Measure 26-156 and EWEB: A Comparison
Posted on May 12, 2014 by Janice Thompson
Tags, Consumers and Utility Customers, Legislative & Political, Portland Water, Sewer and Wastewater, Public Involvement and Coalitions, Utility Regulation
If you’re registered to vote in Oregon, by now you’ve probably received your voter pamphlet for the May 20th election. If you live in Portland, you might have heard or read about Measure 26-156 that will be on the May 20 ballot. CUB’s board elected to take a neutral stance on this matter, so CUB is here to help shed light on this topic! We’ll be releasing a series of informative blogs before May 20th to help prepare voters just like you to make an educated decision on Measure 26-156. You can follow these updates by visiting our Portland Water, Sewer and Wastewater news feed. We’ll also be announcing new posts on our Facebook and Twitter feeds, so follow us on those channels to keep up with our new water and wastewater series!
Supporters of Measure 26-156 say their proposal is modeled on the Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB). Measure 26-156 amends the Portland city charter to create a new public water district with an elected board; EWEB was created through a similar process, in the early 20th century. But EWEB and the public water district created by Measure 26-156 have some significant differences. For example, last Friday’s blog post reported on the difference between Measure 26-156 and EWEB in how bond sales that raise money for big construction projects are handled, and how this could affect Portland’s credit rating and possibly ratepayers.
Another difference between EWEB and Measure 26-156 is that EWEB is required to make an annual report to the Eugene City Council. In general, EWEB and the City of Eugene have a more collegial relationship than what seems to be proposed in Measure 26-156. For example, Measure 26-156 does not allow for input on the operations of the new public water district by the Portland City Auditor.
The historical origins of EWEB are also quite different. EWEB was formed in 1911 after Eugene purchased a private water company that had been linked to Oregon’s worst typhoid epidemic. City of Eugene leaders decided to form an independent utility district that would manage this initial asset, and that over time they would build the organizational capacity needed to provide water services.
Early leaders in Portland took a different approach: the City of Portland built the water system including dams in the Bull Run watershed, wastewater treatment facilities, and miles of pipes under streets across the city. These assets are held by the Portland Water Bureau and Bureau of Environmental Services, and would cost over $20 billion to replace.
If passed, Measure 26-156 would require all of these complex and high-value assets to be transferred from Portland’s city utility agencies to a new public water district – something the founders of EWEB never had to deal with. This potential asset transfer has raised legal concerns. The primary concern for ratepayers is that legal uncertainties could increase costs.
On Wednesday May 14th we’ll explain why the public water district outlined in Measure 26-156 is not the same as what is popularly called a “People’s Utility District”, or PUD. Let us know what questions you have about Measure 26-156, or water and wastewater services in general, by contacting Janice Thompson at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)!
To keep up with CUB, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter!
04/07/17 | 0 Comments | Measure 26-156 and EWEB: A Comparison