Sea Lions, dams and Oregon water management policies

[farm5]

I live along Beavercreek. This Beavercreek that empties into the Willamette River above the falls in the area of New Era.

There has been a dam of one sort or another there since 1868, a flour mill at one time and since 1968 or so a large concrete dam for recreation purposes, shooting ducks and geese. The lake was 5-6 acres in size and called Sevcik Pond..

This last December it rained 5-6 inches in one day. The water flowing in the creek was huge. The rush of water washed away fill that existed at the north end of the substantial concrete dam. The flow of the creeks rerouted and the watersheds of Parrot Creek and Beavercreek are now free flowing into the Willamette River once again.

There are cutthroat trout that I can catch at will, multi-generations, a range of sizes, always has been, although they were dam locked. This is evidence that the watershed has the capability to also provide a habitat that salmon and steelhead could spawn and reproduce.

This time of year, those who have irrigation rights on these creeks use lots of water. I had concern about the level falling to a critical level. I contacted the water master for the area to inquire.

Turns out, Oregon law states that the water in these creeks belongs to the people. Those who have water rights can suck the creeks dry. There is no minimum flow requirements, no regard for the fish that live in these creeks, no regard for any of the other species who’s lives depend on a steady flow of water.

Yes, sea lions and dams on the major rivers are a problem. But this management practice and Oregon water laws have a far larger impact. This is one small watershed, there are many hundreds just like this in the Willamette basin. Oregon law proclaims that the water belongs to the people, yet those who have water rights can suck the creek dry.

As gill nets need to removed, Oregon water management laws need to change. Both are going to be a difficult practice to change because of the money that will flow to keep things the same.

So we a need to shout to the people who make the laws or become one of them and start repairing the mess that has been created in the past.

Here’s the direct quote from the water master responsible for this area.

“Unfortunately, there is no existing Instream Water Rights (ISWR) on Beaver Creek or tributaries to Beaver Creek. This means minimum flows are not protectable. ODFW, OPRD, ODEQ would have to apply for a new ISWR or an existing water right would have to be transferred instream.

I am not aware of any court precedence that would allow minimum flow enforcement without an existing water right.

By Oregon law, if everybody is complying with their water rights and there is no illegal use, the creek can be dried up.

There are approximately 180 water rights on Beaver Creek and tributaries to Beaver Creek. I would be happy to investigate suspected illegal use, but I can not enforce or establish minimum flows in the absence of an in stream water right.”

Pretty amazing isn’t it? They are willing to investigate illegal use, but in the end when those who have water rights can suck the creek dry, what does it really matter who sucks the creek dry?

Can you just imagine how good the fishing could be with proper watershed management?

Anyone want to help fix this mess?

[KevinsDriftboat]

You know I am in for as much as I can help. Its a not only a beautiful creek, its an important habitat area for many species. It needs exposure.


BeaverCreek behind Farm5's house.

[KevinsDriftboat]

This is the new creek, after the dam breach. Does it look like fish would like to exit the Willy here? Do we want to see this dried up so Steelhead wont go up it to spawn?
Please help.

[stlhdrgrn]

I would like to help if I can. I used to walk that creek starting back in the 70's, I have a friend that was a volinteer with ODFW before that that remembers stocking it with either Steelhead or Salmon by carrying them up from the stake mill and putting them above the dam.
I havn't seen it above 99 since it was posted with no trespassing signs years ago. Glad to here that the creek is now freeflowing after all those years.
Mike

[farm5]

Originally Posted by stlhdrgrn

I would like to help if I can. I used to walk that creek starting back in the 70's, I have a friend that was a volinteer with ODFW before that that remembers stocking it with either Steelhead or Salmon by carrying them up from the stake mill and putting them above the dam.
I havn't seen it above 99 since it was posted with no trespassing signs years ago. Glad to here that the creek is now freeflowing after all those years.
Mike

Did you or your friend actually see adult salmon or steelhead in the watershed in the 70's? I knew some old timers that are no longer around that claim they used to be here. The Willamette would have to have been at flood stage for the fish to have negotiated the dam.

