Eureka council debates Mammoth Water Users supplemental lease, pauses approval pending attorney review

Eureka — The Eureka City Council spent an extended portion of its March meeting discussing the Mammoth Water Users supplemental water lease agreement and directed staff and legal counsel to review the document and underlying arrangements before adopting any changes.

Council members raised concerns about who is using water drawn through Mammoth Water Users, how the group’s membership is defined, and gaps in state records. Council members said the state’s filings for Mammoth had not been updated since about 2010 and that the association’s stated officers often do not live in Mammoth. Council members also described instances of apparent unmetered or unauthorized filling at the city’s Mammoth fill station.

Why it matters: the supplemental agreement allows Mammoth Water Users’ members access to Eureka water under terms that have evolved over years. Council members said the city currently covers costs for certain purchases of excess water shares and for maintenance tied to the fill station; they expressed concern that the arrangement may be costing the city money and that the association is not following its original agreement.

Discussion and direction: council members reviewed several operational details. Staff reported the agreement now provides Mammoth users a means to access city water and that the group pays $1,250 and completes state change applications; council staff said that after adjustments the arrangement effectively costs each Mammoth user about $60 per year. Members asked the city attorney to review a red-line version of the lease and the original Mammoth Water Users agreement to determine whether the association is complying with its covenants and to identify possible updates to limit future city exposure. One council member said they would not recommend approving the lease without having seen the attorney’s red-line edits.

Council members discussed options that could change how Mammoth customers receive water in the long term, including the city purchasing water shares and billing Mammoth users directly or establishing a maintenance fee for fill-station access. No formal vote was taken on changing billing or buying shares; council directed staff to gather documents, forward the original Mammoth Water Users agreement to the city attorney for review, and schedule follow-up discussions with the association.

Council members also asked staff to check usage reporting and change-application records that Mammoth allegedly files with the state; staff noted the city receives annual information on quantities sold through the fill station and on change-application numbers recorded with the state.

Next steps: staff and the city attorney will review the lease and the Mammoth Water Users’ original agreement, then meet with the association to clarify membership, billing and access rules. The council indicated it will not approve the current lease draft until it has reviewed the attorney’s red-line and clarified outstanding operational questions.

Ending: Council members said the matter has been under discussion for years and that they want clearer definitions and controls before altering the city’s ongoing arrangements with the Mammoth Water Users.