To:    Bob Sneddon, KCST Radio

Subject:       Chronology on Drinking Water

Bob,

In view of your upcoming Forum on water, announced on the radio on the morning of
January 14, 2002, we felt that your preparation might be more complete with a chronology
of events with respect to drinking water in the City of Florence. So here it goes.

SEPTEMBER 1998
The written plan for drinking water was developed and published as the "1998 Water
Facilities Plan" in September 1998. This plan is an appendix to the Comprehensive Plan
Update of 2001. The plan is now wrong in almost every single factor (schedule, cost &
production capability) included in it. For example, on page ES-1 under Heceta Water
District, the plan states, "During the summer months, over half of Florence's peak needs
are met by the District."

APRIL 3, 2000
The City Council made the decision to drop from the United Water Committee at the
request of City Manager Soltis and Public Works Director (PWD) Lanfear. The effect of this
decision was to force Florence from participation with the Heceta Water District in solving
the water availability problems for the entire Florence basin.

Concern was expressed by some citizens about the ability of the City of Florence to meet
the water needs of Florence in the near term. Part of the concern is that the decision was
made behind "closed doors" with no public discussion or release of information and data to
the public. The only rationale for the decision given at the City Council meeting of April 3,
2000 was the lawsuit threatened by the property owners around Clear Lake. The decision
appears to be based completely to "solve" a political problem.

No effort was made at the Council meeting to provide an analysis of the current and future
ability of Florence to meet the growing demand for water in the City.

APRIL 12, 2000
City Manager Soltis was informed of the potential impact of the April 3, 2001 decision on
April 12, 2000 by letter from Heceta Water District (HWD). The letter also pointed out that
the 1998 memorandum of Understanding required a 24-month advance notice to the other
parties before termination by one party.

JULY 10, 2000
In response to agenda item 6, from the minutes of the City Council meeting of July 10,
"PWD Lanfear explained that the City may be eligible to receive low interest financing for
our water expansion project from the same source financing the wastewater treatment
plant. Councilor Iholts questioned the scope of the project to be financed. PWD Lanfear stated it was for the entire well project estimated at about $1.75 million, this application is for slightly more ($1.8 million) to ensure that funding is adequate. He further stated this only is asking for a commitment, if it is approved, the Council will make the decision if they actually want to enter into a loan agreement."

The Council approved submission of a letter of interest to Oregon Economic and
Community Development Department for a low interest loan for development of the
expanded well field and treatment facilities. [No report was ever made officially to the
Council when the request was denied.]

OCTOBER 11, 2000
At the Oct. 11, 2000 meeting of the Lane County Board of Commissioners, the Commission
put restrictions on the Heceta Water District limiting them to 1,000,000 gallons per day that
could be drawn from Clear Lake through a new pipeline on county-owned property to the
new federally mandated filtration plant.

According to a transcript of the Oct. 11 meeting, Commissioner Morrison (representing
Western Lane County) stated, "The other thing is that the City, in talking with them the last
couple of days, are very, very sure that they will not be dependent upon Heceta this next
summer, that the expansions on their well system will be complete."

NOVEMBER 2 2000
Brown & Caldwell (B&C), for the City, submitted to Oregon Water Resources Department
(OWRD) an application for a permit to use ground water. The basis for this application was
to obtain permission to add five new wells to the City's well field. The application was
received by OWRD on November 6, 2000.

In response to the questions on the application, the City response to the questions is
included below:
*      "B. How long is the amount of water requested in this application expected to meet
future needs?"
o      City Answer: "Water requested is not sufficient to meet future needs. Water will be
used to reduce water purchases from Heceta Water District during peak demand flows."

*      "D. Percentage of water use by type:"
o      City Response: "Unaccounted for use: 0." However, the 1998 Water Facilities Plan ,
on page ES-3 states, "Assume system losses are 10 percent of the total demand."

*      "E. List cost to implement proposed request."
o      City Response: "The costs associated with implementation of the selected alternative
is approximately one million dollars."

*      "F. How and by how much will your proposed water use efficiency programs increase
efficiency?"
o      City Answer: "Public education and water conservation programs are expected to
reduce proposed per-capita consumption by 10 percent."

NOVEMBER 6, 2000
A plan for the development of 80-acres north of the existing City well field that included 5
new wells as an integral portion of the subdivision plan was received by OWRD. The plan
shows a 100-foot setback from each well.

