

The long lines as passport control (visa on the spot) gave me a view of a very mixed middle eastern culture with every kind of head dress and clothing. The majority of the women did not have their heads covered as a suspected that they would.  Many more men wearing full length robes (I need to learn the correct name for this attire) and white head coverings with braided black crown piece–perhaps that’s what the government people in Dubai wear?  Will learn more tomorrow.

On the landing approach, one views many mansions, obvious in the desert climate, with a swimming pool, lawns, palms, and impressive entrances. With advice from my Afghanistan security contact, Daryl made me reservations at the The Le Meridien, which as part of its club membership, sent a luxury car for my pick up at the airport, provided me fruit, sparkling water and ice in the room, and a happy hour (though I am not drinking alcohol during Lent).

Tomorrow, I will enjoy breakfast with my club membership, continue reading and preparing for the workshops on governance and public administration, enjoy one of the four pools, some sun, and take a short tour of Dubai (which I need to arrange).

While I slept pretty well on the ride from DC to Dubai, a shower and a horizontal sleep seems very inviting now!

The 2013 Oregon Legislature session will begin Monday, February 4. Of over 1200 bills introduced, several expressly or implicitly relate to water use and water management. In particular the Oregon Water Resources Department (“Department”) has introduced several bills related to water management and water use fees.

SB 217, introduced by the Department, proposes a water management fee of $100 for all water rights of record.  The water management fee is proposed to apply to primary, supplement, secondary use, storage, municipal, district and federally held water rights. The water management fee will be capped at $1,000 per water right holder. In-stream water rights and domestic exempt water uses are not proposed to be subject to the fee. To read the full text of the bill as introduced please use the following link.

http://landru.leg.state.or.us/13reg/measures/sb0200.dir/sb0217.intro.html

The current rate schedule used by the Department is set to sunset in 2013. SB 2259, introduced by the Department, proposes to extend and adjust the fee schedule. To read the full text of the bill as introduced please use the following link.

http://landru.leg.state.or.us/13reg/measures/hb2200.dir/hb2259.intro.html

Find contact information for your local representative here: http://www.leg.state.or.us/findlegsltr/

Congratulations to Finegan Farms, winner of the 2012 Agricultural Achievement award from the Hillsboro Chamber of Commerce! Finegan Farms is one of Washington County’s most successful family farms, growing sweet corn, green beans, wheat and clover for export to markets around the world. Since the 1950’s Finegan Farms has been carefully passed down through the generations. Today brothers Joe and Ken Finegan carry on the family heritage, running the farm along with their wives Jennifer and Angela. The Agricultural Achievement award honors Finegan Farms as one of Hillsboro’s outstanding citizens, not only for its farming success but for the countless hours the Finegans have donated to the community. Please join us in congratulating Finegan Farms as Hillsboro’s 2012 agricultural “shining star”!

This week Therese Ure, the managing attorney in our Reno office, is riding in the Reno Rodeo Cattle Drive. The horseback drive across northern Nevada’s high desert sagebrush country takes five days and covers about a hundred miles.

Some folks may get mixed up and refer to the riders on the Reno Rodeo Cattle Drive as “cowboys,” but on the northern Nevada range the word is “buckaroo”. “Cowboys” are from Texas, Montana, or some other place. Moreover “buckaroo” usually means a working cowboy who does not do rodeos.

The term buckaroo comes from the early ranching days in northern Nevada. The first cattlemen in northern Nevada were Hispanic Californians known as “vaqueros.” Over time, the pronunciation of “vaquero” evolved to “buckaroo.” They say you can distinguish a buckaroo from a cowboy by his hat: cowboys are more likely to wear a traditional curve-brim high-crowned hat, while buckaroos wear a flat-brim, flat-crowned hat.

Check out Reno managing attorney Therese Ure and the other buckaroos in these photos from this year’s Reno Rodeo Cattle Drive!

