HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-04-30 - Historic Landmarks Commission Agenda
117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 | P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
(541) 388-6575 cdd@deschutes .org www.deschutes.org/cd
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 24, 2018
TO: Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commission
FROM: Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner
RE: Overview of the April 30, 2018, Historic Landmarks Meeting
The Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) held a public meeting on April 16, 2018 to review the
nomination of a section of the Central Oregon Canal, Ward Road to Gosney Road section, to the National
Register of Historic Places. The HLC received oral comments from the public during the meeting on April
16. The HLC allowed further written comments to be submitted for review until close of business day on
April 23. Attached to this memo are the comments received by staff before 5:00 P.M. on Monday, April
23. During the upcoming April 30 meeting, the HLC will review the written comments.
The HLC determined on April 16 that the April 30 meeting will solely be a work session to review comments
received regarding the nomination. No decision on the canal nomination will be made on April 30.
Deliberations are tentatively scheduled on May 7.
I. WRITTEN COMMENTS
Staff received eighteen written comments after the meeting on April 16. Fourteen support the
nomination.
Trowbridge
Elsey
Turner
J. Walden
N. Walden
A. Wedel/Hill
Gibson
J. Wedel
K. Kasko
Kliewer
Z. Kasko
Warren
McDonald
Grund
Four oppose the nomination.
Taylor
Snyder
Wieland
COID 1
Attachments
1. April 16 DRAFT HLC Meeting Minutes
2. State Historic Preservation Office Applicable Criteria Review Sheet
3. Written comments
1 Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) also submitted a copy of the Multiple Property Document (MPD) at the
request of the HLC.
117 NW Lafayette Avenue, Bend, Oregon 97703 | P.O. Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708-6005
(541) 388-6575 cdd@deschutes .org www.deschutes.org/cd
DRAFT MINUTES
DESCHUTES COUNTY HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION
DESCHUTES SERVICES CENTER
1300 NW WALL STREET, BEND, OREGON, 97701
APRIL 16, 2018 – 5:30 P.M.
I. CALL TO ORDER
Vice-Chair Sharon Leighty called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Historic Landmark
Commissioners present were Sharon Leighty, Dennis Schmidling, Rachel Stemach, and Kelly
Madden.
Staff present were Nick Lelack, CDD Director, Peter Gutowsky, Planning Manager, Zechariah
Heck, Associate Planner, and Adam Smith, Assistant County Counsel.
II. MINUTES
As the meeting was scheduled to specifically review the Central Oregon Canal nomination to the
National Register, meeting minutes were not provided to the Historic Landmarks Commission
(HLC or Commission). Minutes from past meetings will be available for the Commission to
review during the next regularly scheduled meeting on May 7, 2018.
III. PUBLIC COMMENTS
No public comments were provided.
IV. CENTRAL OREGON CANAL NOMINATION REVIEW (WARD RD TO GOSNEY RD SECTION)
Staff announced updates to the agenda, including:
Correspondences from various members of the public regarding the nomination;
A phone call to Ian Johnson and Jason Allen with the State Historic Preservation Office.
Comments received by staff from members of the public regarding the proposed nomination
were provided to all Commissioners. The following documents were received by staff and
distributed to the Commissioners:
April 13 – Central Oregon Irrigation District letter regarding nomination
April 13 – Steven Liday letter regarding nomination
April 14 – Email from Janice and Dave Turner
April 15 – Email from Rachel Collins and Charles Goss
April 16 – Nomination timeline from Pat Kliewer
April 16 – Email from Julie Reber
April 16 – Documents from Pat Kliewer identifying property owners
Page 2 of 4
The Board of County Commissioners also provided a letter to Commissioners to guide the HLC
in how to conduct their review of the proposed nomination. In summary, the Board requested the
HLC to follow county code and federal statute, and, after providing reasonable opportunity for
public comment, prepare a report detailing the HLC’s opinion as to whether the subject
nomination meets the criteria of the National Register. Beyond noting state statues regarding
public meetings (ORS 102.610 et seq.), the Board leaves to the HLC’s discretion all other
determinations as to how best to perform the aforementioned tasks, including whether or not to
request written public comments or instead host a public meeting.
Assistant Legal Counsel for Deschutes County, Adam Smith, asked all of the Commissioners if
they have any ex parte contacts that they need to disclose. All of the Commissioners stated they
had no ex parte contacts regarding the nomination and had nothing to disclose.
Staff called Ian Johnson and Jason Allen with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
The representatives from SHPO provided an overview of the nomination process specific to the
role of a Certified Local Government (CLG). SHPO has asked the HLC to review and comment
on the nomination so that the State Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation (SACHP) can
further determine the merits of the nomination. There are no specific requirements for how a
CLG conducts public comment. Likewise, there are no requirements for the CLG to conduct a
site visit. Ian Johnson summarized the comments should be focused on whether the proposed
property is eligible for National Register listing and is the property adequately documented.
Jason Allen, SHPO, provided an overview of the updates contained within the nomination since
October 2017 when the HLC reviewed a prior nomination. Updates included a change within the
narrative, a change in the number of contributing and non-contributing features, a table for
added clarity, a change in the definition of the period of significance, a comparison of proposed
section of canal to other sections, and more.
Ian Johnson clarified the CLG/HLC does not have “veto authority” in reviewing the nomination.
The Commission can support it, they can support and state they have concerns that need to be
addressed, or, they can object to the nomination. If there is objection by both the HLC and the
Board of County Commissioners, the nomination is pulled from the SACHP agenda. However,
an appeal can be filed that will place the nomination back on the SACHP agenda.
Staff provided a high-level overview of the nomination to the HLC, which included the review
criteria from SHPO.
Nick Lelack, CDD Director, commented on a letter received from Steven Liday regarding the
nomination process and alleged mishandling of the nomination by the county, HLC and SHPO.
Lelack spoke to the county’s review process and explained how staff are neutral facilitators.
Pat Kliewer, who submitted the nomination, gave a presentation on the work she did to complete
the nomination. Kliewer also explained what has changed in the nomination from the original
that was reviewed by the HLC in October. Kliewer provided several statistics on the canal.
Kliewer also explained her understanding of the nomination review process.
Craig Horrell and Matt Singer, representatives from Central Oregon Irrigation District, responded
to the nomination by stating they do not support it. Horrell explained they disagree with the
statement of the history of the canal and spoke to a letter submitted to the Commission. Singer
stated that COID acknowledges and celebrates the District’s history. One example of this,
according to Singer, is a Multiple Property Document (MPD) that has been recognized by SHPO
and the National Park Service. The MPD catalogues what sections of the Central Oregon Canal
are appropriate for preservation and upgrades, such as piping. Singer stated the proposed
Page 3 of 4
nomination is in contrast to the MPD. COID hired JRP Historic Consulting to review the
nomination and conduct a field survey. Singer stated the peer review provided by JRP refutes
the assertions made within the proposed nomination.
Gary Grund, a property owner of the canal, provided testimony to the HLC. Grund has a farm
along the canal and stated the assertion that the properties along the proposed nomination have
poor soils is inaccurate. Grund supports the nomination and asked the HLC to do the same.
Brenda Trowbridge, a property owner of the canal, spoke to the reasons why she purchased
property along the canal. Trowbridge stated COID’s MPD lists the proposed nomination district
as historic. She also supports the nomination and explained that she wants her children to
appreciate the canal.
Aleta Warren, member of the public who lives on Pilot Butte Historic District, wanted to clarify
that COID is not a property owner of the canal. She also explained that maintenance of a
National Register district is allowed. Warren stated the MPD has many errs and doesn’t support
it. Warren is supportive of the canal nomination and asked the HLC to do the same.
Jenna Walden, property owner of the canal, provided testimony to the HLC. Walden spoke to
the process and expressed a concern that there have been obstacles thrown in the nomination’s
path. Walden stated the historic significance is well documented in the nomination. Walden filed
a public record’s request and stated the information she found indicates a bias toward COID. A
majority of the canal has high historical integrity and alterations are few and far between,
according to Walden. She also stated the all of the property owners along the canal support the
nomination, with the exception of one: COID. According to Walden, COID’s MPD is not
registered with the National Register. Walden supports the canal nomination.
Gail Snyder, Executive Director of Coalition for the Deschutes, spoke to the connection between
the Deschutes River and canals. Snyder explained the Deschutes River is a designated Wild
and Scenic River. Piping of irrigation canals has been identified as an important river restoration
effort, according to Snyder. Snyder likened the canals to roads, a utility or infrastructure that will
always need updating. Snyder asked the Commission what comes at the cost of preservation;
according to Snyder, the Deschutes River is dying. Snyder does not support the nomination
because it could prevent piping of the canal in the future.
Crystal Nauyuke(?), member of the public, supports the nomination and stated the proposal is
for a three mile section, not the entire canal. She stated support for preserving the river as well
as the canal.
There were no other public comments.
Staff asked what next steps the Commission wants to set up. Commissioners decided to close
written comments until Monday, April 23, at 5 p.m. Commissioner Stemach expressed a desire
to have multiple meetings to review the nomination. Nick Lelack encouraged the HLC to hold a
meeting on April 30. The Commission will determine whether to deliberate on the nomination on
April 30 or at a later date.
Commissioner Madden provided a comment to the public speaking to site visits. The public
responded by stating there have been efforts to host a site visit of the canal. The Commissioners
explained they have not received a written request and also spoke to complications with public
meeting requirements.
Page 4 of 4
V. OTHER ITEMS
Zechariah provided an update to the HLC on the Sisters Country Historic Resources Inventory
project. Diana Painter is planning on attending the May HLC meeting to give a presentation.
Vice-Chair Leighty offered her opinion that Painter does not attend the May meeting if the
project is not complete.
Nick Lelack gave a copy of CDD’s draft work plan to the Commission. Staff will have a work
session with the HLC on May 7 to review the work plan.
Several members of the HLC attended the Oregon Heritage Conference that was hosted in
Bend April 11 – 13. Everyone thought the conference went well and appreciated having the
conference in Bend, which allowed for several local historic sites to be celebrated.
Commissioner Stemach spoke to May Historic Preservation Month. The subcommittee focused
on event planning will be finalizing the event list soon and will send out to contact and ask the
county for a media release.
Zechariah mentioned that staff received a request from SHPO asking for photos of the HLC to
send to the National Alliance of Preservation Commission Forum.
VI. COMMISSIONER/STAFF COMMENTS
Nick Lelack mentioned the statewide planning conference will be in Bend in October. He
welcomed commissioners to attend, if interested.
Commissioner Madden offered to host a trip to a local landmark during the summer.
VII. ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner
Comments in support of nomination.
From:Brenda Trowbridge
To:Zechariah Heck
Subject:Central Oregon Canal Historic District Nomination Review
Date:Monday, April 16, 2018 4:46:52 PM
Dear Mr. Heck,
I am writing to make you aware of my support of this nomination. I may not be able to attend
this evening due to childcare reasons.
I am an avid and active supporter of this nomination and an owner of the land surroundingAND beneath the canal water (which belongs to all Oregonian citizens) that runs through the
heart of Central Oregon's Eastside community. My husband and I purchased 22185 BearCreek Rd. three years ago with our three young children to enjoy and appreciate an older way
of life. I am Oregon born and Oregon raised.
We had a nine year stint in Los Angeles which taught us a lot about the importance ofappreciating our roots, Oregon's history, as well as a passion for wise planning and
development and preservation of resources. My husband works in technology and is an avidtech geek, if you will, and lover of all things tech and sustainable living. I am a stay at home
mom, musician, artist and innovator. We both enjoy the outdoors and we both appreciate abalanced and level-headed view of any issue that our community faces. There are always
three sides of every coin. Thank you for listening to our side.
One of my favorite things since arriving back in Bend after 20 years is viewing the oldphotographs throughout town and in books...Bend does not remotely resemble what it did
when I was a child and even less so since our founding fathers began to develop it in the early1900's! Except the canals! Especially our amazing stretch. One thing I noticed as I read the
entirety of this nomination was how similar the photographs from that period's history matchour land today--without change! Let us keep it that way.
There has also been some confusion surrounding COID's budget and how much they spend on
repairs on this stretch. I can attest that neither us nor any of the neighbors I have spoken tohave seen any significant repairs, if anything at all. Not a single repair of note in years and
years. And I have personally spoken to most of the 211 people that have signed my petition topreserve this historic stretch.
I hiked Pilot Butte for the first time last month, took photographs and admired our community
and read snippets of history. I went to pray for the prosperity of our city and all those that liveand work within, including our government operations and officials, instituted to provide fair
and impartial justice and protection among many other things for our citizens and our land. Ididn't connect it at the time, but I snapped a photo of a placard and was reminded today that
our 3-mile stretch of our region's significant history perfectly mirrors the very bold writing ona placard that exists on top of Pilot Butte today:
"Early settlers saw enormous potential in the area's rich and abundant native grasses. They
built irrigation canals to water crops and stock, and access to water brought more settlers. Ranching and farming continue to contribute to the local economy."
I do not know who penned those words, but I assume if they are posted for all to see at the
very center of our community, they were true, they still are true, and they will remain trueforever. Just as the well-researched nomination also details and expounds.
I would like to point out that I am very pleased and proud to live in Deschutes County and I
am proud of many of my elected official's efforts and all the hard work and service thatentails. That said, as the plot unfolds of how our nomination has been treated since last fall, I
grow increasingly concerned, saddened and angry. I urge you to read the letter as detailed bymy neighbor, Aletta Warren's attorney for the details of laws and rules broken with behind the
scenes communications between COID, SHPO, SACHP and the DCCD. I knew that COIDwas making obvious efforts against us but I tried to remain calm and impartial about the
alleged foolishness I was hearing about regarding my elected officials. Until today.
In one of those communications, COID's Craig Horrell told a DCCD staff member:
"It appears [the SACHP] are ready to approve it with minor changes from Pat. No input fromdistrict. We are working on next steps."
And yet we continue to feel ignored, mistreated and disregarded. I have spoken with each of
the commissioners as well as sent numerous emails to SHPO's Ms. Curran and Ian Johnson aswell as Jason Allen. I even attempted to speak with Lisa Sumption at the National Recreation
Dept. Most times, I don't get straight answers and I am definitely not being asked what myviews are. I have been told that "protect my property value and the beauty of it is completely
understandable," among other things. Never have I placed my property value as a priority oreven mentioned it in any conversation. It was assumed. I have also been called a resident,
when in actuality, I own this land. Under the Carey Act, COID must obtain a new easement topipe for hydro power, signed and notarized by each and every landowner, as has been done
before and remains on file with the County. So, I am not afraid of my land being pipedagainst my will for hydro power as some also continue to misrepresent me and my neighbors.
I would not, however, put it past anyone in power when money and PR is involved to try andchange the laws out from under us, as has already been done.
May I remind you that the Oregon State planning goals are--#2 Citizen involvement, and #5 Historic
Preservation. That is what I wish to keep front and center in this discussion. This nomination is
accurate. Have you read it? I have extended an invitation for the commissioners to visit, but to date I do
not know of any Landmark Commissioner to do so. I do understand that Mr. DeBone and Nick Lelack
did.
I think this entire process has unraveled and can only be warranted by delaying a vote tonight. At the
very least, the entire county has shown itself hostile to citizen involvement and considerably biased.
I would like to point out one more quote I appreciated on my hike to Pilot Butte, on a plaque dedicated to
one of Central Oregon's founding fathers, Robert Harmon Foley b. 1911, attorney, circuit and appellate
court judge:
The plaque in his honor reads:
"HE WAS FAIR, COURTEOUS, AND DIGNIFIED
AN ERUDITE MAN WITH A KEEN SENSE OF HUMOR
HE DID NOT SUFFER FOOLS."
With all due respect, I will not suffer foolishness, either.