DECEMBER 18, 2000
PWD Lanfear submitted by memo to City Manager Pro Tem Lamm a schedule for
development of the Water Facilities Expansion. This schedule projected "well field
substantial completion" as October 8, 2001. This memo also includes the statement, "The
City has written commitment from Mr. Aaron Jones that the 1 MGD [million gallon per day]
easement restriction on the line crossing his property may be exceeded during 2000 and
2001 to ensure that Florence does not experience a water shortfall."

JANUARY 2, 2001
B&C, for the City, submitted the Land Use Information Form to OWRD that apparently was
missing from the original application of Nov. 6, 2000.

JANUARY 15, 2001
PWD Lanfear submitted by memo to City Manager Pro Tem Lamm an analysis of water
production.  The memo reported that during the summer of 1999 (June through
September), the City used 214.92 million gallons of water. Of this amount, the City
purchased 56.93 million gallons of water from HWD. The purchase represented over 26%
of the total requirement.

The memo also contained information such as, "As Council has been aware, we are in the
process of correcting design and operational deficiencies in the water production facilities,
which are primarily the result of "low bid" engineering selected for the plant contrary to
Staff's recommendations, and a low level of maintenance funding for the wells (direction I
received in the past to keep fund expenditures down as long as HWD was a handy backup
for peak needs.)"

The memo goes on to state, "With these corrective actions, which have been discussed
with the Council as 'optimizing' water production, we believe that the plant will approach the
planned net 2 million gallons per day."

By the end of summer 2001, the net production had increased to about 1.45 million gallons
per day. See attached charts and data sheets. On one day only, Aug. 11, 2001 the
production peaked at 1.608 mgd.

JANUARY 19, 2001
B&C faxed to OWRD for the City the Map Requirements that were missing from the original
application to complete the application for the 5 additional wells in the well field.

FEBRUARY 15, 2001
Mayor Burns was advised by letter on the preliminary position of HWD with respect to a
number of issues, that included Annexation Issues; Sale of Water to City; and a proposed
Agreement.

FEBRUARY 26, 2001
The "City of Florence Wellfield and Water Treatment Expansion Project" of Feb. 26, 2001
developed by Brown & Caldwell for the City Council Workshop of Feb. 27, 2001 was
briefed at a work session of the City Council. The first accomplishment of this "plan" was to
demonstrate that the 1998 plan was hopelessly obsolete. Many of the projections in the
Brown & Caldwell "plan" of Feb. 26, 2001 have now been shown to be wrong. Yet we have
NO PLAN to accomplish the goal of the City providing drinking water to the citizens of
Florence to meet their demand in the near term (through summer 2002).

APRIL 2, 2001
Mayor Burns provided answers to a number of Florence citizens that posed questions on
water.

AUGUST 7, 2001
Concerned citizens provided an analysis of water production to City Manager Bennett. The
analysis showed during the summer of 2001 (May 1 through July 15) the City produced a
net of 81.708 million gallons of water. During this period the City had to purchase 10.466
million gallons from HWD. These data show that the City purchases represented 11% of
the total demand. The data also showed that the City peak daily production during July was
1.276 mgd, far short of the announced 2 mgd.

OCTOBER 29, 2001
At the City Council work session, City Manager Bennett announced, "We have bought 25%
less from HWD this year than we did last year."

The B&C presentation provided the following information:

The schedule showed that the City was about 6 months behind.

The schedule for beginning the permit review process in OWRD was forecast to begin
within two weeks. The City should have the permit for the five new wells in 180 to 240 days
of the beginning of the permit review process. Receiving the permit was projected in May
2002. This would provide water to the City by January 2003.

To implement the well field expansion, the ownership of the portion of the 80-acres must be
obtained by the City by May 2002.

The new well field was to be implemented in three 1 million gallons per day steps in 2006,
2009 and 2012. To produce by Spring 2006, the City needs to start planning and budgeting
by July 2002. Multiyear budgeting is required.

The cost of the well field was shown to be, or was calculated to be:  current well field
refurbishment  - $6.6 million (80% of the expansion cost); expansion of the well field (5 new
wells) - $8.2 million;
new well field - $11.5 million (140% of the expansion cost); Total  $26.3 million   A new
factor was introduced into the production limitations. "Well field production was limited by
the treatment plant capability." Production was shown to be, in millions of gallons:
 
 

PWD Lanfear stated that the cost of water from HWD was 20 to 25% more expensive than
water produced by the City.

Emphasis was given to the need for a water conservation program by City Manager
Bennett in the event that the City cannot meet the demand and HWD cannot sell enough
water to the City to meet the demand.

