Oregon Water Resources Department
Electronic Public Comments
Application: G 17644
Main
Help
Return
Contact Us
Records per page:
Date
Name
Company
Comment
Lisa Brown
WaterWatch of Oregon
Comments of WaterWatch of Oregon RE: IR for G-17646 (1 cfs) (Malheur Lake Basin, Harney County) September 19, 2013, Submitted via the WRIS/// WaterWatch is becoming increasingly concerned about the number and sizes of new groundwater permits that OWRD is issuing in Harney and Malheur Counties. For example, today is the deadline to comment on four IRs to issue that are all located in the Malheur Basin or Malheur Lakes Basin. Specific Comments: (1) The proposed condition specifying that “The water user shall discontinue use of, or reduce the rate or volume of withdrawal from, the well(s) if any of the following events occur:” does not seem to meet OWRD statutory and rule based requirements for protecting Oregon’s groundwater. First, it fails to specify to what extent a user would need to “reduce” the withdrawal if one of the triggers were met. Second, those triggers appear to be set at points where once met, the use is out of compliance with the statutory and rule requirements. In other words, they are not protective enough. This proposed condition does not adequately protect the resource particularly when OWRD is issuing new groundwater permits in areas of known declines and problems. (2) OWRD does not seem to be adequately considering the cumulative effects of new permit issuance. For example, applications G-17650 and G-17651 should have been considered together given their proximity. We are concerned that WRD may be creating an untenable groundwater situation in this part of the state. (3) The GW Review states that the positive findings on groundwater availability are based on the significant between this area and an area of documented year to year water-level declines and “on the lack of local water-level data to with an adequate period of record to conclude whether or not water levels are stable.” This appears inadequate to make a determination that meets statutory and rule standards and raises concerns over the sustainability of groundwater permit issuance in this area. If OWRD lacks adequate data to determine whether or not water levels are stable, it should not be issuing new groundwater permits. (4) The GW Review states that “Groundwater likely provides negligible baseflow to this creek. Malheur Slough and Hot Springs Slough are dry in most years and therefore not considered for Division 9 reviews, per memo by Ivan Gall, January 15, 2008.” This does not appear to support the conclusion of no hydraulic connection and does not appear to be consistent with statute and rule. We are not aware of any kind of exemptions for “negligible” baseflow connections or for connections to waterbodies that are “dry in most years.” At least one of the wells appears to be well within ¼ mile of a stream. Thus it appears that PSI should have been found.
Lisa Brown
WaterWatch of Oregon
Comments of WaterWatch of Oregon RE: IR for G-17644 (4.52 cfs) (Malheur Lake Basin, Harney County), September 19, 2013, Submitted via the WRIS/// WaterWatch is becoming increasingly concerned about the number and sizes of new groundwater permits that OWRD is issuing in Harney and Malheur Counties. For example, today is the deadline to comment on four IRs to issue that are all located in the Malheur Basin or Malheur Lakes Basin. Specific Comments: (1) The proposed condition specifying that “The water user shall discontinue use of, or reduce the rate or volume of withdrawal from, the well(s) if any of the following events occur:” does not seem to meet OWRD statutory and rule based requirements for protecting Oregon’s groundwater. First, it fails to specify to what extent a user would need to “reduce” the withdrawal if one of the triggers were met. Second, those triggers appear to be set at points where once met, the use is out of compliance with the statutory and rule requirements. In other words, they are not protective enough. This proposed condition does not adequately protect the resource particularly when OWRD is issuing new groundwater permits in areas of known declines and problems. (2) OWRD does not seem to be adequately considering the cumulative effects of new permit issuance. For example, applications G-17650 and G-17651 should have been considered together given their proximity. We are concerned that WRD may be creating an untenable groundwater situation in this part of the state. (3) The GW Review states that the groundwater likely provides “negligible baseflow” to nearby creeks. This means it is hydraulically connected and should have been so determined. Also, the statement that the distance to surface water “varies” is not adequate for determining PSI under the Division 9 rules. Based on the map in the GW Review, three of the four wells appear to be well under ¼ mile from a stream. It appears that the IR is incorrect in determining no PSI. Thank you for considering these comments.