The growth - generally northward - has removed land from the water district through annexations and turned the residents into city water customers. Larry Stonelake, a retired superintendent, estimates that the water district is now about half its original size.  In its early years, the district had customers as far south as 22nd Street in Florence. Now its service area stops at Munsel Lake Road, two miles north of 22nd Street.

That's why the district is calling for a halt to the city swallowing up any more of its land. And why it has threatened to fight Lane County Boundary Commission approval of a 40-acre annexation approved in June by the City Council, along with two other annexations totaling more than 80 acres that are waiting in the wings.

"Our primary concern is being able to maintain our (customer) base, to be able to service our bonded indebtedness and our loan indebtedness," said Ted Condo, chairman of the water district board.  Condo noted that the water district is in the midst of $2.8 million in improvements that include building a new water treatment plant and water transmission lines, work that is being financed by a $1.8 million state loan and a $1 million bond issue. Losing customers means there are fewer people in the district to help pay off that debt, he said.

 In June 2001, the district sent the city a proposed intergovernmental agreement that would have it and the city set policy jointly on a number of issues, including sale of surplus Heceta water to the city.  A key part of the proposed pact was a provision that in future annexations of water district territory, the district would continue to provide water service, meaning the annexed  property would be part of the city and part of the water district.

At the time, City Manager Rodger Bennett called the  requirement a "deal breaker." He said it ran contrary to a previous policy by the City Council that all annexed land be withdrawn from the water district, and would mean the annexed property owners would be taxed by both the city and the water district.

District officials argue that would be no more inequitable than city residents also paying taxes to the Port of Siuslaw or the Siuslaw School District because their property is also in those districts.  The threat to oppose future city annexations that come before he boundary commission is included in a letter mailed to the city last month by Condo, who said he's miffed because the city has ignored the proposed intergovernmental agreement and left the district out of the loop in discussing pending annexations.  The history of relations between the city and the water district often have been marked by acrimony - much of it related to dissension over annexation issues.

Relations took a decided turn for the worse about 18 months ago when the city suddenly broke off an agreement to work with the district on a joint project to build a new water treatment plant on Clear Lake - the district's water source - that was to serve city as well as district customers.

One of the main reasons for the city action was concern about legal problems related to the insistence of Aaron Jones, a Eugene timber company owner with property on Clear Lake, that water carried from the lake through a line across his property be limited to a million gallons a day. Jones said he was concerned about excessive drawdown of the lake.  The joint plant would have required a higher volume of water and could have led to a legal fight that Condo believes the district could have won, with support from the city.

If the city "hadn't been so gutless," he said, it wouldn't be going ahead with plans for a $2.67 million project to develop five new wells and expand its water treatment plant. The city put a bond measure on the Nov. 5 general election ballot to pay for the project.

"They basically slammed the door on us," said Michael Kendoll, Heceta water superintendent. "With them bailing out, it raised the price (of water system improvements) for both sides."

Bennett said the city wants to be a good neighbor and work with the water district. Even though some time has passed since it received the draft of the proposed intergovernmental agreement, he said, its intent always has been to negotiate a new agreement with Heceta. He said he plans to send the district a counterproposal within the next several days.  He reiterated, however, that as far as the city is concerned, the intergovernmental agreement won't allow land annexed into the city to remain in the water district.

Whether the water district will be successful in challenging city annexations at the boundary commission level remains to be seen.  Paula Taylor, commission administrator, said the district has the right to call for a public hearing before the commission. The commission's criteria for approval include weighing the effect on other governmental units, and the ability of the city to provide  services to the annexed area, she said.  Once the commission approves an annexation, she said, the City Council can take unilateral action to withdraw the land from the water district.

Sandi Young, city planning director, said she has held off taking the June annexation to the commission in hopes the issues with the water district can be resolved. The two other annexations are essentially on hold for the same reason, she said.

Condo said if satisfactory negotiations can take place with the city, it may not be necessary to challenge the annexations. The district's threat to do so wasn't necessarily an attempt to stop the annexations, he said, but primarily to get the city's attention. Source:  August 22, 2002, The Register-Guard, by Larry Bacon
Also see:  CFF Annexation Water Needs Analysis

The three unionized chains are nervous at the prospect of non-union Wal-Mart eventually building grocery stores at some existing Wal-Mart discount stores in Lane County, union officials say. In ongoing labor contract negotiations, the chains want to cut costs in order to buffer themselves from Wal-Mart's pending onslaught, the officials said.

"The big issue on the table is that Wal-Mart is going to start selling groceries," said Gene Pronovost, president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 555. The local represents 18,000 workers in Oregon and southwest Washington, including 1,200 grocery workers in Lane County. The contracts at Safeway, Fred Meyer and Albertsons in Lane County expired in February  and the sides have made scant progress at eight meetings since then, Pronovost said. In addition to fearing Wal-Mart, the three chains also worry about spiralling health-insurance costs and want to pass along some of the burden to workers, Pronovost said.

