On October 7, 2010 the Oregon Attorney General’s Office released a report discussing the problem areas inhibiting full and meaningful government transparency. The report identifies four areas of particular concern – 1) timelines for responding to public records requests, 2) fees, 3) exemptions, and 4) public meetings – and recommends actions to the Oregon Legislature to remedy the shortfalls in public records and meetings laws.

The 2010 Attorney General’s Public Records and Meetings Manual is a publication of the Oregon Department of Justice which outlines current laws and case precedent regarding public records and public meetings. The 2010 updates to the manual include the following topics:

• Public bodies must respond to public record requests within a “reasonable timeframe.” The Attorney’s General’s office now interprets this statutory requirement to mean ten working days for a typical record request.

• Public bodies may charge reasonable fees for production and copy of public records, and may waive fees if the request is in the public interest. The Attorney General’s office recognizes its role in considering the reasonableness of fees, and holds the opinion that public bodies must consider the public’s interests when deciding whether to waive fees.

• There are many exemptions from public records disclosure laws. The report identified 403 exemptions. The Attorney General’s office has called for both organization and elimination of many of the exemptions.

Addressing these problem areas will require coordinated efforts by the legislature, the judiciary, and the Department of Justice. The full report is available at the DOJ website.

These updates to public records laws may have an effect on the ease in which a party may obtain water rights files. Water rights files are public records, and are instrumental for solving water use disputes and determining the scope of water rights. An interested person must apply to the Oregon Water Resources Department in order to inspect or copy water right files. The public records law reforms discussed above may expedite this process, and may result in increased waivers of fees for requests in the public interest.

Schroeder Law Offices, P.C. routinely aids clients with water right file requests. For a flat fee the firm will file the request, go to the Oregon Water Resources Department office to copy the records, and will deliver the records to the client. This service is very helpful to clients who do not have experience requesting the specific public records in question, or who are not in close proximity to the Oregon Water Resources Department office in Salem.

This Wednesday, October 13th, Laura Schroeder will speak to Oregon State University’s Water Resources Graduate Program during the Water Resources Seminar Series. Laura will address “Municipal Water Permitting in an Era of Change: Legal Structures and Policy Trajectories.”

Under the traditional requirements of western water law, an appropriator must divert water, put it to beneficial use, and continuously use the water to prevent loss of his right of use in the future. This “use it or lose it” principle centered on the prevention of water speculation and monopoly. Municipalities in Oregon (as in most prior appropriation states) may apply and receive a permit to appropriate water now for development in the future, a practice that flies in the face of the traditional doctrine.

Laura’s presentation will explore Oregon’s municipal water permitting requirements, and how these requirements are at odds with traditional tenets of western water law. She will discuss the reasons why municipalities are treated differently than other appropriators, and the challenges that municipalities face in providing water to a growing and ever-changing demographic.

For more information about Oregon State University’s upcoming water events, please visit the OSU web site.

Tired of entities and governments chipping away at your Newlands Project water rights? Schroeder Law Offices will host an informational meeting for water users in the Newlands Project. The meeting will address reduced water allocations pursuant to OCAP regulations governing the Truckee Carson Irrigation District. These reductions may be actionable in court as a breach of contract or an illegal “taking” of property for public use.

Project water users that would like to learn more or that may be interested in participating with a group of water users to pursue these causes of action are invited to attend the meeting. It will be held in from 6:00 to 8:00 pm on March 4, 2009 in the Commissioners’ Chambers of the Churchill County Administrative Complex, 155 N. Taylor Street, Fallon. There is no charge for the meeting and additional information will be provided at that time.

TCID’s Policy Committee will meet on Monday, September 8, 2008 at the TCID office (2666 Harrigan Road, Fallon NV) to review their policy and  decide on a  “Possible Increase in ‘In Lieu’ Charges for the Retiring of Water Rights.” Your attendance is encouraged.
The In Lieu charges are those one-time payments that TCID Policy provides it should receive when a land owner retires his water rights through AB380 program, through individual settlement of the Tribe’s Petition acres, or through any other retirement.  For example, if a person entered into an individual settlement of his water rights wherein a portion of his water rights were retired (meaning the  water rights are no longer available for diversion from the source by TCID to the landowner), that individual is required to pay TCID.