Sincerely, Brenda & Ryan Trowbridge
From:Anita Elsey
To:Zechariah Heck
Subject:Central Oregon Canal Historic District (Ward to Gosney)
Date:Thursday, April 19, 2018 8:29:03 PMApril 19, 2018 To: Zechh@deschutes.org RE: Central Oregon Canal Historic District (Ward Road to Gosney Road) I (Anita S. Elsey) have lived in Bend since 1980. I moved out to Gosney Road in 1983. I believe this section of the canal has exceptional historic value. The curves and drops inelevation denote the excellent engineering of this section to sustain water flow for miles. The location of this section of the canal is close to town and there is easy access for thegeneral population to come and observe this living history. There is access through thelocal Parks and Recreation District Park known as Eastgate Park. The properties that are located along this section of the canal demonstrate the variety ofways in which the canal is used. This section of the canal feeds small orchards, smallvegetable gardens, cattle range as well as larger hay fields. The canal brings water to thedesert to provide food and livelihoods for Central Oregon to grow and flourish. Thissection of the canal is a prime example of the integrity of a living and working canal aswell as history. Allowing this portion of the canal to remain open without a pipe would allow people ofall generations now and in the future to see how our community came to be. Thank you for your time and consideration, Anita S. Elsey61590 Gosney Rd.Bend , OR 97702
From:D J
To:Zechariah Heck
Cc:ian.johnson@oregon.gov
Subject:Our historical Canal
Date:Friday, April 20, 2018 4:03:44 PM
We are the Turners. We live on the proposed historical canal. We attended the meeting on Monday April 16 and sat
and listened. We hope that you listened too and were able to find the facts and not listen to the lies. We as property
owners do own the land to middle of canal and under the canal. The one statement that the guy stated coid owns it is
false. Coid has been saying they own it and our deed and everyone's else says we own it. Also the statement was
made that coid want to conserve water for the deschutes river by piping. If you could get the actual reading from
where the water comes out of the river and into the canal that going to the hydro electric plant near Redmond ,you
would find that they are taking more water than before to run the plant. Where is the conservation. All coid wants to
pipe the canal is for hydro power plants and nothing else. You remember what we told you if it gets piped. You will
not see any conservation. They are intitled to so much water so they will use that much. When we want to have our
small section made historic we should have the say to do what we want. When only one property owner objects how
is it right to allow them to have it there way. When you vote on this won't the majority win? So why can't we as
majority have what we want? Our section of the canal where our place is has not been disturbed since Janice has
lived here. She moved here as a child in 1954. Only change was bridge came out at our property at burts chute. It
was a dangerous wooded bridge. For you to vote this stretch of canal is not historic is wrong. We would ask that
you make your decision based on the facts and not what the county commissioners or coid says or does. The facts
are clear that this section of canal is as historic as any other section of the canal. Coid even stated that. Please mark
ok and that you support our nomination. Thanks for reading our letter and for your volunteer work on the
committee.
Janice and Dave Turner.
22195 bear creek Rd
Bend Oregon
Sent from my iPad
From:Jenna
To:Zechariah Heck
Cc:JOHNSON Ian * OPRD; Pat Kliewer
Subject:Written comment to Historical Landmarks Commission re: Central Oregon Canal Historical District - Ward toGosney segment
Date:Friday, April 20, 2018 3:14:43 PM
Dear Commissioners;
We are here again to review our nomination for the Ward-Gosney Canal Historic District. 5 ½months ago, the original hearing occurred. Since that time, I have learned that many obstacles
have been thrown up to table our nomination, a nomination that is widely supported by theproperty owners of the proposed Historic District.
HISTORICAL INTEGRITY & COMMUNITY BENEFITS
COID manages over 700 miles of main canal and laterals; this nominated segment is 3.4
miles, or 0.5% of the total. This segment is near the City Limits of Bend, easily reached by theBend population, beautiful with a historic setting, has a ditch-rider trail currently used by
many horse-back riders, bikers and walkers and the easternmost segment ends with an 80-acreparcel that Parks & Recreation owns, as well as an existing "Eastgate" park with many
walking trails (and rumored future frisbee golf course). If this segment doesn't deserve to besaved for future generations, I'm hard-pressed to think of what is more worthy or more well-
suited to become a community asset for future generations on the Central Oregon Canal.
Our nomination document walks you through the historical integrity of this canal segment in178-pages and its integrity and historical significance is well-documented. The community
and property owners I’ve spoken with, over 30 in all, recognize how this stretch of the canalhas remained the same for generations, with some of them having played along its banks as
children nearly 70 years ago.
UNPRECEDENTED HOSTILE RECEPTION BY COUNTY
A Public Records request and attorneys have documented this mess which demonstrates thatwe are up against myriad misinformation and biased opinions that are based on COID talking
points.
The administrative "speed-bump" of withdrawing the nomination in January is notablebecause it has never been used before by any CLG in Oregon's history. Not only is it notable
because of its anomalous nature in application, but COID's lawyer wrote a letter just days afterCounty staff inquired about it to SHPO. What is so threatening about this nomination that the
County needs to resort to this hostile behavior? COID has operated with an open canal sincethe 1920s, and it will be able to continue operating and maintaining this segment if it achieves
a historical designation.
1. We have invited the commission to the site several times since June 30, 2017 when the
nomination first was received. We would still love it if commission members can visit.2. Through our public records request we have found quite biased statements opposing our
nomination that have little to do with the historical integrity of the canal. For example,“They just don’t want their canal covered.” And another commissioner’s comment is
“…this nomination clearly represents a biased interest on the residents.” The people
behind ANY nomination will be biased and supportive of their nomination. How is thisa reason for this body to reject the nomination? Also, wanting our canal covered or not
is beside the point, HLC members must use proper and specific evaluation criteriaprovided by SHPO in their training to this CLG. It is my understanding this body
received training on this in September 2017.3. A repeated objection to taking the nomination at face-value is that the nominated
segment has too many alternations and new materials to meet the integrity criteria. Isuppose they are referencing the letter COID’s attorney submitted detailing repairs done
since 1993 in this segment; but as Gary Grund testified, many of the biggest problemshave been of COID's own making. More importantly, the reality is that every designated
man-made nomination will have to be maintained and repaired. Again, not a reason tonot support the nomination.
4. The work session from Board of County Commissioners says Matt Martin told themthere are already two preserved sections of the Central Oregon Canal. This is not true.
There are currently two preserved sections on the Pilot Butte Canal, but not the CentralOregon Canal. Currently, Central Oregon Canal has "zero" preserved sections.
5. How is this nomination “piecemeal” or “hostile” as Craig Horrell states in a Sept. 7,2017 letter? Every property owner except for one, COID, supports this nomination. In
fact, COID has submitted notarized documents stating they own four parcels in thehistoric district and yet they only own one parcel.
CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
Minutes show that SHPO provided training to this commission in September 19, 2017 called“How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation” that says, “The significance of a
historic property can be judged and explained only when it is evaluated within its historiccontext. Historic contexts are those patterns or trends in history by which a specific
occurrence, property, or site is understood and its meaning (and ultimately its significance)within history or prehistory is made clear… It’s core premise is that resources, properties, or
happenings in history do not occur in a vacuum but rather are part of larger trends or patterns.”And yet one commissioner said of the nomination, “Nomination fails to make direct
connection to events in early history of the Deschutes River with respect to this segment.”
Alexander Drake’s canal projects brought vitality and life to Bend and the canals have a directconnection to population and agriculture growth, as well as homesteading. It is no
exaggeration to say that the canals created Bend. To preserve this segment means that futuregenerations have a direct reflection of this time and is part of the larger system, which is based
on COID’s plans, are to be piped.
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT => MULTIPLE PROPERTY DOCUMENT
The MOA entered in by BOR, SHPO and COID and is located here for your reference (seeembedded hyperlink). This MOA recognizes the intent to erase the canal as it is throughout the district
and that preservation actions are needed. The MPD was listed on the National Historic register on July
10, 2017. Our nomination was submitted on June 30, 2017, therefore, it did not apply at the time of
our submission and this point should be disregarded.
And yet, COID calls our nomination hostile and the county has tried to spike the nomination while SHPO’s
mishandling of the process creates deliberate confusion. If you read the MOA, you will see thatCOID has been given ALL the authority to create and edit the MPD, add their own "district-
specific contexts and registration requirements", and select their own nominations. You know
who isn't involved? The Public or Deschutes' CLG. This document is really a sham that allowsCOID to cherry-pick their nominations; which they did.
Currently the only segments they have nominated on the Central Oregon Canal is one in
Crook County (which does not have a CLG, therefore no evaluation at the local level wasgiven) and one in City of Redmond (and they did not chime in, either). The Brasada spur in
Crook County was only tabled because COID did not obtain the property owner'sauthorization and support. Otherwise, they would currently say they have fulfilled their
preservation obligations on both canals. Not only do they show a pattern of trampling anddisregarding property rights, but this nomination was panned at SAHPO hearing by experts
and if you go out there, you'll see that the "historic canal bed" is being driven on by golf carts.
Which leads me to wonder, not only does this nomination for the Central Oregon Canal havebroad support of the property owners, not only is this segment representative of what it has
always looked like since the canal’s completion in 1907, not only is this segment a short-drivefrom the populated areas that for future generations preserve 3.4 miles of the past and what
brought life to Bend, not only does this segment end in an 80-acre Parks and Recreation parceland Eastgate Park, which ties in beautifully with this nomination, but based on the past
objections of this commission, how could any stretch of Central Oregon Canal besupported by this Deschutes County based on the reception and efforts against it? The
biased view and actions of the county which reflect COID’s desired outcome ensures thatthey’ll be hostile to any preserved segment of the Central Oregon Canal in Deschutes county.
The only way to get a nomination through with local support is to nominate stretches that haveno Certified Local Gov’t that will evaluate the nomination on integrity merits.
Please consider this important point: the message you send if this nomination is not
supported by this body, is there is no segment worthy of protecting on the CentralOregon Canal in Deschutes county. COID thinks the best option for future generations is to
drive 20 miles to Brasada Ranch to see how the canal "used to look like".
CONCLUSION
There are two recusals of the Historical Landmark Commission: The Ex-officio and ChristineHorting-Jones. These two members should not be part of the internal deliberation and must
completely recuse themselves from any part of this evaluation.
This nominated section has high historical integrity, quick access from the populated areas andbuilt-in infrastructure and parcels that can welcome visitors presently and in the future.
In conclusion, it is imperative that this body evaluate the nomination solely on the merits of its historical
integrity and the training SHPO has provided. If they cannot do so, then please must take no position.
COID sees the canal as utilitarian while we, the community and property owners of this nominated
segment, see a community asset that should be preserved for future generations.
Sincerely,
Jenna WaldenProperty owner of Historic District - 61885 Somerset Dr.
From:Noah Walden
To:Zechariah Heck; ian.johnson@oregon.gov; Pat Kliewer
Subject:Central Oregon Canal
Date:Friday, April 20, 2018 3:14:17 PM
Hi Zechariah - Please forward to the Historic Landmarks Commission and the Board of
County Commissioners.
To whom it may concern,
I'm writing to voice my support for naming the stretch of the Central Oregon Canal between
Ward Rd. and Gosney Rd. a historic landmark. While it is imperative that we preserve as
much water in the Deschutes as possible, it is also important that we preserve elements of
our history so we can show future generations how this portion of our nation and state was
settled. While much of the canal has been changed by necessity over the years, and much
more will be changed in the future, this particular stretch, just 3.4 miles long, retains the
characteristics the canal possessed upon its creation over 100 years ago. We should not
lose that.
My hope is that we can preserve some part of the canals before all that remains of our
region's history is buried in the name of progress. The state has mandated that some
portion of the canal be preserved, and the stretch described in the application, in addition to
being a well-used trail by the community, meets all of the qualifications of a historic
landmark.
Contrary to COID's assertions, I do not believe that all of the canals are historic. Many of
them have been changed drastically and have zero historic integrity. Some of them are just
cement sloughs today and bare no resemblance to the canals our forefathers scraped into
the land. COID wants to turn the canals into pipes and generate hydropower, and perhaps
that is not an unreasonable goal for the system of more than 700 miles of canals under
their jurisdiction.
COID has behaved in a secretive and duplicitous manner throughout this process, bringing
politics and profit motive into what should be a conversation about preserving history and
water. They have intentionally kept the public in the dark about their objectives and have
sought little input or conversation. They have even fooled many into believing that they own
the canal. They do not. They have created an atmosphere of hostility and set the stage for
decades of litigation as they attempt to bulldoze the citizens of the county. I hope we can all
move forward with an honest and open community discussion about the future of our
canals.
I have read the 178-page nomination for this stretch of the canal and believe that it
establishes clearly the historical importance and integrity of the stretch it describes. I trust
you'll see the same.
Sincerely,
Noah Walden
61885 Somerset Dr.
Bend, OR 99702
From:Lesa Hill
To:Zechariah Heck
Cc:ian.johnson@oregon.gov
Subject:Historical Significance
Date:Saturday, April 21, 2018 11:30:58 AM
This letter is in support of the historical landmark designation of the
canal in our area.
Our property has the canal running along it's border, and it's abeautiful asset that also has many people walking there much of the
year.
We purchased this property at least in part because of the beauty ofhaving the canal to view part of the year, and feel that our property
value would be greatly depleted if the canal is piped, and the viewdiminished. There are many forms of wildlife that use the canal and
adjoining property for nesting and raising their young.
Our property is at 61852 Dobbin Rd. Bend, OR 97702
Please don't be fooled into thinking that piping the canal is anything but
a money making ploy by a big business (irrigation district).
Thank you for your serious consideration to this issue,Alan Geoffrey Wedel and Lesa Hill
From:CenturyLink Customer
To:Zechariah Heck
Cc:rcwapiti@q.com
Subject:canal letter
Date:Saturday, April 21, 2018 12:03:11 PM
April 21st, 2018
Property Name: Central Oregon Canal Historic District (Ward Road-
Gosney Road)
To whom it may concern,
We are property owners along the proposed Central Oregon CanalHistoric District. We have lived at 61595 Gosney Road for
approximately 22 years.
We value the significance of this canal even more now that we havebeen involved with the movement of the canal proposal. Our section ofthe canal has the original wooden columns from the original flume. It
would be a shame to cover this section of the history that brings the
water to our agricultural area. We are only asking for a small section ofthe entire canal to be left unpiped to show the integrity of the history ofour community.
The canal has been here for over 100 years and is still delivering water
today like it did when it started.
Parks and Recreation owns property along the South side of the canal(known as Eastgate Park) for easy public access to view this historical
amazement.
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Rod & Cindy Gibson
From:Jeff Wedel
To:Zechariah Heck
Subject:Support for the Ward Road/Gosney Road Segment
Date:Saturday, April 21, 2018 7:55:20 AM
As a property owner that lives on the Canal, and owns the property up to
the middle of the canal including the access road, I strongly support
the nomination for the Central Oregon Canal Historic District from Ward
Road to Gosney Road. One of the very important aspects of our deciding
to purchase this property in 2012 was the canal which still looks very
similar to what it did when it was created 111 years ago. I have seen
other areas throughout town where the canals have become water features
to the local communities, which is not the case on our stretch of canal.
This is a historical statement of how Central Oregon was developed and
should not be destroyed.
Again, I urge the preservation of this historic section of the canal.
Alan Geoffrey (Jeff) Wedel
61852 Dobbin Road
Bend Oregon 97702
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
From:Kristi K
To:Zechariah Heck
Subject:canal preservation
Date:Sunday, April 22, 2018 12:56:20 PM
Hi, my name is Kristi Kasko. I have the privilage of knowing people who own land along the
stretch of Central Oregon Canal from Ward to Gosney allowing me and my family the accessto visit their homes and land surrounding the canal. I am always taken by the beauty and
variety of the vegetation along the canal that open water surface creates....its such a treasurehere like an oasis refreshing for the mind and spirit in the desert. I am impressed at the
wildlife i see regularly whenever i visit my friends living along the canal. I am veryconcerned about the negative impact there would be on the vegetation as well as on the
wildlife if the canal was piped and there were no stretches at all of open available water if allthe water were exclusively piped. I believe it would be a shock to the entire region's
environment, and habitat and have long term effects...even on insects, bees, and birds, as wellas 4 legged animals.
