Records per page:
DateNameCompanyComment
 Mike Dauenhauer  To whom it may concern, I object to the transfer of water rights for the approximate 2.5cfs to instream due to the potential consequences of other agricultural uses downstream. The reallocation would restrict junior diversions and may cause economic hardship to ranchers and farmers if the resources were to become limited. Furthermore, the land has been leased to Lee Bradshaw for approximately the last ten years before the new owners, and the water was unused during that time. I believe an investigation of the use is necessary for the water right certificate 17204. Additionally, the Lease Application IL-1714 needs reviewing for appropriateness. The signed and approved application states only five comments were received during the comment period that initiated April 5, 2019, this is the result of poor communication of the intent and lack of information to those that may be affected downstream. I would request the application for transfer to instream is denied, and the water right certificate 17204 canceled to preserve the ranchers, farmers, and other diversion points that rely on the water for sustainability. Kind regards, Mike Dauenhauer
 LeRae Bullard To whom it may concern, I find it disturbing that this process does not include a notification to the user that may be affected in the case of limited resources. With dual priority dates of 1858 and 1888 and limited resources, all other uses downstream may be impacted. I would be willing to state that anyone with water rights downstream would like to know and have input during this comment period. It is safe to say that the doctrine of Prior Appropriation evolved in the law to promote settlement and development of the West. People were encouraged to put water to beneficial use or taking it from a stream and applying it to the land. This request suggests the opposite, and entertaining the transfer without due process is disheartening. We know water rights are first come, first serve. The first person to obtain a water right on any given stream will be the last person to be shut off in times of shortage. The oldest water right holder is entitled to take all of the water needed and allowed under the water right before the next junior water right holder is permitted to divert. Discontinuation of water diversion downstream from Dead Indian Creek, a tributary to Little Butte Creek creates a potentially economic impact to other ranchers and farmers in times of limited resources; whereas, leaving the water allocated to the land protects those downstream. Not only do I object to the transfer of Certificate 17204 of approximately 2.5 cfs, but I also request the application be denied, and a review of the overall application process undergo evaluation for appropriate notification to those directly impacted by such transfers from beneficial use (applying the water to the land) to instream allocation. Sincerely, LeRae
 Lee BradshawMerton Bradshaw Company To whom it may concern, RE: Public Comment for Transfer: T 13177 Our apologies for the late submission of our objection to the particular water right transfer. Let me preface by stating we have leased this property in tax lot numbers 5100, Section22, Township 38S for approximately ten years before the new owner purchased the land. During this time, we did not exercise water rights for the mentioned certificate. The new owners did not apply the water rights last year either; therefore, the certificate is subject to forfeiture and cancellation according to “use it or lose it”. Furthermore, we do not believe that non-use meets any extenuating circumstance. These water rights contribute to the junior use of water downstream and to transfer the water rights to instream may additionally cause harm to rancher and farmers that depend on the use of that water for their livelihood. This transfer with priority dates of 1858 and 1888 may generate an unjust regulation and distribution of water downstream from certificate 17204 leaving those below subject to discontinuation of diversion in a situation of limited resources. We request that the certificate 17204 undergo an investigation of the use, the request to transfer the water rights to instream use be denied and the water right certificate be canceled. With respect, Lee Bradshaw
 James McCarthyWaterWatch of OregonLittle Butte Creek Instream Transfer Comments – Application: T 13177 – June 13, 2019 WaterWatch of Oregon fully supports OWRD approval of transfer application T 13177. (WaterWatch previously commented in support of the related transfer application IL 1714.) Given the federally threatened status of coho salmon and the primary importance of the Little Butte Creek subbasin to Rogue River coho abundance and recovery, to appropriately protect and enhance fisheries resources, this application should be approved at the rate requested by the applicant of 2.5 cubic feet per second. According to Oregon Department of Fish And Wildlife (ODFW) data presented on pp. 58 and 59 of the Rogue River Project Biological Assessment (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, March 2012), “[t]he Little Butte Creek watershed provides some of the best coho salmon production in the Rogue River basin... and, from 1996 to 2000, this stream averaged 15 coho salmon spawners per mile (ODFW 2001a). This represents the highest average density of coho salmon spawners of all Rogue River basin areas sampled.” The state has already acknowledged the importance of this subbasin by issuing an instream water right for Little Butte Creek. However, the 1992 priority date for the current instream right means it provides significantly inferior protection for instream values including fisheries during the driest months of the year when compared to the protection provided by the instream lease proposed in this application, as provided by transfer of an irrigation right with priority dates of 1858 and 1888. In addition, ODFW’s Restoration and Enhancement Board and the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board have chosen to contribute funding to this project. This fact further underscores the value of this project. As part of the transfer, OWRD should also require full measurement and reporting to ensure compliance.
 Dan Van DykeOregon Dept of Fish and WildlifeI am writing in support of instream transfer T13177. The transfer involving a willing landowner and water user is a terrific example of good stewardship and successful habitat restoration in action. Restoration of cold, ambient streamflow is a critical need for native fish of the Rogue watershed, especially for salmon and steelhead; as stated in several management and restoration plans. This project will also support efforts to improve water quality in Little Butte Creek, an action that is important to and supported by the community of Eagle Point. The lower reaches of Dead Indian Creek and South Fork Little Butte Creek have been identified as having the highest need for flow restoration in previous prioritization efforts. Approval of this transfer will benefit Coho salmon, summer and winter steelhead, cutthroat trout, and potentially Pacific lamprey and Chinook salmon.
 Brian BarrRogue River Watershed CouncilRogue River Watershed Council fully supports OWRD approval transfer application T13177. Rogue River Watershed Council is working with fourteen other organizations to develop a strategic action plan to aid in recovery of the federally threatened Coho Salmon in the Upper Rogue. South Fork Little Butte Creek and its tributaries are specifically called out as part of a focal area to concentrate restoration and protection activities because it provides extremely important spawning and rearing habitat for Coho Salmon (and steelhead, too). The main limiting factor in South Fork Little Butte Creek and the lower reaches of its tributary streams is summer water temperature. There is no better way to address stream temperatures than by increasing stream flows during the summer. Engaging willing water rights holders on transfering out of stream water rights to protected, instream water rights throughout the South Fork of Little Butte is a proposed activity in the early draft of the action plan. Transferring 1.25 cfs of certificate 17204 from an irrigation right to an instream right is an excellent example of this approach owing to the location of the point of diversion (the headwaters of Dead Indian Creek), the size of the transfer, and the priority date of the right. Transfer application T13177 will help address the main limiting factor for Coho Salmon and other native fishes in the upper portions of the Little Butte Creek system - summer water temperatures.
 JIM PENDLETONTALENT IRRIGATION DISTRICTAgain, as was with the instream lease application1714, the department should deny this transfer. The transfer will cause injury to existing Reclamation and District storage and flow water rights. The Project diversions and canals are directly downstream of the subject right and any waste, seepage or return flows from the use of the right is able to be picked up and diverted by the Project. The web based mapping indicates that the acreage the right covers is all wetlands, the stream is braided and early on generally snow covered, how does the applicant intend to dry those up? Conde Creek is listed as a source on the application, this should be removed. Conde Creek shouldn't be on the app. (I don't see Spencer Creek either). The applicant doesn't list the all the landowners that are subject to the right, a portion of C. 17204 looks to be on Reclamation property, and I doubt they want to transfer instream. The applicant (to prove non-forfeiture) seems to rely on instream lease 1714, that hasn't been exercised yet. no other required documentation was provided. and there is serious question as to if the right has been beneficially used. I assume the watermaster will do his injury review prior to any amount of approval for this application.