TCID’s policy states  that “in lieu” payments help them offset “the proportionate share of tolls, charges, fees, assessments, and tax levies that such water rights would have paid in the future.” (See TCID Management Policies dated September 7, 2000). The “in lieu” payment policy was created out of the AB 380 program wherein TCID would receive the “in lieu” payment from federal funds upon the successful retirement of water rights challenged by the Tribe through the AB380 program.  There is no more money in the AB 380 program.

TCID also remains whole on the backs of its patrons.  Despite the fact that TCID patrons paid TCID assessments for challenged acres while not receiving a water allocation, TCID patrons now retiring these same non-allocated water rights are required to pay the “in lieu” fee to TCID.  Pursuant to TCID policy, TCID patrons are to pay  $1200 per water righted acre that is retired in order for TCID to remove the retired acres from the assessment roles.

While there is little question that TCID has authority to charge an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) fee for each assessed acres to which TCID provides water delivery services through an allocation, the question is whether TCID has authority to charge O&M for water righted acres to which it does not deliver an allocation?  In addition, there is a question as to the authority of OCAP and TCID acting under OCAP to deny water allocations since this effectively cancels the water rights?  Cancellation is a function of state law and requires that the landowner be afforded due process before the loss of his property interest.

TCID’s role is to deliver water to water right holders in the Newlands Project.  TCID is governed by the Alpine and Orr Ditch Decrees as well as the Bureau of Reclamation under OCAP or the Operating Criteria and Procedures for the Newlands Reclamation Project, Nevada (found at 43 C.F.R. 418 et seq).  No where in OCAP or the Decrees does it say that TCID is the owner of the water rights, or that TCID can charge  landowners when it does not delivery water to existing water righted acreage.  In fact, OCAP at Sec. 418.26 states that TCID should give consideration to adopting a financing and accounting system that provides reasonable financial incentives for the economical and efficient use of water.

While it may be appropriate to “charge” a fee to remove water righted acres from the assessment roles, patrons retiring water rights that have not received an allocation under these “retired” water rights for years are owed some consideration for their many years of payments to TCID.  TCID should not be allowed to effectively condemn landowner water rights by making OCAP non-allocation orders, take money from the landowners for delivery when TCID has no intention to provide water delivery, and charge the landowner again to remove non-allocated/cancelled water rights from the assessment roles when the landowner retires them.

By Lynn Steyaert 

At the end of last year, the Nevada Division of Water Resources issued a bulletin to water right professionals notifying them that the Division will be refocusing its review of applications for extension of time for proof of completion of works or extensions of time for proof of beneficial use.  NRS 533.380(3) precludes the State Engineer from granting an extension unless the applicant has provided proof that he is proceeding in good faith and with reasonable diligence to perfect the application. Reasonable diligence has been defined by statute as “the steady application of effort to perfect the application in a reasonably expedient and efficient manner under all facts and circumstances.” 

Unfortunately, the Division has not promulgated regulations that would clarify the type of activities that are sufficient to warranting the granting of an extension.  The application form instruction sheet does provide some examples, however, of what types of activities can be highlighted as indicative of progress having been made during the previous year, including descriptions of any facility or feature completed, identification of project reports or engineering drawings submitted for review or recorded pursuant to applicable law, and explanation of conditions that adversely effected the applicant’s ability to establish beneficial use.  Other suggestions are viewable on the Division’s website at http://water.nv.gov/Forms/formroom.cfm, on the instruction page of the form entitled NEW Extension of Time.

The Division ended its commentary suggesting that water right professionals should advise their clients that cancellation of their water use permits will result if they are unable to meet the statutory requirements for approval of an extension. 

While much of Oregon’s manufacturing industry as a whole continues to decline, food manufacturing has maintained a rather steady presence over the past 50 years.

Oregon Business Magazine recently published findings made by WorkSource Oregon that show that the industry has continued to support over 20,000 jobs in the state throughout all the ups and downs of the economy.  WorkSource’s website currently reports the figure to be at 23,200, up 0.4% over the last year, while manufacturing as a whole is down by nearly 4.0%. 