I also feel that the irrigation systems that Central Oregon was built upon, was an amazingaccomplishment in the middle of a desert, created the possibility for life. This is a historic
achievement and should be kept preserved functioning (unpiped) in at least some sections ofit for both educational purposes as well as a tribute to the settlers of the area, as a marker of
history for future generations. Its to my understanding that there already exists access to thecanal via parks and rec owned land as well as private land owners offering access to the public
to enjoy this amazing water way site.Sincerely,
Kristi Kasko
From:Pat Kliewer
To:Zechariah Heck; Don Kliewer; Aleta Warren; Steven.Liday@MillerNash.com; ALLEN Jason * OPRD; Ian Johnson;stix.n.tones@gmail.com; Gary Grund; Suzanne Grund; Noah Walden; Jenna
Subject:Written testimony for the HLC
Date:Monday, April 23, 2018 3:12:02 PM
Attachments:April 23, 2018 testimony to the HLC Kliewer.docx
8th Grade Geography and Irrigation Test.pdf
Zech, Please forward these two attachments, a letter and a fun test, to the full Historic
Landmarks Commission before 5 pm today. I hope they find them helpful.
Thank you.
Pat Kliewer
60465 Sunridge Drive
Bend, OR 97702
pkliewer@hotmail.com
Phone 541 617-0805
1
Patricia Kliewer
60465 Sunridge Drive
Bend, OR 97702
541 617-0805’
April 23, 2018
Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commission
PO Box 6005, Bend, OR 97708
c/o Zechariah Heck, Associate Planner
Zechariah.Heck@deschutes.org
Re: Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places, the Central Oregon Canal (Ward
Road-Gosney Road Segment)
Dear Landmarks Commissioners,
Thank you for allowing me to testify last Monday at your hearing on the December 12, 2017
nomination of the segment of the Central Oregon Canal, between Ward Road and Gosney
Road.
I was pleased that you called Ian Johnson and Jason Allen to ensure correct information was
before you on your role and on the current version of the nomination, submitted in mid-
December of last year. I was glad that Jason Allen told you that the nomination is a good one.
Information is power. I see you as colleagues and leaders in the historic preservation
community in Central Oregon. I respect you and would never give you incorrect information, to
the best of my ability.
Those who speak off the top of their heads with whatever sounds good, make up things and do
not know what they are talking about, do not respect you.
When you carefully walk or ride along the segment of the canal with your nomination in hand,
you can go through Section 7 and use it to guide you to notice the main canal and the structures
in it and beside it. Do not just wonder what the facts are or who is telling the truth. See it with
your own eyes and consider the sources of information and self-serving disrespectful and
confusing but memorable sound bites some people are giving you.
2
MY REQUEST TO YOU
With careful study and after seeing the actual nominated segment, I ask you to do one of two
responsible things:
1. Take a position of NO COMMENT. Other careful landmarks commissions in the state do
take that option Ian Johnson told you about, when they have A. no first-hand knowledge
of a resource, B. feel as if they are in a hot-potato political conversation that is not
exclusively on historic preservation, C. they have confusing, conflicting information about
a resource they cannot easily and clearly resolve by their own study and site visits, or D.
the landmarks commissioners have a variety of opinions based on facts related to
historic preservation. OR
2. Take a position of recommending the nomination be forwarded to the National Park
Service, after review by SHPO staff and the Oregon SACHP.
There is no doubt of the historical significance of the segment of the Central Oregon Canal.
Section 8 of the nomination provides a detailed history of the canal and its part in the founding
and settlement of Bend, Centrallo, Redmond, Alfalfa and Powell Butte.
WHO OWNS IT ANYWAY?
County staff Nick Lelack corrected himself after protest from the property owners in the
audience, but his gaff was a disappointment, since he has been working with the correct
knowledge since 2013.
I trust that you are clear that COID owns one 13-acre parcel of land crossed by the nominated
segment of the Central Oregon Canal historic district. The other tax lots are NOT owned by
COID.
Also, COID owns only the portion of the Central Oregon Canal in the proposed district that flows
across its own parcel. Here is a list of owners of tax lots crossed by the canal in the proposed
historic district:
TAX LOT
NUMBERS, and
Acres in tax lot.
NAMES OF CURRENT PROPERTY
OWNERS PER DESCHUTES
COUNTY ASSESSOR
SITUS PROPERTY ADDRESSES
(This is the property address; It may not
be the owners’ mailing addresses)
181201A000100
3.55 acres
Allan S. Boss 21975 Bear Creek Road, Bend, OR 97701
181201A000200
51.09 acres
Suzanne and Gary Grund 21925 Bear Creek Road, Bend, OR 97701
181201A000301
12.68
Jennifer J. McDonald 21825 Bear Creek Road, Bend, OR 97701
181201A000400 Judith Suzanne Hanson Living Trust 21885 Bear Creek Road, Bend, OR 97701
3
2.80 acres
181201A000600
9.64 acres
Christine and Christopher Drape et al 21805 Bear Creek Road, Bend, OR 97701
181201A000800
2.93 acres
Jennifer Egusa and Noah Walden 61885 Somerset Drive, Bend, OR 97702
181201A000900
2.89 acres
Somerset Northwest LLC 61877 Somerset Drive, Bend, OR 97702
181201A001000
2.62 acres
Patricia M. Fernald 61867 Somerset Drive, Bend, OR 97702
181201A001100
2.87 acres
Robert Cole Revocable Trust et al 61865 Somerset Drive, Bend, OR 97702
181201A001200
2.40 acres
Cascade LLC 61855 Somerset Drive, Bend, OR 97702
181201A001300 Kim D. and Misti D. Houston 61849 Somerset Dr., OR 97702
181201B000900 Jessica L. and Scott J. Jacob 61880 Walter Court, Bene OR 97702
181201B001000 Cherri L. and Nicholas J. Fagan 61860 Walter Court, Bend OR 97702
181201B001200
1.84 acres
Harriett H. and Walter C. Schloer Jr. 61835 Walter Court, Bend, OR 97702
181201B001300
3.02 acres
Jay C. Davenport 61862 Dobbin Road., Bend, OR 97702
181201B001400
2.83 acres
Bergsetter Living Trust 61858 Dobbin Road, Bend, OR 97702
181201B001600
1.60 acres
Alan G. Wedel 61852 Dobbin Road, Bend, OR 97702
181201B001700
2.28 acres
Helen L. Hill 61806 Ward Road, Bend, OR 97702
181201C000100
3.20 acres
Boese Glenny’s Trust No Situs Address
181201C000200 Debra and Thomas Edward Conners 61794 Ward Road, Bend, OR 97702
4
1.80 acres
181201C000300
1.69 acres
Eliescha P. and Jeffrey M. Stone 61784 Ward Road, Bend, OR 97702
181201C000400
6.96 acres
Ann Marie McCance 61750 Ward Road, Bend, OR 97702
181201C001500
1.53 acres
Dina and Angelo Licitra Revocable
Family Trust
61781 Arrow Avenue, Bend, OR 97702
181201C001600
1.13 acres
Elizabeth K. Towill 61780 Arrow Avenue, Bend, OR 97702
181201C002300
1.15 acres
Margaret and Rudy H. Molzan 61775 Tomahawk Street, Bend, OR 97702
181201C002400
1.53 acres
Pamela and James Ristoff Trust 617754Tomahawk Street, Bend, OR
97702
181201C003300
1.31 acres
Leslie Linn Robbins et al 61801 Wickiup Road, Bend, OR 97702
181201C003400
1.34 acres
Goss & Collins Living Trust 61803 Wickiup Road, Bend, OR 97702
181201C003500 Martha Marie and Paul G. Murphy 61806 Wickiup Road, Bend 97702
1813050000702
19.55 acres
Mary C. and Kevin Gamble 61635 Gosney Road, Bend, OR 97702
1813050001103
19.72 acres
Kevin M. Baney Testamentary Trust 61670 Teal Road, Bend, OR 97702
1813050001200
13.14 acres
Central Oregon Irrigation District No situs address
1813060000700 Julie Rose Van Epps Trust Et Al 22075 Bear Creek Road, Bend OR 97701
181306000800
16.07 acres
Loretta Ann Hadley Living Trust 22015 Bear Creek Road, Bend, OR 97701
1813060000900
3.51 acres
Brenda S. and Ryan L. Trowbridge 22185 Bear Creek Road, Bend, OR 97701
5
1813060000901
1.47 acres
Allan D. Boss No situs address; Mailing:
21975 Bear Creek Road, Bend, OR 97701
1813060001000
25.66 acres
Conrad Walters 61795 Teal Road, Bend, OR 97701
1813060001001
38.96 acres
Dina and Angleo Licitra Revocable
Family Trust et al
61955 Somerset Drive, Bend, OR 97702
1813060001002
32.31 acres
Roberta and Tony Licitra 61975 Somerset Drive, Bend, OR 97702
1813060001003
20.00 acres
Toni Marie and Russell Scott 61995 Somerset Drive, Bend, OR 97702
1813060001200
15.41 acres
Janice M. Turner (David) 22195 Bear Creek Road, Bend, OR 97701
1813060001700
79.60 acres
Bend Metro Park & Recreation District No situs address
1813060001300
40.00 acres
Julie Reber and Jason Gillam 22225 Bear Creek Road, Bend, OR 97701
1813080000300
7.54 acres
Cynthia I. and Rodney C Gibson
61595 Gosney Road, Bend, OR 97702
1813080000400
11.30 acres
Diane and Robert Stephen 61575 Gosney Road, Bend, OR 97702
Prior to the hearing last week, I sent you the spreadsheet provided to the County and to me of
the legal owners of record by the Oregon SHPO, but it was not read by County staff at your
meeting and I do not know if you got it.
SOME REBUTTAL OF COID’s ORAL TESTIMONY
At your hearing, COID’s attorney made the ludicrous and politically-based statement that the
segment was never farmed, has no integrity and has no historical value. He went on to show us
all that he has no clue what poured-in-place concrete and shotcrete are. One of you astutely
caught that lack of understanding and asked him kindly about it. Well, Mr. Singer, I have to pull
rank on you. My husband, a registered civil engineer for 45 years, and a former president of the
Consulting Engineers of Oregon, helped greatly on this nomination and personally walked along
the nominated stretch several times, and was in charge of the team who helped him perform a
6
systematic survey of it. He prepared Figure 21. He was an editor of the nomination. He offers
the following information to Matt Singer:
This is a photo of Shotcrete or what he calls “air blown mortar”, stabilizing the banks on COID’s
North Canal. Shotcrete is a relatively modern product.
This is a photo of historic poured-in-place concrete that was formed
by lumber at Burt Chute.
Concrete is an ancient product.
COID’s attorney made another off-base, ignorant statement that said that the segment
nominated to the NRHPs does not need to be listed on the NRHP for it to have protections from
major alterations and demolition, because it will be protected by the Section 106 process. That
process is federal. I encourage you to visit the Oregon SHPO and the National Park Service
web site and search Section 106. I am sure the Oregon SHPO staff would correct you right
7
away if you said it is for the on-going protection of historic resources. COID continually sees no
value in Goal 1 in Oregon Land Use- Citizen Involvement. The purpose and process of the
Section 106 is to have a process for SHPO staff and the National Park Service to review
projects that are funded partially or entirely by federal funds or that need federal permits.
Here is the unedited information summary on the Oregon SHPO website.
Federal Law Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) requires every federal agency to "take into account" how its projects and expenditures will affect historic properties, which includes prehistoric and
historic sites. Links to the complete text of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the federal regulations for
the administration of the Section 106 process are below. Both documents are provided by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the federal advisory board responsible for the national administration of the 106 process.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 - Federal law that created the National Register of Historic Places,
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the 106 review process.
36 CFR Part 800 - Chapter of the "Code of Federal Regulations" that specifies what agencies and SHPOs are
obligated to do under Section 106.
Section 106 Process Overview
The review process involves six steps:
Step One: The agency determines whether its proposed action is an undertaking. An undertaking is defined
as a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a
federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a federal agency; those carried out with
federal financial assistance; and those requiring a federal permit, license or approval.
Step Two: The agency determines the Area of Potential Effect (APE) and decides on an appropriate survey
methodology in consultation with the Oregon SHPO. The appropriate APE will vary from project to project
and may include physical, visual, and auditory effects. Contact the SHPO before work begins to avoid
unnecessary documentation or delay in completing the Section 106 process.
Agencies are required to contact and consult with the appropriate Native American Nation when an
undertaking takes place on tribal lands or when an undertaking will affect Native American cultural sites. A
list of contacts can be found on our website: Native American Nation Contacts. Consultation with other
interested parties such as Certified Local Governments is also encouraged.
Step Three: The agency determines if the resources within the APE are already listed in the National
Register of Historic Places or may be eligible for listing. Eligible historic properties are those that are at least
50 years of age and maintain the majority of their historic features, called historic integrity. If a building
meets these minimum qualifications it is considered eligible for the Register unless the agency can prove
otherwise through further historical or archaeological studies. The eligibility of archaeological resources is
based on careful recordation and evaluation according to professional standards. These guidelines are
available here: Guidelines for Conducting Field Archaeology in Oregon.
Step Four: The agency decides what the effect of the undertaking will be. A project is said to have "No
Effect" if there are no eligible properties in the APE, or a historic property is not affected in anyway. An
undertaking may have "No Adverse Effect" if the project does impact the historic property, but the effect is
minimal. If the proposed work will diminish the features that qualify a resource for listing the project is said
to have an "Adverse Effect."
Step Five: The agency or government consults with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on its
8
determinations by submitting proper documentation for the impacted properties.
Step Six: SHPO either concurs with the agency's determinations or does not concur.
If SHPO Concurs:
No Historic Property, No Effect, or No Adverse Effect: You are finished with the Section 106 Review
consultation process.
Adverse Effect: The agency enters into a "Memorandum of Agreement" (MOA) to mitigate the adverse effect or submits a research design to mitigate adverse effects through proper recovery. The MOA is signed by the agency and SHPO. The federal agency submits the MOA to the Advisory
Council, along with a description of the project and the alternatives that were considered to mitigate the "adverse effect." The Advisory Council has 30 days to review the project and decide if it is willing to sign the MOA. Once the MOA is signed, the documentation should be completed and
accepted by designated repositories before the project begins.
If SHPO Does Not Concur: Federal agencies may appeal to the Keeper of the National Register of Historic
Places or the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
I only this morning received from Deschutes County the COID April 13 letter to you and the April
12, 2018 JRP report. I cannot in a few hours rebut it line by line, but I did note that JRP never
visited the site. Even the first paragraph is erroneous and does not get the nomination timeline
correct.
The JRP review is inadequate and did not include the civil engineering, hydrology or local canal
history expertise as our team does. It resulted in beginner amateur mistakes such as Burt
Chute being non-historic and made of shotcrete and the Bear Creek Ranch Bridge not being
historic.
JRP had no way to have local history expertise as was used in the nomination. It also did not
consult all of the historic maps, testimony and maps of water rights hearings prior to 1955,
museum files, state archive files, UC Berkeley files, National Archive files, and historic photos
that I did. Yes, I traveled to Salem to use the archives and to Washington DC to use its land
entry case files and canal and Carey Act records.
Nor do the JRP historians have the information and personal photos and diaries that people
such as Charles Redfield’s descendants (two of whom are themselves civil engineers), original
settler Dragan Mirch’s two granddaughters (one who today owns land in the district and lives on
it, and the other granddaughter lives in Corvallis) and members of the Torkelson and Bradetich
families and other long-time residents told me. (See list of interviews in the Bibliography.) The
report as far as I have reviewed it is entirely false.
Farmer Gary Grund has owned his ranch since the 1970s and told you, with some exasperation
and shock at COID’s unfounded assertions, that the report is ridiculous. He has collected
photos of his one-lane bridge that is carefully described in the nomination, including how many
boards have been replaced.
