Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves 588 gpd surface‑water permit for Vida, recognizes appurtenant and traditional/customary claims
Summary
The commission approved Surface Water Use Permit 6343.6 for Michael (Desiree) Vida for 588 gallons per day for irrigation and livestock processing, recognizing appurtenant rights based on a land commission award and acknowledging traditional/customary practice evidence.
Get email alerts on the Water Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Commission on Water Resource Management approved Surface Water Use Permit 6343.6 on Dec. 16, granting Michael Vida a new surface water use of 588 gallons per day for irrigation of ornamentals and livestock processing and recognizing appurtenant rights tied to the land commission award for the subject parcel.
Dean Oeno of the Commission’s Stream Protection and Management branch presented the staff submittal and recommended approval with recognition of appurtenant rights and documentation that the applicant’s family uses on the parcel supported traditional and customary practice claims. Staff determined Chapter 343 (state environmental review) did not apply because the site is private, within an urban land use district and not within a historic site.
Applicant representative Desiree Vida described multigenerational livestock and 4‑H activities on the parcel and explained that the family had been maintaining animals and small‑scale agriculture on the same property for many years. "We utilize that part of that land for 4‑H for the kids to learn processing ... it's generational over generational," Desiree Vida told commissioners.
Some commissioners and public commenters suggested tightening staff language describing the historic record and how traditional/customary claims are assessed; the applicant and staff clarified that the permit recognizes appurtenant rights and that the requested use was de minimis relative to existing allocations and would not affect the established IFS. The commission voted to accept the staff recommendation with minor modifications to the submittal language and approved the permit (motion seconded and passed with 6 ayes).