To view the article, click on the following link:

http://www.oregonbusiness.com/.docs/action/detail/rid/33278/pg/10002

For more information and statistics regarding Oregon’s economy, check out the following sites:

WorkSource Oregon.

http://www.worksourceoregon.org and http://www.qualityinfo.org

Northwest Food Processors Association.

http://www.nwfpa.org

By Laura Schroeder and Lynn Steyaert

The commencement hearing for the Northern Idaho Adjudication (NIA) is set for August 28, 2008. The State of Idaho has petitioned the court to approve a process for deferring the adjudication of small domestic and stock water use rights.  If approved, small domestic and stock water users may elect to defer filing a Notice of Claim and postpone the adjudication process until a later time.

To qualify for the deferral, the claimant’s uses are limited to those defined as domestic uses pursuant to Idaho Code  §42-111 and stockwater uses pursuant to Idaho Code §42-1401A(11).  Idaho Code §§ 42-111 and 42-1401(A)(11) can be found at the following links, respectively:

http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=420010011.K http://www3.state.id.us/cgi-bin/newidst?sctid=420140001A.K 

Despite the availability of the deferral, the Department strongly recommends that such qualified users file a Notice of Claim in the adjudication.  If a user fails to file, and it is later determined that his/her use exceeds the statutory limitations, any claim to water will be limited to only that portion of his/her use that is within the statutorily defined limits.  Additionally, if a water user elects to defer filing a claim, but later needs to seek a change in the place of diversion, place of use, or nature of use or desires to legally settle ownership of his/her rights or seek confirmation of those rights for enforcement purposes, he/she will be required to file a claim prior to proceeding with these actions.  Â

For more information visit the Department’s adjudication web page at:

http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/water/North_Id_Adju/

By Laura Schroeder and Lynn Steyaert 

The State of Idaho recently filed a Petition in the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District of the State of Idaho in and for the County of Twin Falls to commence the adjudication of surface and ground water rights within the Coeur d’Alene-Spokane Basin.

A commencement hearing is set for August 28, 2008, at 10:00 a.m. (PDT) at the Federal Courthouse located at 205 North 4^th Street, Coeur d’Alene.  Any interested party that would like to present evidence or legal argument must file a Notice of Appearance with the Court before 5:00 p.m. (Mountain Time), August 14, 2008, together with a prehearing statement, and a brief or memorandum of law in support of any legal argument.    

The Court will address issues raised in the State of Idaho’s Petition.  http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/water/North_Id_Adju/Final_Signed_Petition.PDF

For more information consult the following links:

IDWR’s adjudication website.

http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/water/North_Id_Adju/  

 IDWR adjudication brochure.

http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/water/North_Id_Adju/NIALogoBrochure%207-29-08.pdf

IDWR Frequently Asked Questions flyer.

http://www.idwr.idaho.gov/water/North_Id_Adju/NIA_FAQ_Card.pdf

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently released a new report entitled “Ground-Water Availability in the United States.”  The article is written for a broad range of audiences which makes an interesting read for anyone interested in what scientists know (and don’t know) about the nation’s groundwater supply.  In addition, comprehensive maps and diagrams illustrate the varying features of aquifers around the county. 

Several facts and estimates cited in the report truly put into perspective how crucial the groundwater supply is to the country.  One recent study estimated the average pumpage of groundwater in the U.S. in 2000 to be 83 billion gallons per day.  However, compare this figure with the study’s estimate that 1 trillion gallons per day are naturally recharged to the groundwater supply and one might wonder how some aquifers continue to decline.  Part of the answer is some aquifers have much higher recharge capabilities.  As the report explains, the vast majority of aquifers in the arid west are recharged at less than inch per year while most of the eastern U.S. recharges at more than 10 inches per year. 

While broad in scope, the report offers a very comparative glimpse into the unique characteristics of aquifers throughout the country.  Just 20 “principal aquifers” account for about 90 percent of the ground water withdrawals in the nation.  Of these 20 aquifers, seven are located primarily in portions of Oregon, Washington, California, Nevada, Idaho, and Arizona.  Not surprisingly, many of these aquifers are suffering from declining water tables.      

To learn more, follow the link from the following webpage to download and view the document:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1323/.