The feds are in the process of using the sage grouse to eliminate economic and recreational use of the sagebrush grassland in the same fashion they used the spotted owl to substantially shut down the timber harvest business in the northwest.

However, their plans to impose sage hen regulation are more far reaching than what the spotted owl accomplished.

For an in-depth analysis and review of this issue please see the following link.

Each year there are significant updates in the field of water law. Schroeder Law Offices strives to keep the legal community and public up to date on any such changes. One of the ways Schroeder Law Offices does this is by drafting the “Updates in Oregon Water Law” chapter of the American Bar Association’s  publication “The Year in Review.”

The Year in Review 2011 is now available online for ABA members at: http://www.americanbar.org/publications/year_in_review_home.html/. An extended version of the “Updates in Oregon Water Law” chapter is available on Schroeder Law Office’s website at: http://water-law.com/resources/Review_2011.pdf. Check out Oregon water updates from the year 2011 on our website, and be sure to check out next year’s updates too!!

Stay tuned to Schroeder Law Office’s Water Law Blog for more water news!

The Oregon Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Division hosted meetings this month across Oregon discussing the Department’s agricultural water quality program. At the May 9^th meeting, Lisa Hanson, Deputy Director, explained the current status of the water quality program, and sought input from attendees about how the Department can improve the program.

Ms. Hanson explained that there are many misconceptions about the agricultural water quality program. She clarified that the program is mandatory, and agricultural landowners must comply with area-wide water quality standards set by the Department. However, what is flexible are the methods of compliance. The Department will work with local soil and water conservation districts and landowners to come up with innovative methods for meeting water quality standards, and funding is even available through the Department to make necessary changes to meet those standards.

One of the highlights of the discussion was Ms. Hanson’s coverage of the issue of measuring performance and improvement. Since there are not one-size-fits-all regulations for the agricultural water quality program, it is sometimes difficult to gauge progress. The Department started a pilot program to assess focus areas before a water quality improvement project and after. Through the program, the Department hopes to tell success stories and shine a spotlight on the dedication of Oregon’s agricultural producers. The Department is also working on inserting benchmarks and timelines into area standards to provide a better sense of when progress is achieved.

Another topic of discussion was enforcement of agricultural water quality standards.  Ms. Hanson explained that currently the enforcement program is complaint-based. Some of the attendees were concerned that violations could not be effectively monitored if enforcement depends on the submission of complaints. However, Ms. Hanson discussed the fact that the Department’s policy is to work with landowners to achieve compliance, and that this non-confrontational approach has proved successful, evidenced by the fact that the Department is rarely forced to issue citations for noncompliance; generally warnings are enough. Landowners are typically willing to make necessary changes to meet agricultural water quality standards.

The Oregon Department of Agriculture’s agricultural water quality management area plans are available online at: http://oregon.gov/ODA/NRD/water_agplans.shtml. There are 38 area plans to date.

Stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ Water Law Blog for more news about water resources in Oregon and the West!

The Portland based conservation group, Oregon Wild, has filed suit against the Bureau of Reclamation alleging BOR has failed to adopt a Biological Opinion that will protect wild coho in the Little Butte Creek Basin. Oregon Wild alleges BOR was to provide the Biological Opinion by March 2010. Since 2003 Oregon Wild has sought changes to the manner and extent of water releases from Emigrant Lake to ensure minimum flow levels in various tributaries in the Little Butte Creek Basin to protect wild coho. The changes requested by Oregon Wild will affect how BOR can store and move water for agricultural uses, including water delivery for Talent Irrigation District.

For more information see: http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120208/NEWS/202080319/-1/rss01

As many of you may know, Laura’s father William F. (Bill) Schroeder is an attorney and has
been in the general practice of law with an emphasis in speaking, writing, and litigating public land, water, and natural resource issues in the Western United States since before 1960. Mr. Schroeder is rated among his legal peers with the highest rating, i.e. AV.

