City rejects water for pot grow

According to Dave Anderson, director of the city’s public works department, the request was for a 1.5-inch meter and a projected use of 30,000 gallons per month from October through April.

“These are low-use periods for the city,” explained Anderson. “The city system has the capacity to supply the request.”

In a June 26 memorandum to the mayor and members of the city council, Anderson pointed out that the city’s water ordinance requires council authorization to provide water service to properties outside the city limits. The monthly billing would be 150 percent of what customers inside the city pay for water.

In addition to the extra billing charges, the business would have to pay a water system development fee of $9,268 for the 1.5-inch water meter. Anderson estimated the projected cost for 30,000 gallons a month would be about $150.

Members of the city council expressed concern about authorizing water service to a commercial operation outside the city, because the water would be provided “at the potential expense of being able to serve new customers inside the city in the future,” said Anderson — and not because it was a marijuana business.

City Council members Timothy McGlothlin and Darcy Long-Curtiss voted “Yes” to authorize the water usage, while councilors Russ Brown, Linda Miller, and Taner Elliott voted “No.”

“My responsibility is to the city and the people who live here,” Brown said of his vote. “In my opinion, if we open that commercial door, we can’t close it. Water is plentiful this year, but what is it going to be next year? I won’t vote for it.”

Brown added the extra money the city would receive was minimal.

“I don’t think it’s a good door to open, and we need to err on the side of caution,” Brown said, “and protect our natural resources for the use of the people here in The Dalles.”

McGlothlin said he supported providing water to the business.

“Upon hearing (City Manager) Julie Krueger’s perspective that selling the water at one and a half times the regular rate, that it would be used during the lowest usage season, and that the city waterline already crosses the property, it seemed reasonable to approve the request, I voted ‘Yes,’” McGlothlin explained.

However, he added that he had since become concerned about the potential for harm to the area’s water supply.

“I did not consider the impact of the water after it was used to irrigate and how the water could possibly contain contaminants that could potentially leach into the water supply,” McGlothlin said.

Mayor Steve Lawrence said he was surprised by the council’s rejection of the plan, adding that the issue may come up again in the future.

“I think there were some good questions raised, and we will try to get them answered and bring it back later,” Lawrence said.

The water issue is expected to be back on the council’s agenda at the July 24 meeting. Brown said he welcomed new information, but didn’t expect it to alter anything.

“They are going to provide more information about the facility, but I don’t think I’ll hear anything to change my vote,” he said.