NOVEMBER 19, 2001
Agenda Item 7 at the Council meeting was "Update Council Goals." On page 4 of that item,
buried in the overall goal was this change, "time line for additional wells delayed till 2003
peak-use season by processing of permit with Water Resources."

DECEMBER 3, 2001
In the City Manager report for this City Council meeting was this item dated Nov. 28, "It's
been more than a month since Brown & Caldwell told us that we would have the Water
Resources Department (WRD) response to our drilling permit application - so the public
input period could begin. We called Brown & Caldwell and were furnished a fax copy of an
email message from WRD. The message indicates the WRD just hasn't got 'round to it yet.
Delay such as this makes one uncomfortable. I will contact the Chief of the Groundwater
Section to find out where our application lies in the process."

Also, under the Community Development report was this item, "Water Conservation: The
City, in conjunction with LCC, has submitted an application to DEQ for a water conservation
education project. The requested amount, including in-kind match, is $12,953. We should
hear in Spring 2002 whether the application will be funded. Start date is July 1, 2002."

DECEMBER 5, 2001
A letter dated Dec. 3 was placed in the mail from OWRD to "Ken Lanfear, City of Florence."
The purpose of the letter was to inform the City of Florence that the Initial Review process
had started. The first sentence of the letter reads, "This letter is to inform you of the
unfavorable preliminary analysis of your water use permit application and to describe your
options."

DECEMBER 12, 2001
At the December 12, 2001 review of the Comprehensive Plan, neither the Council nor the
City staff showed concern over having an accurate plan for the development of the required
capability to provide adequate drinking water to the public. Instead, the Council decided
that the video tape of the October 29, 2001 workshop with Brown & Caldwell would suffice
as an "updated plan." Attachments to the Comprehensive Plan for Water are the
September 1998 Water Facilities Plan, and the briefing book from the February 26, 2001
presentation by B&C. Neither "plan" adequately defines the required plan at this time.

The discussion became so against planning that the City Manager made a statement to the
nature that, "Every hour spent planning is an hour that cannot be spent doing." The fallacy
in this kind of approach is the belief that without thinking ahead one would know what the
correct thing to do is. Let's face it, planning is nothing more than a structured way of
thinking ahead.

All three "plans" include heavy reliance on Heceta Water District to provide water to the
City until such a time as the City could meet the demand by its own production. At the time
of the December 12, 2001 review, that date was projected to be the Spring of 2002. The
Planning Commission approved three annexations based upon the erroneous information
that the City would be able to meet demand, not only in the present but in the future also.

To further complicate the "plan," the City requires the addition of five new wells. The
property required for siting at least two of these new wells does not belong to the City. The
City must negotiate with the owner to buy the necessary property. There are two problems
with this. First, the owner knows of the City dependence upon purchasing this property.
This will tend to increase the cost of the purchase. Second, the owner wishes to annex
these properties to the City. This tends to put the City in the position of showing favoritism
to the owner to hopefully bring the purchase price down. Neither of these factors puts the
City in an objective situation with respect to the annexation of this property. To annex the
property requires the City to violate Goal 14. To not annex the property forces the City to
not be able to meet the demand for water, now or in the future. Is this being "between a
rock and a hard spot?"

DECEMBER 17, 2001
The minutes of the Dec. 3 meeting stated "CM Bennett said that PWD Lanfear had heard
from Brown & Caldwell, who told him that our six month review period began today (Dec 3,
2001) with regard to the license to drill new wells. He said that the State Water Resources
Department had moved forward and finished their staff review (some 4 weeks later than we
were told) for the license to drill new wells. He said that it is his recollection that it would
continue for six months before a license could be acted upon."  [The actual schedule is 180
to 240 days.]

JANUARY 10, 2002
HWD informed the City by letter of an upcoming rate increase in the price of water. Also,
the HWD reiterated that, "the District can only supply 'surplus' water to the City, . . "

We hope the above chronology is helpful.

Thank you,
 

Richard S. Walker      Dave Franzen
 

Copies to:
City Manager Rodger Bennett
Community Development Director Young
Public Works Director Lanfear
City Council (Mayor Burns, Councilor Braley, Councilor Burch, Councilor
Lee, Councilor Brubaker)
Planning Commission (Chair Paul, Vice Chair Deinert, Commissioner Bales,
Commissioner Franzen, Commissioner Nieberlein, Commissioner Lysdale,
Commissioner Phelps)