Trying to add a payment method? You can do this on the 
Lane County voters are facing an important decision about water. Measure 20-373 would strengthen protections for the watersheds we all depend on. But the loudest voices against it are not giving you the full picture. Their claims rest on fear, misdirection and something worth naming plainly: financial self-interest.
Claim #1: Firefighters won’t be able to put out fires
This is false, and the law is unambiguous. Under Oregon water law, emergency firefighting is explicitly designated as an exempt use, meaning firefighters do not need a water rights permit to access water during an emergency, and no local measure can override that statutory protection. Raising this specter is a scare tactic, not a policy argument.
Claim #2: Water rates will go up
The Eugene Water & Electric Board warns that lawsuits could raise costs. But lawsuits only happen when someone chooses to file them. Look at who is funding the opposition: timber companies, extraction interests and developers — industries with a direct financial stake in weaker water protections. If stronger safeguards prompt legal challenges from those industries, that reflects their choices, not the measure’s flaws.
It’s also worth asking a basic question: Why is a utility whose core mission is delivering clean drinking water opposing measures to keep that water clean? That contradiction deserves scrutiny. With a new initiative, EWEB is looking to extract water from the Willamette River, the project is being sold as a backup source, but they know industrial development is coming, which will put serious demand on existing facilities — possibly resulting in property tax increases or bond measures, and increased usage rates.
Claim #3: Existing watershed regulations are sufficient
Industrial forestry practices, including the nondiscriminatory aerial herbicide spraying used to accelerate harvest cycles, depend on operating with minimal environmental restriction. This matters more than most people realize. Research published in peer-reviewed journals has found that many herbicide-active ingredients are not just harmful chemicals, they are themselves PFAS compounds, the so-called “forever chemicals” that do not break down in the environment and accumulate over time in soil, water and tissue. Spraying these substances aerially over forested land upstream of a drinking water source is not a routine agricultural nuisance. It is the introduction of permanent contamination into a watershed that Lane County depends on.
Stronger source water protections may require changes to those practices. When the industries most affected by regulation fund opposition campaigns and then point to potential lawsuits as a reason to vote no, they have created a self-serving loop: oppose the measure, threaten litigation, then cite that threat as a burden to the public. The science is clear: Protecting source water is more effective and far less costly than treating contamination after it has already entered the system. With PFAS, treatment is especially difficult and expensive, because these compounds were designed to never break down.
Claim #4: The measure will cause excessive litigation
This argument collapses under its own logic. Litigation becomes excessive only when parties repeatedly choose to challenge the law. Clear, firm protections can actually reduce long-term legal disputes by establishing consistent expectations. Meanwhile, the current regulatory framework has not kept pace with mounting evidence that the herbicides being sprayed over our watershed include compounds now recognized as persistent environmental contaminants linked to serious health risks.
Lane County is fortunate to draw from the McKenzie River watershed, one of the cleanest municipal water sources in the country. That is not an accident of geography. It is a resource that requires active protection. Measure 20-373 is about ensuring that protection holds. Lane County voters deserve transparency and a future where water is protected, not talking points shaped by those who profit from weak safeguards.
Supporters of this measure are not asking voters to take a leap of faith; they are asking for a realignment of priorities, making long-term natural resource stewardship a priority.