9
Quickly, some other obvious misstatements that Matt Singer said at the hearings are:
Rip-Rap vs. Stacked Rock
Here is a copy of a ca 1907 postcard of the newl-completed Pilot Butte(PB) Canal, in the
Deschutes Historical Society collection. It shows the undisturbed rip-rap on the outside edge of
the turn. This was very similar to the riprap on gentle slopes that was being laid by the same
crews on the Central Oregon Canal in the nominated segment. However, the rip-rap rock in the
proposed historic district was larger in size and the embankments are taller that the PB Canal in
this photo. There was NO STACKED ROCK! Also, note that there is no rip-rap at all on the
inside and straight edges in this location pf the Pilot Butte Canal.
In the nominated segment there is rip rap in some locations as shown the photos and described
in the narrative of the nomination. Most small rock has been moved by the force of 530 cfs of
water downstream over 110 years, and that is to be expected. Larger rocks remain in place
while small rock moved. f
Why would Matt Singer say at the hearing that all the historic rep-rap was stacked rock? Who
knows? Perhaps he does not know what stacked rock is or that it would have only been
applicable on vertical cuts, such as on the 1912 North Canal, as seen on JELD-WEN property.
However, there are a few feet of stacked rock in the vertical cut in nominated district, that are
attributed to Dragan Mirich, who added them as a property owner when erosion became a
problem in those locations. He was a stonecutter and mason. My team has walked or driven by
all accessible portions of the Central Oregon Canal and the Pilot Butte Canal, and Mirich’s
stacked rock in the proposed district is the only stacked rock. Here is a photo of it. It is photo
#19 of 20 in the nomination.
10
MPD
Last October the Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners wrote some of the
reasons they were opposing the National Register nomination that is being promoted by 44 of
the 45 owners of the Central Oregon Canal between Ward Road and Gosney Road.
County staff continues to repeat erroneous information that was the basis of the comments, so I
am taking my time to help with the facts. As long as the BOCC’s opinions are based on facts, I
accept them, even if they differ from my own conclusions. But, when they are based on profit-
oriented sound bites and purposely-planted misunderstandings, the opinions and policies are
not in anyone’s best interest and will not stand the test of time.
The second reason the BOCC gives in its October 17, 2017 letter to Jason Allen is an
interesting misunderstanding of the MPD called “Federal Irrigation Projects in Oregon 1901-
1978”. It says,
“Previously COID hired experts to conduct a historic study of the district’s entire
irrigation system including the subject segment, as part of a Multiple Property
Document ) MPD) process. Based on the MPD, COID nominated two canal segments
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places but did not nominate this
segment of the canal.”
A version of this statement was repeated last Monday at your hearing. The statement assumes
you do not now much about the topic. I hope you do.
RESPONSE to MPD
Based on the February 2014 Memorandum of Agreement on the “I” Lateral piping project at Zell
pond and near Reynolds Pond in Alfalfa that was signed by the Oregon SHPO, COID, and the
Bureau of Reclamation, COID hired a Seattle consultant ICF International to prepare a National
11
Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form, MPD, of its system including
the three canals: the Central Oregon Canal, the Pilot Butte Canal and the North Canal.
This was because the Oregon SHPO staff had been processing numerous Section 106 project
evaluation forms for piping projects by several irrigation districts in Central Oregon including the
Swalley ID, the Three Sisters ID, the Tumalo ID, North Unit ID, and the COID. As the Oregon
SHPO was signing off on the projects with a finding of adverse effect, as the historic open main
canals were piped, nothing was being identified for preservation for the future.
SHPO staff Ian Johnson and Jason Allen determined from the information in all of the Section
106 forms primarily filled out by archaeologists, that COID had the largest canals built by the
Central Oregon Project, the most successful private enterprise under the Carey Act in the
Northwest. Also, it is well known that some of the other districts such as Tumalo ID, Swalley ID
and the Three Sisters ID had already piped the most significant portions of their canals. All of
this was done with notice to the irrigation districts, but no public involvement and no notice to
private property owners of the canals. I learned this while I was touring the nominated segment
of the Pilot Butte Canal with Oregon SHPO staff Jason Allen and Ian Johnson.
The MOA was intended to ensure at least one representative, significant, historic, open, and
functioning stretch of the 22-mile long 1904 Pilot Butte Canal and another of the 47-mile long
1905-1912 Central Oregon Canal would be identified and nominated for listing and thereby,
preservation, so the public and future generations could see a historic working open canal, as
constructed in the historic period. In return for that commitment by COID to preservation, the
Oregon SHPO agreed to sign off on all future Section 106 forms for piping the remainder of the
two canals.
But, things changed from the original motivation and the original signed MOA. The first change
was that literally, the month before the MOA was signed, 100% of the 45 sets of property
owners of the Pilot Butte Canal between Yeoman Road and Cooley Road hired Michael Hall
and Pat Kliewer to apply to Deschutes County and the City of Bend to add their historically
significant 1 mile stretch of the canal to the Comprehensive Plans as a locally designated
historic resource. COID was not a property owner in that stretch.
Those two local applications, to the BOCC and to the City Council of Bend, were submitted in
April 2014 with signatures, addresses and tax lot numbers of every property owner and over a
hundred others who supported them. But, within hours, staff at the two CDDs claimed that all of
the legal property owners of record were not the legal property owners of record, and they
returned the applications and application fees to me unprocessed. Rather than waste money on
fighting what was perceived as a long-held bias against the thousands of private property
owners of the canals at city hall, the owners decided to have us do more research, add to the
local applications, and to submit a nomination to the National Register of Historic Places where
they expected to be treated fairly as the legitimate property owners.
Therefore, both COID”s consultant and Michael Hall and I and a committee of five consisting of
a civil engineer, architect, hydrogeologist, an investigative journalist and property owners were
surveying the system at the same time.
We were methodically walking in and along the North Canal and Pilot Butte Canal, driving along
them, and surveying the entire Pilot Butte Canal and the North Canal and the nominated
segment of the PB canal in 180-foot increments and preparing the nomination. This was being
12
done at the same time as COID’s Seattle consultant was surveying portions of the three canals
from Google Earth and by COID truck, unbeknownst to each other.
None of the parties to the MOA has ever notified the owners of the COID canals of any piping
projects, the Section 106s or the MOA, and have not to this day. Only if one looked at the COID
website, or attended COID board meetings, would one know what was planned. For the owners
of the canal without water rights, that would not occur to them. It was determined that the COID
staff and grant writers are erroneously signing as the owners of the canal on applications and
Section 106 forms, and therefore, no public or owner notification is taking place prior to the
signing of agreements and approvals.
In October 2014, I submitted a nomination to the Oregon SHPO for a segment of the Pilot Butte
Canal. The segment has the most integrity and t carries the full 450 cfs of water. The
nomination was heard by the Oregon SACHP in February 2015. After legal challenges
regarding ownership of the canal by Stoel Rives LLC Law firm, the National Park Service
determine that the private parties that had been previously identified by the Deschutes County
Assessor and notified by the Oregon SHPO for the SACHP hearing were indeed the owners of
the canal and it was listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
After the SACHP heard our nomination and voted to forward it to the National Park Service, ICF
International prepared a nomination for the Vale Irrigation District of a piped site that no longer
held water. ICF also prepared the MPD for COID and two nominations under that MPD, one of
each of their large canals.
Unfortunately, when the SACHP heard the nominations, it decided that the MPD should apply to
all irrigation districts in Oregon with a federal connection and that all of the ICF nominations
needed major revisions. The Nomination for the Brasada Ranch segment was raising many
concerns. In exchange for the request to preserve a significant segment of the open historic
Central Oregon Canal, COID identified and nominated the site of the historic Powell Butte
Siphon at Brasada ranch that was removed and replaced in the 1970s and does not meet the
original intent of the MOA.
However, ICF revised all of the nominations and they were reheard by the SACHP. At the
February 2017 SACHP hearings, the Bureau of Reclamation Regional Office in Idaho, the
Umatilla Irrigation District and others opposed the nominations as being full of errors of fact, too
broad, and of little value. The SACHP at the urging of staff who said it was taking too many
years to get it right, reluctantly voted to forward them to the NPS after staff and the preparer
paid attention to the B of R concerns and made other revisions. It became apparent that
required notification of all of the owners of record of real properties in the Brasada Ranch
segment was not done and the Brasada Ranch owners formerly objected to the listing. It was
not listed on the NRHP. The Vale nomination was not successful. Last summer, the Downtown
Redmond segment of the Pilot Butte Canal was listed.
The MPD nomination was heard by the Oregon SACHP several times and was tabled for
revisions, but in 2017 it was forwarded to the National Park Service. It has been used for three
nominations so far: the nomination of the Vale Project: Lateral 278 Segment Historic District
near Vale, Malhuer County; the Central Oregon Canal: Brasada Ranch Historic District; and the
Pilot Butte Canal: Downtown Redmond Segment Historic District. Of the three nominations,
only the Pilot Butte Canal: Downtown Redmond Segment Historic District has been listed.
13
The MPD was listed after the nomination before you was written and submitted. The MPD has
little information on any canals in particular and is general in nature.
Due to the National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Documentation Form, MPD,
segments of canals or entire canals that were developed under the Carey Desert Land Act in
Oregon between 1901-1950 or by Federal Reclamation Projects in Oregon between 1902 and
1978 can be more easily nominated to the National Register of Historic Places. The MPD
facilitates nominations of entire canals or segments of them throughout the state, including
COID’s canals and Vale’s, Klamath Falls, and Umatilla’s canals, without having preparers or
owners do the intense, time consuming and expensive research that was done by myself and
Michael Hall for the nomination of the listed Pilot Butte Canal Historic District (Yeoman Road-
Cooley Road Segment) in 2014-2015 or the nomination before you. Our research would have
taken a few more years if Michael Hall had not researched and written in 1993 and 1994 the
133-page Irrigation Development in Oregon’s Upper Deschutes River Basin 1871-1957. A
Historic Context Statement, paid for by a CLG grant. Even beginning with that base of research
and knowledge, we each had over 1,000 hours in 7-day weeks of research to write our PB canal
nomination.
The BOCC seems to think that the MPD was exclusive to the two nominations of segments of
the canals that COID nominated in Deschutes County. It is not. The MPD applies to every
irrigation district statewide that meets the two criteria.
The BOCC also was not correctly informed about a 2014 survey of the COID system. It was
performed as a first step in nominating a stretch of each canal to meet a MOA between the
Oregon SHPO, COID and the Bureau of Reclamation for piping a portion of the ‘I’ Lateral in
Alfalfa, near Reynolds and Zell Ponds. The survey was done by COID staff, Black Rock
Consulting, the engineering consultant on the proposed hydropower plants and associated
piping on the system (Kevin Crew PE), and a Seattle based ICF International Consultant, Chris
Hetzel.
The survey was done during the irrigation season in 2014, when the canals were full of water,
so the consultant could not see or photograph the canals below water level. The survey was
done of portions of the main canals by staff and Mr. Hetzel in a COID truck, only where vehicle
access on ditch rider roads was possible and by aerial photography of the majority of the
system. Many structures were mapped on the system, but not all. Most laterals and delivery
ditches maintained by individual property owners were not surveyed in the time allowed. Some
stretches of the main canals where ditch rider roads were and were not available were also
skipped and not viewed, such as along the segment of the Pilot Butte Canal that we nominated.
BUT, COID’s current and future hydropower and piping plans and property ownership were key
considerations in selecting the two segments to nominate to the National Register. Previously
piped segments or sites with little or no integrity such as at Brasada Ranch and segments that
conveyed little water were not eliminated from consideration.
Out of that survey, mapping and consultation, two stretches were identified that met COID’s
criteria, not the SHPO’s criteria. The narrow, flat, straight Redmond Segment of the Pilot Butte
Canal was partially owned by COID and was not planned for piping. Sections of piped canal
were near each end of the segment next to Home Depot in Redmond. In the segment of the
canal in Brasada Ranch, COID had replaced the aging historic structures at the Powell Butte
14
Siphon in 1978, so it is a historic site, while the short open part of the canal above the Brasada
Ranch Equestrian Center was bulldozed and significantly altered in 2017.
COID did not seriously consider nominating stretches that were historically difficult to construct,
that carried significant amounts of water, retained their historic setting, or that were planned for
piping and hydropower in its long-range master plan, called its System Improvement Plan.
The nominations were criticized at the SACHP, by the public and by SACHP members as not
holding a large amount of water, of being severely altered and not being representative of the
historic materials and workmanship or settings. They are not the best segments of the canals
and did not show the labor or challenges of the historic construction techniques, said opponents
orally and in letters at the SACHP meetings.
As the process dragged on for three years, the SHPO staff allowed the nominations to go
forward, partially because a significant segment of the Piot Butte Canal was already listed- the
nomination that Michael and I wrote. The segments COID nominated did not have to be the
best segments nor were they compared in any comprehensive way to the other segments in
either the nominations or in the presentations.
The people of the County and the State of Oregon and private property owners would be robbed
of the right to identify and nominate significant segments of the canals for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places if only COID had that right. They don’t.
In this case before you this month, COID owns one parcel in the proposed historic district on the
Central Oregon Canal. COID erroneously claimed to own 4 parcels. After the debacle at
Brasada Ranch, the Oregon SHPO was very careful in working with the Deschutes County
Assessor to determine the parcels crossed by the 100-foot wide historic district and the owners
of those parcels. COID is the only property owner that objected to listing the Central Oregon
Canal (Ward Road-Gosney Road Segment) historic district, across their land. The remaining
owners as identified by the Deschutes County Assessor are in favor of the nomination and have
a right to nominate their own property to the National Register of Historic Places. It is the most
significant stretch of the canal as described in the nomination.
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS
COID said of listing the historic district “a listing would substantially degrade the
District’s ability to serve their needs if there was a break or leak in the canal that needed
to be fixed.”
COID is spreading fear that it will not be able to maintain the canal in the historic district, if it is
listed on the NRHP. That is baloney, as I said in a nicer way in my oral testimony. The
protection of the historic district would be done right here, at the HLC and the Deschutes
County Board of County Commission.
During the past two years, there have been no problems of the HLC preventing COID from
maintaining and repairing the Pilot Butte Historic District, (Yeoman Road-Cooley Road
Segment.) I expect the same for this segment of the Central Oregon Canal.
15
Unfortunately, COID’s dramatic comment to engender sympathy, shows that COID has not
read the County’s historic preservation code. Has County planning staff advised it that the
County’s Historic Preservation Code allows for ordinary maintenance and repairs as COID and
other irrigation districts have been doing for the last 100 years and for emergency repairs or
necessary emergency alterations, without County HLC’s review?
Section 106
One of COID’s attorneys at the public hearing last week, Matt Singer, said preservation of the
Central Oregon Canal can be done via the Section 106 process, without having a segment
listed on the National Register (NRHP). This is BS. It is misinformation and another misleading
and erroneous comment meant to throw you off base. I think you know it is false.
There is no segment of the Central Oregon Canal that is locally listed as a historic resource or
listed on the NRHP. The Oregon Administrative Rules for implementing Goal 5, Historic
Resources that was updated last year, and the Deschutes County Historic Preservation Code
apply to preservation of only those segments of canals that are either listed on the
Comprehensive Plan or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The introduction to
your Historic Landmarks Code tells its purpose and applicability. So, there is no protection of
the proposed segment of canal to the NRHP until it is listed on the NRHP or the local
Comprehensive Plan through BOCC decision. In Oregon, preservation is done at the local
level with public involvement.
Section 106 forms are used exclusively to have the Oregon SHPO and the NPS review only
proposed projects that are regulated by federal agencies or that are all or partially funded by
federal money (federal undertakings). So, all activities of the COID that are not funded by the
federal government nor regulated by the federal government do not require a Section 106 form
to be completed and submitted at all.
Although the National Register listing does not provide much protection for a property other
than through the relatively passive and academic Section 106 review process of proposed
projects that involve federal funding or federal regulation, preservation in Oregon is done
locally through the local elected officials and their appointed Landmarks Commissions, using a
public hearing process and applying local historic preservation codes
The BOCC itself would be the final decision makers of any proposed alterations or demolition if
the proposed historic district is listed on the NRHP.
