Records per page:
DateNameCompanyComment
 Marie Richie There are several serious concerns regarding the 3 applications for water rights transfer ( T-14438, re: Certificates #86449 and 86448; T-14439, re: Certificate #73636 (T-7309; T-14440, re: Certificate #89934 ) to the once-again proposed golf course West of Laurel Grove and Dew Valley, as represented by Bandon Biota. The rate of water usage for that recreational site, as reported in the previously proposed land use change (Exhibit C, as prepared by Golder in 2018, of that proposal, is on file with the Coos County Development Planning Department and found on pages 59-69 and can be accessed at https://www.co.coos.or.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/planning/page/23604/hbcu-22-001_bandon_biota.pdf ) was estimated at 400 cubic feet per second (cfs) / 149,492 gallons per minute (gpm) without seasonal restriction. It is certain that these transfers, in conjunction with the 17 wells already dug on the property that tap into the mid-level aquifer (50-100 feet) to supply that amount of water, will seasonally drain the entire basin, dry up surrounding wells, ponds, creeks and entire lakes in the area, causing an avoidable human, economic and environmental crisis. Exhibit C of Bandon Biota's previous application states that it was compiled with nearby inferred information and that no comprehensive survey of the mid-level aquifer has ever been made; only preliminary testing was done in the 1980s. In practice, wells in this area are either shallow (less than 35 feet) or mid-level. The Exhibit 3 report does not differentiate between these, instead calling everything above 130ft as being shallow. In practice, the difference between these two depths has hugely important during cranberry harvest, when the water table routinely drops below that 35 foot mark. A majority of the older residential wells and many of the local agricultural wells are less than 35 feet deep. It is common for older residential wells to run dry during and throughout the cranberry harvest season, despite re-using that water several times over to complete the harvest process. Without knowing the nature, range and capacity of the surface and mid-level water tables, the proposed non-food horticultural use (turf-grass on sand without underlying peat or reclamation) of the proposed venture will overwhelm the local capacity to recharge both upper and mid-level aquifers. The deep aquifer is not sufficient to make up the difference according to their own well tests. The end result of such a disaster would be the loss of hundreds of acres of productive family farms that have been in the area for over 100 years. These farms contribute cattle, hay, pasture, horses, cranberries, blueberries, nursery crops, honey and a livelihood to scores of long-time locals. Indeed, my own agricultural operations are dependent upon a 55ft well that is in very real danger of being dried up by this development. Moreover, with the proposed water use, it would be a matter of just a few years to drop the water level of both extremely shallow lakes enough to have significant impact on property values and the unique coastal ecosystem in the public lands served by Lost Lake. A similar situation has already happened when the already existing, adjacent Golf Course, Bandon Crossings, diverted creeks to keep their greens. It took 5 years for one of the creeks for which Twin Creek Ranch was named to dry up and the other to swell and flood out its banks with as little as a single inch of rain. Despite trapping people in three residences with these flood waters, there has been no action or compensation. And, despite having water rights that pre-date any others in the watershed, Mr. Leff had no actual recourse, instead getting passed around from one agency to another on a yearly basis ever since, despite significant damage to the low-lands of his property. Approving this project would create this kind of damage multiplied by dozens of affected landowners and farmers. Another major concern is the lack of a currently approved Public Land Use Decision. The application known as HBCU-22-001 was approved with conditions on 5 January 2023 and is attached to all three water transfer applications. However, this application was withdrawn by the applicant in its entirety on 1 February 2023 under threat of appeal. While it is known Bandon Biota has since reapplied to the County for land use approval, their application is not complete. Because of this, there is no current proposal for how they will use water on the site. Without amending these plans, it must be assumed that they have not changed since submitted the previously mentioned Exhibit C. This is significant because a change from the proposed (and industry standard practice) turf-greens on sand with no reclamation ponds would make a significant difference in the amount of water required to irrigate this project. As is, the 17.45 cfs / 6,512 gpm transfer from these nearby agricultural lands represents just 4.3% of the proposed use. While the historical usage of 17.45 cfs is supported by the watershed in most years of normal rainfall, increasing the withdrawal from the local watershed by over 2,300% to meet their proposed demand, would decimate the