Oregon Coastal Community Water
Supply Assessment
by
Gail L. Achterman
Renee Davis-Born
Irene Rolston
Lisa Gaines
Institute for Natural Resources
Oregon State University
June 2005
A Report to Oregon Sea Grant in fulfillment of Program Development Grant # NA084B-RDF5
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
Table of Contents
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 3
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. 4
List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... 5
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 8
The Water Infrastructure Funding Gap ............................................................................... 8
Drinking Water Regulation in Oregon ................................................................................ 9
Water Basin Planning ....................................................................................................... 15
The Coastal Community Water Supply Setting ............................................................................ 16
Coastal Community Water Suppliers................................................................................ 18
Water Use and Water Rights............................................................................................. 20
Water Availability............................................................................................................. 22
Analysis......................................................................................................................................... 23
Water Supply and Economic Development ...................................................................... 23
Information Needs for Water Planning ............................................................................. 24
Challenges and Opportunities to Meeting Future Water Supply Needs ....................................... 26
Challenges Facing Oregon Coastal Communities ............................................................ 26
Opportunities for Oregon Coastal Communities .............................................................. 32
Work Plan for a Comprehensive Assessment ............................................................................... 34
References ..................................................................................................................................... 36
Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 36
Appendix 1: Comprehensive List of Water Suppliers
Appendix 2: Comprehensive List of Water Uses
Appendix 3: Map of Water Availability
Appendix 4: List of Interviewees
Appendix 5: Identifying Characteristics of Water Suppliers
2
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
List of Tables
Table 1: State and Federal Agencies Involved with Water Supply Systems ............................... 10
Table 2: Characterization of Coastal Communities for Interviewed Water Officials ................. 18
Table 3: Coastal Community Water Suppliers ............................................................................. 19
3
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
List of Figures
Figure 1: Coastal Community Interview Locations ...................................................................... 17
Figure 2: Percentage of Small Community Water Suppliers by Owner Type .............................. 19
Figure 3: Percentage of Miscellaneous Water Suppliers by Owner Type .................................... 20
Figure 4: Percentage of Withdrawal Rates for Water Uses Excluding Fish and Wildlife ............ 21
Figure 5: Storage Capacity Measured in AF of Existing Water Rights ........................................ 22
4
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
List of Abbreviations
AF
Acre-feet
CFS
Cubic feet per second
CWS
Community Water Supply
DLCD
Department of Land Conservation and Development
EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
NTNWS
Non-transient Non-community Water Supplies
OAR
Oregon Administrative Rule
ORS
Oregon Revised Statute
PUC
Public Utilities Commission
SDC
System Development Charges
SDWA
Safe Drinking Water Act
TNCWS
Transient Non-community Water Supplies
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
WABs
Water Availability Basins
WARS
Water Availability Report Systems
WMPC
Water Management and Conservation Plans
WRD
Oregon Water Resources Department
WRIS
Water Rights Information System
5
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
Abstract
On the Oregon coast, however, the issue of water supply has become paramount, especially
given the need to restore instream flows in order to restore coastal salmon runs and meet water
quality standards. With the ebb and flow of population and the economic growth of Oregon
coastal communities, three hypotheses have been generated about the ability of these
communities to meet future water supply needs. The purpose of this project was to better
understand the challenges and opportunities facing coastal community water suppliers as a
whole and to ultimately improve the prospects for meeting future water needs. Findings show
that contrary to the first hypothesis, most of those interviewed do not think that economic
development is constrained by waters supply. However, it does appear that it would be difficult
for state economic development officials to match businesses and industries interested in
relocating to the Oregon coast with community water supply availability and reliability.
Findings also show that the major problem facing community water suppliers in preparing water
management and conservation plans cited by interviewees is financial. Though Oregon’s coastal
communities face several planning, management, physical, economic, and regulatory challenges
in preparing for future water supply needs, numerous partnership, conservation, and research
and training opportunities exist. What is needed is an opportunity for a facilitated process of
restructuring water supply systems.
6
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
“In the coming decades, no natural resource may prove to be more critical to human health and
well-being than water” (NRC, 2004:15).
“The availability of an adequate water supply is essential to the continued health and safety of
all Oregonians” (ORS 536.241(1)).
Introduction
A mounting array of water-related problems affects virtually every community in the United
States, from small rural towns to large metropolitan areas. The future water crisis is not likely to
be one catastrophic event; rather it will emerge from hundreds, if not thousands, of local and
regional water problems. Understanding the frequency and magnitude of these problems is a
difficult task because their extent is masked by the lack of information necessary to address them
(NRC, 2004). A critical water problem is safe drinking water. Oregonians expect to be able to
drink their tap water and to have reliable water service for their homes and businesses. Yet
meeting drinking water standards and providing reliable water service is often difficult for small
communities (NRC, 1997). More than half of Oregon’s coastal population is served by small
systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer people).
Most assessments and studies of water service for small communities focus on affordable water
treatment technologies, institutional financial stability, and system maintenance and management
training needs (NRC, 1997). These are the three critical issues facing small water systems
nationally. On the Oregon coast, however, the issue of water supply has become paramount,
especially given the need to restore instream flows in order to restore coastal salmon runs and
meet water quality standards. Demand for water to support population and economic growth
continues to increase in most areas of the coast, although water supplies are fixed and, in many
areas, new water supply sources are unavailable.
The unique beauty of the Oregon coast – its public beaches, its forested mountains and its scenic
views – attracts thousands of tourists, seasonal residents, and retirees. Yet much of the traditional
economic foundations of the communities (i.e., logging and commercial fishing) are dwindling.
The majority of communities along the Oregon coast are small municipalities vulnerable to the
slightest variation population and economic conditions, which can dramatically affect water
providers’ ability to meet increasing (and sometimes decreasing) water demands as they try to
remain viable and sustainable. With the ebb and flow of population and the economic growth of
Oregon coastal communities, three hypotheses have been generated about the ability of these
communities to meet future water supply needs.
First, some suggest that economic development and diversification on the Oregon coast
frequently is constrained by municipal and industrial water supply limitations (Quigley and
Sylvia, 2000). Second, it is also suggested that economic development officials lack
comprehensive information about the water resources (NRC, 2004) available in coastal
7
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
communities, making it difficult for them to match prospects with specific communities. And
third, coastal communities will be hard pressed to prepare Water Management and Conservation
Plans (WMCPs) required by new Water Resource Department (WRD) rules because many lack
even basic information about their systems, their customers, their water source(s), and the
environmental concerns they face as they attempt to meet their future needs, both of which must
be accounted for in the planning process.
The purpose of this project was to address these hypotheses in order to better understand the
challenges and opportunities facing coastal community water suppliers as a whole and to
ultimately improve the prospects for meeting future water needs by undertaking a preliminary
assessment of coastal community water suppliers with regard to current water rights, population
trends, water supply source(s), service connections, and the availability of water resources in
coastal areas. More specifically, we: (1) synthesized existing information about water suppliers,
current water rights, and water availability; (2) characterized the research and analysis needed to
assist coastal communities as they address future water supply needs in a cost-effective and
sustainable manner; and (3) developed a work plan and budget for a comprehensive coastal
community water supply assessment that could support and complement water management
planning by coastal communities. This report presents findings from the preliminary assessment.
Background
Coastal community water suppliers operate within a complex federal and state regulatory system
which allocates water rights, regulates water quality and service. In addition, coastal
communities face an infrastructure funding gap as water systems built over the last century
deteriorate. It is important to understand the regulatory framework and the funding gap in order
to understand the planning and management challenges facing coastal water suppliers.
The Water Infrastructure Funding Gap
America faces an enormous gap between the amount of money available for drinking water
infrastructure and demand for water services. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pegs
the shortfall at $277 billion annually for capital, operating and maintenance over the next 20
years (EPA, 2005). The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) concludes that “current funding
from all levels of government and current revenues generated from ratepayers will not be
sufficient to meet the national’s future demand for water infrastructure.” (CBO, 2002). The
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) gives our drinking water infrastructure a D- grade
in its Report Card for American Infrastructure (ASCE, 2005). Oregon’s drinking water systems
face a $4.2 billion shortfall over the next 20 years (EPA, 2005).
The shortfall between available government grants, loans, rate revenues, and system needs falls
disproportionately on smaller communities. This is because they lack the economies of scale
enjoyed by larger systems and commonly operate at a loss on an operating basis. They also lack
proper training, experience, tools, and funding (Brown, 2004). Without action our water systems
8
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
will experience serious financial upsets that may shut some systems down – especially small
systems like those on the Oregon coast.
The large funding gap means that there are insufficient funds available for coastal communities
to maintain and expand their systems. The grants and loans historically available have become
extremely competitive. Local water systems have been forced to look to their own rate payers to
finance needed maintenance and to rate payers and developers to finance expansions.1
Drinking Water Regulation in Oregon
Safe Drinking Water Act
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) was enacted by Congress in 1974 to protect drinking
water quality nationwide (Safe Drinking Water Act, U.S. Code, vol. 42, secs. 300f et seq.) The
SDWA applies to groundwater and surface water sources. The EPA establishes primary healthrelated standards that all public water system owners and operators must meet. The SDWA
classifies public water systems into three categories: (1) community water systems (CWS),
which serve the same population all year; (2) non-transient non-community water systems
(NTNCWS), such as schools, factories and hospitals with their own water supplies which serve
at least 25 of the same people for at least 6 months a year; and (3) transient non-community
water systems (TNCWS) such as campgrounds, motels and gas stations which provide water to
transitory populations in nonresidential areas (Code of Federal Regulations, vol. 40, section
141.2). The EPA has delegated its authority under the SDWA to Oregon, where the law is
administered by the Oregon Department of Human Resources-Health Services (Oregon Drinking
Water Quality Act, Oregon Revised Statutes Chap. 448).