The County’s Historic Preservation Code states at 2,28,090.J:
“Nothing in DCC 2.28 shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance or repair
(e.g. painting) of exterior architectural features of a building or structure which does not
involve a change in design or type of materials.”
2,28.090. K. states,
“A change in design or type of materials shall be allowed if the County building official
states in writing that the repair is necessary for personal or public safety due to an
unsafe or dangerous condition in or on the building or structure.”
Furthermore, Sterns Waste is owned by the COID. More information about how it is used in a
emergency is in Section 7 of the Nomination on pages 25 and 26.
16
The preservation of the historic district would be done locally with the BOCC being the decision
makers. Any decision of the HLC could be appealed to the BOCC. The final decision is by the
BOCC, locally with an opportunity for public input.
SIGNIFICANCE AND INTEGRITY OF THE NOMINATED SEGMENT
The last thing I will mention in this letter was COID’s charge that we should have nominated a
segment of the canal in farming country in Alfalfa. Here is my response that meets the real
criteria for significance and integrity.
The Central Oregon Canal Historic District has an exceptional degree of integrity and is a good
example of a pioneer era canal in Central Oregon. Its location has not been altered over time,
and it continues to display the distinctive characteristics of the historic period canal construction,
an irregular, open, trapezoidal- shaped canal, made with local rock and soil by horse teams,
hand tools and custom-designed steam drills. It represents the function and appearance of the
water conveyance system, as it appeared during the historic period. The district is of sufficient
length to portray the purpose, the construction challenges, materials, techniques, and
methodology of construction. The headgates and pipes to 16 ditches, two laterals and one sub-
lateral, and over a dozen irrigation ponds that serve irrigated and cultivated land next to the
canal, illustrate how the canal functions to provide irrigation water to those with water rights. It
also demonstrates the results of a lack of water on land with no water rights.
The structures at Stearns Waste are only 30 years old, but they replaced similar historic
structures at the same location. Stearns Waste is an example of how the irrigation district staff
deals with emergencies that can develop if water goes out of its banks downstream. Burt Chute
and the remains of the historic wooden flume are reminders of the substantial challenges posed
by lava tubes and sudden drops in elevation along a canal that flowed by gravity and could not
go around obstacles. The wooden flumes were leaky and required constant maintenance. All
of the historic wooden flumes that were on the main canal have been replaced with metal pipes
or embankments. Burt Chute and the piers for the Bear Creek Ranch Bridge were formed by
hand with concrete mixed and poured on site.
Workmen had to break up and remove massive amounts of rock, bridge caverns with wood and
concrete flumes, and build huge embankments. The high degree of integrity of setting, location,
design, materials, feeling, association, workmanship of the historic district differentiate it from
the remainder of the Central Oregon Canal. The canal in the historic district is the only
unaltered stretch of the entire canal that conveys the full volume of water (530 cfs) and displays
evidence of all the practical solutions to the unique historic construction challenges in 1905,
1907 and 1914.
The canal in the district has a distinctive lack of uniformity, an undulating bed, irregular side
slopes, heavily rip-rapped or stacked rock embankments, cuts, and rapids caused by large
rocks left in the bed as it drops 50 feet in elevation. The challenging rock, use of native
materials, and practical, problem-solving methodology, resulted in the stretch looking and
sounding like a river flowing naturally. The berms on the edge of the hills on the downhill side
are distinctive and show the difficult labor the teams and men went to in order to place the canal
at the necessary elevation, so the system would flow for the entire length that was planned. It
retains the feeling and association with the surveyors who determined its exacting route, so it
17
could flow entirely by gravity and serve all of the setters and patrons. The canal varies greatly
in width and depth, reflecting the engineers who calculated its necessary volume so that it would
carry the water needed to irrigate future farms for the length of the canal, the superintendents
and supervisors who adapted plans to meet conditions encountered in the field, specialists who
blasted tons of rock with specialized mining equipment ordered the previous year to speed up
work on the Pilot Butte Canal, and the hundreds of laborers with horse teams who dug, scraped,
and moved thousands of loads of rock and soil, while trying to meet construction deadlines that
were set in contracts between the canal developers and the State of Oregon.
The district has the widest variation of terrain and style and the tallest berms on the canal. The
variations demonstrate that a narrow and deep canal with fast volume in a sloped area can
carry as much water as a wide, shallow canal with a slower flow in flatter terrain. The
tremendous variations in the district as seen in the survey data show that the nominated district
displays all the designs and methodology found throughout the entire canal: irregular winding
rocky portions with large built-up embankments on the downhill side; portions with vertical sides
and others with sloping rip-rapped and stacked rock sides; smooth and sandy level portions;
portions with two cuts and no embankments; portions with and without a ditch rider road atop
the embankments; portions with short embankments used to discard the materials taken from
the bed; portions that were blasted and portions that were scraped.
CONCLUSION
Please see the TEST I am submitting to you as attached to this email. I hope you have fun
taking it and looking up the answers and that it motivates you to learn more. My husband has
been designing headgates, canal structures, pipes and pumps for decades, since he worked
on the California Aqueduct in 1968. Michael Hall has been studying the history of irrigation in
Central Oregon for 24 years and writing excellent nominations, researching and writing local
history. I completed two other nominations for historic districts and ten other nominations for
individually-listed properties as the sole preparer or as part of a team. I have spent the last five
years learning from Michael Hall and Don Kliewer, and building on that solid base. But, I find
that the property owners and previous owners are also invaluable sources of information, and I
hope you take their letters seriously.
You deserve better than what the COID general manager and attorney are telling you. Your
time and brains are too valuable to be fed incorrect and misleading junk by parties involved in
this. Why don’t they tell you the truth and let you make an informed decision?
I will always check and recheck my facts as I learn new information that has never been written
in books, every day. As anyone who has asked me a new question knows, if I don’t confidently
know the answer and can tell you how I came to know it, I will always tell you that I do not know
the answer and if you like, I will try to find the correct answer to the question.
Please respect my work and respect the Oregon SHPO and Orgon SACHP’s review process
and vote to forward the nomination to the SACHP.
As the National Trust for Historic preservation says, “Historic places help define and distinguish
our communities by building as strong sense of identity.” I am sure you know the value of the
National Register program in general to research and record local history, and why
preservation is critical. Three Sisters Irrigation District has piped 50 of 60 miles of main canal
18
and saved water in the Wychus Creek. The Swalley district has saved the most water in the
Deschutes River though its piping and other conservation efforts. All but one of the irrigation
districts have initiated plans that pipe their main canals and many laterals. The USGS 2013
report states that the laterals have the greatest water losses from seepage into the ground, but
piping them and the main canals may lower water tables.
There are many agencies looking at the various facets of the piping and hydropower issues,
but your responsibility is one facet: historic designation and preservation. We are counting on
you to focus on that. It is prudent and proper to honor the county’s history and the
contributions of those who came before us, by listing this stretch of the Central Oregon Canal
on the National Register. Once it is gone, we cannot bring it back.
In appreciation of your volunteer efforts and all you do in the community to identify and
preserve our County’s history,
Sincerely,
Pat Kliewer, MPA
1
27-QUESTION 8TH GRADE CENTRAL OREGON GEOGRAPHY TEST
HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW the IRRIGATION DISTRICTS and CANALS?
The answers are at the end.
Source of image: Deschutes Basin Board of Control Website, April 17, 2018.
2
1. Which reservoirs, rivers, and streams are the sources of irrigation water for canals in
Deschutes County? Circle them.
A. Crane Prairie Reservoir
B. Crooked River
C. Deschutes River
D. Dry River
E. Little Deschutes River
F. Metolius River
G. Tumalo Creek
H. Whychus Creek
I. Wickiup Reservoir
2. According to the United States Geological Survey, how many canals are in the tri-county
area of the Upper Deschutes Basin, that generally includes Deschutes, Jefferson, and
Crook Counties?
A. 10
B. 17
C. 38
3. Locate the following major irrigation canals in Deschutes County on the preceding map
of the irrigation districts. Hint: Some districts operate and maintain more than one canal.
Write the letter in the general location of each canal.
A. Arnold Canal
B. Bend Feed Canal
C. Central Oregon Canal
D. North Canal
E. North Unit Canal
F. Pilot Butte Canal
G. Plainview Ditch
H. Swalley Canal
I. Three Sisters Irrigation District Main Canal
J. Tumalo Feed Canal
4. Which was the first canal to be constructed and which was the last to be constructed?
Write “First” and “Last” beside them.
A. Arnold Canal
B. Bend Feed Canal
C. Central Oregon Canal
D. North Canal
E. North Unit Canal
F. Pilot Butte Canal
G. Plainview Ditch
H. Swalley Canal
I. Three Sisters Irrigation District Main Canal
J. Tumalo Feed Canal
3
5. Which of these main canals is the shortest, and which is the longest? Write “Shortest”
and Longest” beside them.
A. Arnold Canal
B. Bend Feed Canal
C. Central Oregon Canal
D. North Canal
E. North Unit Canal
F. Pilot Butte Canal
G. Plainview Ditch
H. Swalley Canal
I. Three Sisters Irrigation District Main Canal
J. Tumalo Canal
6. Which irrigation district constructed the canal or canals that it operates and maintains
today?
A. Arnold Irrigation District
B. Central Oregon Irrigation District
C. North Unit Irrigation District
D. Swalley Irrigation District
E. Three Sisters Irrigation District
F. Tumalo Irrigation District
G. All of them.
H. None of them.
7. Which irrigation district serves the most water users or patrons?
A. Arnold Irrigation District
B. Central Oregon Irrigation District
C. North Unit Irrigation District
D. Swalley Irrigation District
E. Three Sisters Irrigation District
F. Tumalo Irrigation District
8. Which irrigation district irrigates the most acres?
A. Arnold Irrigation District
B. Central Oregon Irrigation District
C. North Unit Irrigation District
D. Swalley Irrigation District
E. Three Sisters Irrigation District
F. Tumalo Irrigation District
9. Which irrigation district has the most staff members?
A. Arnold Irrigation District
B. Central Oregon Irrigation District
C. North Unit District
D. Swalley Irrigation District
E. Three Sisters District
F. Tumalo Irrigation District
4
10. Which irrigation district has not undertaken a piping project?
A. Arnold Irrigation District
B. Central Oregon Irrigation District
C. North Unit Irrigation District
D. Swalley Irrigation District
E. Three Sisters Irrigation District
F. Tumalo Irrigation District
11. Which district has returned the most water to the Deschutes River through its
conservation and piping programs, by diverting less water from the river?
A. Arnold Irrigation District
B. Central Oregon Irrigation District
C. North Unit Irrigation District
D. Swalley Irrigation District
E. Three Sisters Irrigation District
F. Tumalo Irrigation District
12. How would you characterize the irrigation districts?
A. For-profit water and power companies.
B. For-profit water utilities.
C. Not-for-profit, publicly-owned water and power utilities.
D. Quasi-municipal corporations, that are run by a board of directors that is elected
by the patrons with water rights. They must have meetings and records open to
the public. They are supported primarily by assessments of their patrons for
irrigation water and income from selling electricity generated by hydropower.
13. Where does the revenue produced by the hydropower plants on the canals go?
A. To the State of Oregon to reduce income taxes.
B. To Deschutes County to reduce property taxes.
C. To the Federal Government to support clean energy projects.
D. To PGE and Pacific Power to reduce the cost of electricity.
E. To the Irrigation Districts to cover operating costs, pay staff salaries, pay for
consultants, and reduce assessments for patrons for their water.
14. According to the Mission Statements of the Irrigation Districts, what is their primary
responsibility?
A. Deliver water to district patrons by managing and maintaining the system in the
most efficient and cost-effective manner possible.
B. Reduce the amount of irrigation water diverted from the rivers and streams.
C. Increase income from hydropower to reduce the cost of irrigation water to those
who hold water rights, and have the district become profitable.
15. Can patrons lose their water rights, and can new parties buy water rights today?
A. Yes
B. No
5
16. Parties with water rights must use them for beneficial uses as defined by the State of
Oregon a minimum of 1 year out of every 5 consecutive years. Which of the following
uses are not beneficial uses or are not allowed?
A. Domestic uses for drinking water, showers and laundry.
B. Irrigating landscaping and ponds at an urban trailer park.
C. Irrigating urban yards and lawns on 1/5 acre lots.
D. Irrigating lawns in a cemetery.
E. Irrigating playgrounds at schools.
F. Irrigating a pasture less than 1 acre in size on a hobby farm.
G. Irrigating farm crops such as hay or pumpkins.
H. Filling recreational and wildlife reservoirs such as the 6-acre Mayfield Pond, 12-
acre Reynolds Pond, 7.7-acre Zell Pond, Houston Lake and Little Huston Lake.
I. Irrigating landscaping at Bend Airport.
J. Irrigating private and municipal golf courses.
K. Irrigating weeds and native plants.
L. Filling irrigation and stock ponds year around.
17. Which three canals does Central Oregon Irrigation District operate and maintain?
A. Arnold Canal
B. Bend Feed Canal
C. Central Oregon Canal
D. North Canal
E. North Unit Canal
F. Pilot Butte Canal
G. Plainview Ditch
H. Swalley Canal
I. Three Sisters Irrigation District Main Canal
J. Tumalo Feed Canal
18. The Central Oregon Irrigation District owns the three canals and can allow the
development of public trails along them.
True
False
19. While the Central Oregon Irrigation District owns some parcels crossed by the
canals that can be found using an owner search on the County Assessor’s DIAL,
nearly all of the parcels crossed by the canals are in private ownership and COID
has an easement to operate and maintain a canal across those parcels for irrigation
purposes.
True
False
20. Is any of the 22-mile long 1904 Pilot Butte main canal designated as a historic
resource and protected from major alterations and demolition?
A. No.
B. Yes, 1 segments is protected.
C. Yes, 2 segments are protected.
6
21. Is any of the 47-mile long 1905-1912 Central Oregon Canal designated as a historic
resource and protected from major alterations and demolition?
A. No.
B. Yes. The site of the wood stave pipe that was replaced with a modern pipe by
COID in 1978.
22. Central Oregon Irrigation District owns both the canal and the real property (land) in
the 3,000 ft.-long segment of the Central Oregon Canal that it recently piped west of
the Brookswood Bridge in Bend. That is why it could sign an agreement with Bend
Park & Recreation District to allow a public trail in that segment of the canal.
A. True
B. False
23. The North Canal, Pilot Butte Canal and Central Oregon Canal were built by:
A. The federal government.
B. The State of Oregon.
C. Private, for profit, development companies owned by wealthy, well-connected,
politically-savvy investors from the Midwest and east coast.
D. The settlers and property owners cooperatively.
24. When was the Central Oregon Irrigation District formed by a court decree to be a
quasi-municipal corporation in the State of Oregon, to operate and maintain the
canals and to take over the assets of the private Central Oregon Irrigation Company?
A. 1905
B. 1911
C. 1921
D. 1948
25. According to records at the Oregon Dept of Water Resources, since 2009. piping 4.5
miles of the Pilot Butte Canal and adding a hydro plant at Juniper Ridge has resulted
in how much of the 400 cubic feet per second of water being left in the Deschutes
River?
A. 10 cfs
B. 100 cfs
C. None. On average, 450 cubic feet per second are now diverted from the river
during the peak irrigation season. Hydropower takes a consistent amount of
water that cannot be reduced through conservation efforts downstream.
26. A unique feature of the proposed historic district between Ward Road and Gosney
Road is that the canal crosses tax lot 1813060001700, a 79.6- acre parcel owned
by the Bend Metro Park & Recreation District. The public will have access to see
and experience the historic canal year around, with and without water flowing in it.
A. True
B. False
7
27. Which of the following canals have segments that have been set aside for
preservation for future residents and future generations?
A. Arnold Canal
B. Bend Feed Canal
C. Central Oregon Canal
D. North Canal
E. North Unit Canal
F. Pilot Butte Canal
G. Plainview Ditch
H. Swalley Canal
I. Three Sisters Irrigation District Main Canal
J. Tumalo Feed Canal
ANSWERS
1. All except for D. Dry River at Alfalfa and Powell Butte and F. Metolius River.
2. C. 38
3. The Plainview Ditch and the Three Sisters Irrigation District Main Canal are in the Three
Sisters Irrigation District.
