Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State water officials update commissioners on tribal instream rights, enforcement and drought relief
Summary
Oregon Water Resources representatives told the Klamath County Board May 19 that the Klamath Tribes' instream water rights adjudication (2013) gives them senior priority, described enforcement via gauges and hydrographs that has limited irrigation access since 2016, and announced an open house May 28 on proposed water-rule changes and drought-relief monitoring.
Oregon Water Resources staff briefed the Klamath County Board of Commissioners May 19 on tribal instream water rights, enforcement practices and ongoing drought-relief efforts in the Klamath Basin.
Tom Skiles and Garrett Steensland provided a quarterly update, explaining that the Klamath Tribes' instream claims were recognized in 2013 and are treated as senior rights in the basin. Skiles said the department enforces those rights by monitoring stream gauges and flow measurements, and that hydrographs and dashboards are used to quantify rights based on historical data and state review processes.
Steensland described how enforcement of senior instream claims affects junior water users upstream: calls for water from the tribes can lead to regulation of junior users, and he cited department data indicating that since 2016 water users on the Sprague and Williamson rivers had access to water for only about 10% of the irrigation season.
The presenters outlined current drought-relief efforts, including contracts with "BOBOR" to monitor observation wells and efforts to share groundwater recovery data. They encouraged users to apply for drought-relief programs and said the department plans reports and presentations for stakeholders. The department also announced a public open house on May 28 at the community college where Salem staff will seek feedback on proposed rule changes addressing waste of water, exempt uses, violations and penalties.
The briefing was informational; no regulatory decisions were made at the meeting. Commissioners were provided data on adjudication history, enforcement tools, and avenues for public engagement on the proposed rule changes.