Recently, a New Mexico court ruled that the State Engineer is required to review all new applications for exempt domestic wells.  Prior to the ruling, those drilling exempt wells were merely required to file for a “permit” that would be automatically approved by the State Engineer.  The recent ruling requires the State Engineer to review each new application to insure the proposed exempt domestic well will not deny water to any prior users in the same watershed. 

The decision settles a conflict between New Mexico’s traditional principal of prior appropriation of water and a law passed in the 1950s exempting domestic wells from permitting requirements, regardless of their affect on prior users in the watershed.  The Court concluded that those with senior priority rights should not be denied access to the water they hold rights to, even by exempt domestic users.   

Groups supporting the decision applauded it for “closing a loophole” in New Mexico water law.  Those who saw the ruling as a victory noted that increased exempt domestic well drilling was a threat to New Mexico’s water supplies.  Others groups focused on limiting growth in New Mexico’s complemented the decision for its recognition of New Mexico’s finite water resources.  Conversely, the decision will make bringing water to new developments that rely on exempt domestic wells troublesome for developers.            

In the 1950s, at the time the exemption for domestic wells was passed, only a small number of new exempt wells were drilled each year.  Today the State Engineer’s office issues between 7000 and 8000 new exempt well permits on an annual basis.  

The case was originally brought by New Mexico farmers Horace and Jo Bounds against the State Engineer for permitting exempt wells in their watershed when the Bounds were denied a full historic allotment of water under their water rights.  The Court’s ruling did not prohibit exempt wells or revoke any permits already issued.  In the Boundses’ case, the decision did not free up any water in their watershed.   

The new requirement will do little to change wells already permitted, it will dramatically increase the State Engineer’s workload, creating a need for an increase in the State Engineer’s staff.  The State Engineer has not yet indicated whether the decision will be appealed.  He did remark that he agreed with the decision, despite being on the losing side.  He further noted that prior to the decision there were ongoing attempts to get the New Mexico legislature to fix the problem in light of the old exempt domestic well law’s likely unconstitutionality.  
   
   

As the weather starts to heat up for the summer and water becomes scarce, many areas are affected by drought.  Fortunately, the average domestic water user can avoid being a passive victim of droughts by conserving water.  Individuals and families that conserve water will reduce their personal expenses and help their community by limiting the impact of a drought.  There are many ways a household can conserve water.  Small changes in routine in the bathroom, in the kitchen, in the laundry room, in the yard and around the house can significantly reduce water consumption.  These changes could be as simple as taking shorter showers, turning off faucets when water is not being used, and keeping track of water consumption to avoid leaks.  Click on the following link to learn 53 easy tips tp use less water.

(June, 9th 2008) Today the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a new rule excluding transfers of water from one body of water to another from the permitting requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). 

The new rule stipulates that water transfer activities that do not introduce pollutants into transferred water will not be subject to NPDES regulations.  The rule defines water transfers as activities that convey or connect waters of the United States without subjecting the transferred water to intervening industrial, municipal, or commercial use. 

“The EPA’s Water Transfer Rule gives communities greater certainty and makes clear they have the flexibility to protect water quality and promote the public good without going through a new federal permitting process,” said Assistant Administrator for Water Benjamin H. Grumbles. “Clean water permits should focus on water pollution, not water movement. EPA is committed to working with our state, tribal, and local partners to reduce environmental impacts associated with transfers and will continue to use all appropriate tools such as standards, best management practices, and watershed plans.”

The new rule is meant to clarify water transfer requirements so that municipalities, irrigators and other water users that rely on water transfers are not needlessly burdened with regulation aimed at preventing pollution when engaging in water transfers that do not pollute.

In South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indiansthe Supreme Court declined to rule in the issue of whether NPDES permits were required for water transfers.  In the face of this uncertainty, the EPA issued an interpretive statement in 2005 explaining that Congress intended water resource-management agencies and other state authorities to oversee water transfers, not the NPDES permitting program.  This rule codifies that position.

The Oregon Water Resources Commission received staff guidance and public comment on a number of issues during a May 30 meeting in Burns, Or, including an aggressive budget proposal by the Water Resources Department for the 2009-2011 biennium. 