The Pilot Butte in Canal in COID flows from the Brinson Blvd. Bridge in Bend, through
Deschutes Junction, through Redmond, and east toward Smith Rock.
The Central Oregon Canal in COID begins in southern Bend and flows east to Alfalfa
and north to Powell Butte and then to the Crooked River.
The North Canal in COID begins at the Deschutes River near the Riverhouse
Convention Center, flows through a commercial and industrial portion of Bend, and
connects to the Pilot Butte Canal at the Brinson Blvd. Bridge.
The North Unit Canal begins near the Riverhouse Convention Center and extends east
near the Bend Pine Nursery Park and turns north and crosses the Crooked River to
Madras. All of its water is used in Jefferson County.
The Tumalo Feed Canal and the Bend Feed Canal are in the Tumalo Irrigation District.
4. First: I. Three Sisters Canal, 1891.
Last: E. North Unit Irrigation District. 1938-1949.
5. Shortest: D. The 1912 North Canal that is 1,613 feet long.
Longest: E. The North Unit Canal, completed in 1949 is about 65 miles long.
6. H. None. They all were constructed through cooperative organizations of settlers, for-
profit private enterprises or by the Federal Government. The districts came later.
7. Arnold Irrigation District: 643 patrons
Central Oregon Irrigation District: 3,600 patrons
North Unit Irrigation District: 2,265 patrons
Swalley Irrigation District: 668 patrons
Three Sisters Irrigation District: 402 patrons
Tumalo Irrigation District: 667 patrons
8
8. Arnold Irrigation District: 4,384 acres
Central Oregon Irrigation District: approximately 44,500
North Unit Irrigation District: 59,000 acres
Swalley Irrigation District: 4,333 acres
Three Sisters Irrigation District: 7,572 acres
Tumalo Irrigation District: 7,400 acres
9. Arnold Irrigation District: 5 people
Central Oregon Irrigation District: 31 people
North Unit Irrigation District: 26 people
Swalley Irrigation District: 4 people
Three Sisters Irrigation District: 6 people
Tumalo Irrigation District: 8 people
10. A. Arnold Irrigation District.
11. D. Swalley Irrigation District
12. D. Quasi-municipal corporations.
13. E. To the Irrigation Districts.
14. A.
15. A. Yes
16. A. and K. Irrigation water cannot be used for domestic needs or to water weeds or
native plants.
17. C. Central Oregon Canal, D. North Canal, and F. Pilot Butte Canal.
18. False. The canals are owned by the underlying real property (land) owners. Easements
for public trails on the “ditch rider roads” beside the canals must be given by the 3,600
real property owners of the land that the canals cross. COID’s easements to operate and
maintain the canals do not extend below the existing surface of the canals. New
easements with each property owner are necessary to excavate in the canal bed or
allow public trails along the canal.
19. True. See above explanation.
20. C. Two segments of the Pilot Butte Canal are listed on the National Register of Historic
Places and are protected by local historic preservation codes. One is in Redmond and
one is between Yeoman Road and Cooley Road at the northeast edge of Bend.
21. A. No. A segment of the canal at Brasada Ranch was nominated, but was not listed on
the National Register of Historic Places.
9
22. True.
23. C. The Pilot Butte Development Company under Alexander Drake began the Pilot Butte
Canal project in 1900. It sold its assets and contracts to the Deschutes irrigation and
Power Company in 1904. In 1910, the Central Oregon Irrigation Company bought the
project and finished the Central Oregon Canal. It owned the company until 1921.
24. C. 1921.
25. C. The average diversion of water from the Deschutes River to the Pilot Butte Canal
during the summer between 2009 to 2016 increased from 400 cfs to 450 cfs.
26. A. True.
27. F. The Pilot Butte Canal is the only canal with designated historic resources.
SOURCES and for FURTHER STUDY:
1. Deschutes Basin Board of Control Website: http://dbbcirrigation.com/
2. Arnold Irrigation District: http://www.arnoldirrigationdistrict.com/
3. Central Oregon Irrigation District: http://coid.org/
4. North Unit Irrigation District: http://www.northunitid.com/
5. Swalley Irrigation District: https://www.swalley.com/
6. Three Sisters Irrigation District: http://tsidweb.org/
7. Tumalo Irrigation District: http://tumalo.org/
8. Oregon Water Resources Dept.: http://www.oregon.gov/owrd/Pages/sw/index.aspx
9. Pilot Butte Canal Historic District in Downtown Redmond NRHP nomination:
http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/HCD/NATREG/docs/Redmond%20Downtown%20Historic%20D
istrict/OR_DeschutesCo_RedmondDowntownHD_SACHP.pdf
10. Pilot Butte Canal Historic District (Yeoman Road-Cooley Road) NRHP nomination:
http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/HCD/NATREG/docs/Central%20Oregon%20Canal%20Histo
ric%20District/COCHD_SACHP%20Draft.pdf
11. USGS Ground-Water Hydrology of the Upper Deschutes Basin and Groundwater Studies.
https://or.water.usgs.gov/projs_dir/deschutes_gw/pubs.html
https://or.water.usgs.gov/projs_dir/deschutes_gw/index.html
12. Resources link on the Deschutes River Conservancy website:
http://www.deschutesriver.org/resources/reports/
13. Deschutes County Assessor’s Office DIAL: https://dial.deschutes.org/
14. Michael Hall, Irrigation Development in Oregon’s Upper Deschutes River Basin 1871-
1957, a Historic Context Statement, 1994:
https://digital.osl.state.or.us/islandora/object/osl:11567
15. Nomination of the Ward Road to Gosney Road Segment of the Central Oregon Canal to
the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP):
http://www.oregon.gov/oprd/HCD/NATREG/docs/Central%20Oregon%20Canal%20Histo
ric%20District/COCHD_SACHP%20Draft.pdf
From:Zoltan Kasko
To:Zechariah Heck
Subject:Canal preservation
Date:Sunday, April 22, 2018 12:34:45 PM
To whom it may concern:
Hi, This is Zoltan Kasko, I am from Hungary and I moved here 4 and 1/2 years ago with myfamily from Europe. The way I got to Bend Oregon was from driving a cross country trip in
my Vanogan that i had shipped over from Europe with my family ( my wife, my 2 sons ages12 and 10 ) from the east coast to the west coast. Our whole family was amazed to
experience all the historic sites along the way which we purposely visited while we werereading books like the Louis and Clark Trail, the story of Sacajewea, the story of the Civil
war, and about the people that formed this country. I can ensure that my whole family haslearned and relived more history during this trip crossing this beautiful country visiting sites
than in a classroom setting. I was amazed to see what great life has been created in the middle of this high desert
plateau that we had been traveling through from the Dakotas to Central Oregon. In myopinion, It was one of the greatest achievements to create life in the desert! This was achieved
by the hard labour of early settlers making this area liveable and green with this irrigation. Ithink all parts of this irrigation system, including the flume remnants in the Old Mill, as well
as sections of the canal that were hand stacked should be noted, preserved, and shared with thepublic as historical resources.
Shortly after our family's arrival in Central Oregon, I was fortunate enough to meet myfriend Gary Grund who introduced me to the history of the canal, how it was built, because the
stretch of the canal on his property is very well preserved and has active sites of thecraftmanship/hand constructed canal that people have built stone by stone. In my opinion as
well as the opinion of people where I am from it would be a sin to destroy the still functioningsite of this great achievement that helped create central Oregon and life in the desert. Through
spending time on Gary's property I was able to see the amazing wildlife that has beenestablished as well as the vegetation thriving along this beautiful stretch of historic site. I was
fortunate enough to see a revival of that time of history through the recreation of a barn alongthis stretch of the original canal that Gary has devoted to the Shevlin Hixon logging times.
Sitting by the canal, with my teenage sons has sparked many questions about the history ofBend which my children would never have enquired about without seeing the actual site.
Despite the fact that I support water conservation, in my humble opinion, the stretch betweenWard and Gosney road of the Central Oregon Canal should be kept as an active historic
accessible site for us and our future generations. Sincerely,
Zoltan Kasko
From:A Warren
To:Zechariah Heck; Matt Martin
Subject:testimony for Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commission and Deschutes County Board of County
Commissioners
Date:Monday, April 23, 2018 3:06:41 PM
Attachments:2018.04 letter HLC comments for COC.docx
The attached testimony is for both the HLC and BOCC concerning the Central Oregon Canalnomination for the National Register--Ward Road to Gosney Road.
Please make sure it is distributed to members of both the HLC and BOCC.
Thank You, Aleta Warren
1
To: Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commission
And Deschutes County Board of County Commissioners
Date: April 23, 2018
This written testimony is addressed to both the Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commission and the
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. The Central Oregon Canal—Ward Road to Gosney Road—will be
reviewed by the Oregon SACHP on June 20. All Commissioners and Council members should read this
testimony as well as the actual Central Oregon Canal—Ward Road‐Gosney Road Segment‐ nomination in
their entirety prior to voting on it. County Board of County Commissioners have not held any public hearings
and SHOULD properly learn about this nomination, their responsibilities as CLG representatives, and the
false claims of opponents before making any votes.
This nomination for the segment of the Central Oregon Canal is being submitted to the HLC and County
Board of Commissioners again because there were so many procedural errors committed by both Deschutes
County and SHPO staffs with the first review that the Oregon Department of Justice decided that the
nomination had to start again and repeat the whole process. You heard false claims from SHPO and the
County Planning Department as to why this nomination is again being presented but this repeat performance
was not caused by anything the author of the nomination did. Do not be prejudiced by false information.
1. Role of County and Exclusive Criteria to be Considered in Reviewing a
Nomination.
As explained by SHPO and Deschutes County planners during the April 16, 2018 HLC meeting.1 This
nomination is to be judged by the rules for a certified local government. Deschutes County as part of a
Certified Local Government is subject to federal, state, and local law. The requirement for the HLC is
to determine if:
1. THE COMMISSION ALLOWED REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT and
2. THE COMMISSION REPORTS ON WHETHER THE NOMINATION MEETS THE CRITERIA OF THE NATIONAL
REGISTER. 54 U.S.C. § 302504.2
The only two relevant criteria for this nomination are:
“The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology,
engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and
objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials,
workmanship, feeling, and association:”
And the historic resources “are associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;”
1 The minutes and even recordings of that meeting have been WITHHELD by the County from public access. Just as the
minutes from the October 2017 HLC meeting have never been prepared and approved, this APPARENT intentional lack
of transparency of the County staff IS IN VIOLATION OF LOCAL CODE.
2 These two obligations are also incorporated into state regulations (OAR 736‐050‐0220), and local code.
2
In applying these criteria, the County should remember its overarching role as a CLG. The National Parks
Service explains this purpose in its handbook for CLGs:
PRESERVATION THROUGH PARTNERSHIP: THIS IS THE GOAL OF THE CERTIFIED
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (CLG) PROGRAM. LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL
GOVERNMENTS WORK TOGETHER IN THE FEDERAL PRESERVATION PROGRAM TO
HELP COMMUNITIES SAVE THE IRREPLACEABLE HISTORIC CHARACTER OF
PLACES. THROUGH THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS, COMMUNITIES MAKE A LOCAL
COMMITMENT TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION. THIS COMMITMENT IS KEY TO
AMERICA’S ABILITY TO PRESERVE, PROTECT, AND INCREASE AWARENESS OF OUR
UNIQUE CULTURAL HERITAGE FOUND IN THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT ACROSS THE
COUNTRY.
2. Deschutes County Has Not Applied the Proper Criteria or Attempted to Fulfill
its Role as a CLG in Regard to the Nomination—Instead it Has Favored COID
and its Interests.
It does not appear that the County is properly evaluating this nomination under the applicable criteria, nor
fulfilling its role as CLG to preserve history. Extensive ex parte communications with an opponent of a
nomination while limiting proponents comments does not satisfy these requirements. Preferential
treatment for opponents by either the County or SHPO should not be allowed. Additionally, any
consideration about the impacts of listing, future destruction plans, or COID’s preferences about listing are
NOT criteria of the National Register and are not allowed. You cannot create your own criteria and forms. If
you have existing bias on this nomination, piping, or hydropower you should recuse yourself from the
deliberations and voting on this nomination.
Under National Register standards, only the legal deeded landholders have a responsibility in listing a
property for the National Register. COID’s actions on this nomination have been deceptive. COID claimed
to own 4 parcels in the nominated area, but in reality COID only legally owns 1. They submitted the correct
forms, all properly signed and notarized, in objection to the nomination for 4 parcels however 2 of the
parcels are not in the Historic District at all and one is not owned by COID. CIOD’s claims of ownership were
never verified by Deschutes County or SHPO. Under National Register standards, COID may vote for that one
parcel. But in this case there are 44 other privately owned parcels making up this Historic District, including
the City of Bend Parks and Recreation. None of the others objected, and a vote of 44 to 1 is definitely
sufficient to list this historic district (a majority vote is required to be favorable).
COID is an easement holder for the canal, and the actual rule as discussed by Matthew Martin of the
Community Development Department in his letter of September 28, 2017 addressed to the Deschutes
County Board of Commissioners states:
“The Central Oregon Canal is operated by the Central Oregon Irrigation District (COID) via
an easement. The regulations applicable to the National Register of Historic Places state:
3
“The term owner or owners means those individuals, partnerships, corporations or
public agencies holding fee simple title to property. Owner or owners does not
include individuals, partnerships, corporations or public agencies holding easements
or less than fee interests (including leaseholds) of any nature.
(36CRF 60.3)”
Based on this definition, the owners of the underlying real property are owners of the
canal, not COID.”
There is no grey in this definition and any references by the County staff, SHPO or COID concerning
ownership by anyone other than private citizens is incorrect, and must be ignored.
As any other interested outsider, COID may comment either orally at a public meeting or in writing with
other public comments. These are the only rights COID has. Extensive ex parte communications and
coordination for the county or the commissioners with COID or its lawyers are unlawful. As an easement
holder COID’s comments must be considered only equal in weight to any other public non‐deeded landholder
for this district. There should be no preferential treatment given to them. At the April 16 HLC meeting COID
received 30 minutes for presentation, equal to the actual preparer, while all other deeded landholders in the
district and non‐district public were restricted to 3 minutes each. The County did not allow the preparer
rebuttal time for the numerous false statements made by COID orally. This shows preferential treatment by
the County and is unlawful. This should not be repeated. Either each speaker receives 30 minutes or COID is
restricted to 3 minutes like everyone else. No exceptions. This rule should be adhered to for both the HLC
and BOCC hearings on this nomination.
3. Deschutes County Should Reverse Course and Properly Consider the
Nomination—or Not Provide a Recommendation at All.
In summary, let’s make these rules more understandable. Deschutes County states that “THE ROLE OF THE
HLC IS TO ASSIST PROPERTY OWNERS IN RURAL DESCHUTES COUNTY . . . PRESERVE HISTORICALLY AND
ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT BUILDINGS AND SITES.” SHPO states your duty is “TO PROVIDE LOCAL
HISTORICAL EXPERTISE” and “REVIEW FOR ACCURACY AND TECHNICAL COMPLETENESS”. These are your
only duties concerning this nomination—preserve history, and verify accuracy and technical completeness of
the historical nomination.
First, at the most basic level, did you receive this current nomination with sufficient time to read it? That is
the responsibility of the SHPO and the County. SHPO had the corrected version of the nomination in their
office in both written and digital form by the middle of September but chose to not give it to you at your
October meeting. Instead you were given the earlier draft, and SHPO’s revision comments—which had
already been completed in the current draft. This makes no sense and undermines the County’s role in
reviewing the nomination for compliance with the applicable criteria and technical accurarcy. Please ensure
that this time did you receive and read the correct, current version. To ensure that you are reviewing the
correct version, Pat gave all HLC commissioners correct current copies at the February 2018 HLC meeting but
4
the County Planning Department instructed the HLC not to read them at the conclusion of the meeting. This
is not appropriate for a CLG’s review of a nomination.