Oregon cares about drinking water safety, as shown by the Oregon Progress Board benchmark
for drinking water. Benchmark 69 calls for 95 percent of Oregonians’ drinking water to meet
health-based standards by 2005. This benchmark was achieved, even though 16 percent of
community water systems still have health-based violations once a year. Two questions beyond
the scope of this study are whether coastal systems met the benchmark and whether the rate of
health-based violations is higher in coastal systems than statewide.
Water System Planning
Oregon, like many other states, divides responsibility for water resources administration and
finance among several state agencies. Local community water suppliers deal with several
different state and federal agencies relating to system development, operation, and finance (see
Table 1). A useful compendium of the main programs was published in Guidelines for the
Preparation of Planning Documents for Developing Community Water System Projects (2001).
Community water suppliers must prepare water system master plans either as a requirement of
state regulations or as a condition for state or federal grants and loans. These master plans
identify water system needs and priorities. These requirements, however, only apply to
1
Oregon municipalities can impose systems development charges (SDCs) to help fund system expansion. SDCs
cannot be charged for operation and maintenance. A capital improvement plan is required before any SDCs can be
charged. ORS Sections 223.297 to 223.314.
9
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
“community water systems” or suppliers serving 1,000 or more people. As discussed below,
many small systems are exempt from any planning requirements.
Table 1: State and Federal Agencies Involved with Water Supply Systems
Agency
Responsibility
Oregon Economic and Community
Development Department
Oregon Department of Energy
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Infrastructure grants and loans generally
Oregon Department of Human ResourcesHealth Services
Oregon Department of Land Conservation and
Development
Oregon Public Utilities Commission
Department of State Lands
Oregon Water Resources Department
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Department of Agriculture-Rural Utilities
Service
Infrastructure grants and loans-energy
Water quality regulation generally
Fish and Wildlife regulation, including endangered
species and fish passage and screening
Safe Drinking Water Act implementation and regulation
including water supply master planning
Land use regulation and public facility planning
requirements
Rate, quality and service regulation for “public utility”
water suppliers
State fill and removal regulations for instream work on
water facilities
Water quantity allocation and management, including
instream flow management
Watershed restoration planning and grant funding
Clean Water Act regulations governing wetlands, fill and
removal
Implementation of the Clean Water Act and the Safe
Drinking Water Act (delegated to State agencies with
oversight)
Infrastructure grants and loans
Health Services: The Department of Human Resources-Health Services regulations require that
community water systems with over 300 service connections have a current Water System
Master Plan (OAR 333-061-0060). The plan must evaluate needs for at least 20-years and
address water quality, service goals, SDWA compliance, recommended alternatives,
implementation schedule, and financial options for proposed improvements. These Master Plans
are generally used by cities with over 2,500 people to meet their land use planning requirements
under Goal 11 (Public Facilities and Services). Under Goal 11, cities of this size and some
unincorporated areas must adopt Public Facilities Plans addressing water service needs, again
over 20 years. Capital Improvement Plans for specific projects must be developed for five years.
If more than one water provider exists in a community, the Public Facilities Plans designate
service areas for each provider. The Water System Master Plans/Public Facility Plans must be
consistent with and support local comprehensive plans (for further information, see OAR 660011, Public Facilities Planning, DLCD).
10
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
Water Resources Department: The Health Division and Department of Land Conservation and
Development (DLCD) planning requirements focus primarily on the service side of water system
operations: how will system development match land development and how will safe water be
delivered to customers? The WRD adopted new regulations in 2002 establishing a Municipal
Water Management and Conservation Planning program. The WRD program requires suppliers
to develop Water Management and Conservation Plans (WMCPs) addressing how they plan to
meet future water needs. The primary focus of the WRD is on allocation of public water
resources, the physical sources of community water supplies. The WMCPs require
municipalities to describe their systems, identify their water sources, and explain how the water
supplier will manage and conserve supplies to meet future needs. The program emphasizes
water conservation to meet new demand and encourages storage and transfers as alternatives to
development of new water sources. The rules were developed in close cooperation with Health
Services and DLCD in order to avoid inconsistent or duplicative requirements.
Public Utility Commission: Some water systems are subject to regulation by the Public Utility
Commission (PUC) as public utilities. The definition of public utility excludes systems owned
and operated by special districts, cooperatives and municipalities, so most regulated public
utilities are privately owned. PUC regulations ensure adequate service and just and reasonable
rates (ORS Chapter 757). The PUC regulates some water utilities for rates and service and
others only for service. Service standards address water quality and pressure and customer
service. It can also establish exclusive service territories. There are four water utilities on the
Oregon coast subject to both rate and service regulation and several more subject only to service
regulation (for more information see, Overview of Water Regulation, August 2002 available at
http://www.puc.state.or.us.). The PUC requires water utilities to file their Water System Master
Plans with the PUC.
Government Loans and Grants: In addition to the state agencies responsible for regulating the
quality and quantity of drinking water and water utility service and rates, the Oregon Department
of Economic and Community Development administers a number of grant and loan programs
aimed at water suppliers including the Community Development Block Grant program, the
Oregon Lottery’s Water/Wastewater Financing Program and Special Public Works Fund and the
EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund Program. Funding under these programs and
federal programs administered by the USDA Rural Community Assistance Corporation require
Water System Master Plans as a condition of the loans or grants. Some water utilities also use
energy grants and loans from the Oregon Department of Energy.
All of the water plans described above are required to be prepared by and for the existing water
supplier. The regulatory programs focus on the water system or utility. Historically, the plans
have been prepared by professional engineers as the foundation for capital improvement and
specific project plans. The planning area is limited to the service area and any economically and
politically feasible expansions. WMCPs require discussion of interconnections with other
systems, but neither the WRD nor the Health Services rules require community water suppliers
to address their relationship to other water users (irrigated farms or separate industrial systems)
11
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
or drinking water suppliers in their hydrologic area. Thus, these plans generally do not address
opportunities that may exist for water reallocation, water reuse or water supplier restructuring
and consolidation.
Land Use Regulation: Goal 11 (OAR 660-015-000(11)) aims at such a broader look at drinking
water suppliers, establishing a state policy to, “plan and develop a timely, orderly and efficient
arrangement of public facilities and services to serve as a framework for urban and rural
development.” Comprehensive land use planning requires adoption of intergovernmental
agreements when more than one provider exists in an area. Goal 11 regulates establishment and
extension of water systems outside urban growth boundaries (UGBs) to prevent urban
development in rural areas. Goal 11 prohibits extension of water facilities to serve new
residential developments located outside urban growth boundaries where the proposed density
depends upon receiving water from a community water supply system, except in certain
circumstances (OAR 660-011-0065). Specifically, cities and special districts can serve existing
developments outside UGBs if they have excess water to do so. New water systems can serve
unincorporated communities outside UGBs either by taking an exception to Goal 11 or by
meeting the requirements of OAR 660 Division 22.
Municipal Water Rights
To understand the current situation of coastal water suppliers, it is also important to understand
the unique nature of municipal water rights under Oregon law. All surface and groundwater in
Oregon belongs to the public. Anyone who seeks to use it must obtain permission to do so from
the WRD by obtaining a water right. Once a permit to use water is issued by the WRD, it
normally must be fully developed and put to beneficial use within 5 years, after which a
permanent water right is issued. Until the 1980s it was relatively easy for any water supplier in
Oregon to obtain a new water right if they needed one in order to meet demand. Until 1992, the
WRD did not consider whether water was actually available to meet the demand requested in a
new permit application (Bastasch, 1998). Prior to 1987, minimum stream flows were
administrative rules, not water rights, so the water needed to meet them often was not considered
in the review of new applications. In addition, even if surface water was unavailable, prior to
1988, a water supplier could drill a well and develop groundwater in most parts of Oregon. In
1988 new rules were adopted regarding groundwater interference with surface water flows which
made it more difficult to obtain groundwater permits (OAR Chapter 690 Division 9). As a result
of these new regulations on water availability, instream flow protection and conjunctive use of
groundwater, it is much more difficult to obtain new water rights for any purpose, including
community water supply.
Recognizing that cities and special districts organized to provide essential drinking water for
communities, Oregon law treats them differently than other appropriators. First, domestic water
users and their suppliers are given a statutory preference over all other water uses in case of
supply shortages (ORS 540.140). In addition, municipal water rights are not subject to
cancellation for nonuse under ORS 537.410, like other water rights. Oregon water law also
exempts municipalities from some of the time limits set for developing their water sources.
12
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
These special provisions only apply to incorporated cities and special districts organized for the
purpose of supplying water. They do not cover all of the “quasi-municipal” suppliers, like
homeowners associations. (OAR 690-300-0010(29) and (40) definitions of municipal and quasimunicipal use). Unlike other water users, municipal suppliers are allowed to grow into their
water permits over time using an incremental perfection method. Before 1997, the WRD
routinely granted 5-year extensions of time to develop municipal water permits. Many
communities hold water rights permits allowing appropriation of significantly more water than is
needed by their current customers based upon anticipated future growth (Bastasch, 1998).
