Frequently Asked Questions
Additionally, Water Watch disputes the City's use of their past administrative appeal of the City’s 1995 groundwater application as proof that they will likely challenge any future groundwater applications submitted by the City. In a December 8, 2010 letter to the Public Infrastructure Committee, Kimberley Priestley explains, "WaterWatch’s 1995 protest was submitted before the state committed to requiring mitigation for groundwater use. At that time, WaterWatch’s two major concerns with the City’s application were the impact on Scenic Waterway flows of unmitigated groundwater withdrawals and the high demand projections submitted by the City. In 2001 the City took us on a tour of the Bridge Creek system and urged us to drop our protest because, as they represented at that time, it was part of the City’s long term water supply strategy to move towards groundwater so as to get the City off the Bridge/Tumalo Creek system surface water rights. With this as the background, and with the adoption of the mitigation program, WaterWatch settled the protest with the City. It is important to note that with a groundwater mitigation program in place, WaterWatch chose not to pursue our opposition to the large amount requested by the City or their actual need of this amount, but rather focused our efforts on ensuring that the City was fully mitigating for any groundwater it did use. This, we thought, sent a message to the City that we were willing to work with them on obtaining future groundwater supplies, as long as the impact on flows were mitigated. This remains our position today."