Due to Mr. Schroeder’s extensive and impressive background, which is further outlined below, we are pleased to offer the first in a collection of stories by William F. Schroeder entitled “As William F. Schroeder Remembers: Stories from a Western Rural Law Practice.” Please view the following link for access to the story: http://water-law.com/Water-Law-Stories/Stories.html.

Mr. Schroeder graduated from the University of Chicago with a Bachelor of Arts degree
at the age of eighteen years, from Valparaiso University School of Law with an LLB Degree
(Legum Baccalaureus) at the age of twenty years, has been a member of the Illinois State Bar
Association since 1950, and has been a member of the Oregon State Bar Association since 1951.

Independent of Mr. Schroeder’s more professional related activities, Mr. Schroeder was a longtime member of the Vale Chamber of Commerce, where he was instrumental in having a role in the construction of the Vale Swimming Pool and other projects in Vale, Oregon; Mr. Schroeder was a Board Member on various School Boards, including for the Treasure Valley Community College in Ontario, Oregon; Mr. Schroeder was a longtime Scout Master for Troop 452, Seven Rivers District, Ore-Ida Council in Vale, Oregon; and Mr. Schroeder was a longtime, founding member for Grace Lutheran Church in Vale, Oregon.

Mr. Schroeder is married to Alberta E. Schroeder. They celebrated their 60th Wedding Anniversary in 2010. They have six children and fourteen grandchildren, three of which continue Mr. Schroeder’s legacy as a lawyer dealing with public land, water, and natural resource issues.

Stay tuned for additional stories. We hope you enjoy!

We are very pleased to announce that Jerry Erstrom of Vale, Oregon was granted the 2011 Watsave Award by the International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID) for his work on the Willow Creek Piping Project. The Watsave Award includes a stipend of $2,000.

The Willow Creek Piping Project addresses 35,000 acres within the Willow Creek basin adjacent to the Willow Creek and Malheur River. The total length of delivery canals and laterals under the piping project is approximately 65 linear miles with 51.4 linear miles already completed. Prior to the Willow Creek Piping Project, all irrigation water was delivered to users from the main canal through a complex network of open earthen ditches. These systems were established in the 1930s, increasing concerns associated with breaches as well as human and animal safety. Open canals also substantially increased operation and maintenance costs for the Vale Oregon Irrigation District.

As implemented by the project, piping irrigation laterals virtually eliminated conveyance losses from seepage and evaporation, provided gravity pressurized water to farmers and decreased power costs by reducing or eliminating the need to operate irrigation pumps, improved reliability, control, and consistency of water delivery and measurement, provided possible opportunities for small “low-head” hydro-power facilities, and utilized water more effectively in connection with irrigation without increasing consumption.

Once the project is completed it is estimated that 400,000 pounds of CO2 emissions will be eliminated annually, 36,000 pounds of phosphorous will be prevented from leaving the field annually, 120,000 tons of annual soil loss will cease, 183.5 billion colonies of E.coli bacteria per acre will be prevented from leaving the fields, and virtually all seepage and evaporation will be eliminated. Additionally, 2 to 3 million Kilowatt hours of electricity will be saved annually and 25,000 gallons of diesel fuel will be conserved per year. Water conservation benefits will amount to more than 12,000 acre feet of irrigation water savings annually. Finally, the economic advantages of this project will amount to the potential of 15 jobs, $81,000 per year in fuel costs saved, $115,000 in electrical pumping costs saved annually, the participation of at least 23 Oregon businesses and $1.8 million generated for the economies of Ontario and Vale, Oregon.

Recently, Larry Stephens of the United States Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (USCID) traveled to Iran to accept the ICID award on behalf of Jerry and the project. Because Jerry was unable to receive the award in person, USCID took the opportunity to congratulate and honor Jerry and his colleagues on their accomplishments at the 2011 USCID San Diego Conference.

