Records per page:
DateNameCompanyComment
03/04/2026Kimberley Kimberley PriestleyWaterWatch of OregonWaterWatch strongly opposes this request for an extension of time. Concerns include, but are not limited to: (1) Permit R 15250 is not a valid permit. The June 9th, 2009 PFO proposed denial. The protest deadline was July 24, 2009. The applicant filed a protest, but it was not received until July 27, 2009 which is three days after the protest deadline (the protest file notes that the $300 protest fee was received over the counter on the 27th, so in person). In other words, the applicant did NOT file a timely protest as stated in the FO. Deadlines are set in statute, the OWRD did not have the authority to accept the protest, nor did the OWRD have the jurisdiction to issue a final order approving the application. The OWRD was in error for accepting the protest, entering into settlement discussions and issuing an FO/Permit for approval rather than denial. Given R 15250 is not a valid permit, the OWRD cannot now extend it. (2) The permit holder did not start construction within the five years as required by the statute. Extension statutes do not allow for extensions of time if construction has not begun. The applicants assertions that work on the East Reservoir (which is a different permit) and ditch maintenance somehow constitute construction of the West Reservoir does not hold water. To further prove this point, the applicant readily admits that they have no intent of building the reservoir approved under this permit. They clearly state in their application that rather than build the West Reservoir approved under this permit, once the extension is granted they will seek a permit amendment to abandon this reservoir site and instead seek greater capacity at their East Reservoir (again, a different permit). So in other words, they have not started construction on the reservoir under this permit nor do they ever plan to. Bolstering this point, the application also makes clear that they do not have approved dam plans, which was a required condition before ANY construction could commence. Having failed this important step, they cannot now come in to assert that ditch maintenance somehow counts as construction (which would be illegal construction w/o dams specs). Long story short, the permit holder clearly did not begin construction of the reservoir, thus the OWRD must deny the permit and start cancellation proceedings. (3) Even if they had begun construction, which they clearly have not, they have not met conditions of use associated with this permit, including, importantly, submitting required dam specs. While they do claim to have met two conditions of use in their application, this work is connected to the East Reservoir (different permit) not the West Reservoir (this permit). For example, they checked "yes" to the condition requiring the installation of outlet gate/pipe/conduit, though the narrative explains this is on the East Reservoir (which again is a different permit). (4) No information provided in the application justifies good cause to extend this permit. Among many other things, applicants cite family issues prior to the issuance of this permit as reasons for not developing this permit. Information preceding the 2017 permit issuance date is immaterial to development of this permit. As to work done after the permit issuance date, it all relates to a different permit (East Reservoir), not this permit, so again, is immaterial to development of this permit. Competing uses of water include water needed for state sensitive red band trout in the Crooked system above Prineville Reservoir, and federally listed steelhead below Prineville Dam. Moreover, the BOR Prineville Reservoir storage right is routinely not met, issuing this right will only add enforcement burdens on OWRD since it is junior to the BOR storage right ( it is the storage right that triggers regulation, not the secondary right). (5) The applicant did not apply for an extension within 90 days of their c-date, thus the OWRD should have already started cancellation proceedings under OAR 690-315-0020(4). In conclusion, for these and other reasons, the OWRD should deny this extension request. There is literally nothing in this application that meets the good cause requirements in statute and rule that would allow an extension of time.