The Attorney General advised the WRD in 1997 that the public interest could be considered
when granting permit extensions and that extensions could be granted for the time needed to
complete development. This advice led to development of new rules on permit extensions and to
formation of a Community Water Supply Work Group to address extension of municipal
permits. Simultaneously, Waterwatch of Oregon challenged the extension of a permit to
appropriate water from Tenmile Creek held by the Coos Bay North Bend Water Board, due to its
concern about the impact of municipal use on the instream water right in the creek. Specifically,
Waterwatch argued that the Board had to complete construction within 5 years under ORS
537.230(1). In 2004, the Court of Appeals ruled in Waterwatch’s favor, finding that construction
indeed did need to be completed within 5 years, Waterwatch of Oregon, Inc. v. Water Resources
Commission, 193 Or. App. 87, 88 P. 3d 327 (2004).
The Community Water Supply Work Group effort resulted in new rules for municipal permit
extensions (OAR Chapter 690 Division 315) and the new rules for Municipal Water
Management and Conservation Plans, as described briefly above (OAR Chapter 690, Division
86). Long-term permit extensions were linked to the requirement that a WMCP be prepared.
The WRD will now authorize the use of water under extended permits in 20-year blocks as long
as the WMCP justifies the need for the water and shows that the municipality is managing and
conserving water responsibly. Although the Waterwatch case is under appeal to the Supreme
Court, the decision could require the rules to be revised.
A comprehensive guidebook for municipal water suppliers to use in preparing their WMCPs was
published in May 2003, Water Management and Conservation Plans: A Guidebook for Oregon
Municipal Water Suppliers (Economic and Engineering Services, Inc., available at
http://www.orcities.org/publications/). Almost all municipal and quasi-municipal (special
districts) water supplier must prepare WMCPs, but systems with less than 1,000 users are
exempt, just as they are exempt from Health Service Water System Master Plan requirements.
One of the hypotheses of this study was that coastal communities will be hard pressed to prepare
WMCPs because many lack even basic information about their systems, their customers, their
water source(s), and the environmental concerns they will face as they attempt to meet their
future needs, all of which must be accounted for in the planning process. WMCPs have four
main sections: (1) Water Supplier Description (OAR 690-086-0140); (2) Water Conservation
13
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
Element (OAR 690-086-0150); (3) Water Curtailment Element (OAR 690-086-0160); and (4)
Water Supply Element (OAR. 690-086-0170).
The WMCP Water Supplier Description must include:









A description of the supplier’s source(s) of water
Delineation of the current service area (with population estimates)
Assessment of adequacy and reliability of existing supplies (including the risk of
restrictions due to priority date, protection of at risk species, instream flow requirements,
water quality impacts and risks, and access)
Quantification of present and historic use
Summary of water rights held
Description of customers served and water use summary
Identification of interconnections with other suppliers
System schematic and
Quantification of system leakage.
As discussed below, coastal water providers face difficulties in compiling some of this
information.
The WMCP must also contain a water conservation element. Conservation is a key way to meet
future needs without developing new supplies. Plans must address full metering of systems;
meter testing and maintenance; annual water audits; leak detection; repair and replacement; rate
structure based on water use; rate structure and billing practices that encourage conservation;
public education; technical and financial assistance programs; retrofit/replacement of inefficient
fixtures; and, reuse, recycling, and non-potable opportunities. As discussed below, some of the
information needed to complete this portion of the WMCP is also not readily available to coastal
water suppliers.
The Water Curtailment Element of the WMCP requires a solid understanding of the supplier’s
water supply. Specifically the rules require a 10-year assessment of water supply deficiencies
and capacity limitations. Once this assessment is completed, the WMCP is required to include
pre-defined stages of alert, triggers for each stage, and curtailment actions. Again, it is often
difficult for small communities to compile the assessment, especially since it must address both
water quality and water quality risks.
The WMCP Water Supply Element addresses why additional water is needed. This information
is essential for either permit extensions or to support new water right applications. It requires
preparation of a demand forecast and comparison of demand to available supplies. Specifically
this element must include:


Delineation of current and future service areas
Population projections for service area
14
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment






Schedule to fully exercise each permit
Demand forecast
Comparison of projected need and available sources
Analysis of alternative sources (existing sources, new sources, conservation and
interconnections)
Quantification of maximum rate and monthly volume
Mitigation actions under state and federal laws (including actions required to comply
with environmental laws and regulations such as the Clean Water Act, the Endangered
Species Act, fish passage and screening regulations and the Safe Drinking Water Act).
Again, small providers face real challenges preparing this element.
Water Basin Planning
Water Basin Plans
Community water providers are required to prepare their own water system plans, as discussed
above. Yet municipal and domestic water use is only one of many users of water in a watershed.
Oregon recognized the importance of planning for all future water uses in 1955 when it required
preparation and adoption of an “integrated and coordinated program for use and control of all the
water resources of the state” (ORS 536.300(2)). This program became a series of basin plans for
each basin in the state, including plans for the North Coast, Mid-Coast, Umpqua, Rogue and
South Coast (OAR 690, Divisions 501, 515, 516, 517 and 518). These plans are administrative
rules which specify the water uses allowed in each basin. This is technically referred to as
classification of water uses (ORS 536.340). While innovative in 1955, the basin plans are now
largely out of date (Bastasch, 1998 at 63-64). For example, the South Coast plan has not been
revised since 1984. Yet, under Oregon law, all units of government are to give these plans “due
regard” in their own planning efforts (ORS 536.360).
The WRD has recently considered how to change or replace the basin planning process to
address immediate community water supply challenges. The Water Resources Commission
considered the topic at a workshop in February 2003, recognizing that the state does not have a
comprehensive plan to ensure it can meet the water needs of streamflow-dependent resources
and a growing economy and population. Governor Kulongoski recently requested federal
funding for a long term water supply assessment in the FY 2006 federal budget. Through the
Bureau of Reclamation’s Water 2050 program, the WRD and the Governor are seeking funds to
develop new ways to package and analyze water resource data in order to help communities
address their full range of water needs, including community water supply.
Watershed Assessments and the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds
Beginning in the 1990s, a new type of basin planning began in Oregon with the formation of
local watershed councils. Watershed councils are locally organized, voluntary, non-regulatory
groups established to improve the condition of watersheds in their local areas (ORS 541.350).
15
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
Twenty-six watershed councils have been formed in coastal communities.2 The watershed
councils generally work in close cooperation with local soil and water conservation districts.3
These groups have prepared comprehensive watershed assessments of their watersheds using the
Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual which was published by the Oregon Watershed
Enhancement Board in July 1999.
Watershed assessments can provide critical information for community water suppliers as they
develop their WMCP’s. If completed in accordance with the Assessment Manual, the
assessments should contain a complete list of surface and groundwater rights, water availability
at 50 and 80 percent exceedance and identify flow restoration priority areas. All of these
elements are addressed in Component IV of the Manual on Hydrology and Water Use. Building
on the assessments, most watershed councils have developed action plans for watershed
restoration. For this project, we were unable to obtain and review all of these assessments to
cross check the data we developed with that contained in the assessments.
The watershed assessments form the foundation for targeting watershed restoration activities
under the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, Oregon’s comprehensive watershed
restoration program (for further information, see http://www.oregon-plan.org/). Any future
development of community water supplies will need to be done in the context of overall
watershed restoration priorities, particularly since they are designed to meet key state and federal
regulatory requirements under the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.
The Coastal Community Water Supply Setting
The study area for this project was limited to coastal community water suppliers located within
tidal reaches – up to 5 miles east of the Oregon coastline (Figure 1). Though some water
suppliers in the statutorily-defined coastal zone are located in and serve communities in the
Coast Range, water suppliers within the tidal reach experience unique issues that may impact
their water supply and water supply planning needs, including salt-water intrusion and increased
water demand due to significant seasonal increases in population such as tourism.
Synthesizing information from existing databases and interviewing coastal water officials and
WRD officials provided an opportunity to document and explore first-hand the issues and
experiences facing coastal community water suppliers. Databases such as the WRD’s online
Water Rights Information System (WRIS), the Oregon Department of Human Resources online
Drinking Water Program database, and the Oregon Secretary of State’s audit division website on
The 26 include, from north to south, the following councils: Nicolai/Wickiup, Young’s Bay, Skipanon,
Necanicum, Ecola Creek, Lower Nehalem, Tillamook Bay, Nestucca/Neskowin, Salmon/Drift, Siletz, Yaquina
Basin Planning Team, Alsea, Siuslaw, Smith River, Umpqua, Tenmile Lakes Basin Partnership, Coos, Coquille,
Floras Creek/New River, Elk/Sixes River, Port Orford, Euchre Creek, Lower Rogue, Hunter Creek/Pistol river,
Chetco, Winchuck.
3
There are seven soil and water conservation districts on the coast corresponding to the counties: Clatsop,
Tillamook, Lincoln, Lane, Douglas, Coos, Curry.
2
16
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
municipalities and special districts provided detailed documentation of and direct access to lists
of all public drinking water suppliers, water rights applications, permits, certificates, and maps.