[Azeal]

There is a conservation group in Oregon devoted to fighting to water to be lift in rivers. WaterWatch of Oregon - www.waterwatch.org.

You should be in contact with them. If one or more of the landowners in the neighborhood are drying up the streams by taking more water than they have a right to (which is very common in Oregon), they might be able to help put a stop to it. Of course, they are a non-profit group and probably struggling to keep the doors open right now, but maybe they have some extra resources to help you with.

FYI, in Oregon we have what is called "instream water rights" -- a class of water rights that protects flows for fish and wildlife. John Kitzhauber championed it when he was in the state Senate back in 1988, and WaterWatch was the main group working on it. It does not solve the problem, though, as in Oregon we go by priority date for divvying up water -- meaning, the date a water right was issued.

So cutthroat that have been spawning in a river for thousands of years get a priority date of when the instream water right was issued (say 2009), but the irrigators who got their water right in 1938 can still drain the river completely dry. Unfortunately, the only thing that ultimate puts a stop to that is the federal Endangered Species Act.

[farm5]

Thanks for the information. I will check these organizations out.

If there are instream water rights, the Oregon water masters is not aware of them and there is no such requirement enforced.

Can you just imagine how plentifull the Salmon and Steelhead would be if these watersheds were manged in a resonable manner? There would be no need to weed through the clipped verses unclipped fish. The runs would be strong enough for reasonable harvest and life would be good. There has to be thousands of watersheds such as this along the Willamette and Columbia River Basins, what a shame to waste all this natural rearing habitat.

Thanks for the information.

Originally Posted by Azeal

There is a conservation group in Oregon devoted to fighting to water to be lift in rivers. WaterWatch of Oregon - www.waterwatch.org.

You should be in contact with them. If one or more of the landowners in the neighborhood are drying up the streams by taking more water than they have a right to (which is very common in Oregon), they might be able to help put a stop to it. Of course, they are a non-profit group and probably struggling to keep the doors open right now, but maybe they have some extra resources to help you with.

FYI, in Oregon we have what is called "instream water rights" -- a class of water rights that protects flows for fish and wildlife. John Kitzhauber championed it when he was in the state Senate back in 1988, and WaterWatch was the main group working on it. It does not solve the problem, though, as in Oregon we go by priority date for divvying up water -- meaning, the date a water right was issued.

So cutthroat that have been spawning in a river for thousands of years get a priority date of when the instream water right was issued (say 2009), but the irrigators who got their water right in 1938 can still drain the river completely dry

[stlhdrgrn]

Originally Posted by farm5

Did you or your friend actually see adult salmon or steelhead in the watershed in the 70's? I knew some old timers that are no longer around that claim they used to be here. The Willamette would have to have been at flood stage for the fish to have negotiated the dam.

I have not personally seen any in there, I will call my friend and ask some detailed questions. It may be that they were blocked off from the upper creeks after the dam went in. A local oldtimer that I talked to a few years ago told me he caught some big trout out of the lake but I dont remember the timeframe.

[KevinsDriftboat]

Things can change pretty fast if we have dedicated folks pounding away at it. Lets change the thread title to something like "Beaver Creek(Oregon City) can have big fish again!"
I left a message today for the District Bio to let me know the progess we can expect. And what we can do now to start the ball rolling. You know I dont have any fear of doing whatever needs to be done, to get fish migrating back up this great watershed.
I expect to see Coho and Steelhead in there soon. I take pictures, I want answers.
The dam breach was a miracle, so lets take full advantage of it.

Mitch

[hawg boss]

Originally Posted by KevinsDriftboat

You know I dont have any fear of doing whatever needs to be done, to get fish migrating back up this great watershed.
I expect to see Coho and Steelhead in there soon. I take pictures, I want answers.
The dam breach was a miracle, so lets take full advantage of it.

Mitch

I looked on the map and that creek drains a good sized area. It's great that a few people are interested in it.

Give me a call, I think I can help you guys.

[rowmanholiday]

Thank you for that informative post.

It seems like the narrow vision gets the attention. It would be nice if everybody, could see the forest through the trees. We need to do what is right in ALL aspects of the environment. From the smallest creeks and drainages to the oceans, themselves.