For additional sources regarding the project, please view the following links:

• http://www.capitalpress.com/content/ml-water-project-awarded-011312
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4RBXwH6sQg
• http://www.icid.org/awards.html#farmer

Professor Michael Blumm is a noted scholar and professor at Lewis & Clark Law School. I had the privilege of attending more than one of his classes during my time there. Therefore, I was somewhat surprised when I read his guest editorial in the Oregonian and letter to the Oswego Lake Work Group regarding public access to Oswego Lake. Links to the documents are provided here:

http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2012/01/public_access_struggle_citizen.html

http://welovelakeoswego.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Michael-Blumm-Letter_01.01.12.pdf

As a fly fisherman, the public’s use of navigable waterways has always been an area of special interest to me. More access equates to more fish. To me, an analysis of the public’s right of access to Oswego Lake is far more complex than Professor Blumm indicates.

First, there is a difference between a) the public’s right of navigation and b) the public’s right to cross private land for purpose of reaching navigable water. While the Oregon Admission Act of 1859 does in fact state that “all the navigable waters of said State, shall be common highways and forever free,” the Act makes no mention of a citizen’s entitlement to cross private land for purposes of reaching navigable waters.

In his January 3, 2012 comments, Professor Blumm points to an 1869 case, Weise v. Smith to suggest that such a right does in fact exist. There, the Supreme Court condoned the use of private uplands to construct booms necessary to move logs downstream through a navigable waterway. Professor Blumm omits reference, however, to subsequent cases that refute his bold conclusions. For example, in Lebanon Lumber Co. v. Leonard (1913), the Court determined that “[w]here the bed and banks of the stream are owned by the riparian proprietor, the navigability of the stream does not give to the navigator a right of way on the land.” Moreover, in Guilliams Et Al. v. Beaver Lake (1918), one of the very cases relied upon by Professor Blumm, the Supreme Court refused to find that the right of navigation carries a concomitant right of egress across adjacent private lands.

Second, Professor Blumm’s editorial characterizes access to Cannon Beach as a similar example of how the public holds access rights to publically held resources such as Oswego Lake. I find use of the Cannon Beach analogy troubling. I suspect Professor Blumm is referring to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in State ex rel. Thornton v. Hay (1969). There, the court determined that the public enjoys a right of access across privately owned “dry sand” portions of the beach. To arrive at this conclusion, the Supreme Court reasoned that the legal doctrine of “custom” was applicable due to the public’s time immemorial use of the dry-sand area to reach the ocean – a use dating back to aboriginal natives. Notably, the Supreme Court in Thornton declined the opportunity to base its ruling upon navigability doctrines. In the case of Oswego Lake, the Thornton legal analysis seems completely inapplicable given the lake’s history and artificial traits.

Third, it is my understanding that substantial water is retained in Oswego Lake by virtue of dam. Professor Blumm’s conclusions therefore presume that a servitude, in the public’s favor, has silently arisen over these private lands by virtue of the water’s artificial placement there. While the question has been litigated elsewhere with varying results, I am unaware of any cases in Oregon that support an unqualified public right of navigation over private lands underlying artificially impounded water. Therefore, Professor Blumm’s conclusions appear to overlook a legal question that must first be reconciled prior to opining on public access to Oswego Lake.

Finally, it seems that Professor Blumm’s position would be substantially bolstered if the City of Lake Oswego owns unencumbered land abutting Oswego Lake. If so, a publicly owned right of way might then exist over uplands for purposes of reaching the surface water of the Lake. Because this consideration is so critical – and because Professor Blumm fails to address it – I suspect public access to certain areas of Oswego Lake is enjoyed pursuant to a limited easement rather than fee title ownership of land abutting or underlying the lake. If true, the City would be constrained from enlarging the scope of its swimming easement to include, for example, a boat launch.

On December 22, 2011, Oregon’s Integrated Water Resources Strategy (“IWRS”) Discussion Draft was distributed to the public for review and comment. The Discussion Draft’s purpose is to understand Oregon’s water needs and to articulate a strategy to meet those needs in the future. As outlined in Section 42 of House Bill 3369 (2009), the Oregon Water Resources Department was directed to develop an Integrated Water Resources Strategy for Oregon in collaboration with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Oregon Department of Agriculture.