These data sources were used to create two distinct and comprehensive lists of information on
water suppliers and water users (see Appendices 1 and 2). A separate set of maps showing water
availability was prepared with the assistance of WRD staff (Appendix 3).
Using the water supplier database, a list of
active public water systems in Oregon coastal
communities was compiled to select potential
interviewees. Communities were then
characterized by (1) size of water system; (2)
human population growth rate; and (3) the
hydrogeology of the Oregon coast. Since
different size water systems experience
different infrastructure and operational
constraints and opportunities, water system
size was characterized based on the number of
individuals served (i.e., small, 5000 or less;
medium, 5001 to 10,000; large, more than
10,000). Change in human population was
characterized as negative (less than 0), low (025% change), moderate (26-49%) and rapid
(50% or greater). The third category used to
characterize the communities was their
hydrogeology because there is a distinct
geological difference between areas north of
43˚ N latitude (marine-based sedimentary) and
areas south of 43˚ N latitude (volcanic
sedimentary).
Figure 1: Coastal Community Interview Locations
Though there were combinations of these characteristics that did not describe a specific active
water system on the list, the purposive sampling of the interviewees attempted to cover as many
combinations of categories as possible. Eighteen interviews were conducted in order to capture
the full diversity of information needs associated with long-term water management and
conservation planning in Oregon’s coastal community. Table 2 shows the communities, listed
north to south, in which a water official was interviewed (for a list of interviewees, see Appendix
4).
17
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
Table 2: Characterization of Coastal Communities for Interviewed Water Officials
Community
Size of Water
System *
Population Growth
Rate **
Hydrogeology ***
Astoria
Warrenton
Cannon Beach
Manzanita
Nehalem
Lincoln City
Newport
Waldport
Florence
Coos Bay-North Bend
Bandon
Port Orford
Gold Beach
Brookings
Large
Large
Small
Small
Small
Large
Medium-Large
Small
Medium
Large
Small
Small
Small
Medium
Negative
Rapid
Moderate
Moderate
Negative
Moderate
Moderate
Rapid
Rapid
Slow
Slow
Slow
Slow
High
Marine-based
Marine-based
Marine-based
Marine-based
Marine-based
Marine-based
Marine-based
Marine-based
Marine-based
Marine-based
Marine-based
Volcanic
Volcanic
Volcanic
* Small (5,000 or less); Medium (5,001-10,000); Large (more than 10,000)
** Negative (less than 0%); Slow (0-25%); Moderate (26-49%); Rapid (50% or greater)
*** Marine-based hydrogeology (areas north of 43˚ N latitude); Volcanic hydrogeology (areas south of 43˚ N
latitude)
Coastal Community Water Suppliers
Coastal communities are served by a diverse array of water suppliers (Appendix 1). For purposes
of this study, detailed information on these water suppliers was complied (see Appendix 5 for
identifying characteristics). The list of suppliers includes many who do not have water rights
issued by the WRD. This is an important category of water users which is missed by anyone
simply reviewing water rights records to determine water uses. Water rights are not needed for
appropriation of groundwater for domestic uses of 15,000 gallons per day or less, or for
commercial or industrial uses of 5,000 gallons per day or less (ORS 537.545). While originally
intended to cover homes and small industry, cumulatively exempt uses supply a great deal of
water. 15,000 gallons a day can easily serve 15-30 families. Exempt wells now serve many
small subdivisions in the coastal area and elsewhere (Bastasch, 1998; Glennon, 2002). We
compiled the list by comparing the WRD database with the list of drinking water suppliers
regulated by Health Services. We double-checked the list against the list of government entities
required to file annual audits with the Secretary of State.
Information was collected regarding the percentage of population served by various owner types,
the percentage of population served by various types of water systems and the percentage of
population served by surface water and ground water sources. Demographic information was
also collected for each community being served by municipal and other water suppliers. This
information was used to determine population trends over a 20 year period (1980-2000).
18
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
Compilation and analysis of the data show that 181 water suppliers operate in coastal
communities within Oregon’s tidal reaches (Table 3). Five water suppliers serve large
communities, more than 10,000 people each, a total of 79,745 individuals. All of these water
supplies are owned by local governments and rely heavily on surface water for their
Table 3: Coastal Community Water Suppliers
Size of
Community
Served *
Large
Medium
Small
Number of
Water Suppliers
(n=180)
5
4
171
Total
Population
Served
79,745
23,700
90,466
Water Supply
Ownership
Local government
Local government
Various ownerships
Primary source
of water
Surface water
Surface water
Surface water
* Small (5,000 or less); Medium (5,001-10,000); Large (more than 10,000)
water source (89.8% (44 of 49) of their permits for surface water withdrawals). Four water
suppliers serve medium communities between 5,001 to 10,000 people each, serving a total of
23,700 people. Similar to large community water suppliers, these water supplies are owned by
local governments and rely heavily on surface water for their water sources. Seventy-nine
percent (19 of 24) of their permits are for surface water withdrawals.
Water suppliers serving small communities, 5,000 people or less, were substantially more
dominant in terms of number of systems on the Oregon coast than those serving large and
medium communities. These 171 small
community water supplies serve 90,466
State Gov’t
individuals. Though their owner types range
0%
broadly (see Figure 2) local governments
Special
34%
still provide over half of the water to this
population.
Similar to large and medium communities,
nearly all of this population (97%) is served
by community water systems. The
remainder of the population is served by
transient non-community water systems
(2%). Also like large and medium
communities, small suppliers rely heavily
on surface water for their water sources,
with 79% of populations served by surface
water withdrawals.
Local Gov’t
54%
Private
12%
Figure 2: Percentage of Small Community
Water Suppliers by Owner Type
19
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
Using SDWA classifications, over half of Oregon’s coastal population is served by “small
systems” since the cut-off for that classification federally is 10,000 (our small and medium
categories). Out of a total population (193,911) served by community water systems, 58 percent
(144,166) are supplied by small and medium systems. As noted above, the literature shows that
these smaller systems are much more likely to face supply, operations and maintenance problems
than larger systems.
As noted above, many non-municipal
suppliers are not listed in the WRIS
Federal Agency
database. Entities included in this list
20%
range from state parks and federal
campground facilities to schools, church
Local Gov’t
camps, and businesses. Based upon the
State Gov’t
5%
Health Services database, these suppliers
50%
Mixed
serve 21,541 individuals. Owner types
1%
for these water supplies vary widely (see
Figure 3), with state government
Private
providing just over half (50.1%) of the
24%
water to this population. Unlike
Figure 3: Percentage of Miscellaneous Water
municipal water suppliers, nearly all of
Supplies by Owner Type
the population (93%) served by nonmunicipal suppliers are operated under
transient non-community water systems, with only 1% served by community water systems.
Also in contrast to large, medium, and small communities, these miscellaneous water suppliers
rely more heavily on groundwater than surface water for their water sources, with 65% of
population served by groundwater withdrawals.
Water Use and Water Rights
In order for coastal communities to understand the full range of alternative supply sources, they
should know who else is using water in their areas and for what. Given the difficulty, if not
impossibility of developing new water supplies, it can often be easier to transfer existing water
rights from one use to another or to interconnect existing systems. For example, a city could
transfer an existing industrial water right from a closed mill to municipal use and connect the
industrial diversion and water system to the city system. Even if the rights cannot be transferred,
it may be possible to “retire” existing rights to mitigate the environmental impacts of fully
developing an existing permit or as a condition of obtaining a wholly new permit. An example
of this would be for a city to acquire an unused, but still valid, industrial water right and agree to
cancel it as mitigation for development of its own supplies. For these reasons it is important to
understand all of the water use in coastal areas.
The WRD categorizes water users by use types. The WRD defines use types as agricultural,
domestic, municipal, fish and wildlife, industrial, irrigation, livestock, power, recreation, and
20
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
other.4 For each category of use, information was compiled about the specific use for which
individual water users have
existing water rights, including
Industrial
Irrigation
12%
rate and/or storage capacity
23%
associated with individual
rights (see Appendix 3). Total
withdrawal rates for each use
type, total storage capacity for
each use type, proportion of
Domestic
35%
withdrawal rates allocated to
each use type (Figure 4), and
Agricultural
proportion of storage capacity
30%
Livestock
allocated to each use type were
0%
assessed for all of the use
types. This analysis does not
Other
Recreation
0%
Power
include information on users of
0%
0%
statutorily exempt groundwater
Figure 4: Percentage of Withdrawal Rates for Water Uses Excluding
wells serving the miscellaneous
Fish and Wildlife
public water suppliers,
commercial, and industrial uses discussed above because there is no record of their actual use
levels and no easy way to identify these users from readily available databases.5
An analysis of coastal water users and rights by use type found that 97% of water rights are set
aside for fish and wildlife use, such as instream use. Of the total rate associated with the existing
water rights for coastal water users – 60,558 cubic feet per second (cfs) – fish and wildlife
accounts for 58,692 cfs. This summary is meaningless from a practical standpoint, however,
because virtually all of the existing rights for fish and wildlife are instream flow rights with
priority dates after 1955. This makes them fairly junior on most systems so they seldom affect
water deliveries.