It is apparent from public records that the state is more concerned about protecting its 12 million dollars in
loans to COID and advancing political interests than in following the laws for historical designation,
protecting private property rights, and guaranteeing proper public involvement. Local governments should
resist this negative influence and protect the historical designation process, private property rights, and
public participation. In a transparent and healthy democracy decisions are not made by determining
political ends and getting them without regards to the laws. The laws need to be legally and equitably
applied. Please demonstrate your commitment to these ideals and the public. Actually reading the current
nomination you are evaluating is a necessity. Commissioners of the HLC and the BOCC were invited to visit
the site several times since last summer but your county staff chose not to give you the invitations. The
County and COID took 2 BOCC commissioners together for a private tour, when that qualifies as a quorum
and by law must be identified as a public meeting in the agendas. All BOCC decisions were the result of
“work sessions” which blocked all possible input from the author, proponents and public participation.
Because of these ex parte contacts were improper , all information you heard in prior meetings or pro‐COID
testimony concerning this nomination MUST be ignored or you should recuse yourself.
4. Even if the County was Allowed to Consider the Non‐Criteria Arguments of
COID, Almost All of these Statements are Half‐Truths or Entirely False.
COID has made numerous statements either orally or in writing to persuade you to support their viewpoint.
But are these representations are not actually based in reality.
a. COID is not an expert on history and has not sought to advance
protection through its MPD and own nominations to the National
Register.
COID claims that they undertook an expensive review of their system. However they specifically hired a
National Parks employee from Seattle (he was already employed in that capacity and contrary to Craig
Horrell’s assertion he was not hired by National Parks after he competed COID’s work. He had no prior
experience with irrigation systems.). COID took this fellow on a quick drive around just a few canals (“a
reconnaissance‐level survey”), dictated their desired result, and refused to let him participate in the SACHP
meeting where his intertwined 3 nominations (Downtown Redmond, Brasada Ranch and Vale Irrigation) and
the MPD were approved.
The COID MPD was prepared to substantiate the three named nominations which would have been non‐
qualifying under actual National Register requirements and justified the nominations at SACHP meeting and
National Register with only the COID MPD. Only one of the three nominations was listed on the National
Register. These documents were not to protect history, but rather to permit COID to meet the unlawful 2014
MOA requirements by nominating segments not based on historical significance, but rather segments that
lacked hydropower potential, in order to allow for destruction of historic privately owned property without
any further review by the HLC or public involvement. These documents were prepared specifically to allow
5
COID and other irrigation districts throughout Oregon unsupervised permission to aggressively pursue
hydropower development without oversight by local governments, the public, or private landowners. Even
Umitilla Irrigation District strongly objected to the wording on the documents which would apply to them.
COID and SHPO forced approval through SACHP since their 2014 MOA was due to expire a week after the
SACHP meeting. The Chairman of the SACHP works for Portland General Electric and refused to recuse
herself in spite of direct conflict of interest. Public records have shown that COID does not care about
historic preservation, and conservation of water is not its primary goal. Records show that the governor’s
office has directed SHPO to abandon their primary role of historic preservation to advance the governor’s
political agenda, without respect for public involvement or the rule of law.
This lack of concern for historic preservation and public involvement is even evident in the MPD and the
nominations themselves. The MPD and COID’s underlying survey are not consistent with the National
Register standards. Please read the Appendix below to see citations and the background for these
documents.
Yes the badly flawed MPD and the Downtown Redmond segment were listed on the National Register. But
neither the Brasada Ranch or Vale Irrigations nominations were listed. There are no segments of the 48 mile
Central Oregon Canal on the National Register. Other central Oregon canals have no National Register
segments at all except for the Pilot Butte Canal.
b. COID has attempted to eliminate public involvement in the
consideration of historic designation/preservation of its canals so that
it can advance its hydropower goals.
Regrettably, COID’s poor MPD and nominations are part of an ongoing effort on the part of COID to confuse
and exclude the public. COID negotiated an MOA with BOR and SHPO in 2012 for less than a mile on the “I”
lateral of the Central Oregon Canal without following the requirements of National Environmental Protection
Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). This pipe bisected natural wetlands, and no
public hearings were held. In 2012 SHPO was concerned about the volume of repeat piping requests from
Central Oregon, and so stipulated that COID must prepare a survey of their entire system, and nominate two
historic segments. The next year COID obtained Watersmart funds from BOR to pipe the Pilot Butte Canal by
falsely claiming that they owned the property and that they had all the required permits. They had neither.
After receiving the funds BOR, COID, and SHPO modified the 2012 MOA to the 2014 MOA under the effort of
Christine Horting‐Jones, without even changing the title in the document. “Memorandum of Agreement No.
R14MA13733 among the US. Bureau of Reclamation, the Oregon State Historic Preservation Office and
Central Oregon Irrigation District for piping of a segment of the I‐Lateral Alfalfa Vicinity, Deschutes County
Oregon” applies to all 700 miles of canals and laterals of Central Oregon Irrigation District in both Deschutes
and Crook County. NOBODY directly affected by this revised MOA was notified or permitted to comment.
No public hearings were held. Several individual had filed with SHPO for inclusion in all documents
concerning COID or the Canals prior to documents being signed, but NOBODY was notified. None of the
SHPO requirements of the 2012 MOA had been met, however the piping was complete. The half wetlands
are now only fed by a COID pipe directly from the piped lateral, and as such are not naturally occurring, and
COID may terminate their existence at any time. Again, no NHPA and NEPA standards were followed.
6
Just this year COID, BOR and SHPO modified created a 2018 MOA (while the 2014 MOA mitigation
requirements are still being completed), and again did it without any public hearings, and by again violating
public laws. In fact, the memo from December 27, 2017 from Christine Horting‐Jones to Ian Johnson openly
stating that they had held no public hearings in paragraph 2 as copied below:
“Public Outreach: Reclamation did invite Restore OR, the Deschutes Historical
Society, and the Bend Landmarks Commission to review the draft MOA.
Restore OR declined, DHS sent a quick email in support of the mitigation, and
the BLC has not yet responded with any comments. Since this to‐be‐piped
section is within the city of Bend, it is the BLC not the Deschutes Co HLC (they
are separate CLGs) that was invited. As to HOAs‐Coid owns in fee simple the
land surrounding and beneath the canal—so no property owners have been
invited to comment.”
Christine Horting‐Jones who wrote this memo as the BOR representative demanded “a rapid turn‐around on
your review” since she knew the project would begin in mid‐January 2018. Christine Horting‐Jones was a
participant in each of the COID MOAs since 2012, and authored some of the erroneous Section 106s
concerning piping. None of the MOAs or Section 106s had an open public hearing, and none of them
informed all affected property owners of what was considered—totally eliminating possibility for deeded
landholders to participate or object. All three Section 106s and MOA’s are in violation of law. Since the
agreements in this MOA extend considerably beyond the segment that was being piped, a public hearing
should have been held in which all canal owners should have been notified. The requirement for public
hearings are not predicated on COID’s ownership of one segment, but rather to allow ALL citizens a chance
to participate in hearings and this is a state law. The resulting MOA will affect more than just the one
small segment being piped in January 2018, affecting all canal owners.
The 2018 MOA approved in January promises to give the Bend Parks and Recreation 30 miles of land for trails
along the canals. But COID does not own 30 miles of canal land. As privately owned property COID has
promised something it doesn’t own and cannot give because it will never purchase the land from the owners
and by Oregon law cannot use eminent domain in a for profit venture. Since there was no public hearing on
any of the 2018 MOA it was approved by COID, SHPO, and BOR with faulty promises included. BOR has
previously stated that once an MOA is signed, they will grant the money even if they later find out the MOA
was obtained with incorrect information or illegally obtained. The local jurisdiction needs to be involved or
you have exactly what is happening in Bend now. The oldest section of canal, the original segment supplying
water to the new town of Bend in 1904 and feeding both the original Pilot Butte Canal and the Central
Oregon Canal has been destroyed forever. Eleven foot dimeter pipes have been placed in a previously
wooded area that is now void of vegetation over 50 feet to each side of the pipe because of COID
destruction. And the Bulletin recently claimed that they were only 4 foot diameter pipes since they never
honestly investigate what COID tells them. (If you find your high school algebra a bit rusty, when you use the
Area=pi times radius squared let’s see what that difference is. For a 4 foot dimeter pipe, the volume would
be 50.24 square feet, and an eleven foot dimeter pipe would result in a volume of 379.94 square feet. The
Bulletin “mistake” only reports 13% of the actual size of the new piping. This is exactly why local public
hearings should be done.)
7
COID even had Bend Parks and Recreation incorrectly identify the North Unit Canal in Canal Row Park as the
Pilot Butte Canal in their neighborhood mailings. These canals are owned by a totally different irrigation
companies, and are not one and the same. Size, water flow, width and construction of the canals and area
served are totally different. COID follows the old adage that if you repeat a lie often enough somebody will
believe it. COID wants to confuse the public and the politicians so that everyone will just “believe” them
rather than trying to learn the truth. Irrigation is not complex except when it is intentionally clouded by
misinformation.
c. Contrary to repeated assertions by COID, piping will not necessarily
result in significant conservation of water, but will definitely impact
users of well water and nearby wildlife.
There are serious consequences for the piping of canals. In 2013 the USGS published a study showing that
the piping and sealing of canals significantly adversely affects the water table. COID, and the Deschutes Board
of Control (a coalition of 8 irrigations districts) chose to ignore the warning. If the water table falls, the cities
of Madras, Redmond, all the farms and ranches and half the water for Bend could be in jeopardy. Wildlife
that lives alone canals will die, and all vegetation for at least 50 feet on either side will be destroyed (as it has
been in Juniper Ridge and in Three Sisters Irrigation District). COID has stated that they don’t care what
happens to the wildlife or the water table because the canals are not natural streams. After 100‐years of
existence, and the justifiable reliance of citizens and wildlife on the effects of the canals, irrigation districts
should not be free to just dismiss the negative consequences of its development. In Arizona, Texas, and
Mexico where irrigation districts have depleted the water tables, massive sinkholes have opened swallowing
entire roads and vehicles. Central Oregon may soon suffer the same consequences.
You should also closely examine COID’s repeated false claim of “conservation”. The County and COID were
taken to LUBA after construction of the Juniper Ridge Power Plant. LUBA ruled that COID plans for further
piping to feed the plant were not for conservation, but rather for hydropower production. COID was
instructed to go back to the county and follow the proper procedures.. No proper procedures have been
followed by any COID project before or after the LUBA case. None of the necessary public hearings have
been held for any further projects under COID.
COID submitted many engineering reports concerning repairs in this section of the Central Oregon Canal, but
all of those occurred well after the significant time period of this nomination and are inconsequential. And
in fact the most major repair when the lava tube was opened in 2010 was as a direct result of COID
unpermitted digging in the canal without the landholder’s permission. These older canals have previously
been determined to be water tight, Even engineering reports around 1920 stated that the main canals were
very water tight and the leaking is on the laterals. No matter what COID says about leaking, they have never
produced any factual records to prove anything. Anyone with even the most basic geology training will tell
you that a canal or lateral in sand, as exists in Redmond, Alfalfa, Powell Butte, and Terrebonne, will leak
extensively, whereas an older canal with a basalt base is nearly impervious to the water. Since COID is
currently “dumping” considerable water on undeveloped BLM land in multiple locations (to protect their
“use it or lose it” responsibilities for their grandfather water rights) their comments about “leaky old canals”
8
don’t add up. That phrase is a public relations talking point. Over the last decade COID has spent millions of
dollars in legal and public relations and lobbying expenses to professionally disseminate these talking points,
but has not provided substantiation. Further, COID is not authorized to be engaging in political and
marketing activities.
COID and its attorney have never established that COID actually leaves any additional water in the Deschutes
River in Bend. Their intention appears to be to take water rights and let Deschutes Board of Control (DBC)
resell them further down the system so that the water can be used repeatedly for the planned dozen
hydropower plants they will be building in central Oregon. The larger pipes they put in (11 feet in diameter
in Brookswood area) will require more water that they will take from the Deschutes. Hydropower requires
circular pipes to be completely full with no turbidity to function correctly (no ovals, no multiple pipes side by
side—defiantly visual eyesores above ground as they plan on installing them). COID is upset that the Juniper
Ridge power plant where they were advised to build a 3.5 megawatt plant has insufficient water for the 5.5.
megawatt plant they built on State of Oregon Park Land without acquiring the land first. COID has
responded by overfilling the Pilot Butte Canal to the point of it overflowing into Juniper Ridge. COID claimed
it was “just a puddle” and yet COID was unaware it was overflowing for almost a week. COID’s intention is
to take more water from the Deschutes in pipes so nobody can see it. As a municipal utility there is no
transparency with COID.
Actually since the Juniper Ridge Power Plant was built the water that COID has taken from the Deschutes has
increased. The 400 cubic feet per second which they promised to “save” with the power plant in 2009 has
actually resulted to an increase of an additional 450 cubic feet per second being taken from the Deschutes
by 2016 (a net increase of 850 cubic feet per second to COID’s projected water volume). The irrigation
companies have also modified laws so that they are not required to follow the endangered species
requirements, and so they have already exterminated two of the native fish in the Deschutes ‐‐‐The Bull
Trout and the Steelhead Salmon.
5. It appears that County officials have been biased against the Nomination
through extensive ex parte contacts with COID, or through their occupations.
Under federal requirements for CLGs, state law, and local code, the HLC and County Commissioners must
provide for a fair review of the Nomination, and robust public involvement. The County can be disqualified a
reviewer of a nomination due conflict of interests or extensive ex parte contact with an interested party. It
appears in this case that there are both.
First, it appears that the Oregon State annotated performance standards for Certified Local Government
Program have been violated by Deschutes County. From the State Historic Preservation Office annotated
standards it is a requirement for:
B. "The Certified Local Government establishes and maintains an adequate
and qualified landmarks commission."
9
The CLG must seek the expertise necessary to make informed decisions about historic
and prehistoric cultural resources. This is normally provided by a landmarks
commission composed of professional and lay members; however, qualified staff
members and/or consultants may be relied upon as needed. At a minimum, the CLG
must make a reasonable effort to seat commissioners with a
demonstrated positive interest in historic preservation, the majority of
whom should meet the federal historic preservation professional standards (q.v.,
“Minimum Requirements for Certification,” Historic Preservation Fund Grants
Manual, Chapter 9, (D)(2)). The CLG must provide the SHPO with the opportunity to
comment on qualifications of candidates prior to their appointment.
Based on public records and her previous advancement of the interests of irrigation companies, it does not
appear that Christine Horting‐Jones claim to be attempting to make a POSITIVE interest in historic
preservation—at least for any history related to irrigation or other interests of the Bureau of Reclamation. As
an HLC member she should be protecting history rather than trying to destroy it. It is shocking that the HLC
Chairman appears to have been coordinating the destruction of history in this county through discussions
with planning staff and other HLC members, while publicly recusing herself from consideration of the
Nomination. It is highly questionable whether her position at the BOR is suitable for a member of the HLC at
all.
Further, Deschutes County records reveal that all of the commissioners and the planning staff have had
extensive ex parte communications, and even coordination of the review of the Nomination, with COID.
These contacts have almost certainly biased the HLC and County Commissioners through consideration of
improper factors and unverified information. If you came to review this nomination with pre‐existing bias
due to extensive contacts with COID or evaluation of factors that are not part of the nomination review
criteria, you should recuse yourself. And, in fact, the County should consider if should even be reviewing this
nomination. .
6. Conclusion – Please Review this Meritorious Nomination Based on the Proper
Criteria.
