Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br /> <br />- 2- <br /> <br />Applicant has explained that they would need to augment 100% of their diversions. Moreover, in <br />order to provide 100% protection to the Board's water right on the Slate River, the owners of these <br />units would have to purchase enough augmentation water to cover 365 days worth of depletions <br />even though the most number of days that the Board's instream flow water right on the Slate River <br />was not been satisfied was 104 days, in 2002. On average, the Board's instream flow water rights in <br />the Slate River are not satisfied for 47 days per year. The Applicant's proposal seeks to cap the <br />number of days that the owners of these units would have to augment injurious depletions to the <br />Board's instream flow water rights at 79 days per year. The Applicant's proposal is attached. <br /> <br />Pursuant to Rule 9.43, lnjury Accepted with Mitigation is a two-meeting process. This would be the <br />first meeting in this process. <br /> <br />Staffs Analvsis of the Current Proposal <br />Based on the information presented in the current proposal, the $taffhas a number of concerns about <br />the proposal: <br /> <br />I) The Applicant identified two categories of injury to the Board's instream flow water <br />rights: wintertime depletions and existing depletions by the owners of the approximately <br />lIS units. With regard to the wintertime depletions, the Applicant states that the CWCB <br />instream flow rights cannot be accurately measured in the winter because of ice on the <br />streams. Further, the Applicant states that depletions to instream flow rights cannot <br />always be replaced at the exact time they occur because of icing at the Meridian Lake <br />Reservoir and because such releases must pass through Meridian Lake Park Reservoir <br />No. I, which has no measuring device. The Applicant proposes to mitigate this injury by <br />releases from Meridian Lake Reservoir in late Fall in any amount up to the total Winter <br />mitigation pool, whether or not the instream flow water rights would be calling. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />The Staff believes that this category of "injury" is a reflection of the physical limitations <br />that exist for some augmentation plans located in very cold areas of the State. Even <br />without this language, the Board might have difficulty requiring augmentation releases <br />when the physical conditions prohibit such releases. The language suggested by the <br />Applicant further permits augmentation releases in the wintertime when and if physical <br />conditions or improved technology allow such releases. <br /> <br />2) With regard to the second category of injury (the depletions by the approximately lIS <br />units) the Staffis concerned that this may set a bad precedent. However, the Applicant's <br />suggested plan is practical and provides substantially more protection for the natural <br />environment protected by the Board's water rights than currently exists. The Staff notes <br />that while the Applicant has not labeled this as mitigation, the Applicant is providing <br />mitigation through the installation and operation and maintenance of the stream gage on <br />the Slate River. Without that gage, the Board has a difficult time knowing whether its <br />water rights in this area are satisfied. The Applicant's installation, operation, and <br />maintenance of this gage allows the Board to physically protect its water rights, and the <br />terms of this augmentation plan, by allowing the Board to place a call for its water rights <br />in this area. Perhaps the Applicant could offer to operate and maintain this gage in . <br />perpetuity in order to mitigate the injury suggested by the Applicant's proposaL .. <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br /> <br />- <br />