[KevinsDriftboat]

Please ask some old timers about big fish being up the creek, Parrott or Beaver Creek.

This has momentum now. Thanks ifishers!

Opening our eyes, indeed lets see the creek behind the forest. Its a gem.

[farm5]

I really appreciate the offers of assistance that some have offered here.

Currently I have many very good individuals working the situation. ODFW, NOAA, the Water Master and others. At this point in time it is best to let them work and do all they can. I will let you know how things go.

So, to anyone who wants to help the overall situation with the current Oregon water managements policies, there is a whole lot that can be done.

As we commute, we cross and parallel many streams and watersheds daily. Some even have Salmon signs posted on the bridges. These signs are likely fraudulent and mean nothing more than someone painted a Salmon silhouette on the road next to a storm drain..

If you want to make a difference. Note the name of the watershed. Go to the Oregon Water Resources website and find out who is in charge. Look at the water rights that have been issued. Check to see if there are any in stream water rights established.

Water rights law in Oregon is going to be a tough thing to change. Far more challenging than gill nets. Water rights that were issued a hundred years ago are still valid and likely will never be revoked. The water rights go with the land, not the individual who was granted the right. Most water rights were granted in a time when most of the watersheds were forested. The forests absorbed water and released the moisture like a leaky sponge. The environment has changed dramatically. The forests are now, asphalt, concrete sidewalks and steep roofs. The housing developments have so call environmentally friendly catch basins, even with Salmon signs, to filter the run off. The resulting flow in the watersheds is now more like a flushing toilet rather than a leaky sponge.

The developers even had the wit to name the developments things like Pheasant Hills, Hazel Grove, Deer Creek and such to remind us of what was destroyed. That was good of them.

Due to the change in the environment the water volumes that most water rights were based on no longer exist. I am not aware of any reassessments of water volumes or adjustments in water rights based on available flows. I do not think the water managers even monitor the water usage by any individual water rights holder. It is easy to understand why, there are more rights issued than there is water, so whoever sucks it dry first wins. In reality, watershed flow evaluations should be done every 10 years maximum and water rights adjusted accordingly. As it is nothing ever changes.

So, if you feel the need to get mad and frustrated. Find a creek, investigate and discover how messed up the watersheds are. Contact the water managers and be heard.

There is no doubt all this mess was created and maintained by lawyers. If there are any lawyers here who would like to repair a little bit of this, it would be very welcome.

Can you imagine how much better our fish production would be if we could once again return many thousands of miles of watershed back into productive fish rearing habitat. Rather than a few thousand feet of concrete tanks at fish hatcheries the system should be made to function correctly. There would no longer be a need to sort through fins and no fins, the sea lions and turns could eat their fill and we could catch plenty.

[KevinsDriftboat]

Good job Ben, undoubtedly we will be fishing that stream someday soon!
Send some pics!

Mitch

[farm5]

And it is true, there is such a thing as in stream water rights. One can apply for water rights and leave the water in the stream. The legislature and a past Governor spent a bunch of time and effort to make it happen. Sounds like a wonderful thing to do.

The problem is, all water rights have a priority date. Those who have water rights from 100 years ago have priority. If they have the right to suck 300 gallons a minute from a stream that is only running at 10 gallons a minute, that doesn’t leave anything for your instream water right that was granted 10 years ago.

In most instances in stream water rights mean about as much as those Salmon signs on the bridges we cross.

[judyfish99]

Good place for an acclamation tank!!!

[freespool]

I can't seem to see the connection of this thread and sealions?
Or bigfoot for that matter.

[Azeal]

I think it relates to the average angler getting hopping mad about a sea lion eating a fish, but not being concerned about salmon bearing streams sucked dry by water diversions.

[farm5]

Originally Posted by Azeal

I think it relates to the average angler getting hopping mad about a sea lion eating a fish, but not being concerned about salmon bearing streams sucked dry by water diversions.

That is exactly the point.

[DogZilla15]

Yea I agree. Problem is, they can do something about the sea lions but not about water usage.

[elkgunner]

You guys are going to hate me for this, but I don't think this is a fight that should be fought.