Because of this, the data was reanalyzed excluding the fish and wildlife category. The reanalysis
shows the various types of water uses with domestic use (641.8 cfs), followed closely by
agricultural (551.7 cfs), then irrigation (526.4 cfs), and industrial users (223.6 cfs). Proportional
representation of these relationships is shown in Figure 4. Farms use proportionately less water
(53 percent for irrigation and agriculture) in the coastal area than in the rest of the state, where
over 80 percent of water is used for irrigation alone (Bastasch, 1998).
Water storage can be an important part of meeting community water demand, particularly in an
area like the Oregon coast where water needs reach their peak when streamflows are lowest. The
storage capacity, measured in acre-feet (AF), associated with the existing water rights for coastal
4
OAR 690-300-0010 defines all types of water uses recognized by the WRD.
One way to determine the number of active statutorily exempt groundwater wells would be to review well log
records and then compare them, in some way, with current land uses, but this would be quite time-consuming.
5
21
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
water users totals 74,753 AF. As shown in Figure 5, the majority of all storage capacity (38,736
AF) is associated with industrial uses, with domestic water storage being the second highest use
type in this category.
40000
Industrial
35000
Domestic
30000
Livestock
25000
Recreation
20000
Power
15000
Other
10000
Agricultural
5000
Irrigation
0
Fish and Wildlife
Acre-Feet
Figure 5: Storage Capacity Measured in AF of Existing Water Rights
Water Availability
Availability of water supply is driven by seasonal precipitation patterns. Filling reservoirs in
winter can provide a critical back-up supply for coastal communities to tap during summer
months. Water availability calculated at 80% exceedance (the standard applied when new water
rights applications are considered) is shown in maps by month for coastal basins as defined by
the WRD (see Appendix 3). In addition to accounting for water availability, as represented by
water availability at 80% exceedances, the research team obtained maps of areas for flow
restoration priorities for recovery of salmonids in Oregon. These priorities were jointly
determined by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and WRD as part of the Oregon Plan
for Salmon and Watersheds. These priorities directly affect water suppliers ability to develop
additional water supplies. Quantitative information about water availability in individual water
availability basins (WABs) is available via WRD’s online Water Availability Report System
(WARS) database.
A qualitative analysis of water availability at 80% exceedance for coastal basins, as shown in
maps of available monthly water flow reveals that all five coastal basins have no water available
for at least three months between July and November. All basins experience no available water
in August and September. In three basins (the Umpqua, South Coast, and North Coast) no water
is available over even longer periods, except for the lowermost reaches. For instance, in August,
September, and October, the North Coast Basin has no water available except in the lowermost
reaches of large rivers such as the mainstem of the Nehalem River. Similarly, the South Coast
Basin has no water available except in the lowermost reaches of large rivers during the months of
July, August, September, and October. In the Umpqua Basin, no water is available in nearly the
22
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
entire basin during the months of August, September, and October, except in the lowermost
reaches of the mainstem of the Umpqua River.
In the Rogue Basin, no water is available in nearly the entire basin, including the lowermost
reaches of the mainstem Rogue River, during July, August, September, and November. There is
a temporary improvement in October, however, when a small portion of the western basin has
water available, but that availability plummets again in November. The situation in the MidCoast Basin is only slightly better in August, September, and October. While no water is
available in much of the basin during this time, most watersheds closer to the coast have between
1 and 100 cfs available, depending on the location and the month.
Analysis
Water Supply and Economic Development
The first two hypotheses addressed by this project are that (1) economic development and
diversification on the Oregon coast is constrained by municipal and industrial water supply
limitations; and (2) that economic development officials lack comprehensive information about
the water resources available in coastal communities, making it difficult for them to match
prospects with specific communities.
Contrary to the first hypothesis, most of those interviewed do not think that economic
development is constrained by waters supply. They believe that their communities’ existing
water rights will support them during the next 20-50 years. This response, in part, may be
because most communities are experiencing little to no growth of large, water-consumptive
businesses. Some large communities do, however, have existing water-consumptive industries
such as wood- and seafood-processing plants, and have sought new industries that would use
large amounts of water, like pulp mills and steel mills. Most communities, however, expect
future growth in the areas of small manufacturers and businesses associated with the service
industry, which are not large water users.
Based upon our review of readily available databases about water supply systems, it does appear
that it would be difficult for state economic development officials to match businesses and
industries interested in relocating to the Oregon coast with community water supply availability
and reliability. Water system master plans prepared for Health Services or as public facilities
plans are not readily accessible. They lay out a plan for water for 20 years, but do not always
evaluate how likely it is that the proposed supplies can be developed. WMCPs require more
detailed analysis of potential new supplies, but most communities have not prepared them yet.
Information about water rates is not readily available anywhere for all communities although
surveys have been prepared in the past. The past surveys were criticized because the survey did
not reflect the varying nature and reliability of the systems. Rates are often important
information in siting facilities.
23
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
Economic development officials have identified two additional problems. They receive many
more requests for funding of drinking water infrastructure system improvements than they have
money to meet. They have no basis upon which to prioritize these requests in terms of their
contribution to the state’s economic development goals. Second, they are often caught between
two or more water suppliers in particular communities involved in disputes about how their
respective systems should be developed. They see a need for specialized dispute resolution
services to assure that community needs are met.
Information Needs for Water Planning
The third hypothesis addressed by this project was that coastal communities will be hard pressed
to prepared WMCPs due to lack of readily available information, particularly about their water
sources and the environmental concerns they will face in the future. The WMCP requirement
only applies to municipal or quasi-municipal water suppliers who request permit extensions or
new water rights. Suppliers serving less than 1,000 customers and those who are close to fully
perfecting their water rights do not have to prepare these plans. On the Oregon coast, water
suppliers serving 22 percent (20,313 individuals) of those served by small community water
systems fall into this category. These small systems with less than 1000 customers also are
exempt from the Health Services water system master plan requirements. This means that the
WRD, land use planners and other suppliers in the area of these small systems will not have
readily available information about how these communities plan to meet their future water needs.
The Water Supplier Description element of the WMCP can largely be met by water suppliers.
The two portions likely to pose difficulties are the delineation of the current service area and the
assessment of adequacy and reliability of existing supplies. Providers should be able to easily
determine their own service area. The challenges are determining: (1) who has adjacent or
overlapping service areas; and (2) who else is supplying water within the municipal systems
service area. As discussed above, both the Public Utility Commission and land use authorities
have the authority to establish exclusive service areas, but there is no readily available method of
determining where these areas are located. It is likely that few such exclusive areas have been
established. Since there is no record of statutorily exempt wells, there is no way for municipal
suppliers to easily determine how many subdivisions, commercial and industrial facilities and
homes are supplied by wells. The Health Services Drinking Water program database lists
suppliers by county, but does not show service areas for these providers.
On the coast many small subdivisions and recreational vehicle parks developed over the years
with their own water systems, so the challenge of working with these independent systems is
greater. One example of the problems these systems pose is an RV park now served by a city.
The park has a major leak they refuse to fix. The city does not want to shut off the water because
the park residents are low income elderly. The park owner has no idea where the water lines are,
presumably because the system was privately built over time and never mapped.
The most difficult section of the WMCP is the assessment of adequacy and reliability of
existing supplies. The Guidebook suggests that suppliers should:
24
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
“assess the reliability of [their sources] with regards to existing or future
restrictions, such as those that may be imposed through priority date, protection of
threatened or endangered species, instream flow requirements, statewide stream
clean up plans, threats of future contamination and loss of access from nearby
pollution sources, or groundwater limits established by the state (e.g. groundwater
limited on [sic] critical areas.” (Economic and Engineering Services, 2003)
The objective is to quantify the actual amount of potential water available under each
water right or certificate held by the supplier. Predicting the future is always challenging.
Some of the needed information should be available in the Watershed Assessments
prepared by local watershed councils and SWCDs, especially information on listed
species and water quality. If Total Maximum Daily Load allocations have been prepared
under Department of Environmental Quality rules (OAR Chapter 340 Division 42), or the
water source is listed on the Section 303(d) List
(http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/WQLData/SearchChoice02.htm), more information
should be available on potential restrictions needed to meet water quality standards.
WRD’s local watermasters can provide information on priority dates of all water rights to
the supplier’s source and information on when water rights have been restricted in the
past. It is difficult, however, to independently access this information. Actual usage
patterns by various users are completely unavailable to the public so that seasonality and
peak use cannot be assessed. These are key factors for assessing reliability and for
determining how to optimize use by multiple parties.
Suppliers with multiple water rights find it difficult to integrate all of their different rights
and show how and when they will be used. Many of the rights were obtained before
there was good gauging of flows. The amount of the water right on the face of the permit
or certificate, the so-called “paper right,” does not match actual use. In some places, the
suppliers lack actual use information for their different water sources. The disparity
between paper rights and actual use, on a source-by-source basis, is difficult to sort out,
yet required by the rules.
The Water Conservation Element of the WMCP must include discussion of water reuse.
Most water suppliers do not know who the other major water users are in their area. This
makes it difficult to identify potential buyers for wastewater from sewage treatment
plants.
The WMCP Water Supply Element will be difficult to prepare for many of the reasons
discussed in terms of the supplier description element. The lack of information about
alternative sources is particularly problematic. It is difficult to identify alternatives
related to interconnections or reallocation when it is hard to figure out who the other
water users in the area are and how much water they use compared to their rights.
25
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
The major problem facing community water suppliers in preparing WMCPs cited by
interviewees is financial. They all know and work with capable engineering consultants
who can develop the needed information, but small cities often lack funds to hire them.