The Discussion Draft focuses on instream needs as well as out-of-stream needs, including issues of water quantity, water quality, and the ecosystem. Because the issues outlined in the Discussion Draft may affect your interests we recommend reviewing this document, a copy of which can be accessed through the following link: http://www.wrd.state.or.us/OWRD/LAW/docs/IWRS/2011_December_Discussion_Draft.pdf

For additional information regarding the project please visit the project website at http://www.wrd.state.or.us/OWRD/LAW/Integrated_Water_Supply_Strategy.shtml. As outlined on the website, public comments in response to the Discussion Draft will be accepted until Thursday, March 15, 2012. All comments should be submitted by electronic mail to waterstrategy@wrd.state.or.us. Please contact our office at (503) 281-4100 or counsel@water-law.com if you would like assistance with preparing and submitting comments regarding any of the issues outlined in the Draft.

Upcoming events focused on this Discussion Draft include:

(1) Policy Advisory Group Meeting on March 8, 2012 in Salem, Oregon;
(2) August 2012 Water Resources Commission Meeting in Salem, Oregon to consider the IWRS for adoption, with implementation following.

Therese Ure of our office is available to answer any additional questions you may have.

On January 20, 2012 the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) issued a news release entitled “USDA Invites Applications for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Projects.” The news release announced that the USDA is seeking applications for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects. Funding for such projects is available through the 2008 Farm Bill.

The goal of this program is to help agricultural producers and rural small businesses to reduce energy costs and help meet the nation’s energy demands. The news release is available online at: http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2012/01/0019.xml&contentidonly=true. The Federal Register has additional information, which is available at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-01-20/pdf/2012-755.pdf.

Do not delay in checking out this program and funding opportunities. Some applications are due as soon as February, 2012!!

Schroeder Law Offices, PC has experience working with energy clients on associated land and water issues. Please don’t hesitate to contact Schroeder Law for assistance, and stay tuned to the Water Law Blog for more news that could affect you!

The following annoucenment was issued by the Bureau of Reclamation on January 4, 2012:

The Bureau of Reclamation has reissued for public comment four draft Reclamation Manual releases regarding water-related contracting activities. These draft releases provide definitions of key terms and revise existing definitions for water-related contracts, restructure and clarify Reclamation’s water transfer and conversion policy and consolidate and set-out basic pricing requirements for water-related contracts. Comments are due to Reclamation by April 3.

The four draft releases are:

• Draft RM Policy Water-Related Contract and Repayment General Principles and Requirements (PEC P05).
• Draft RM D&S Water Rates and Pricing (PEC 05-01).
• Draft RM Policy Transfers and Conversions of Project Water (PEC 09).
• Draft RM D&S Conversions of Project Water from Irrigation Use to Municipal and Industrial Use (PEC 09-01)

These releases have been updated to reflect comments received during the first comment period from September 29 to November 30. The changes are highlighted with redline-strikeout throughout the documents.

The Reclamation Manual establishes Reclamation requirements, assigns program responsibility and establishes and documents Reclamation methods of doing business.

These draft updates are available for detailed review at: www.usbr.gov/recman. A summary of the draft updates can be found at: http://on.doi.gov/rMciUA. Comments or questions may be directed to Owen Walker at owalker@usbr.gov.

The Director’s Report for the Oregon Water Resources Commission January Meeting breaks down water conditions in the State:

“Current Water Conditions: The surface water supply index (SWSI) is a numerical index computed for the 14 major water basins in Oregon. The index ranges from + 4.0 indicating extremely wet conditions to – 4.0 indicting extremely dry conditions. An index of 0 would indicate normal conditions. The index is computed monthly and generally considers snowpack, rainfall, irrigation reservoir content and average monthly streamflow. On December 1, 2011 the indices in the 14 basins ranged from -1.5 in the Klamath Basin to +1.6 in the Deschutes Basin. According to the SWSI, water conditions in Oregon are generally below normal and trending downward.