The overwhelming focus of the budget proposal was on the $50 million dollars the Department proposed for funding Water Conservation and Supply Infrastructure.  Senate Bill 1069 directs OWRD to establish a grant program for both planning studies and project development.  As part of this program, the Commission and the Department have begun to formulate an Integrated Water Conservation and Supply Strategy.  While the program is still in its infancy, the Department expects the need for project implementation to occur soon.  Thus, they see the $50 million as necessary seed money to begin a grant program for funding projects such as the Umatilla Basin Aquifer Recovery Project.

The budget proposal prompted several public comments.  Both the WaterWatch of Oregon and the Nature Conservancy had concerns with moving forward on any projects before more studying and planning was able to proceed first.  However, the Special Districts Association of Oregon and the League of Oregon Cities both came out in support of the proposal.  They agreed with the Department that the Commission should not delay in moving forward with the project component of SB 1069.  The Commission will decide whether or not to support the budget request later this year.  If approved in total by the Legislature, the Department would see their budget triple from the $32.3 million allocated in the current biennium to $95.9 million for 2009-2011. 

The Commission also voted to adopt rules establishing special well construction areas for Eola Hills Ground Water Limited Area and Pete’s Mountain Area.  The Department received substantial public comment on the matter and ultimately decided to require at least a six-inch diameter casing on all new wells and a 3/4-inch dedicated measuring tube in all water supply wells at the time of pump installation or repair.

Lastly, several local groups took advantage of the remotely-held meeting and updated the Commission on a few issues in the region.  The Owyhee Irrigation District shed some light on a unique situation developing in the far southeast corner of the state.  In particular, the District is concerned about efforts by the Shoshone Tribe to shore up treaty rights to water in Nevada that the tribe had previously failed to develop.  The Owyhee flows through Oregon, Idaho and Nevada and the states do not have an interstate compact governing the allocation of the system’s water.

A representative from the City of Bend also participated in the public comment session and echoed support for funding Conservation and Supply Infrastructure.  

The Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) committed to initiate a rulemaking to address concerns by well drillers and contractors over potential liability for well alterations under current OWRD policy.

OWRD’s historic policy allowed well alterations without automatically requiring that the entire well be brought up to current construction standards.  However, recent Department policy now requires a contractor undertaking a well alteration to either bring the entire well up to code or submit a “Special Standard” for the Department to consider.   This policy shift has prevented contractors from performing certain well alterations for fear of taking on liability for contamination risks of the entire well, irrespective of the scope of the alteration performed. 

In attempt to remedy this problem, Schroeder Law Offices drafted a petition for rulemaking on behalf of the Oregon Ground Water Association (OGWA) that proposed to allow well alterations without requiring well constructors to address the well’s overall compliance with construction standards.  It would have also limited liability for well alterations to the work actually performed, rather than the entire well.  While the Commission denied the petition in a meeting in Burns on May 30, OGWA member testimony from Floyd Sippel and Paul Christensen helped persuade the Commission to require that OWRD draft a rule addressing OGWA’s concerns for approval at the fall Water Resources Commission meeting.

Department staff initially informed the Commission of their intention to begin drafting a rule that would be adopted no earlier than 2009.  However, it was clear that well drillers’ testimony concerned the Commission, prompting the OWRD Director, Phil Ward to suggest a timeline that will hopefully result in rule before the end of the year.

Interested parties should expect the Department to issue a notice of rulemaking sometime this summer.  Further comment by OGWA and others will likely be necessary to ensure that contractors are protected.

The recent draining of Roslyn Lake could pose potential problems for nearby homeowners that have relied on leaks from the lake to augment their shallow wells.

The manmade lake was scheduled to be drained for some time as a necessary step in decommissioning Marmot Dam on the Sandy River. PGE warned 22 homeowners that their wells would likely be affected, but the Oregonian reports that as many as 60 could see their wells dry up. PGE denies responsibility for any costs associated with having to drill deeper wells; cost that could reach $20,000 to $30,000.

Many residents feel that they were underrepresented in the administrative process leading up to the decision to drain Roslyn Lake. Certainly, this issue appears to have received little attention.

Unfortunately, injured residents that failed to comment on the removal project could have difficulty litigating this matter. However, with the trend of decommissioning diversion dam systems similar to Marmot, the situation serves as a reminder to rural homeowners to familiarize themselves with their water rights and the vulnerabilities of their water systems.

