Harney County officials, watershed council and petitioners press state on Division 512 water rules

Harney County Court on Sept. 19 heard an extended update from the Harney Basin Watershed Council and an explanation of a petition asking the Oregon Water Resources Department to amend its proposed Division 512 groundwater-management rule.

Karen Moon, coordinator for the Harney Basin Watershed Council, told the court the councilhas spent a decade on community-based water planning and that the councilwas formally recognized by the state last week. "We presented to the commission last week our final integrated plan," Moon said. The plan, she said, combines groundwater and surface-water work and summarizes strategies for implementation developed by local work groups over several years.

The court and multiple speakers then discussed a formal petition to amend the Division 512 proposed rulemaking (often referenced as "5-12" in local meetings). Commissioner Frank explained that the petition mirrors what participants called "Scenario B" from earlier technical modeling: it would localize reductions to subareas with documented deficits and, the petitioners say, would reach stable groundwater within 30 years while reducing immediate economic impacts compared with the draft rule proposed by OWRD. "This amendment is more favorable than their proposed rules," Commissioner Frank said, adding that the petition attempts to reduce the economic effect on the county while still achieving stability.

Key elements described by petition supporters in the meeting included: (a) an immediate focus on reductions in the Weber Springs subarea; (b) treating certain subareas (Sylvies, Silver Creek and Lower Donnerblitzen) as separate reservoirs with separate management, and (c) voluntary agreements to achieve partial reductions in some subareas. Frank also said the petition removes municipalities from curtailment requirements.

Karen Moon emphasized that community-based water planning and the rulemaking are separate processes but related: "Place-based planning is a completely separate process from the rules," she said, but acknowledged that the planning work contributed data and voluntary-agreement concepts that fed into rule proposals.

Speakers and several commissioners raised two recurring concerns: first, that OWRDdid not sufficiently incorporate local plans and data into the rulemaking; and second, that some subareas identified in the draft rule may not be a single shared reservoir as the department proposes. Commissioner Frank said the petition attempts to split the basin into smaller reservoirs so future reconsideration would be possible on a reservoir-by-reservoir basis.

Public-comment and court discussion covered legal and procedural details: petition sign-up sheets, deadlines for public comment (the record was reopened and the public comment period was described as open until Oct. 7), and whether some subareas could be removed from a critical-groundwater-area designation only through litigation. Representative Owens (noted in the meeting as a contact on petition logistics) was identified as the person who could confirm petition signing locations and deadlines.

The court did not take formal action on the petition at the Sept. 19 session. Commissioners said they would continue outreach and gather information for the public, including preparing a summary of the petition to help residents evaluate it.

The discussion included references to specific local programs and studies produced during the community-based planning process, including a CREP (Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program) proposal, a domestic-well survey funded by OWEB, hydrologic modeling of the Sylvies River reach and a NASA OpenET research partnership used to estimate evapotranspiration for irrigation planning. Moon said the CREP program was passed through the Oregon Legislature and federal approval steps and could help landowners with retiring water rights under certain conditions. "We have a CREP program that could help people receive payments in order to retire their water rights for up to 20,000 acres," Moon said.

Why it matters: Commissioners and watershed leaders said the petition is intended to reduce potential immediate economic harms while moving the basin toward long-term groundwater stability, and to preserve options for future, targeted delisting or management changes at the subarea level. County officials said they plan to continue outreach and to help summarize the petition and comment steps for residents.

Ending: Court members asked watershed and county staff to make summary materials available and to track petition signing locations and deadlines. No vote or formal county position on the petition was taken during the session.