Safeway, Albertsons and Fred Meyer, although rivals, have long negotiated union contracts as a group to secure a level playing field on labor costs. The labor tension in Lane County is part of a broad conflict across the Pacific Northwest as the unionized chains seek cuts when contracts come up for renegotiation. Arkansas-based Wal-Mart, the nation's largest retailer, is fast expanding from its discount business into groceries. Wal-Mart owns land next to its two new discount stores in Lane County - in Springfield and  west Eugene - that could accommodate grocery stores of roughly 70,000 square feet. Wal-Mart has studied building a grocery store next to its Cottage Grove discount store, but may  not have enough land there. Wal-Mart says it plans to open up to 185 grocery stores this year in the United States. The chain already has more than 1,000 grocery stores nationwide, includes three in Oregon: Pendleton, Ontario and Hermiston.

Wal-Mart has not said when it might build grocery stores in Lane County, but the company is planning a food distribution center in Washington to serve the Northwest.

Whenever Wal-Mart has opened a grocery store, nearby Safeway, Fred Meyer or Albertsons stores have suffered sales drops, said Gary Barnes, president of Tigard-based Northwest Food Employers Inc., which negotiates labor contracts for the three chains. Wal-Mart's pay and benefits package for employees is lower than the pay and benefits at Safeway, Fred Meyer or Albertsons, Barnes added.

At contract negotiations, the three chains are seeking to cut employee pay and benefits by a total of $5.07 an hour,  Pronovost said. He said he's not clear what exactly that cut would look like for individual workers. On its face, it's a steep reduction that would total over $200 a week for a 40-hour-per week employee.

Under the union contract, top-scale food clerks at Lane County area Fred Meyer grocery stores are paid $13.43 an hour, or $537 a week if they work 40 hours a week. Top-scale nonfood clerks at Fred Meyer receive $10.13 an hour, or $409 for a  40-hour week.

Aside from the pay, the big benefit is family health insurance, for which the companies pay the entire premium, Pronovost  said. That premium has steadily increased, and now runs about $111 a week per full-time employee, Pronovost said. Barnes declined to discuss details of the talks. "That still belongs at the table," he said. "We have no idea where we're going to end up."

Pronovost said the drive to cut labor costs won't help consumers. "If you aren't going to lower your prices to compete, and you ask employees to take cuts, then the savings are not being passed on to customers," he said. "The savings will be passed onto stockholders" in the form of profits, he said.

From the union's perspective, the solution is to unionize Wal-Mart. That's more easily said than done. Wal-Mart is vehemently anti-union and none of its 1.3 million workers are represented by a union. Several years ago, Wal-Mart eliminated the meat-cutting departments at all its grocery stores after six employees of the meat department in a Wal-Mart grocery store  in Texas voted to unionize. Wal-Mart doesn't disclose compensation details, but its pay and benefits are "competitive," said Bill Wertz, a spokesman for Wal-Mart.

The chain keeps prices low in part through efficient purchasing and distribution, Wertz said. "It is totally inappropriate to suggest that we are short-changing our" employees, Wertz added. Pronovost said the UFCW hopes that any cuts for its members will come in benefits rather than take-home pay. But the benefits - especially the health insurance - are prized.

Randy Ferguson, a checker at the Fred Meyer store in Santa Clara and a UFCW bargainer, said employees have been willing to "work cheap" and accept meager pay raises in recent years because of the employer-funded health insurance. Pronovost said: "The one thing we had in this industry was a good health plan for our families that was entirely employer paid. Now they want to cut the plan."  Source:  August 15, 2002, The Register-Guard, By Christian Wihtol.

Longtime Florence resident, Zane Zeimer, is one of those who oppose the proposed annexation of 50 acres north of Florence along U.S. Highway 101. It is commonly known as Sand Ranch, because of the large amount of sand that has been removed for fill and grading.

"When we filed the referendum with the city, we were not informed of the details of the annexation process," Zeimer said. "After about a week, the city sent us a letter telling us that we could not file a referendum because 'the subject of the prospective petition is not proper for referral.'"

After digging into the matter and hiring an attorney, Zeimer said he and others found out how the process works. He was referring to the Lane County Annexation Process which, unlike every other county in Oregon, has unique rules covering annexations. For example: All annexations to cities located within Lane County can be approved only by the Lane County Boundary Commission. The commission has the option of approving, denying or altering the annexation proposal.  Florence Mayor Roger Bennett wrote to Zeimer and co-petitioners Don Norton and Joan Fling, indicating the city's attorney, Emily N. Jerome, of Eugene, advised the city that its proposed annexation cannot be the subject of a referendum petition, because it is not a legislative action of a municipality.