resource. It is also highly concerning how much agricultural land would be taken permanently out of production with the transfer of these water rights. Agriculture in the area is not limited to commodity production of cranberries. That the owner was unwilling or unable to update or switch to a more profitable crop does not inherently make the lands unprofitable for agriculture. Other local farms have done exactly that, as evidenced by the U-pick Blueberry Farms that have been planted in the past decade. There is certainly no lack of local demand for other crops or hay. There has been no decrease in the market value of either of those crops. Perhaps most at the heart of this issue is a problem with the equivalency regarding the “crops” in question. The majority of the proposed water rights to be transferred are those assigned to both irrigation, “temperature control” and harvest of cranberries. In practice, all these waters are collected and reused many times over before being lost to evapo-transpiration (ET), which is the portion of water collectively lost to those processes in field agriculture. Standard operating procedure for recreational lands and golf courses in the area is to use relatively high rates of fertilization and irrigation, using coarse sand a substrate without the peat layer commonly found at the bottom of a cranberry bog specifically to retain moisture. It is true that the Head of Horticulture for the project testified before the Planning Commission that they intend to use foliar fertilization on their cool-season turf-grasses to decrease the amount leaching into the water supply (as opposed to injecting fertilizers into the irrigation water, aka fertigation). However, this does nothing to impact the massive losses of uncollected water to the sea. These crops, as grown, are wildly dissimilar in their water needs. Cranberries are a useful crop for this area because they are a water-wise plant that is tolerant of very low pH. While flood harvesting and bog cultivation seems like highly intensive uses of water, they are actually highly conservative. The proposed system would produce a plant without waxy leaves, shallow roots, high growth rate and no dormant season in a highly windy area that has very high solar incidence during the May-October irrigation season without reclamation. This differs in every way from how cranberries grow and function. It is for these reasons that I respectfully request that you deny the transfer application, in an effort to preserve both water for residents and farmland.
 Marie Richie  
 Steph HayesWaterWatch of Oregon1. The Department should withhold action on the transfer applications until the land use approval process is completed. Oregon state law requires the coordination of agencies with respect to land use and water management, which are integrally related. ORS 197.180(1); OAR 690-005-0020(1). The Water Resources Commission places a “high priority” on achieving compatibility with state and local goals and land use plans, and state water laws require protection of the “public interest in all waters of the state.” OAR 690-005-0020(1). Water right transfer decisions are actions that must be coordinated with local land use governments to protect important local water resources. OAR 690-005-0025(3); OAR 690-005-0035. There is currently no approved land use application for the proposed use. On 2/1/23, the transfer applicant, Bandon Biota LLC, withdrew its land use application with the Coos County Planning Department for approval of the golf course. The land use application had received considerable public opposition largely due to its likely adverse impacts on the local water supply and consequential injuries to other water rights and local industry. Allegedly, a new land use application for the golf course has been submitted, but Coos County has not yet deemed it complete. There is no information publicly available on this application and if or how it differs from the previous application. OAR 690-005-0035(4)(a) requires an applicant to submit land use information prior to the Department taking action on the water use. If local land use approvals are pending, the Department shall withhold issuance of the water use approval until the applicant obtains all required local land use approvals, or place conditions on the approval to preclude use and any associated construction until the applicant obtains all required land use approvals. OAR 690-005-0035(4)(c). At this point, there are many unknowns and uncertainties about the proposed project. Because the prior land use approval process revealed multiple land use and water issues that were controversial and contested by the local community, the current land use process may very likely end in denial. The Department should therefore withhold action on the three transfer applications until the local land use approval process is complete. This will ensure compliance with state law and policy requiring coordination of land use and water management to protect the public interest in state waters. 