Records per page:
DateNameCompanyComment
 Kimberley PriestleyWaterWatch of OregonWaterWatch made three contentions to the initial reviews (IR's). 1) There is no statutory authority to restrict Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's (ODFW) requested flow amounts to the Estimated Natural Average Flow (ENAF); 2)The Department erred in its application of the state's water allocation policy; 3)The Department fails to analyze the application in light of many public interest factors that would support the issuance of the instream water right in the amount requested by ODFW. Related to WaterWatch's first and third contention is that there is current rulemaking of Division 77 and the legality of OAR 690-077-0015(4) is an outstanding issue of the Rules Advisory Committee (RAC). According to WaterWatch's comments, the RAC,of which it is a member, has been advised that this issue is under review by the Oregon Department of Justice. WaterWatch supports issuance of the Hood River instream rights in the amounts requested by ODFW and does not believe OWRD has a factual, legal or policy basis upon which to support the flow restrictions proposed in the IR's.
 Kimberley PriestleyWaterWatch of OregonWaterWatch made three contentions to the initial reviews (IR's). 1) There is no statutory authority to restrict Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife's (ODFW) requested flow amounts to the Estimated Natural Average Flow (ENAF); 2)The Department erred in its application of the state's water allocation policy; 3)The Department fails to analyze the application in light of many public interest factors that would support the issuance of the instream water right in the amount requested by ODFW. Related to WaterWatch's first and third contention is that there is current rulemaking of Division 77 and the legality of OAR 690-077-0015(4) is an outstanding issue of the Rules Advisory Committee (RAC). According to WaterWatch's comments, the RAC,of which it is a member, has been advised that this issue is under review by the Oregon Department of Justice. WaterWatch supports issuance of the Hood River instream rights in the amounts requested by ODFW and does not believe OWRD has a factual, legal or policy basis upon which to support the flow restrictions proposed in the IR's.
 John BuckleyEast Fork Irrigation DistrictJohn Buckley, the District Manager for East Fork Irrigation District (EFID), maintains the applicant, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife(ODFW), failed to engage with the local communities and by applying for these instream water rights will upend the hard work of the Hood River County Water Planning Group (HRCWPG) by appropriating all the remaining water in 14 stream systems in the Hood River Basin; three of the 14 applications were withdrawn after these comments were submitted. East Fork Irrigation District (EFID) has specific concerns with the East Fork Hood River (EFHR) applications IS-88322 and IS-88335. EFID has a point of diversion on the EFHR and is exploring possible reservoir sites to meet late irrigation season demands. One of EFID's biggest issues with this and the other instream water right applications, is the loss of flexibility to the basin to be creative in addressing current and future water supply demands. ODFW, the applicant, is not working within the existing process, as EFID sees it, and potentially restricting it. EFID requests that the Department deny the instream applications submitted by ODFW and instead encourage them to work with the HRCWPG in developing instream protections that work within existing HRCWPG plans.