Records per page:
DateNameCompanyComment
10/15/2015Brian PosewitzWaterWatch of OregonDear Ms. French. Thank you for your review of this application. Please consider our comments as follows, which we believe may overcome any presumption of public interest based on the factors set forth in ORS 537.170(8). (1). The proposed source stream, Beaver Creek, is a valuable public resource. (See generally, https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1794/6539/Siuslaw_Watershed_Analysis_Beaver_Creek.pdf?sequence=1.) The creek provides important habitat for threatened Oregon coastal coho salmon. (See previous cite.) Beaver Creek also lies within a newly created state natural area that is now part of Brian Booth State Park. The Park was named after an esteemed former Chair of the Oregon Parks and Recreation Commission, and is considered a top attraction on the Oregon Coast (See: http://www.oregonlive.com/travel/index.ssf/2015/06/top_10_things_to_be_wild_about_2.html). Apparently, flows appropriate to maintain the aesthetic and ecological values of Beaver Creek are not protected by any instream water rights. (2) According to the application materials, Seal Rock Water District already has adequate sources of water to meet present and future demands. The District has rights to four cubic feet per second of water, with its primary right being a right to 2.6 cubic feet per second from the Suislaw River. The District has a peak population of only about 5,000 people (at the height of tourist season) and presently uses less than one cubic foot per second of water, which it buys from the City of Toledo so it can sell the water obtained under its own rights to the City of Newport. The District offers in its application to never use more than 2.6 cubic feet per second from all sources, so that must be the outside limit of its future demand, which is well within the capacity of the District’s existing rights and systems. Moreover, the District can easily use less water per person in the future by implementing and encouraging conservation, and by accounting for the estimated 18 percent of water lost from its present system through leaks and unmeasured connections. In short, we see no good reason why the District cannot meet future needs by continuing to buy water from Toledo and/or by using the water for which it already has rights, instead of putting pressure on another precious public resource. (3) Based on the foregoing, any presumption of public interest is overcome for reasons including: (a) the highest and best use of the remaining water of Beaver Creek is public recreation, scenic attraction, fish, wildlife and special value to the public, ORS 537.170(8)(a); and (b) allocating two cubic feet per second of Beaver Creek’s flow to the Seal Rock Water District would be wasteful, uneconomic, impracticable and unreasonable because the District already has plenty of water for present and future needs, ORS 537.170(8)(e).