Trying to add a payment method? You can do this on the 
Today, the Lookout Eugene-Springfield Editorial Board is announcing its endorsements for three ballot measures in the May 19 primary election: Measure 20-373, the grassroots environmental protection measure known as the Lane County Watersheds Bill of Rights; Measure 20-381, a five-year Eugene Public Library tax levy to prevent cuts; and Measure 20-380, supporting Oregon State University Extension Service and 4-H programs.
On Sunday, we announced our endorsements for Lane County commissioner and Lane County Circuit Court judge. And on Monday, we endorsed candidates for Eugene City Council.
On Wednesday, we’ll wrap up this endorsement season with our positions on other ballot measures across Lane County.
Measure 20-373, Lane County Watersheds Bill of Rights: No
“All water within the state from all sources of water supply belongs to the public.”
This one-sentence declaration in Oregon statute forms the genesis of the grassroots citizen-backed drive to enshrine watershed protection rights across Lane County through the passage of Measure 20-373, referred to by supporters as the Lane County Watersheds Bill of Rights.
We know that this measure is the culmination of years of planning and coalition-building by longtime Lane County residents, concerned about the impacts of aerial herbicide spraying, clear-cut logging and other timber company practices on the environment and public health.
But the legal and political chaos this measure would certainly unleash will benefit the pockets of law firms, not the environment. That’s why we can’t support the measure.
Our opposition is based on both legal and practical grounds.
Legally, the measure’s backers interpret the statute about water supply belonging to the public to mean that all Lane County residents should be able to challenge any corporate or government use of land, anywhere in the county, even without “scientific certainty or full evidence of the risk.”
It would empower residents to file suits in Lane County Circuit Court challenging industrial practices, and require Lane County commissioners and staff to enforce the law.
In theory, a resident could sue their neighbor for using pesticides like insect or weed killer on their property, citing the risk of chemicals seeping into groundwater. Measure supporters say the law isn’t intended to target small property owners, but as written it would create that opportunity.
Regardless of the measure’s merits, its supporters want the county to assume a power it simply doesn’t have: to circumvent state and federal laws. When environmental advocates in Lincoln County passed a countywide aerial herbicide spray ban a decade ago, a judge there ruled that Oregon’s Pesticide Control Act superseded the local regulation.
We can imagine a similar issue playing out with the Watersheds Bill of Rights. While Oregon law enshrines water as a public right, that declaration is embedded in a section of state law outlining the responsibilities of the Oregon Water Resources Department to ensure cities, irrigators, businesses and other water users follow permitting and licensing requirements. It doesn’t ban their activities outright.
Which brings us to the practical grounds for our opposition. Supporters of the measure are right to point out that timber companies and groups long opposed to environmental regulations are bankrolling the main Political Action Committee trying to sink the measure. The “Protect Our County” PAC has raised nearly $300,000 this year from measure opponents, about 10 times as much as supporters have raised.
Of course, elections are about people, not money. But if supporters think their opponents are flexing their financial muscles now, just wait until the measure passes. In that case, we would expect a flurry of legal challenges before the ordinance is put in place, possibly reaching the Oregon Supreme Court, which would have to weigh in on whether the county’s measure was superseded by state law. The federal government under the Trump administration would clearly not be an ally here.
And if passed, the watersheds protections would be established as a county ordinance, which the five-member Lane County Board of Commissioners would have the power to reverse. While they may be reluctant to overturn the will of voters, the lawsuits the county would have to defend, and the legal bills they would incur, might force their hand.
Advocates might then sue the county, ensuring that this measure’s biggest winner would be attorneys, not the residents who would foot those legal bills and certainly not the environment.
For these reasons, despite the hard work and pure intentions of its supporters, the Lane County Watersheds Bill of Rights is an ambitious but flawed measure we unfortunately can’t support.
Measure 20-381, Eugene Public Library levy: Yes
How does a community measure a library’s value? It could be as simple as the number of people who pass through its doors, or the number of books checked out.
But the Eugene Public Library’s benefit to the city has long been about more than books. It’s a source of homework help for kids, job search resources for adults, archives and reference materials for researchers. It’s an event space and de facto community center where young children and their parents can enjoy storytime and community members can take arts and crafts lessons, learn a new language or get tax preparation advice.
And it’s why the benefits of an expanded Eugene library tax levy are worth the slightly higher cost to taxpayers. If voters approve a five-year extension of the library’s current levy, the property tax rate would increase from 15 cents to 19 cents per $1,000 of assessed property value. That amounts to an extra $17 per year for the owner of a median-priced house in Eugene.
For that extra cost, the library would generate $4.3 million per year for each of the next five years to fund roughly 18 positions across its downtown, Bethel and Sheldon branches, avoiding any cuts to operating hours. Supporters have warned that a failure to pass the levy might lead to closures several days a week and even a branch closing.
From a purely fiscal standpoint, there’s an argument to be made against increasing levies at a time when both government and household budgets are tight. By opting to raise the levy instead of extending it at its current rate, there’s a risk of tax fatigue that could jeopardize future votes on funding for other services like public safety.
But library funding is an investment in a community’s present and future. On that note, fully expect the city to continue funding the library at the rate it is now — rather than using its passage as a green light to dial back its share of support.
We feel a modest increase in the community’s support for it is an investment worth making. We urge Eugene voters to support the library levy.
Measure 20-380, OSU Extension Service programs: Yes
We’ll spare you a Ducks versus Beavers joke, and instead emphasize just how successful Oregon State University Extension Service programs have been in Lane County.
The organization’s partnership with more than 450 community volunteers brings food pantries, gardening, food preservation, woodland management, farming assistance resources and more to towns from Florence and Oakridge. Its benefit is felt especially by young residents in rural communities who participate in the extension service’s 4-H program.
Lane County property owners currently pay 2.8 cents per $1,000 of assessed value to support extension service programs, which costs the owner of a $250,000 property about $7 per year. The proposal on the table would raise the tax to 5 cents per $1,000. If it passes, a $7 annual tax would jump to about $12.50. If voters reject the tax, many programs, including 4-H, would be cut.
If you wonder about what 4-H does, check out Lookout reporter Annie Aguiar’s story about Siena and Timothy.
These rural and youth-focused programs support education, food resilience and conservation, and represent an investment in rural Lane County. We think the tax increase is a modest ask in exchange for supporting communities often overlooked by Eugene. We urge a yes vote on the measure.
