BOARD01989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

" pod connected to the East River water treatment plant, whose we1\ diversions are 100% depletive to the Slate River, the plan would require the purchase of two augmentation shares, or 0.1 acre-feet of replacement water, while we1\ users with on-site treatment would be required to purchase just one augmentation share. Though the owners of augmentation shares would be entitled to releases from Meridian Lake Reservoir to replace out-of-priority diversions, the proposal allows two categories of injury to in-stream flow rights to continue. First, we1\ owners connected to the East River treatment plant would be required to purchase only 79 days worth of augmentation water, though out-of-priority depletions could occur more often tJ;1an 79 days per year. Additionally, because releases from Meridian Lake Reservoir cannot be made in the winter, some out-of-priority well depletions during these months would be allowed to continue without provision of augmentation water. t With respect to the first category of injury, the District has offered no mitigation. According to the District's analysis, in normal years out-of-priority well pumping would result in injury to the Board's in-stream flow rights for less than 79 days. In such a case, release of two shares' worth of augmentation water from Meridian Lake Reservoir would cover the out-of- priority depletions. In dry years, however, when protection of the Board's in-stream flow rights is most important, the District's proposal would allow out-of-priority depletions without providing augmentation water or any form of mitigation. If the CWCB is going to accept this injury, TV believes that the District must offer some fonn of mitigation. With respect to out-of-priority winter well depletions, the District proposes to mitigate injury to the Board's water rights by making water available for release to in-stream flow purposes in October and November, even if the Board's rights are not suffering injury from out- of-priority depletions at those times. Because the ecological health of a stream will often depend more on the timing of flows than on the total volume of water running in a stream in the course of a year, making larger releases in the fall may not prevent or mitigate damage to the stream resulting from lower flows in the winter. If the Board is going to accept the winter injury, it should be entitled to utilize releases from the so-called "winter pool" at any time and in any manner that the Board detennines will maximize the environmental benefit; winter pool releases should not be limited to October or November. Moreover. the winter pool must be large enough that it will provide environmental benefit to offset winter injury even in dry years. . Another issue that must be addressed through the augmentation plan and mitigation proposal is gauging of flows in the protected stream reaches and measurement of augmentation releases from Meridian Lake Reservoir. As the District notes in its proposal, one problem with administration of the Board's in-stream flow rights in the past has been the lack of flow gauges. In order for the augmentation plan to be workable, it will be important for the parties to be able to determine bolh when the in-stream flow rights are entitled to administration and the amount of augmentation water the District is providing. Thus, as a condition of accepting injury to its in- stream flow rights, the CWCB should require that the District install flow gauges. Moreover, if installation of the flow gauges reve.als that the extent of injury to in-stream flow rights is greater than the District currently estimates, the augmentation plan and mitigation proposal should provide a mechanism by which the CWCB can require the District to provide additional mitigation. . 2