Records per page:
DateNameCompanyComment
 Richard NawaKlamath Siskiyou Wildlands CenterThis application specific comment is intended to be reviewed in conjunction with KS Wild comment letter dated February 17, 2021 which emphasizes the public benefit of the application and recent research finding concerning “natural flows”. We concur with WRD initial review to approve. The amounts allowed by WRD are less than those requested by ODFW for July, August, September and October. October is an important month for salmon migration. Periodic high pulses of flow are needed to move fish to spawning areas. The monthly average flow does not account for natural periodic pulse flows which are needed for migration. KS Wild recommends that ODFW and WRD discuss these discrepancies amicably and proceed to issue a proposed final order.
 Miranda GrayCurry Watersheds PartnershipThank you for the opportunity to comment on this Instream Water Right (ISWR) application. This comment is on behalf of the Curry Watersheds Partnership, which is a group of non-regulatory organizations working together to help local landowners and communities keep Curry County's lands and rivers healthy and sustainable. The Curry Watersheds Partnership includes the Curry Soil and Water Conservation District, the South Coast Watershed Council, the Lower Rogue Watershed Council, and the Curry Watersheds Nonprofit. Our mission is to support our communities to care for our lands and waters, now and into the future. It is our understanding that ODFW’s application for this ISWR is for water that is already over allocated for summer months, and therefore it seems as if this proposal would have little or no bearing on new junior applications at this time. We also understand that the intent of this ISWR is not to harm or otherwise impact existing water rights, while protecting flows for wild fish going forward against new water withdrawals for other uses. We believe that the ISWR is important because it provides a goal for achieving the instream flows needed to support water conservation, fish and wildlife habitat, improved water quality, and recreation for our community. However, there is concern that local farms and ranches could be negatively impacted in the future, when and if water would become available. To address these concerns we suggest that OWRD consider a temporary alternative, such as a time-limited instream water right or lease, instead of issuing ODFW a permanent ISWR certificate to be held in trust by OWRD. We understand that water leases are for an initial period of up to five years, at which point the water right holder can apply for renewal. If and when the water conservation goals of the ISWR are met, we would ask that ODFW and OWRD revisit this application in close consultation with our local governments. Additionally, we want to underscore that there seems to be a lack of communication between state and local agencies and local governments. This lack of communication only perpetuates the sense that the decisions are all being made “top-down” without local input. We work closely with local ODFW staff and are aware that they work in a positive and collaborative way with local ranchers to lease water rights in a way that is mutually favorable. We don’t want to see these issues turning into local government working against ODFW’s recommendations, and suggest working on clearer communication with local agencies in the future. One of the pillars of our work is to support landowners and public agencies to care for their land in ways that sustain clean rivers and streams, foster abundant fish and wildlife, and keep local farms, ranches, and forest lands productive. We believe that this can happen, but only when landowners, their elected representatives, and public agencies work together towards common goals. Thank you for your consideration.
