Records per page:
DateNameCompanyComment
 James & Susan Samter Cell Phone for James 541-870-4331 We are concerned about any Commercial water rights being granted for this property. It is our understanding that there is an existing permit to use water in the pond for irrigation. Currently the pond is being refilled by pumps on wells on the property. The small number of acres that were farmed with hemp this last year required a large amount of extra water to be brought in, in tanker trucks. The property is being prepared to have more acreage to be farmed. where would the additional water come from. As neighbors with a well that supports our residence and our small herd of cattle, we are concerned about the effects on the water table. Our well is one of the strongest in our area and we still see a lowering of pressure in the summer months. Pumping 20,000 plus gallons a day by a commercial operation may have an impact. We would be interested in receiving information on what studies have been done to understand the impact on other wells close by. Our observation is the owners of the property have been pushing the limits by starting a well drilling process before having the permits. So what will happen in the future, and what inspections/monitoring will take place to ensure the proper amount of water to be extracted is not exceeded, whether using the existing pond or future wells and pumps. In addition, we understand a second property has been purchased to the north of our property, and a drilling rig has been installed on that property also. For many years the former owners of the property on Cantrell tried to get water rights, but is it only now that hemp farming has been approved that it looks more likely to be granted. There is a reason why Rye Grass and other crops have been the crops of choice in the lower Willamette Valley, that is the water required to grow the crops was more naturally provided and did not require pumping of massive amount of water to support the crop. Thank you, James and Susan Samter
 Amie Thomas In recent history this property has been fruitfully producing grass and hay. The land was conducive to this crop type. At this point, we are very concerned about our water table. We have a well on this property and use it as water source as well as for fire prevention. This property also services three other lots which will require household use water flow. This water table is the only in the area that offers suitable water, as others have high arsenic and low flow issues. In the heat of summer, the water flow becomes limited and we are certain that irrigation will cause a water shortage. Again this property isn’t suited for irrigation for agricultural purposes but for personal household use only. I also have concerns about the neighboring wetlands and wildlife. We firmly believe the state should not allow hemp agricultural use to trump personal residential water rights .
 Alyson Richards As home owners with property located across the street from Apex Bioscience's Industrial Hemp farming operation we have concerns regarding Apex's projected water consumption for irrigation needs and its potential impact to nearby domestic wells. As we understand it, Apex will be using 3 wells to supply water into its holding pond reservoir for use as a "bulge in the system" to insure they can irrigate without any interruption to their irrigation needs. We have 2 domestic wells on our property. Well #1 is located approximately 200' ft from one of Apex's well closest to Cantrell Rd. Our well #1 is mainly used for supplying water for our horses and shop. Well #1 is approximately ~ 80' deep. So far, in the 10 years we have lived here it has never run dry. Our 2nd well is located up by our house to supply our household needs and is higher up the hill drilled ~180' deep and has never run dry either. Using the information contained within Apex's Water Rights applications it would allow them to pump up to .655 cfs for each of the 3 wells. If utilized to that extent it would permit pumping 42,336 Gallons Per Day or 1,270,080 Gallons Per Month. If only used @ 50% of that rate it would still permit usage on the order of 21,168 GPDay or 635,040 GPMonth. Apex's had a new well drilled last summer reported to be over 400' deep. This new well was drilled because their 2 existing wells did not supply the required amount of water to meet projected irrigation demands for planting the full 43 acres. Their other 2 wells are approximately 100' deep. Therefore, our concerns are that water consumption required for growing cannabis during the summer irrigation period will consume so much water that it lowers the water table in the aquifer to the extent that it impacts our wells flow or causes them to run dry. There is also a concern that it could potentially impact water quality due to imparting some hydrology changes in aquifer flow. There is an old well (now abandoned & capped off) at a neighbor's house that sits across the street to Apex's property that was abandoned due to arsenic contamination. A new deeper well was drilled when that property was purchased recently and new house built on it. There are also wells located about a 1/4 mile up the hill around the corner on Oak Hill Rd that already run dry in summer months with some people having to purchase water. So the aquifer supply of water out here is already borderline in summer months for keeping up with demands just for existing domestic wells usage demands. Fortunately, as the current owners for the last 10 years of our property we can attest that we have never had any of those kinds of water problems impacting our 2 wells, nor did any of the previous owners. Additionally, both of our wells water quality have tested good passing all water quality lab testing. So, our questions are: 1. What assurances are that if water rights are granted as requested, that the extensive use of Apex's 3 wells pumping water into the reservoir holding pond for irrigation of the 43 acres of cannabis will not interfere with our wells output? 2. If there are problems with our wells due to Apex's irrigation operations lowering the aquifer's water table or sudden water quality issues, what recourse as home owners with domestic wells do we have at our disposal? 3. Has OWRD conducted any area studies for potential impact to nearby domestic water wells before granting of these water rights?
 Michele J Peniakoff Robert A Consentino Oregon Water Resources Department, We are vehemently opposed to this application by Apex for commercial water rights in our neighborhood. After arriving in this area during the early 1980s, we learned the history of water shortage issues and became active in a group of concerned citizens addressing water shortages and dry wells thought to be a result of the growing population of Veneta. In fact, we had two wells run dry on our property during the late 80s. After serval weeks of searching, the last attempt at 290 feet finally bore fruit and has been a reliable, if low volume, water source, ever since. The thought that hundreds of thousands of gallons of water per month could be drawn from our local water supply by Apex is alarming and will most certainly endanger the reliability of this area’s underground aquifers to service residential wells. The market for industrial hemp is promising big return to investors, but it is in the very early stages and is, as of yet, unproven. We DO NOT in any way support, the gamble for short term profits over the water security and, therefore, long term viability of residential properties in this area. In addition, the initial actions taken by Apex in 2018 to begin watering WITHOUT any water rights to wells or ponds engenders no confidence whatsoever in this company ability or willingness to consider the rights and well being of the property owners in our neighborhood. We are absolutely opposed in every way to this application for water rights. Michele Peniakoff Robert Consentino
 robert bellucci i have reviewed Apex Biosciences application for water rights: addition of wells, holding ponds, and maximum total of acre feet expected to be used during the growing season and i am astounded that you are even considering the application. that this one entity could have the right to withdraw over 21 million gallons of water from an aquifer that we all know is being depleted (evidence of this is in the number of local wells that are showing aresenic contamination) is beyond my comprehension. I don't know how much investigations your organization has done on the local aquifer (I looked for the local water master and could find no contact information) but this should be explored and a definitive survey made before such water rights are granted.