There are already loads of restrictions for how people can use their own land and their other property. The state of Oregon takes away property usage ability on a whim and it is always for a "good cause". Just because this particular creek/drainage could have desirable fish habitat does not mean we should lock down the water.

I equate your proposal to restrict water rights to a property owner not being able to build on power line right-of-ways, wet-lands mitigation, and the government seizing private property for public works projects. They all stink, but they are done for the "greater good".

We must be careful what we ask for.

[farm5]

Originally Posted by elkgunner

You guys are going to hate me for this, but I don't think this is a fight that should be fought.

There are already loads of restrictions for how people can use their own land and their other property. The state of Oregon takes away property usage ability on a whim and it is always for a "good cause". Just because this particular creek/drainage could have desirable fish habitat does not mean we should lock down the water.

I equate your proposal to restrict water rights to a property owner not being able to build on power line right-of-ways, wet-lands mitigation, and the government seizing private property for public works projects. They all stink, but they are done for the "greater good".

We must be careful what we ask for.

I do not hate you, I just do not agree.

We as property owners are here for a very short time. We feel that we own, but in reality we are just temporary occupants.

The restrictions that occur are an attempt to create a “greater good” for all. Some restrictions achieve the goal and some do not.

Water rights law certainly does not create a “greater good” for the majority. When more rights are granted than there is water in a stream, who benefits from that? The water rights holder at the end of the stream doesn’t even benefit including the wildlife that you also want to ignore.

I am simply trying to bring to the forefront, the major impact the current water use policies have on our watersheds and their ability to produce sustainable migratory fish runs. The is no question historic water rights law is a major problem. It is outdated and needs to change

[Azeal]

I never quite get the argument that efforts to save a "the commons", meaning something that belongs to all of us like salmon, are an unreasonable infringement upon private rights. Sure, no one wants to cause undue hardship to anyone. But if the exercise of your private rights damages public resources, you need to stop.

Just because a resource is owned by the public should not give anyone the right to trash it. Public property and resources should be viewed with just as much value and protection as private property. Laws that allow for the trashing of these resources need to be changed. I certainly feel for a landowner who wants to irrigate their pasture. But if in irrigating their pasture in a certain way they cause the extinction of a salmon run that belongs to everyone, they can and should have their rights to use water restricted.

I'm a firm believer in individual rights. But in the last 30 years America has gotten way, way off track by confusing the right to liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness with the right to trash public resources.

[farm5]

We once had a Governor, Tom McCall, who told the tourists “Come and visit but please do not stay” Well that didn’t work.

It is difficult to accept that the “Government” enacts laws and regulations that impact property owners. Unfortunately some are necessary as conditions evolve.

When it comes to water rights law that was created over a hundred years ago, it isn’t difficult to understand that the conditions that existed when the law was created no longer exist.

Forests on the margins, hay fields, pastures, crop lands and wetlands are now housing developments. The volume of water that existed throughout the irrigation time of year no longer flows in the watersheds.

As the population increases the environment changes. As much as I wish things would have remained the same, it just isn’t going to happen.

I see the impacts daily on the watershed I reside on. I know for a fact this is not an isolated example. If you question the extent of the abuse, go to the Oregon Water Resource website, look up a creek, and see how many water rights exist, you will be amazed.

[KevinsDriftboat]

There is a group of folks, knowledgeable in this area, that believe habitat destruction is a major cause of fish decline. I am one of them.

Mitch

[fair hooker]

Originally Posted by Azeal

I never quite get the argument that efforts to save a "the commons", meaning something that belongs to all of us like salmon, are an unreasonable infringement upon private rights. Sure, no one wants to cause undue hardship to anyone. But if the exercise of your private rights damages public resources, you need to stop.

Just because a resource is owned by the public should not give anyone the right to trash it. Public property and resources should be viewed with just as much value and protection as private property. Laws that allow for the trashing of these resources need to be changed. I certainly feel for a landowner who wants to irrigate their pasture. But if in irrigating their pasture in a certain way they cause the extinction of a salmon run that belongs to everyone, they can and should have their rights to use water restricted.

I'm a firm believer in individual rights. But in the last 30 years America has gotten way, way off track by confusing the right to liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness with the right to trash public resources.

