© 2002
The Nugget Newspaper
Sisters, Oregon
All rights reserved

Send us an email

Display Advertising
This is a PDF file. View with Adobe Acrobat Reader. 

The contents of the on-line edition of The Nugget represent a selection among the stories that appear in the weekly print edition.

Battle brewing over Squaw Creek water
By Jim Cornelius

The Cyrus family of Sisters, and several farmer advocacy groups are fighting Squaw Creek Irrigation District's plan to return water to Squaw Creek.

The district plans to return three cubic feet per second (cfs) to the creek from water conserved by piping the Cloverdale Irrigation Ditch. The Oregon Water Trust, which partnered with SCID on the project, has applied for a Conserved Water Permit to place the water in the stream.

The opponents argue that the district doesn't own the water and can't transfer it to the creek or anywhere else. Cyrus attorney Michael Peterkin and Brad Harper of Water for Life, an agricultural advocate, wrote letters to the Oregon Water Resources Department contesting the permit application.

"SCID is not the holder or owner of the water right for water delivered through the Cloverdale Canal," Peterkin wrote. "The conserved water is not SCID's water. No one would dispute that SCID cannot sell the affected water right. Then why should SCID be allowed to 'transfer' a water right?"

"They missed the issue. They're just wrong," SCID manager Marc Thalacker said.

"The district, through improving the efficiency of the system, will divert less water yet deliver more water on farm. So there is no potential for injury."

Thalacker stands by the piping project and believes the water will eventually go into the creek.

Thalacker believes the conservation project benefits farmers and the environment.

"I believe that when you do a conservation project and you conserve water that was being lost and you put half back in the stream and give half to the farmers, I think that's very fair and responsible," Thalacker said.

Matt Cyrus questions SCID's figures on the amount of seepage loss actually saved by piping and he also questions whether putting water in the creek is as ecologically valuable as preserving the riparian habitat along the once-open ditches.

But the bottom line for Cyrus is who owns the water. He believes it should have been up to individual water rights holders to decide whether to pipe the ditch or not.

If they paid for it themselves, the farmers could keep all the conserved water.

Or, they could have left the ditches alone.

"The farmers should be able to say 'We're happy, we don't want to make the change, we'd just as soon the water go into aquifer recharge,'" Cyrus said.

Thalacker sees things differently.

He believes conservation efforts are necessary in a modern political climate where fish habitat and riparian restoration are highly valued.

Districts that don't get ahead of the curve face government enforcement actions to force substantial conservation measures.

"Basically, the Cyruses are challenging our ability to improve our system," Thalacker said.

Matt Cyrus vows to continue to fight over the issue.

Depending on how the Oregon Water Resources Department rules, the matter could wind up in a contested hearing and finally in court.

SCID was putting the three cfs into Squaw Creek earlier this summer, but stopped after the Cyrus family threatened to sue the district over what they consider an illegal taking or "conversion" of their water.

According to Thalacker the water will not flow into the creek again until the permit is approved.

Back to front page