Eugene utility board opposes local 'Watershed Bill of Rights' over litigation and cost fears

Eugene utility board opposes local 'Watershed Bill of Rights' over litigation and cost fearsDespite strong public backing for Lane County Measure 20-373, the EWEB board unanimously adopted a resolution opposing the environmental initiative, warning it could inadvertently stall municipal conservation efforts and drive up ratepayer costs.

The EWEB Board unanimously passed Resolution 2607, officially opposing Lane County Measure 20-373, known as the Watershed Bill of Rights.

Commissioners cited legal counsel warnings that the measure's broad language, expanded standing to sue, and fee-shifting provisions could trigger costly litigation.

The board expressed concern that the threat of lawsuits could pause or delay the utility's own municipal watershed protection and restoration programs.

Public proponents argued the measure is necessary to protect the watershed from corporate pollution, agricultural runoff, and water-intensive data centers.

On March 3, 2026, the Eugene Water & Electric Board (EWEB) unanimously passed Resolution 2607, officially opposing Lane County Measure 20-373, known locally as the Watershed Bill of Rights. The decision followed extensive public testimony and highlights the complex legal tensions between grassroots environmental initiatives and municipal utility operations. Proponents of the ballot measure attended the meeting to urge the board to support or remain neutral on the initiative. Supporters argued that current environmental regulations are insufficient to protect the McKenzie and Willamette river watersheds from corporate harm, agricultural runoff, and potential high-water-use developments such as data centers. They maintained that the measure would provide a legal mechanism to hold polluters accountable without burdening utility ratepayers with future water treatment and cleanup costs. Despite expressing support for the underlying goal of clean water, EWEB commissioners ultimately rejected the measure based on direct advice from the utility's legal counsel. The board concluded that the initiative's broad and undefined terms, coupled with expanded standing to sue and fee-shifting provisions, would expose the utility to a surge of costly litigation. Commissioners emphasized that EWEB is already a major financial contributor to local watershed protection. One commissioner noted that the board previously approved a rate increase following the Holiday Farm fire specifically to generate $4 million for water protection efforts. The board warned that under the proposed measure, the threat of legal challenges could inadvertently force the utility to pause or halt these crucial conservation and water quality projects. Financial implications for utility customers were a primary driver of the board's opposition. Commissioners stressed their fiduciary duty, warning that defending against lawsuits would cost millions of dollars and inevitably lead to rate increases for customers already facing economic pressures. EWEB President Brown summarized the board's position before the unanimous vote, stating that "uncertainty and ambiguity creates a risk," and that the utility could not support a measure that threatened the financial and operational stability of the public water provider.