Excellent post. I totally agree.

[lingslayer]

Ahh yes, the "greater good" argument.
Less is more!
Very Orwellian.

[crabbait]

Originally Posted by lingslayer

Ahh yes, the "greater good" argument.
Less is more!
Very Orwellian.

Yep, trying to stifle the "American Dream": Inherit the farm from Granddad complete with set-asides, subsidies and price controls, drain the creeks for irrigation, kill the birds and bees with pesticides, pollute the water with fertilizer run-off, blacken the sky with field burning then complain that private property rights are being stepped on when anyone tries to change anything!

[lingslayer]

Originally Posted by crabbait

Yep, trying to stifle the "American Dream": Inherit the farm from Granddad complete with set-asides, subsidies and price controls, drain the creeks for irrigation, kill the birds and bees with pesticides, pollute the water with fertilizer run-off, blacken the sky with field burning then complain that private property rights are being stepped on when anyone tries to change anything!

If one buys the property with water rights, mineral rights etc., they have purchased said property at a price that took those rights into consideration. As such those rights affect the suitability of the land for it's intended purpose. That is a legal contract and as such should hold precedent. If the fed/state/county/city wants them back they need to buy them back.
Laws changed after the fact should be subject to the "ex post facto" clause(s). (grandfathered) So if the law changes and makes the rights non-transferable, that is one thing, but to go in and tell someone they can't water their crop(s), when they have built infrastructure, have purchased the seed, have crops in the ground, equipment, fuel etc., and possibly has contracts to fill, is wrong.

What that has to do with pesticides, burning and fertilizer is all hypothetical on your part. Deal with them as they arise, not with "chicken little" legislation. Besides, I don't know of anyone who has ever purchased land with fertilizer or pesticide rights.

Of course if it was/is ever going to happen it will probably happen now. The current political winds are blowing contract law(s) away, all over the country, trampling the rights of contract holders on a nearly daily basis. Revisionist history/legality,...
Very Orwellian indeed!
Less is more.

[farm5]

Originally Posted by lingslayer

If one buys the property with water rights, mineral rights etc., they have purchased said property at a price that took those rights into consideration. As such those rights affect the suitability of the land for it's intended purpose. That is a legal contract and as such should hold precedent. If the fed/state/county/city wants them back they need to buy them back.
Laws changed after the fact should be subject to the "ex post facto" clause(s). (grandfathered) So if the law changes and makes the rights non-transferable, that is one thing, but to go in and tell someone they can't water their crop(s), when they have built infrastructure, have purchased the seed, have crops in the ground, equipment, fuel etc., and possibly has contracts to fill, is wrong.

What that has to do with pesticides, burning and fertilizer is all hypothetical on your part. Deal with them as they arise, not with "chicken little" legislation. Besides, I don't know of anyone who has ever purchased land with fertilizer or pesticide rights.

Of course if it was/is ever going to happen it will probably happen now. The current political winds are blowing contract law(s) away, all over the country, trampling the rights of contract holders on a nearly daily basis. Revisionist history/legality,...
Very Orwellian indeed!
Less is more.

There are likely many areas in Oregon where water and mineral rights are justified and should be utilized with impact in mind.

The term “Grandfathered” has somewhat of a negative connotation in the midst of development. It means to me that something in the past, when those who lived in the past, believed there was no end to the resources, should allow what was available in our “Grandfathers” day to still be available and exploited today. Does that make sense? It would have if what was, is still available, but unfortunately in most cases that didn’t happen. Sorry the inheritor was born into this day and age, the Grandfather and those who lived around him did not preserve what he and they once had.

Minerals are still there, water is the primary concern of this thread.The mining of minerals is whole other big mess that I do not want to be involved in at this time.