And the cities have cut back to skeletal staffs, limiting their ability to gather the
information themselves.
Challenges and Opportunities to Meeting Future Water Supply Needs
Beyond addressing the specific hypotheses developed for this project, the research team learned
a great deal from the interviews about coastal water suppliers. Most literature suggests that the
problems with small water supply systems result from poor planning and management (Braden
and Mankin, 2004). We found that Oregon’s coastal communities face several additional
challenges attributable to their physical circumstances, local economies and regulatory
environment.
Challenges Facing Oregon Coastal Communities
Coastal Geography
The Oregon coast is a rugged land where mountains and rivers meet the sea. The landscape itself
poses unique challenges for coastal suppliers. One manager noted that information on
geomorphology is critically needed, especially to assess groundwater supplies and groundwatersurface water interaction. Florence is blessed with an extensive freshwater aquifer while on the
mid-Coast it is difficult to find groundwater at all. When it is found, it is in “tiny pockets with
the aquifers drying up in the Fall.” This may provide a partial explanation for the reliance of
medium and large communities on surface water, rather than groundwater. Not only is
groundwater supply limited along much of the Coast, where it is available it often has high
mineral content making it unsuitable for drinking water, or expensive to treat.
In most of the country, water providers have switched to well water because it is easier to
comply with SDWA requirements and avoids many environmental regulatory problems. When
communities depend on surface water sources, they must build treatment plants. Groundwater
users can avoid many of the treatment requirements. One respondent said his major long-term
planning objective was to get off surface water. With coastal suppliers’ dependence on surface
water, the location and cost of treatment plants becomes a decisive factor in system planning.
The coastal terrain itself affects the ability of systems to consolidate, even if they wanted to.
First, coastal headlands, mountains, rivers and bays separate systems. The cost of interties and
pipeline extension is very high. Communities are spread out along a narrow coastal band linked
by Highway 101. The landscape supports diverse fish and wildlife at the intersection between
land and sea. Virtually all coastal rivers support anadromous fish like salmon and cutthroat
trout, many of which are listed under the Endangered Species Act. Extensive wetlands surround
the estuaries. Special coastal zone land use management goals must be met under state law.
These environmentally sensitive landscapes require extra care and create more permitting
26
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
challenges than exist for systems elsewhere.
Coastal water suppliers face special problems from the severe weather that can batter the area in
the region. The mountains are notoriously unstable and landslides are common. They can easily
sever water lines. Floods and waves from ocean storms can also wash out diversion works and
pipelines.
Another physical reality for some coastal water suppliers is that the watersheds they depend upon
are fairly small. Coastal streams are often short and high gradient. This increases the seasonality
of the flows, makes construction of storage more difficult and means lower overall yields.
State water laws and regulations have never considered the tidal influence on coastal streams.
This creates another challenge. The systems used to establish instream flows needed for fish and
aquatic life do not take tidal influence into affect. Since instream water rights have become a
key factor in permit extensions and in seeking new water rights, questions now arise about
whether the instream rights accurately reflect needs in the area of tidal reach.
Seasonality
Coastal communities’ water use is highly seasonal. Use in the winter is often one-third of that in
the summer, even though lawn and garden watering is fairly limited in most communities.
Demand can jump anywhere from two- to five-fold from the winter months to the summer.
Virtually all communities mention the number of homes not occupied by permanent residents
and the number of hotel and motel rooms. Newport estimates that its population increases from
9500 residents in the winter to 20,000 to 25,000 during the summer tourist season. The summer
peak corresponds to low flow periods in surface water sources.
Water planners typically forecast growth by projecting census numbers. But the census only
counts permanent residents, not the seasonal users. Projecting water use is further complicated
by changes in the nature of tourist facility use. For example, a resort built as a hotel would be
addressed for water use purposes on the basis of standard occupancy rates. But now that many
hotels and resorts have become part of time share operations, their occupancy rates are much
higher than anticipated.
The seasonality of use has direct implications for financing system expansion. Local
communities in Oregon receive economic development and infrastructure funds based upon their
“population,” the census count. Yet coastal communities must size their system for summer
peaks that are much greater than the census population. This factor is not taken into account in
state funding allocations. The seasonality of the population creates another financing problem
when it comes to passing bond measures. Only the permanent residents can vote, not the
summer home or lot owners.
In communities that still have fish processing plants, up to half of the peak demand can be
attributed to the plants, which are heavy water users. The plants have explored opportunities to
27
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
conserve water through efficiencies and water reuse, but conservation and reuse have not been
widely adopted by the industry. Water reuse is not a major factor in most communities along the
Coast because most do not have major industrial or irrigation users who could readily reuse
municipal wastewater.
Virtually all water suppliers face summer peaks, but most are not this extreme. The standard
response to meeting the peaks is to increase storage by building reservoirs or doing aquifer
recharge and storage. Storage is limited now on the Coast and permitting new reservoir storage
is difficult because of the listed species and valuable fisheries in coastal streams.
Geomorphology limits the opportunity for aquifer storage and recharge on much of the Coast.
Despite the grim reality of water availability during these critical summer months, most of those
interviewed say that summer peak water needs are manageable today. Yet a few communities,
large and small alike, with medium to rapid population growth are very concerned that existing
water rights on current sources cannot continue to meet the demand, even in the short-term (i.e.,
5 years).
Environment
Some communities are unconcerned about environmental constraints. Others are very concerned
about these issues, especially Endangered Species Act requirements. In particular, they are
concerned about the longevity of existing water permits since they may not be able to be
extended due to instream water rights for fish, thus reducing water availability for municipal
uses. This concern is especially prevalent in coastal areas due to the streamflow restoration
priorities for salmon recovery. The maps of streamflow restoration priorities for salmon
recovery show that priority restoration areas are spottily distributed through all of the coastal
basins.
Some coastal officials expressed concern about the complexity of permitting requirements.
Permits are needed for system maintenance as well as expansion. One commented that the
various state and federal processes are often mutually exclusive, with one agency requesting one
thing and another something else. Definitions of mitigation and mitigation priorities vary
between agencies, making planning harder. Another said that regulatory processes were a “huge
barrier” for his system, citing a situation where a winter storm washed out a diversion structure
and it took four years to get approval to replace it.
In addition to concerns about environmental constraints themselves, some interviewees
expressed concerns about the ability of special-interest groups and local organizations seeking to
limit growth to contest their water permit extensions and new permit applications. They are
concerned that environmental challenges delay administrative proceedings and increase costs.
Several system managers commented about the ownership of their watersheds. The SDWA
requires source protection. The managers who owned their own watersheds felt this provided
enormous benefit to their communities because they could manage the lands for water quality
28
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
protection. Those who did not own their watersheds face challenges when land management
activities and development impact their supplies. Everything from timber harvests and road
building to subdivisions and septic systems were mentioned as problems.
Water Rights Administration
Most communities feel they have a good working relationship with WRD, and some are
collaborating with the Department on activities such as monitoring water withdrawals and stream
temperature to assess impact on instream flows. Nonetheless, they state that the largest
challenge associated with long-term planning for water supply is the ability to obtain new water
rights or to change the use existing rights. The recent court decision regarding Coos Bay-North
Bend Water Board Tenmile permit alarmed several water officials, who said that the requirement
that rights be developed within five years would destroy municipal water supply planning and
development.6 The water rights system in Oregon was characterized as very difficult to navigate
because of its complexity, uncertainty, and ambiguity.
Several situations were mentioned where water suppliers had tried, or were trying, to transfer
existing water rights to meet new needs. The water rights transfer system is not well-suited to
deal with regional plans addressing multiple systems and water rights. It only addresses one
permit at a time. One interviewee commented that the laws are not designed for the landscape;
they preclude watershed scale water management. Many suggested that development of water
banks would facilitate regional water system development, but current transfer laws make
creation of water banks difficult and coastal residents are very concerned about making water a
“commodity.”
Another aspect of this problem that is especially difficult in the coastal zone is the number of
small watersheds and tributaries. Transfers are difficult, if not prohibited, between one “source”
of water and another. The definition of “source” for purposes of transfer restricts reallocation
between small streams that discharge directly to the ocean. Water wheeling agreements have not
been used very much in Oregon, further complicating transfers.
As noted above, instream water rights do not consider tidal influences. And no provisions exist
to consider tidal influences on wells in terms of water availability and conjunctive management
of surface and groundwater. The connection between groundwater and surface water and the
impacts of the conjunctive use management rules was raised by many as a problem. In many
areas the nature and extent of the connection is not well known. A surface water-groundwater
connection raises concerns about filtration/disinfection needs and instream water rights for fish
and wildlife.
As mentioned above in regard to WMCPs, many suppliers have more than one permit or water
right. They face real challenges integrating water use under the various rights and there is no
6
The Court of Appeals decision in Waterwatch v. Water Resources Commission, April 2004, limited the ability of
the WRD to grant extensions of time for the development of municipal water rights permits in Oregon. The 2005
Legislature is considering bills to address this issue.
29
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
legal method to “consolidate” existing permits and rights. Several managers also expressed
concern that in negotiations for permit extensions and new water rights, permitting agencies and
environmental groups ask them to cancel existing rights as mitigation for the extensions or new
rights. There is no standard “currency” for how to value the existing “paper rights” for this
purpose, making the process time-consuming and frustrating.