"We are very concerned that the city has not considered what it is going to cost existing Florence taxpayers if this annexation is approved," Zeimer said.

As justification for his opposition, Zeimer cited, among other things, the community's current water supply problem. "They're trying to bring some new municipal wells on-line, at an expected cost of about $3 million, and they do not as yet have a location for the wells," he said. "They may have to buy land for them. The next step-up in water production will require an outlay of about $12 million  for a new treatment plant.

"I think the community should have as strong a voice as developers when it comes to how our tax dollars are spent," Zeimer said.

Florence Department of Public Works Director Ken Lanfear took exception to Zeimer's analyses of the proposed upgrades. "First of all, the $3 million Zeimer cites as the cost of the five wells will probably come in at $2.5 or 2.8 million. Also, three of the five wells will be drilled on city property. Two of the wells will be drilled on adjacent private property for which we are negotiating at the present time," Lanfear said.

The $12 million for treatment plant upgrading will be spread out over the next 20 years, including a new plant north of the city, according to Lanfear. A lot depends on the requirements dictated by the city's growth.

As matters now stand, the city has to send its annexation request to the Lane County Boundary Commissioner. This has not yet been done.

There, the matter rests - at least for now.  Source:  The World, Coos Bay, by Charlie Scott
Also see:  http://www.citizensforflorence.com/City/city-com-comdev1.html

While aware of the painful history of the tribes, we support restitution in other forms.  We are most concerned about how this legislation ultimately would affect public access, old growth and roadless forests, threatened salmon and clean water.

The tribes have said that they want to boost timber production.  Under the current proposal, approximately 600 tribal members would receive public land and timber with a market value worth billions of dollars.

Efforts to become economically self-sufficient through logging in old growth and roadless forests is neither a sound means of righting past wrongs nor a sensible business proposition for sustainable self-sufficiency.

Senator Smith is looking to our public forests as a bank account to write a check to the tribes.  Through decades of overcutting, our federal forest "accounts" are already overdrawn.  Our forests should not be viewed as blank checks to be use for righting past wrongs.

Let's have an open discussion and find other ways to help the tribes become economically self-sufficient.  Shall we appropriate a fair amount of money from the treasury so the tribes could then invest in any industry?  If the tribes want timberland, they could then buy it on the open market from private timber owners.  We support economic self-sufficiency for native peoples, but we strongly oppose giving away publicly owned forests to right past wrongs.

The tribes seek federal forests located in the Coast Range between the Siuslaw and Umpqua rivers.  These public lands are managed under the Northwest Forest Plan nd provide important habitat for salmon, spotted owls, marbled murrelets and hundreds of other species associated with mature or old growth forests.

Coastal forests under private industrial forest ownership are typically managed to the detriment of clean water, wildlife values and ecological processes.  Therefore, the viability of threatened and endangered species, including Pacific salmon, requires the strict protection of the best remaining forest areas -- our federal forests.

Should these protected forests be taken out of public hands and devoted to economic gain, conservation efforts -- including the Northwest Forest Plan, habitat conservation plans for the Elliot State Forest and Weyerhaeuser's Millicoma Tree Farm, the Oregon Plan for Salmon Watersheds, and future recovery plans for listed species -- will be seriously undermined.

Our experience with the nearby Coquille Tribes, who received 5,000 acres of federal forests in 1996, demonstrates what the public may lose in a land transfer.  The Coquille Tribes failed to follow the Northwest Forest Plan as promised in authorizing legislation.  They claimed that their sovereignty outweighed the need to follow sound forest management requirements.

U.S. citizens were asked to post burdensome bonds and ultimately refused standing to challenge illegal logging plans in Bureau of Indian Affairs administrative courts.  In the end, important salmon watersheds were logged in violation of the Endangered Species Act.

Logging is the primary reason  the timber industry is promoting the Coos proposal.

The timber industry sees tribal land transfers as the quickest way to get around existing protections for forests, salmon and clean water.  This fits in nicely with Bush administration efforts to move public lands into private hands.  In Smith's proposal, both forests and public access will be lost because a series of land exchanges may be facilitated by his proposed legislation.

A large area of forestland going to the tribes will later be transferred into private hands.  How long will it be before private gates slam shut and clear-cuts expand?

Is Gordon Smith seeking a sensible solution to help the tribes become more economically self-sufficient, or is he just helping the timber industry and the Bush administration in their efforts to increase logging?  We are opposed to this large land transfer, because we must protect our precious public forests and because there are better ways to help the tribes become economically self-sufficient.

(Regna Merritt of Portland is executive director of the Oregon Natural Resources Council.  Jim Britell of Port Orford is president of the Kalmiopsis Audubon Society.  Chuck Willer of Corvallis is executive director of the Coast Range Association.)

Source:  August 5, 2002, The Register-Guard, by Regna Merritt, Jim Britell and Chuck Willer..