2. The water rights involved in these transfer applications may be subject to forfeiture. There is no water use data posted on WRIS for any year for certificates 86449 and 86448. Also, certificates 86449 and 86448 specifically require water use reporting for water used for temperature control, but there is no temperature control water use available on WRIS for either certificate for any year. In determining if a right is subject to transfer, OWRD is required to assess whether the water right was forfeited within the time limit set by ORS 540.610, which covers a five-year time period that ended no more than 15 years before the potential issuance of a notice of cancellation. ORS 540.610(2)(f). The “clock” for OWRD’s forfeiture assessment required for review of this transfer, therefore, is not just the previous five-year period but includes this full look-back period. Additionally, OWRD must initiate cancellation proceedings “[w]henever it appears to the satisfaction of the Water Resources Commission upon the commission’s own determination… that a perfected and developed water right has been forfeited.” ORS 540.631. 3. T-14438 would result in enlargement. These changes would result in enlargement. Enlargement is an expansion of a water right that can occur when the user uses a greater rate or duty per acre than is currently allowed, increases the acreage irrigated under a right, fails to keep the original place of use from receiving water from the same source, or diverts more water at the new point of appropriation or diversion than is legally available at the original point of appropriation or diversion. OAR 690-380-0100(2). The Department shall not approve a transfer application that results in enlargement. OAR 690-380-5000(1)(c). These transfers would result in enlargement because irrigation of golf courses, which typically use thirsty turf grass, is a much more consumptive use than irrigation and temperature control for cranberry operations, especially since cranberry bogs are typically lined and they recycle water. Further, the use of water for temperature control is likely a non-consumptive use. The current cranberry operations also occur on a compact area of land; the irrigation and temperature control occur on the same 17.4 acres in quadrant SENW Section 25. The proposed irrigation will spread out over 26.4 acres across three quadrants. This change from overlap in use and size of the place of use would result in an increase of the acreage irrigated under the right and therefore result in enlargement in violation of OAR 690-380-0100(2). 4. Certificates 86449 (primary) and 86448 (secondary) are not eligible for transfer. Certificates 86449 (primary) and 86448 (secondary) do not appear eligible for transfer because they do not appear to have met the terms of the certificate. Both certificates expressly require annual reporting related to water use for temperature control, but OWRD’s online Water Use Reporting database indicates that no reports were filed and states that “No data meets the specified criteria.” Therefore, there appears to be noncompliance with the terms of the certificates, rendering the certificates ineligible for transfer. 5. T-14438 should be denied because it proposes to source water from an unpermitted reservoir. The application for T-14438 should be returned, or the transfer denied, because it proposes use of a source that is an unpermitted, illegal reservoir. Certificate 86449 (primary) currently sources water from two sump ponds located within and adjacent to the 17.4 acres of cranberry operations. According to the applicant, there is a pump in each sump pond. The transfer proposes to add a point of appropriation, or another pump, into what is known as sump pond S-1, for a total of two pumps in sump pond S-1 and one in sump pond S-2. (Application p. 4, 9) Water from sump pond S-2 is pumped into distribution by the pump in pond S-1. (Application p. 7). Certificate 86448 (secondary) currently sources water via a surface water pump located on an unnamed stream that flows into Laurel Lake. The pump pushes water through a distribution line into sump pond S-1, which is described as a “bulge in the system.” (Application p. 10) However, on the land use maps attached to the transfer application, this sump pond S-1 is labeled as “EXISTING SUMP POND TO BE LINED AND USED AS IRRIGATION RESERVOIR.” (Application p. 34, Map “New River Dunes Golf Course Revised” HBCU-22-001, Page 17). Given the intention expressed on this label, and the fact that an additional point of appropriation may require more water to be stored, this pond may become an illegal reservoir. Under Oregon law, a person may not store “any waters” without a permit. ORS 537.130(2). According to the “Aqua Book,” the construction of a reservoir or pond of any size to store water requires a water right permit from WRD. (OWRD’s Water Rights in Oregon: An Introduction to Oregon’s Water Laws, p. 22) To the extent WRD proposes to allow this transfer based on the so-called “bulge in the system” theory, which WaterWatch asserts is unlawful, we request that WRD make explicit findings regarding this reservoir; how WRD finds it be lawful (including addressing WRD Field Operations Manual, Section 03.01, p. 9-11); and how it would be used under this application. In sum, the Department should not allow illegal reservoirs to persist, should regulate against this one, and should return this transfer application, or de