On January 9, 2012 snowpack conditions range from a high of 55 percent of normal in the Grande Ronde, Powder, Burnt and Imnaha Basin Basins to a low of 19 percent of normal in the Owyhee Basin. Generally, snowpack is currently well below normal after 3.5 months into the water year.

We normally experience the bulk of our snowpack accumulation in December, January and
February. Total precipitation for the water year ranges from a high of 69 percent of normal in the
Grande Ronde, Powder, Burnt and Imnaha Basins to a low of 44 percent of normal in the Lake
County/Goose Lake Basin.

Storage carryover in the major irrigation reservoirs puts them at near normal capacity.
The northwest is still under the influence of La Niña conditions and continues to be forecasted for below normal temperatures and above normal precipitation over the winter period. However, these conditions have not been consistent with the moving three month forecast. Storms have been consistently pushed to the north, leaving the state with below normal water conditions.”

Revised Statute 2477 was passed by Congress in 1866 and provided an open-ended grant of “the right of way for the construction of highways over public lands, not reserved for public uses.” Commonly called “R.S. 2477,” the statute facilitated most of the transportation routes of the West and remained in effect for 110 years. During that time, congressional policy promoted the development of the unreserved public lands and their passage into private productive hands.

In 1976, congressional policy shifted as Congress passed the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA). FLPMA instituted a preference for retention of the lands in federal ownership and placed increased emphasis on conservation and preservation. R.S. 2477 was repealed, however Congress specified that any “valid” R.S. 2477 rights of way “existing on the date of approval of this Act” (October 21, 1976) would continue in effect. Pub.L. No. 94-579 § 701(a), 90 Stat. 2743, 2786 (1976). The statute had the effect of “freezing” R.S. 2477 rights as they were in 1976.

In a landmark 2005 case, Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Bureau of Land Management, the United States 10th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the BLM lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of claimed R.S. 2477 roads. The case focused on three Utah counties that graded and performed work on sixteen previously un-graded roads traversing public land.

According to Public Lands News, the State of Utah has now filed notices of intent with the Department of Interior that it will file lawsuits to claim 18,784 R.S. 2477 road rights-of-way. Utah’s massive assertion of R.S. 2477 rights-of-ways sets the stage for potentially decades of litigation between Utah and the United States. Environmental groups are sure to join the fracas in an effort to preserve the road-less nature (and hence wilderness qualification) of many federal lands.

Each year, Schroeder Law Offices contributes to the American Bar Association’s Year in Review publication by drafting an update to the Oregon water law section.

Schroeder Law Offices’ summary of the most significant updates in the field of Oregon Water Law during the year 2011 has been posted to the firm’s website.

You can read the article here: http://water-law.com/resources/Review_2011.pdf.

Stay tuned to Schroeder Law Offices’ water law blog for more updates in water law, both in Oregon and across the West!

 Under Oregon law, a city may provide utility services to its inhabitants “[w]hen the power to do so is conferred by or contained in its charter or act of incorporation.” (ORS 225.020).  This includes providing water and sewer services “for profit” so long as the city’s charter provides and the public trust is not violated in doing so.

Portland is currently facing a lawsuit that will push the City’s water and sewer disposal expenditures to the forefront.  The claimants, a group of ratepayers, assert that Portland violates the city’s charter by diverting water and sewer funds toward projects and expenditures unrelated to the provision of those services.  The suit seeks an independent accounting of water and sewer disposal fund expenditures, together with an order of reimbursement.

The court will be asked to interpret key portions of Portland’s City Charter, including whether Portland’s charter restricts the City Council from using rate-payer funds to finance so-called “pet” projects.  The court will also be asked to determine whether various past expenditures were reasonably related to the provision of water and sewer services.

Follow this link to an article discussing the suit:  http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/12/portland_faces_lawsuit_over_ut.html\