Records per page:
DateNameCompanyComment
03/16/2018Brown LisaWaterWatch of OregonThese comments pertain to T-12837. We note that WRIS (which we are relying upon) shows the comment period closing 3-16 (screen shot available upon request) and has accepted the public comment on 3-16, and therefore these comments are timely. 1. The application should be returned as incomplete. Applicant was required to submit “Aerial photos containing sufficient detail to establish location and date of photograph.” (Application, Evidence of Use Affidavit, p. 2 of 2). The photographs supplied are not aerial photographs; are not adequate to establish location or date of photograph; and insufficient to establish where irrigation occurred and over what acreage irrigation occurred. The application does not establish that water use occurred within the last five years across the 65 “to” acres on which the applicant seeks to transfer the water right. In fact, the ground level photos supplied by the applicant appear to show fewer than 65 acres of irrigated land. 2. The LUCS statement appears to be incorrect. The land use decision approving applicant’s mining was challenged at the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). On October 15, 2015, LUBA issued a Final Opinion and Order remanding the land use decision to the county. Rogue Advocates et al. v. Josephine County, LUBA Nos. 2014-095/096. WaterWatch’s understanding is that the remand process is ongoing. Therefore, applicant lacks land use approval for the land use associated with the surface water permit application S-88508 (mining). 3. The Tesei Petroleum, Inc. records do not establish that irrigation occurred on the 65 acres in question during the period in question. Those records show high petroleum costs in non-irrigation months such as January (generally higher than during the irrigation season). The applicant supplied-ground level photos show “Cleaning out the POD” on May 9, 2013 and “POD at end of water season” July 30, 2013. Therefore, the supplied petroleum costs that include costs from months outside of this water season do not appear relevant to the inquiry. 4. The “to” lands appear to include the locations for reservoir applications R-88930 and R-88932. It does not appear permissible under the water code to have both a surface water permit and a reservoir permit at the same location. Thank you for considering these comments.
03/16/2018JANE MARTIN  
03/16/2018ANGELA HENRY  
03/16/2018CINDY HENRY  
03/16/2018VAJRA MA  
03/16/2018GLENN STANDRIDGE  
03/16/2018GLENN STANDRIDGE  
03/16/2018WOLFGANG NEBMAIER  
03/16/2018JOE BOYER  
03/16/2018ELIZABETH CORCORAN  
123