Records per page:
DateNameCompanyComment
04/21/2026Kimberley Kimberley PriestleyWaterWatch of OregonWaterWatch strongly supports the issuance of IS-89336 in the amounts requested by ODFW. We appreciate that the OWRD is doing such in this instance. That said, we do have two major concerns OWRD statements/determinations in the IR: (1) The OWRD proposed limitation of the instream water rights as additive is not supported by statute. The IRs state that if a certificate is issued it will likely include a condition that would state that the instream flow allocation pursuant to this right is not in addition to other instream flows created by a prior water right or designated a minimum perennial stream flow. The Instream Water Rights Act does not support such a limitation; restricting the instream water right in this manner upends the intent of the Act. Long story short, there is nothing in statute or rule that supports this type of condition. Including such a condition is not only not supported by law but is contrary to protecting the public interest. (2) The OWRD proposed limitation subordinating this right to human consumption and livestock is not supported by statute. The IRs propose to condition these water rights with a condition that would stipulate that for purposes of distribution these rights are subordinate to livestock and human consumption. This proposed condition is contrary to statute for the following two reasons. First, the instream water rights act mandates that instream rights be processed in the same manner as out-of-stream rights. ORS 537.349. Out of stream rights are not burdened with this condition, thus to do so here is inconsistent with the statutory directives. Second, while the state has the authority to subordinate all rights, including instream rights, to human consumption and livestock during times of declared drought the OWRD’s proposal is not so limited. See 537.750(1)(c). To comply with governing statutes, the OWRD cannot condition as proposed. If a drought is declared in any given county, the Governor can use her authority to subordinate all water rights, including instream water rights, to human consumption and livestock. To include this condition is not only not supported by law, but violates the Instream Water Rights Act directive that instream rights be processed in the same manner as out-of-stream rights. In addition to these two concerns, we are deeply concerned that this application, along with all other Lake County instream water rights, have been put on administrative hold. It is unfair to the public, and thwarts the intent of Gov Kotek's EO 25-26, the Integrated Water Resources Strategy and a multitude of other planning documents meant to protect Oregon's aquatic habitat, that these are being put on hold because of political pressure of County officials. It also goes against the Goose and Summer Basin Plan, which has as one of two objectives for the Chewaucan Basin to protect the remaining instream flows in the Chewaucan River (of which this application is tributary to). OAR 690-013-0050.
04/21/2026Shaun PigottDeschutes Redbands Chapter - Trout UnlimitedThe Deschutes Redbands Chapter of Trout Unlimited supports ODFW’s instream water right applications for the Chewaucan River Basin, including IS-89336. The Chewaucan system supports valuable populations of native migratory fish, including our namesake desert redband trout. Our members recognize the importance of instream water rights in supporting those endemic species, as well as overall watershed health. Thank you for this opportunity to provide input on this matter.