 Janell HowardCity of BrookingsDear Oregon Water Resources Department, These comments are submitted on behalf of the City of Brookings regarding water right ?Application IS 89084. The City requests that the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) ?extend the public comment period for its Initial Review of Application IS 89084 another 30 ?days based on the concerns outlined in this letter.? Application IS 89084 requests water for instream uses in a reach of the Chetco River from July ?through October. In its Initial Review, OWRD proposes to approve the application at an amount ?of water equal to the estimated average natural flow of the Chetco River based on OWRD’s ?analysis of water availability at a 50% exceedance rate. However, there is no apparent need for ?new instream water rights in this reach of the Chetco River. Certificate 59830 (MF 382), ?Certificate 59865 (MF 383), and Certificate 73087 describe instream water rights that already ?protect most, if not all of the flow amounts Application IS 89084 proposes to protect. ? In Application IS 89084, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) does not refer to ?existing instream water rights or discuss the purpose or need for additional instream water ?rights. Application IS 89084 also does not specify whether the proposed instream flows are ?intended to be “in addition to” or “not in addition to” already-protected instream flows. In ?contrast, Certificate 73087 states that it is for “migration, spawning, egg incubation, fry ?emergence, and juvenile rearing” and is “not in addition to other instream flows created by a ?prior water right.” (Certificate 73087 is junior to the other two already existing instream water ?rights on the Chetco River.) In other words, Certificate 73087 includes language to account for ?the already-protected instream flows on the Chetco River and to clarify that Certificate 73087 ?does not protect additional instream flow amounts. ? Application IS 89084 does not explain or justify the need to protect additional flows beyond ?what is already protected. If Application IS 89084 seeks to protect additional instream flows, ?the combined effect of Application IS 89084 and the existing instream water rights would be to ?protect far more water than the estimated average natural flow in the Chetco River. Certificate ??73087 already protects the following quantities of water from July through October:? July Aug Sept ? Oct ?213 cfs? ?129 cfs? ?101 cfs? ?246 cfs? The natural stream flow in the Chetco River from July through October is only:? July Aug Sept ? Oct ?214 cfs? ?130 cfs? ?102 cfs? ?248 cfs? OWRD’s Initial Review proposes to approve Application IS 89084 at the quantities equal to the ?remaining natural stream flow, as shown in the above table. Yet, if Application IS 89084 is ?approved in addition to other instream flows, there is not enough water available in the Chetco ?River to satisfy the protected instream flows in Application IS 89084. ? Additionally, OWRD’s water availability database states that there is no water available for ?new instream water rights. Therefore, if OWRD approves Application IS 89084, it should ?condition the instream right to be “not in addition to other instream flows.”? OWRD’s analysis of the amount of water available for Application IS 89084 is also flawed ?because it is based on the estimated average natural flows at the mouth of the Chetco River. ?Application IS 89084 proposes to protect those same quantities of water as far upstream as the ?confluence of the Chetco River with the North Fork of the Chetco River – 5.3 miles upstream ?from the mouth – where estimated average natural flows are lower. Therefore, even if there is ?water available in the amounts OWRD proposes to approve, those quantities would not be ?available throughout the entire reach of the instream water right, particularly at the upstream ?end of the proposed instream reach. ? For all these reasons, it is imperative that if OWRD approves Application IS 89084, that it be ?conditioned to clarify that the proposed instream flows would not protect quantities in addition ?to already-protected instream flows.? Finally, ODFW provided inadequate notice of Application IS 89084 to the City of Brookings. ?The City received a letter dated November 19, 2020 titled Proposed Instream Water Right ?Applications in Southwest Oregon. The letter stated that ODFW is required to notify cities that ?it is applying for instream water rights. The letter never actually stated that ODFW intended to ?or had submitted an instream water right application to protect flows on the Chetco River. The ?letter references that ODFW emailed the City on November 6, 2020 and the letter is a final ?notification. The letter does not describe the contents of the November 6, 2020 email, nor does ?it state to whom the email was sent. The City does not believe it received ODFW’s purported ?November 6, 2020 email. Most importantly, the City was not put on notice that ODFW was? submitting an instream water right application that would have the effect, if approved, of ?protecting instream the remaining natural flow of the Chetco River, which is the City’s sole ?municipal source of water. ? Given the lack of adequate notice to the City, the City requests that the public comment period ?for the Initial Review be extended for another 30 days. This additional time is critically ?important to allow the City to adequately assess and understand the potential implications of ?Application IS 89084 on the City’s future water development plans. ? The City also urges OWRD and ODFW to notify the City and other interested parties ?immediately as to whether ODFW intends Application IS 89084 to protect flows in addition to ?already-protected instream flows. Depending on the ODFW’s position, OWRD should consider ?issuing a revised Initial Review to address this issue, as it is relevant to the water availability ?determination. OWRD also should address this issue in the forthcoming Proposed Final Order.? I look forward to hearing from you and appreciate your consideration.? Sincerely, Janell Howard City of Brookings (This comment was also submitted as a letter, which was sent to OWRD's Ron Kohanek.)