The property I live on was once a 300 acre dairy farm in the 50’s. The farmer who owned the property applied for and received many water rights. The farmer on the other side of the creek did the same and they have many water rights in both names that still exist. The two farmers got together and thought it would be good to build a dam. A dam 8 foot in height and flood a valley with steep sides. This was done in the mid fifties, the area below my place then would have been a sizable lake, would have been interesting to see. I would have many more places to explore in my row boat. The floods that occurred in the early sixties took their dam out. Patenburg came and visited me about 15 years ago or so and told me the story. He said he told Gould that there isn’t enough steel in that concrete and that dam isn’t going to last. Well, it didn’t, only 5 years or so. Patenburg and Gould are dead and gone. The slabs from the dam still lay in the creek bed. Some of the water rights were issued based on the reservoir that the dam created. It has been gone for over 50 years and the water rights continue to exist. The Gould, 300 acre dairy farm is now chopped into 5 to 20 acre chunks. All the granted water rights still exist.

For those who promote “Grandfathered” is this how you who think “Grandfathered” should apply?

There is do doubt there are areas in Oregon that haven’t yet been invaded by people needing a place to live and resources continue to exist. For those of you in those places, please be on guard and protect what you have.

The areas I am referring to are on the edges of development. When one moves onto a lot of land a hundred foot square, I can see how it would be difficult to understand the impact that one had. That one is small, but the impact of the development is huge. And there is one after another after another.

How can anything “Grandfathered” have any basis on the fringes of development?

[Azeal]

Orwellian? Hardly.

If in the exercise of my water rights, I dry up the creek the feeds a neighbors commercial fish farm, causing his fish to die and him to lose money, I can expect to be sued for damages with a good chance that I will lose.

If in the exercise of my water rights, I dry up the creek that supports a salmon run, losing a years worth of juveniles with concurrent impacts on sport and commercial fishing economies, and the overall public interest, I'm just exercising my rights.

It amazes me that so many folks will quickly decry the collapse of American values, pointing to Britney Spears or Hollywood movies, then staunchly defend trashing public lands, public fish runs, or public rivers as a sacred property right that cannot be infringed. The American conservation movement, going back to John Muir and Teddy Roosevelt, was founded on the principle that we need laws to protect common public property from the reckless exercise of private interests.

Today, I'm sure Teddy Roosevelt would be decried as a socialist tree hugger trampling on property rights and hell bent on killing the economy.

Back on topic, I have a simple proposal to fix this. Require those who benefit from the destruction public resources in the exercise of their private property rights to compensate the public for the public funding that must be spent trying to repair the damage. You'd see a lot less willingness to dry up a stream if it meant the offending landowner would be stuck with the tab for operating the hatchery and all the restoration work needed to undo the damage they caused.

[farm5]

The primary problem is that there are too many of us all attempting to live in the same place at the same time. When that happens many things have to give. The watersheds and untouched environment are at the top of things to go. We need to realize that we need to fight to make them remain viable.

Hog lines in the Willamette fishing for Sturgeon, individuals targeting oversize, banks lined with people in good places when the fish are running, it’s not a very enjoyable experience any longer. Way too many people.

And there are networks like, “TLC” who promote having 8 to ? how many children, they are making millions because there seems to be many who want to watch that irresponsible behavior.

People have lived in the city of New York for many years, they are accustom to going from their apartment, walking the streets to the subways and going on their daily adventure of life. Perfectly happy with nothing but other people, sidewalks and the little box they live in.

Some of that mentality is starting to arrive.

Some from a state to the south, many came from the east of here and many came on a large floating vessel from places from all over the globe.

We have no choice, when they arrive we are required to step aside and provide space. Many make big bucks creating their space.

They live in the developments that impact the watersheds that the farmers who are long gone had water rights to irrigate the fields that are now the housing developments that many of these people live in.

The water rights continue to exist.

They are transferred to others and the water no longer exists.

[Jaws]

Originally Posted by Azeal

Orwellian? Hardly.

If in the exercise of my water rights, I dry up the creek the feeds a neighbors commercial fish farm, causing his fish to die and him to lose money, I can expect to be sued for damages with a good chance that I will lose.

Not if your water right superceeds your neighbors.

You see there are Senior and Junior type water rights. Most stream water rights are based on levels in the stream with some being shut off when flows or levels recede.
Most instream water users can apply for a diversion permit that would allow them to drill a well up on shore if they so choose.
All I have to say about this thread is Leave my water alone!

