Records per page:
DateNameCompanyComment
10/01/2015Brian PosewitzWaterWatch of Oregon1. The extension should be limited to 20 years and to the amount of water reasonably necessary for the applicant’s needs within that 20 years. Water appropriation permits are intended to authorize appropriations only for beneficial use within a reasonable time. Water appropriation permits are not intended as a way to reserve water for speculative future use. ORS 537.203(2) makes this clear by limiting the time that may be allowed for development of a new municipal permit to 20 years. The time allowed under an extension should not be longer than that, since it makes no sense to allow an extension of time that is longer than the maximum time allowed when the permit is first issued, much less an extension for more than eight times the maximum initial development period. 2. Applying the above rationale, any extension of this permit should be, at most, to 2035. (WaterWatch reserves its position that the 20 years runs from an earlier date – probably from the previous “extended to” date. However, under the particular circumstances of this case, WaterWatch likely would not protest a proposed order extending the permit for 20 years from the date of the extension.) 3. The extension also should be limited to the amount of water that the City reasonably can expect to use in the next 20 years. Between now and 2035, the City does not reasonably need more than 1.5 cubic feet per second of the 9.0 cubic feet per second authorized under the permit. This amount, plus the one cubic foot per second under Certificate 33269 and the one cubic foot per second under Permit S-35094 (the sources without any apparent quality limitations), would give the City a total of 3.5 cubic feet per second. According to the City’s information on current demand and expected population growth, that would be more than enough water to meet the City’s reasonable water needs over the next 20 years. That would be true even without requiring the City to reduce per capita water consumption (as it should) with improvements in conservation. 4. The City’s own investment decisions confirm that 3.5 cubic feet per second is a reasonable amount of water for the City’s current and future needs. According to the City’s application, it rebuilt its water treatment plant in 1999. Also according to the application, the maximum amount of water that can be treated at the new plant is 3.23 cubic feet per second. (Page 10.) Thus, when it came to tying up its own capital, the City determined that the water it could produce from 3.23 cubic feet per second was enough water to meet its reasonably expected future demand. The same analysis should apply when it comes to tying up the public’s capital (i.e., the public’s water). 5. In general, the City admits it is not growing and that any need for the full 9.0 cfs in the permit is purely speculative, depending on such unpredictable things as the extent to which the City may perhaps someday become a popular place for climate-change refugees. (Page 14.) Moreover, the time period requested for the extension is illegal and unreasonable. Any use occurring more than 20 years in the future is not beneficial use within a reasonable time and cannot be the basis for granting, or extending, a water appropriation permit. 6. WaterWatch reserves the right to raise additional issues in further proceedings, including issues related to impacts on fish and wildlife.