Records per page:
DateNameCompanyComment
 Keith BaltzorKeith & Katie Baltzor RanchWe are writing today to address three points of concern regarding T-13115. 1) Additional water has never been diverted at People’s Ditch POD by Watermaster Johnson or her staff during her tenure as watermaster to irrigate the lands requesting this transfer. a.She stated she was under the impression the SW 160 acres T23 R31 Sec 32 were included in the People’s Ditch POD. She stated she learned the decreed POD for these acres is actually from the Supreme Cut while on a ditch tour, Nov. 27, 2018 with water users. b. On 1-30-19, 1-31-19 and again on 2-4-19 Watermaster Johnson verbally communicated her office was using former Watermaster Rutherford’s spreadsheet, created September 2010 to irrigate decreed acres on the People’s Ditch. We asked for and received from Alyssa Munkers (1-28-19) the protocol to voice concerns about resolution of differing opinions on PODs. She suggested correspondence be written so as to confirm messages. On 1-31-19, an email was sent to Watermaster Johnson to confirm our phone conversation with regards to no additional water being diverted at People’s Ditch POD. We did not receive a response. Keith ran into Watermaster Johnson on 2-4-19 and asked her if she had received the email. She confirmed she had and stated she was instructed by Regional Watermaster Spriet not to respond in writing. She acknowledged the information again and stated her story was not going to change, but due to her supervisor’s directive, she could not respond to that email. c. Our main complaint of injury is sufficient water quantity has never been diverted to accommodate the aforementioned 160 acres, therefore causing us injury at the POD. d. We do acknowledge water was used to irrigate those acres, however, those were waters intended for Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Peila Ranch, Baltzors and others that never reached its destination, but rather was used by the transfer applicant to irrigate the acres decreed from the Mace-Hanley-Hotchkiss. e. Historical use cannot be claimed, as it has been on the application, since water was never diverted at the People’s Ditch POD for these acres. 2) Insufficient ditch capacity a. Hotchkiss Cattle Company’s T-13115 application, page 5, listed ditch capacity at 17.8 cfs. b. Tony Rutherford’s spreadsheet, based on decreed rights from this POD, shows 21.10213 cfs for a full call rate. An additional 2.0 cfs would be necessary to serve all water users if this Historic POD transfer were approved. This clearly demonstrates the ditch does not have the capacity for these additional acres to be irrigated with People’s Ditch waters. c. People’s Ditch is already inadequate, at a full call, to carry all needed water to serve decreed rights. It is deficient by 3.3 cfs which equates to 2,132,840.16 gallons per day. d. If this transfer is approved, then a full call for water would have a shortage of 5.3 cfs, or 3,425,470.56 gallons per day due to inadequate ditch capacity. 3) Supreme Court of Oregon Court Case 0f 1924-25 (found within the decree) a. This is a court case where a large number of acres were finalized as to their POD and thus became part of the Silvies Decree of 1926. b. T23 R31 Sec 32, under the ownership of Hull Hotchkiss is listed with his POD to be the Mace-Hanley-Hotchkiss Ditch, which is now commonly referred to as the Supreme Cut. c. Hotchkiss transfer application, page 4, lists a 1912 Adjudication Map as evidence of a historic POD. We dispute this, as the 1925 Oregon Supreme Court Case would supersede any prior POD utilized. d. The Supreme Court decision clearly states that it has ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the various claimants are entitled to the use of water as contained in these finding and decree and are hereby enjoined and prohibited from the use of water in any other amounts, manner or priorities than herein found. (Silvies Decree 1926) In considering the three points brought to your attention, we ask that T-13115 be denied.