[Jaws]

Originally Posted by farm5

The primary problem is that there are too many of us all attempting to live in the same place at the same time. When that happens many things have to give. The watersheds and untouched environment are at the top of things to go. We need to realize that we need to fight to make them remain viable.

Hog lines in the Willamette fishing for Sturgeon, individuals targeting oversize, banks lined with people in good places when the fish are running, it’s not a very enjoyable experience any longer. Way too many people.

And there are networks like, “TLC” who promote having 8 to ? how many children, they are making millions because there seems to be many who want to watch that irresponsible behavior.

People have lived in the city of New York for many years, they are accustom to going from their apartment, walking the streets to the subways and going on their daily adventure of life. Perfectly happy with nothing but other people, sidewalks and the little box they live in.

Some of that mentality is starting to arrive.

Some from a state to the south, many came from the east of here and many came on a large floating vessel from places from all over the globe.

We have no choice, when they arrive we are required to step aside and provide space. Many make big bucks creating their space.

They live in the developments that impact the watersheds that the farmers who are long gone had water rights to irrigate the fields that are now the housing developments that many of these people live in.

The water rights continue to exist.

They are transferred to others and the water no longer exists.

If You are talking about farm use water rights that's one thing. But if you are talking about residential water use then that is completely different. They trump all other forms of water usage. Also I would doubt each house is sucking out of the stream. Could there be a water district doing this?

[lingslayer]

Originally Posted by farm5

There are likely many areas in Oregon where water and mineral rights are justified and should be utilized with impact in mind.

The term “Grandfathered” has somewhat of a negative connotation in the midst of development. It means to me that something in the past, when those who lived in the past, believed there was no end to the resources, should allow what was available in our “Grandfathers” day to still be available and exploited today. Does that make sense? It would have if what was, is still available, but unfortunately in most cases that didn’t happen. Sorry the inheritor was born into this day and age, the Grandfather and those who lived around him did not preserve what he and they once had.
How can anything “Grandfathered” have any basis on the fringes of development?

When I used the term "grandfathered" I was using it in the context of the water rights being valid as far as the current owner/user. Upon sale/transfer of the property the water rights would/will be rescinded or restricted. AFAIK most "grandfathered" property rights are applied this way. Thus my reference that changes would be "ex post facto" for the current owner/user, and may not be able to restrict water rights. Water rights get kind of muddled when an irrigation district is involved though.

That way the new owner is not under any misconceptions at the time (s)he buys the property from the current owner.

Example:
Many years ago property owners in K-Falls had a right to use the geothermal energy beneath their property free of charge. New laws went into effect in the '70s or '80s requiring the owner to pay the city for that heat. Those that owned their property and had existing geo-heat wells prior to the law were exempt from the city's fees. The rights were "grandfathered." When the title/deed transferred, the new owners had to pay. Very few if any Geo-heat rights were transferable.

[farm5]

As unbelievable as it is in this day and age, after 10 months of open, unrestricted access to roughly 60 miles of watershed, the property owner rebuilt the dam and provided no fish passage. A very sad state of affairs. Beavercreek and Parrot Creek are once again dam locked.

ODFW has been notified and they are looking into it. If there is anyone here who works for the Corp of Engineers or DEQ who wants to get involved, please let me know.

[KevinsDriftboat]

I still can't fathom this action. Coho should be running up those creeks, as they are being reported in other area creeks. A sad discovery indeed. Greed at work.

[garyk]

Originally Posted by farm5

As unbelievable as it is in this day and age, after 10 months of open, unrestricted access to roughly 60 miles of watershed, the property owner rebuilt the dam and provided no fish passage. A very sad state of affairs. Beavercreek and Parrot Creek are once again dam locked. ODFW has been notified and they are looking into it. If there is anyone here who works for the Corp of Engineers or DEQ who wants to get involved, please let me know.

This thread began on the topic of waterrights, but now the issue is about allowing fish passage and that's a VERY different issue.

Oregon has long-recognized the importance of not blocking migratory fish and has strong statutes requiring fish passage. The question of ownership of water-rights is completely separate and largely irrelevant in this context.

It's good that ODFW is looking into the matter.