Several interviewees mentioned water users in or adjacent to their communities who rely upon
statutorily exempt wells. Many of the problems associated with exempt wells are discussed
above, such as the inability to transfer the rights associated with the wells to municipal systems.
If exempt wells are acquired and closed, it is uncertain whether such “cancellation” of an
existing right will count as mitigation. The exempt wells also can affect instream flows and yet
their impacts are generally not regulated, putting further regulatory burden on municipal systems.
Service Territories and Consolidation
Most research on small water systems suggests that their major problems can often be best
addressed by consolidation, contract service or support assistance (NRC, 1997). Cooperation
between small water supply systems can take many forms (NDWAC, 2003). For instance, very
small water systems can provide each other additional resources that will improve their technical,
financial, and managerial capabilities. Working together also can provide benefits in equipment
ownership, parts inventories, and human resources management (Maras, 2004). Such cooperation
is one of the best methods for small systems to achieve financial, managerial, and technical
capacity for long-term sustainability as well as to meet compliance requirements without the
need for variances.
As discussed above, there is no single authority for setting service territories for water systems.
Several interviewees mentioned the difficulties created when the service area for the local water
utility does not match the UGB for the utilities municipal owner. Problems arise in sorting out
water service as areas served by small special districts or private systems are annexed into
adjacent cities.
Coastal communities have had a great deal of experience with consolidation and other forms of
cooperation. A major success is the Community Issues Forum on the middle coast from Ona
Beach to Cape Perpetua. The group meets monthly to discuss a wide range of community issues,
including water supply. New working relationships between water providers have developed in
the area as a result, especially in terms of sharing staff and equipment. Yet in other areas, “not
knowing their counterparts” seems to be a hallmark. One manager was unsure whether this was
a geographical issue or a cultural one. In all our interviews, water suppliers were generally
unaware of the private and non-community systems, even if they knew about adjacent municipal
and quasi-municipal systems.
Actual consolidation and regional supply development has been much more challenging. The
Rocky Creek project is still under development in Lincoln County, with the cities of Lincoln City
and Newport bearing the bulk of the costs. Discussions are also underway between Warrenton,
30
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
Gearhart, Seaside and the Port of Astoria. A regional study in the Nehalem Bay area was done in
1993 resulting in formation of the Nehalem Bay Regional Water Board, but after the bond
measure to support plan implementation was defeated, the Board ceased to exist. Nesika Beach
and Gold Beach have had conversations about consolidation or supply cooperation, but there is
no active effort.
Territoriality regarding water supply is evident when various water suppliers have difficulties in
collaborating. Small communities fear that if they participate in regional efforts they will lose
their water rights, control of their water system and their community identity. They view other
small communities as competitors fighting for population retention and growth and water. This
issue was identified repeatedly as a key impediment to collaboration.
A further impediment to consolidation is created by the terms of some federal loan programs.
One situation was mentioned where a small system as resisted annexation to a city by contending
that since they have received federal grants and loans to upgrade their system, they have to
maintain the whole system. Thus annexation of part of system to the city would violate the terms
of their federal agreements. This has not been verified, but a report from the National Research
Council (1997) found that once individual systems begin to spend money to keep their service
afloat, the system administrators or owners often resist relinquishing system control, even when
doing so would be the most cost-effective alternative.
Funding
The enormous funding gap faced by coastal communities is discussed above. A particular
problem mentioned repeatedly in the interviews is the pressure by customers to keep water rates
down. Without rate increases, there are few resources to maintain and improve infrastructure.
There are many different rate designs in coastal communities and rates vary quite widely.
Many communities rely on SDCs to finance system expansion. Some have had elections on
these charges and faced building moratoriums if they did not pass.
Infrastructure
Some communities facing the risk of degrading infrastructure with accounts of aging wooden
water lines, but most interviewees feel that they are addressing maintenance problems to the
extent of their financial capacity. A few communities mentioned an additional problem of older
subdivisions adjacent to municipalities that have their own water systems, which may be
unpermitted and/or in disrepair. The municipalities are reluctant to take over these failing
systems due to the infrastructure restoration expense exposure.
Institutional
Large and small communities noted the challenge of working with different state and federal
agencies with different requirements. They say that mixed messages from agencies is
problematic. All water providers must work with both the WRD and the Department of Human
Resources at a minimum. The multiplicity of overlapping regulatory responsibilities among state
and federal agencies reflected in Table 1 makes managing water systems challenging for any
31
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
jurisdiction and especially so for small systems.
Local Capacity
Large and small communities alike have successfully worked with consultants on water-supply
planning, including development of WMCPs. The primary constraint they face on this front is
the fiscal capacity to hire consultants.
Yet many of the medium and small communities were unaware of the technical assistance
programs that exist. The very small systems and “tiny communities” were described as
“knowing nothing.” These systems are not required to prepare any of the land use, public facility
or water system plans required of systems with more than 1,000 customers. This is where local
capacity is most lacking.
Opportunities for Oregon Coastal Communities
To pursue a cooperative approach, scholars and practitioners argue that communities need a
collective vision of their future (Flora, 2004), that information needs to be used more effectively
to manage and operate small water systems (Braden and Mankin, 2004), that there needs to be
less variation in the interpretation of regulations (Braden and Mankin, 2004), and that the idea of
consolidating systems needs to be better understood and encouraged (Braden and Mankin, 2004).
Instrumental to the success of cooperation, and possibly consolidation, is that such efforts are
aided by impartial facilitators, negotiators, or organizers who are outside of the involved
organizations and have expertise in visioning (NRC, 1997; Flora, 2004). Cooperative efforts
designed for an area or region are essential, particularly if the cost of compliance is to be reduced
(NDWAC 2003). In short, there is a need for a facilitated process of restructuring systems,
including removal of barriers and provision of incentives (Shanaghan, 1994). This conclusion
from the literature was underscored in our interviews and in meetings with state economic
development officials.
Some coastal communities are pursuing cooperative efforts. For instance, in the recent past, a
number of water purveyors from the central coast came together with WRD staff to discuss basic
issues regarding water supply. Such community forums might be useful as collaborations are
explored in the future, especially given that local officials water officials, particularly for the
smaller systems, do not know or work with one another.
Partnerships
Respondents expressed many ideas they had for cooperatively improving water supply. For
instance, intertying water supplies is more common when adjacent communities have different
water-supply characteristics (i.e., one has a shortage and one has a surplus, or one has storage
and the other does not). Partnerships such as water purchasing arrangements among neighboring
communities (i.e., municipalities and water districts) also interest coastal water officials. At least
one community already is selling surplus water to a water cooperative.
32
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
Some communities already are partnering with their neighbors to obtain permits for new water
sources (e.g., groundwater) and build new facilities (e.g., filtration plant). Such partnerships rely
on trust and a balance of risk and benefits; for example, one jurisdiction owns the water right and
land on which well is situated, while the other owns the transmission lines and equipment.
Many communities of varying sizes that are adjacent to one another have discussed the idea of
regionalization and/or consolidation. Some communities are open to the idea of water trading
and/or banking that would allow them access to new water rights in exchange for their existing
water rights being used for instream uses. However, more information is needed to understand
how this would work over large areas.
Reallocation
Only 35 percent of the water withdrawals on the coast are for domestic use (see Figure 4).
Agriculture (30 %), irrigation (23%) and industrial (12%) users account for a total of 1,301.7 cfs.
As the nature of agriculture and industry change on the Oregon coast, there would appear to be
great opportunities to reallocate water to meet the needs of growing communities. To assure that
agriculture and industry are sustained along with communities, however, a shared vision of the
overall community future and its water needs for all purposes is essential. In our interviews, we
were unable to identify any situations in which all water users are coming together to address
their needs and opportunities. It is possible that some discussions occurred during preparation of
watershed assessments and action plans, but no one mentioned it in our interviews.
Conservation and Environmental
Conservation measures are not regularly applied in most communities, but system operators
realize that conservation could extend existing water supplies. Some communities are pursuing
new ways to use water more efficiently (e.g., checking transmission lines for leaks, public
education), but very few are changing their rate structures to promote conservation. Several
small communities are interested in moving away from surface water as a sole source, instead
preferring to rely on a combination of surface- and ground-water sources or switch to
groundwater, which could reduce adverse impacts to fish and aquatic life.
Research and Technical Assistance
More research into wastewater treatment, stormwater management and aquifer recharge was
identified as important from the standpoint of at least one large community. The impact of tidal
influence on water ways and water rights also was mentioned as an area for additional research.
This topic encompasses such issues as hydraulic exchange between tidal flow, surface water, and
groundwater; saltwater intrusion and the potential for additional water availability if tidal flow
impacts were taken into account.
With regard to technical assistance, respondents identified the need for technical assistance to
small-group domestic systems. These systems are not subject to the long-term facility planning
requirements of state land-use laws. Often they do not know the details of their water rights.
Several communities also saw the benefit that training and assistance with social collaboration
and governance restructuring could provide in working through issues of partnering on water
33
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
supply projects. This assistance might include an evaluation of how existing water supplies could
be managed differently.
Restructuring water supply systems for cooperation is no easy task. Various social and
institutional aspects need to be addressed before cooperation occurs. For instance, distrust of
government agencies and other water systems is a persistent problem, often leading to water
system suppliers being unable to communicate with one another (Dziegielewski and Bik, 2004).