For the Oregonian’s account, see: http://www.oregonlive.com/

Guest post by James Carver

I’ve worked for over thirty years in the field of water law in the office of the State Engineer and the Water Resources Department.  During those years I served as head of the Water Rights Division and later as Deputy State Engineer under Chris Wheeler.  I also presided over administrative hearings pertaining to water law for the State Engineer and his successor, the Director of the Water Resources Department.

Around the turn of the 19th century, Oregon saw a need for a system to document water use.  Recognizing that an orderly system for recording and prioritizing water rights would be necessary as water uses grew, the legislature, in 1909 adopted Oregon’s first comprehensive water code.  The code held priority and beneficial use as the standard for distributing water to growing agricultural and domestic needs.

Over the years, the Oregon legal system has fleshed out the scope of water rights and defined them as property rights akin to land.  The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that a perfected water right is a property right and an appurtenance to the real property on which it is used.  The legislature has also recognized new practices that satisfy beneficial use.  These include leaving water instream to ensure minimum stream flows exist to support various fish species.

Unfortunately, there is now a growing movement to distribute water based on a public benefit analysis without regard to priority.  Believers in this new distribution system argue that water rights holders have been given access to public water without a requirement for payment in return.  Therefore, they should be subject to losing the water if it is needs for the public good.  Since users never “owned” the water, it can be taken from them without compensation.  However, there are major drawbacks to such as system.

A water distribution system constantly subject to alterations based on nebulous concepts, such as the public good, will likely result in a great devaluation of land with water rights attached.  For example, lending institutions will become more hesitant to finance projects involving water because the water on which the project is based may disappear without compensation if the state decides the public good is better served by taking it.

The doctrine of prior appropriation is well established in Oregon and any departure from the current system may carry with it economic consequences that far outweigh possible benefits gained from applying more water to uses in the public good.

The final topic of discussion on the OWRC conference call addressed changing start card fees for constructing wells.

Start card fees, fees paid along with the notification of new well construction, partially fund the OWRD staff payroll. The fee is currently $125.00. OWRD is concerned that the fee is no longer sufficient to sustain the well inspection program and would like to establish a schedule to raise the fees moderately and frequently (as opposed to large increases every 5 or more years).

Once again, this topic generated a number of comments. The WaterWatch representative suggested that OWRD’s current cost recovery of roughly 30% through fees was not high enough and that a goal of nearly 100% recovery would be preferable. She called attention to increasing fees for issuing limited licenses and adding an additional fee for water right permit applicants who protest an OWRD order.

The Committee members expressed some agreement with the idea that OWRD should move towards a more comprehensive fee based structure with a goal of 50% cost recovery. Other attendees believed that water users would support increased fees because added revenue could allow OWRD to augment staff and work through application backlogs.

The next topic in the OWRD legislative concepts discussion is the creation of a water development fund.

OWRD discussed updating statutory language found in ORS 541.700-541.855 addressing financial aid to communities constructing water supply projects. OWRC members expressed some concern with this item because it involved project funding. Director Ward suggested that discussion of monitory issues could be postponed until the OWRC meeting taking place in Burns, OR on May 29 and 30 because there will be a more defined draft budget in place at that time.

There should be more lengthy discussions on this topic in the near future.

Good morning! The third part in my series of posts addresses some proposed changes to irrigation district transfer rules.

Currently, when an individual transfers the place of use of a water right any supplemental rights must be transferred with it or canceled. However, the statutes controlling irrigation districts do not explicitly allow for transfer of supplemental rights when primary rights are transferred. OWRD would like to update the irrigation district statutes, specifically ORS 540.570 and 540.580 to bring them in line with other transfer statutes.

The attendees had few substantive comments and generally agreed that a change in statutory language would be appropriate.

The second topic addressed during the OWRC teleconference was modifying language pertaining to statewide mitigation banks.

OWRD wants to modify statutory language to give itself explicit authority to create statewide mitigation banks. These mitigation banks can be used to offset effects of new water supply projects.

This proposed statutory change drew a few comments from attendees. A representative from WaterWatch expressed her organization’s concern that new statutory language must be precise so as to avoid creating loopholes that allow users to access water without adhering to the monthly rate limitations placed on the source permits. However, a representative from Special Districts Association of Oregon expressed a need for greater flexibility across regions so as to allow different water needs to come together.