Cooperation cannot happen without the support of state, regional, and local institutions. New and
expanded state leadership is essential to promote cooperation among small systems. For instance,
impediments to facilitating voluntary transfers of water include not only the interrelated nature of
water use and various cultural and social factors, but also the expensive state review processes
that are not designed to facilitate transfers (NRC, 2004). A coordinated regional planning process
can prevent problems associated with resistance to relinquish control of a system that is not costeffective and lack of motivation to join with other systems (NRC, 1997).
Work Plan for a Comprehensive Assessment
The findings of this study serve as the foundation for the development of a work plan for a
comprehensive assessment of coastal community water supply – Building Capacity for Coastal
Community Water Supply Planning. The purpose of the Capacity-building Project is to build the
capacity of coastal water suppliers to cost-effectively meet their future needs through community
collaboration based on information-sharing and joint problem-solving. This goal will be met
through two inter-related objectives.
Objective 1: Conduct a comprehensive coastal community water supply assessment that
will support and complement water suppliers’ planning efforts. The three activities
comprising this objective are:



Activity 1(a): Conducting a literature review on community-based water
supply planning processes;
Activity 1(b): Convening a steering committee to assist in identifying barriers
and opportunities associated with alternative approaches to current watersupply planning and defining “hydrographic neighborhoods”; and,
Activity 1(c): Conducting a census survey of the 180 coastal community water
suppliers identified within the tidal reach areas of the Oregon coast to validate
the results of the preliminary assessment, to understand regionally-based
water supply issues and characteristics, and to examine the feasibility and
acceptability of current and new water supply planning approaches.
Objective 2: Develop a new framework for community-based water supply planning,
through two activities:
34
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment


Activity 2(a): Conducting four, two-day community-based water supply
planning workshops in the identified “hydrographic neighborhoods”; and,
Activity 2(b): Developing a protocol and handbook for fast-track communitybased water supply planning.
The Capacity-building Project takes advantage of the opportunity to share the preliminary
assessment with a broad range of coastal community water stakeholders, expand the assessment,
and create new collaborative processes for community-based water supply planning. Experience
elsewhere demonstrates that when community leaders understand where and how water is being
used, they begin to uncover ways in which to more efficiently use and reallocate water. If
"hydrographic neighborhoods" can be identified as local, geographic water supply planning
units, and if information on water use and demand can be shared within these neighborhoods,
Oregon coastal communities can be empowered to develop the cooperation needed to meet their
water needs cost-effectively.
Successful implementation of the Capacity-building Project will enable us to create a planning
framework that answers the questions – Who needs to be involved? What information is needed
to begin building community collaborations for long-term water supply? What is the appropriate
geographic area for planning? What planning process can build relationships and reach
agreement on actions to be taken? What are the common needs and opportunities for water
supply planning in coastal communities? What are the roles and responsibility of state
government to support these efforts?
By addressing these questions, the Capacity Building Project could help Oregon develop a water
supply planning method that results in timely on-the-ground solutions to water supply needs at
an appropriate regional level.
35
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
References
American Society of Civil Engineers. 2005. Report Card for American Infrastructure: Drinking
Water. [on-line] http://www.asce.org/reportcard/2005/page.cfm?id=24.
Braden, J.B. and P.C. Mankin. 2004. Economic and financial management of small water supply
systems: Issue introduction. Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education
128: 1-5.
Brown, C.E. 2004. Making small water systems strong. Journal of Contemporary Water
Research and Education 128: 27-30.
Dziegielewski, B. and T. Bik. 2004. Technical assistance needs and research priorities for small
community water systems. Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education
128: 13-20.
Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. 2003. Water Management and Conservation Plans: A
Guidebook for Oregon Municipal Water Suppliers. [on-line]
http://www.orcities.org/publications/
Flora, C.B. 2004. Social aspects of small water systems. Journal of Contemporary Water
Research and Education 128: 6-12.
Glennon, Robert Jerome. 2002. Water Follies: Groundwater Pumping and the Fate of America’s
Fresh Waters. Island Press.
Maras, J. 2004. Economic and financial management capacity of small water systems. Journal
of Contemporary Water Research and Education 128: 31-34.
National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC). 2003. Recommendations of the
National Drinking Water Advisory Council to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on
Its National Small Systems Affordability Criteria. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). 1997. Safe Water from Every Tap: Improving Water Service
to Small Communities. Committee on Small Water Supply Systems, Water Science and
Technology Board, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources. National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
National Research Council (NRC). 2004. Confronting the Nation’s Water Problems: The Role
of Research. Committee on Assessment of Water Resources Research. National
Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
36
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
Quigley, K. and G. Sylvia. 2000. Municipal water management in Oregon Coastal Communities:
Surmounting the "Conservation Paradox". Prepared for: Coastal Oregon Marine
Experiment Station (COMES); Oregon Sea Grant Corvallis, Oregon
Shanaghan, P.E. 1994. Small systems and SDWA reauthorization. Journal of the American
WaterWorks Association (May): 52-62.
State of Oregon. 2001. Guidelines for the Preparation of Planning Documents for Developing
Community Water System Projects. State of Oregon. Salem, Oregon
U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO). 2002. Future Investment in Drinking Water and
Wastewater Infrastructure. November.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2005. Third Drinking Water Needs Survey and
Assessment. February. [on-line]
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/needssurvey/pdfs/2003/report_needssurvey_2003.pdf.
37
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
APPENDICES
38
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
Appendix 1: Comprehensive List of Water Suppliers
See submitted Final Report CD for all data. Excel file Appendix 1 includes:
Worksheet 1: Water Supplier by Population Order
Worksheet 2: Water Supplier by Basin (Community Profile)
Worksheet 3: MU, Private, and Special Water Suppliers
Worksheet 4: Non-WRIS Water Suppliers by Basin
Worksheet 5: Charts for Non-WRIS Water Suppliers
Worksheet 6: Charts for All Water Suppliers
Worksheet 7: Curry County Water Supplier Charts
Worksheet 8: Coos County Water Supplier Charts
Worksheet 9: Lane County Water Supplier Charts
Worksheet 10: Lincoln County Water Supplier Charts
Worksheet 11: Tillamook County Water Supplier Charts
Worksheet 12: Clatsop County Water Supplier Charts
39
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
Appendix 2: Comprehensive List of Water Uses
See submitted Final Report CD for all data. Excel file Appendix 2 includes:
Worksheet 1: Pie Charts, Excluding Fish and Wildlife
Worksheet 2: Agricultural Use
Worksheet 3: Domestic Use
Worksheet 4: Fish and Wildlife Use
Worksheet 5: Industrial Use
Worksheet 6: Irrigation Use
Worksheet 7: Livestock Use
Worksheet 8: Power Use
Worksheet 9: Recreation Use
Worksheet 10: Other Use
40
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
Appendix 3: Maps of Water Availability
Available Flow by Month, North Coast Basin
Available Flow by Month, Mid Coast Basin
Available Flow by Month, South Coast Basin
Available Flow by Month, Rogue Basin
Available Flow by Month, Umpqua Basin
41
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
Appendix 4: List of Interviewees
Dan Bartlett, City Manager
Astoria, Oregon
Mike Nitzsche, City Manager
Nehalem, Oregon
Mitch Mitchum, Public Works Director
Astoria, Oregon
Doug Parrow, Natural Resources Specialist
Oregon Department of Water Resources
Rodger Bennett, City Manager
Florence, Oregon
Sam Sasaki, City Manager
Newport, Oregon
Leroy Blodgett, City Manager
Brookings, Oregon
Rob Schab, General Manager
Coos Bay-North Bend Water Board
Jeff Denney, Public Works Director
Gold Beach, Oregon
Joy Gannon, Public Works Director
Cannon Beach, Oregon
Rick Glick, Legal Consultant
Williamson & Wyatt
Jerry Taylor, City Manager
Manzanita, Oregon
Matt Winkel, City Manager
Bandon, Oregon
Davis Wright Tremaine, Legal Consultant
Williamson & Wyatt
Martha Pagel, Schwabe, Legal Consultant
Williamson & Wyatt
David Hawker, City Manager
Lincoln City, Oregon
Ken Knight, City Manager
Port Orford, Oregon
Nancy Leonard, City Administrator
Waldport, Oregon
Ed Madere, City Manager
Warrenton, Oregon
42
Coastal Community
Water Supply Assessment
Appendix 5: Identifying Characteristics of Water Suppliers
Category
Name of water supplier
Definition
Name of permit applicant/holder
County of operation
Clatsop, Coos, Curry, Douglas, Lane, Lincoln, or Tillamook
Owner type
Local government, private, or special district
Type of water system
Community water system (CWS), transient non-community
water system (TNCWS), non-transient non-community
water system (NTNCWS), or state regulated water system
(SRWS)
Number of connections
Number of connections from water supplier to water users
Population served
Number of persons served by water supplier
Permit number*
OWRD permit number for permit applicant’s use of
unappropriated waters of the State of Oregon
Certificate number**
State record of water rights certificate
Source type
surface water or groundwater
Source name
Maximum acre-feet
Name of aquifer, creek, lake, reservoir, river, spring, stream,
or well
If source is a storage reservoir
Rate
Measured in cubic feet per second (cfs)
* Includes, when available, a direct link to the online permit information at the OWRD Water Rights
Information System
** Includes, when available, a direct link to the online certificate of existing water rights
43