It is time to properly document and evaluate proper preservation of historic canals now. Canals cannot be
relocated, replaced or rebuilt. Once canals are destroyed they are gone forever. COID has been downplaying
the importance and individuality of the Canal systems so they can convince unsuspecting public that “they
are all the same” and that there is no need to save them so that they can generate millions of dollars of profit
for their own use private use. They are taking from the public for their own financial reward. The public and
local governments should be fully involved in correctly evaluating and designating the most deserving
segments of canals, and determining what segments should be preserved.
The first step is to properly document and designate the most deserving segments on the National Register.
This Nomination concerns one of those segments. These canals were built by hand over 100 years ago. This
canal is essentially the way it was built—and that is called integrity. The setting and feeling of the locale
reflect the canals as they were built. It is well described, the appropriate criterion has been used, both
10
historic and current facts are well presented and substantiated, and photos, charts, and maps are all easy to
understand. This nomination is for 1901 to 1935, and all the changes since 1935 are irrelevant. This
segment was declared National Register eligible years ago, and it is time to grant the status it deserves. This
canal is living history and needs to be considered for protection for future generations. The Central Oregon
Canal—Ward Road‐Gosney Road segment meets every criterion for National Register and you should
approve it. The citizens relying on current water levels, wildlife living alongside the canal, and the vegetation
and flowers around it need to be considered when evaluating development—as mandated by federal law
under NEPA and the NHPA.
There will be a substantial loss of important history if COID is allowed to unilaterally determine designation
and preservation of canals. BOR and COID wants to destroy every canal in central Oregon—except for the
few segments it selects for non‐interference with its hydropower plans—and build at least a dozen
hydropower plants in the local area. COID has permission to add hydropower to any pipe in its system. Once
the pipes are installed, there will be no hearings or reviews concerning location or plans for hydropower
plants and the extensive wire webs radiating from them. The noise, electronic pollution, 24 hour lighting do
not belong in residential areas. But COID choices are based on hydropower production, and not
consideration of neighbors, just as their choices for the NR nominations sites were based on hydropower and
not historical significance. Residential areas will become quasi‐industrial areas, and we already have a
housing shortage in Bend. This is your opportunity to designate a short stretch of the Central Oregon Canal
so that it can be considered for preservation, just the way it was when first constructed for posterity. Future
generations will have no knowledge of, or respect for the original irrigation systems which actually were
responsible for settling central Oregon if COID has their way. Don’t let it become just another irrigation
district demolition statistic.
Aleta Warren
APPENDIX – COID MPD AND NOMINATIONS:
Page E‐4 Other possible historic contexts might address irrigation projects in less arid environments, such as
the Willamette Valley or the Rogue River basin. Consideration of these and other specific historic contests are
outside the scope of the current study. And yet on page F‐35 (1 b.) it specifically says “this MPD will only be
applicable to those irrigation projects contained entirely within the State of Oregon.” How can something
with such a limited scope apply to all of Oregon?? Politics!! Nothing else. Looking at a farm in Tumalo does
not allow you to make generalities that apply to downtown Portland.
Page E‐30 (footnote #142) specifically states “..this MPD is only applicable to the nomination of those
irrigation projects (in whole or a portion thereof) where a project‐specific context has been added to this main
document. The two exceptions are the Central Oregon Project..and the Vale Project… The information
contained in this MPD is considered sufficient for nomination of facilities in the Central Oregon Project and
11
Vale Project without any addition or a project specific addendum.” So COID and Vale have usurped HLC
review and vote on future projects. Citizens must supply extensive information and go through all the
proper reviews and votes, but COID doesn’t. There is no supervision at all over COID or Vale Irrigation. And
in the meantime COID attempts to block all other citizen nominations as they have been attempting to do
with the Central Oregon Canal—Ward Road to Gosney Road segment.
Page H‐67 clearly identifies assumptions made concerning all surveys undertaken by COID. They include:
“Resources less than 50 years old were plotted in GIS but not recorded or analyzed.” In other words
everyone else is required to report and describe every feature, contributing or non‐contributing, but
COID can just “forget” about anything that does not meet their agenda. And even SHPO’s records
“forget” anything COID does not want recorded in order to make COID documents appear better
than they are.
“Piped portions of each irrigation project were assumed to be less than 50 years old…and not
recorded or analyzed.” Ironically this allowed COID to just “forget” about all pipes crossing the canals
regardless of purpose or date of construction. These pipes (electrical, natural gas, cable company,
telephones, and even irrigation) should be listed as non‐contributing features and described by
location and use. They impact the visual setting of the canals.
“Common features such as fence lines, vehicle gates, and cattle guards were not recorded or
analyzed.” But these are all defining features of the setting and should not be omitted.
“Inaccessible resources were not recorded. Resources were determined to be inaccessible if they
were within 20 feet of a private residence, access was blocked by a parked vehicle… access was
through private property displaying “no trespassing” signs, there was no discernible road or path to
the resource.” Since when can an historical designation just “forget” about even recording or
analyzing any resources within a nominated district? Only COID can do that. Actually COID
themselves quickly placed “no trespassing” signs throughout their system just prior to the writer’s
visit even on land that did not belong to COID.
The MPD includes everything up to 1979, and therefore includes actual resources would not be eligible under
normal National Register standards. NR requires that nominated resources be 50 or more years old. But
under the MPD, more recent features can be listed. COID singlehandedly changed the application of National
Register law by use of the MPD for the nominations they submitted.
12
Page F‐36 and 37 give COID authority, contrary to the National Register standards, to nominate abandoned
or empty canals or laterals. It also states that features no longer must be used in its original manner. These
were all to justify the 3 nominations submitted at the same time. (Vale irrigation nominated an abandoned
piped lateral with a sealed headgate and never once described the physical size of the small lateral. Brasada
Ranch nominated a buried piped canal, random patches of broken concrete, and a golf cart path trestle that
was built in 2000. And Downtown Redmond included a lateral as contributing which was concrete lined with
a head gate that COID built in–house during the early 1990’s according to page F‐54 of the MPD.) None of the
3 nominations had legally contacted and included actual deeded landholders in hearings or preparation in
spite of all three have privately owned land. When actively functioning historic canals remain they should be
preserved. But COID has made it very clear that they have no intention of preserving history but rather
destroying it. The Cline Falls power plant was the oldest local hydroelectric plant and could have shown
how basic knowledge of electricity was and how ingenious the first settlers were, but COID has destroyed it
for a plaque. Modifications for the fish could have been planned without total destruction of something that
can never be built again. COID does not desire preservation but destruction.
In testimony COID mentioned their “survey” of features and segments. The list COID issued is vague and
confusing, with no useful information for anyone. Generally National Register listings are used by others to
contribute to efforts on other projects or locations, but this cannot be done with this survey. Resource
names and locations are not clear. Photos are thumbnail size and maps are not readable. Identification
system is random. The survey was done for one purpose alone, to meet requirements of the illegally
obtained MOAs. After doing a reconnaissance level drive by viewing of some of the canals, COID sent field
crews to survey them. These irrigation crews have no training is historic documentation. Actual data was
not listed in the survey. There is no verification how the data was collected or when it was gathered. There
is no descriptive and informational data on any resource. COID has not let you review this document
because it is so inaccurate. They brag about it, yet hide it from review.
The MPD does not include a description of rip‐rap which was an engineering marvel at the time of
construction of the Central Oregon and Pilot Butte Canals and deserves recognition. In fact, the MPD states
that all canals and lateral are “earthen or concrete” (page E‐2) and therefore refuses to acknowledge
shotcrete, wooden flumes, or anything built thru solid rock or basalt as occurs in the Bend area. COID
intentionally downplayed most historic features with their lack of inclusion in the MPD. COID has repeatedly
used derogatory comments to discredit others while making unsubstantiated claims and vague comments.
COID’s historical records primarily are irrigation company and BOR records as was shown in Bibliographies of
their documents. In contrast, the extensive bibliography for Central Oregon Canal –Ward Road to Gosney
Road—uses sources from multiple ages of historic information and multiple types of sources and far exceeds
the bibliographies of COID. The Central Oregon Canal nomination was written for historic accuracy, and it
shows.
From:Jennie McDonald
To:Zechariah Heck
Subject:CO Canal nomination before Deschutes Co. Historic Landmarks Commission
Date:Monday, April 23, 2018 2:54:16 PM
Attachments:Deschutes Historical Landmark commission support letter for Central Oregon Canal nomination.pdf
Dear Mr. Heck,
Please accept the attached letter in support of the nomination of a portion of the CentralOregon Canal to the National Register of Historic Places.
Thank you,
Jennie
April 23, 2018
Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commission
1300 NW Wall Street
Bend, Oregon 97701
RE: Central Oregon Canal Historic District
I write to express my full and heartfelt support for the Central Oregon Canal Historic District nomination to
the National Register of Historic Places. I cannot imagine a more important or essential element of the
history of Bend and Central Oregon than the availability, delivery and use of water to create a vibrant and
sustainable community.
As a property owner whose parcel includes the canal, I am very much aware of the vast amount of water the
canal carries and the importance of conserving that resource for the benefit of as much of our community as
possible. As a farmer and seller of grass hay, I am also quite aware of the nature of the soils in the area and
the amount of work required to produce a viable, quality crop. While the nominated section of the canal
may not be surrounded by the large, family supporting farms of the Alfalfa or Christmas Valley area, those of
us who do farm in this section are still an important piece of the agricultural economy of the region. Since
we began farming five years ago, we have transformed a weed choked field into a productive piece of land,
harvesting and selling all of the 25 to 30 tons of hay grown each year. Our neighbors produce fruits and
vegetables, beef and goats and sell the products of their labor. I admit that we can’t make a living from the
income from our farm but I don’t believe that should be a deciding factor in determining if this section of the
canal includes agricultural enterprises representative of the benefits of irrigation in Central Oregon. Income
from our crop is certainly not taken into consideration in determining the irrigation fees charged, and paid,
each year.
Of course, I am also keenly aware of the finite nature of water and the necessity of judicial and conservative
use of this resource. I believe we need a balance between those conservation efforts and the preservation of
such an important part of the area’s history. The nomination of this section of the canal provides an
opportunity to achieve that balance by preserving a section of the canal as it is now, and as it was at
construction, demonstrating the very foundation of the settlement of Bend and surrounding communities.
With Bend Parks and Recreation district owning a portion of this property, the public has a unique
opportunity to see the working canal and distribution system, the rocky, turbulent nature of the ditch itself
and the enormous effect that successful irrigation of the land has had on our homes and lives.
Thank you for your time as you consider this nomination. I recognize it is a complex and important question
and I appreciate the opportunity to express my views on what I see as the irreplaceable nature of this section
of the Central Oregon Canal.
Sincerely,
Jennifer McDonald
21825 Bear Creek Road
Bend, OR 97701
541-218-3154
From:Kristen Grund
To:Zechariah Heck
Cc:ian.johnson@deschutes.org
Subject:YES VOTE for the preservation of the canal
Date:Monday, April 23, 2018 4:57:24 PM
Hello Zechariah and Ian,
My husband and I are a YES vote on the preservation of the 3 mile stretch of canal. Weunderstand the reasoning for the planned piping and continued preservation of the Deschutes
River. As well as the positive revenue for COID having hydroelectric. But we need to save apiece of this historic landmark for future generations.
Please I urge you to stand firm on this preservation. Once it is gone, it is gone forever. In an
ever changing Bend, where things change and no one looks back, please vote yes to save this.
Thank you,
Kristen and Ville Jokinen141 SW Roosevelt Ave
Bend, OR 97702541.797.1470
Comments in opposition of nomination.
From:Matt Martin
To:Zechariah Heck
Subject:FW: Designation of Historic Canal
Date:Wednesday, April 18, 2018 8:58:05 AM
From: Mike Taylor [mailto:savethedeschutes@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 3:44 PM
To: Matt Martin <Matt.Martin@deschutes.org>
Subject: Designation of Historic Canal
To: The Historic Landmarks Commission
I am writing to ask the Landmarks Commission not to approve the historic landmark status ofthe Central Oregon Canal. As president of the Wild River Homeowners Association I
represent over 150 land owners in the Wild River development near La Pine, OR. Ourcommunity is bisected by the upper Deschutes River and our owners care deeply about its
health and vitality. You may be aware that the upper Deschutes has been operated as anirrigation canal since Wickiup Reservoir was put in place in the 1940s. As such we see huge
swings in the flow of the river from winter lows (water being held back in Wickiup Reservoir)to summer highs. It’s destroying the river.
Specifically because of leaky canals the irrigation districts have to release two gallons of water
from Wickiup to get one gallon to a farmer. Yes, they lose an average of 50% in transit in thecanals.
Piping the leaking canals alone would save enough water to meet the needs of both farmersand the river.
Allowing a few people to stand in the way of fixing a major regional problem is a very bad
idea. It is well known that COID has identified portions of their canal system that are morehistorically significant then the section under discussion and which would fit reasonably into
an overall irrigation system infrastructure upgrade.
Please do not approve this application.
Thank you for your considerationMike Taylor
----------------------------------Mike Taylor
PresidentWild River Owners Association
53496 Wild River WayLa Pine, OR 97739
Cell: (503)708-1400La Pine: (541) 323-6995
Vancouver: (360) 597-4933savethedeschutes@gmail.com
From:Matt Martin
To:Zechariah Heck
Subject:FW: testimony for HCL re nomination of CO Canal section
Date:Wednesday, April 18, 2018 8:57:20 AM
Attachments:Testimony County Landmarks Comm 4_16_18.pdf
From: Gail Snyder [mailto:gail@coalitionforthedeschutes.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2018 11:25 AM
To: Matt Martin <Matt.Martin@deschutes.org>
Subject: testimony for HCL re nomination of CO Canal section
Hi Matt,
Please find attached my testimony that I read yesterday at the HLC meeting regarding thehistoric nomination of a section of the CO Canal. I would appreciate being added to an email
list to be informed of future meetings related to historic nominations of canals.
Thank you,
gail
-----------------------------------
Gail Snyder
Executive Director, Co-founder
Coalition for the Deschutes
PO Box 1589, Bend 97709
cell: 503-961-4528
www.coalitionforthedeschutes.org
We're Wild about the Deschutes!
Coalition for the Deschutes
PO Box 1589
Bend, OR 97709
April 16, 2018
To: Deschutes County Historic Landmarks Commission
Re: Historic nominations for irrigation canals
Good evening commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. My name is Gail Snyder. I’m
the co-founder and executive director of the Coalition for the Deschutes. We are a solution-oriented,
grassroots organization that seeks to restore the Deschutes River in a cooperative manner, for the
benefit of our river and for our broader Central Oregon community. We speak on behalf of the
voiceless…the fish and wildlife that depend on the river for survival, and for the river itself.
I have often thought that the Deschutes River and irrigated agriculture have been perceived by the
public as having parallel, separate histories, but as you know, those two histories are intertwined. They
are inseparable.
Irrigated agriculture and canals in Central Oregon only go back about a hundred years, while the river’s
natural history and that of the region’s First People, goes back to time immemorial. But I’d like to touch
on an even more recent historical moment of the river and irrigated agriculture in Central Oregon.
In the 1980’s, there were plans to put 16 hydro dams on the Upper Deschutes, all within 15 miles of
Bend. Lava Island, Dillon Falls, Benham Falls…all these places we love today would have been
dammed. The dams were stopped after a multi-year series of community meetings and analysis led by
Deschutes County. The 1986 River Study was the final product of those meetings. As a result of that
work, in 1987 the Upper Deschutes River was designated a State Scenic Waterway. Then in 1988, thirty
years ago this year, it was designated as a federal Wild and Scenic River.
Fast forward to 1996, the Wild and Scenic River management plan was finalized, with 17 signatories,
including Deschutes County. Both of these documents discuss the need to pipe leaky canals as a key
part of restoring flows to the Deschutes River. These two documents are a fraction of the reports and
studies that have been written for more than 70 years, documenting the demise of the Deschutes, and
identifying leaky canals as a problem.
Piping projects have chugged along for a number of years now, with some water restored to the Middle
Deschutes. But our river is dying. It can’t wait decades longer. Today, fortunately, the two histories of
the river and irrigation are coming together in an action plan to solve the problems. The solutions
require piping those leaky canals.
We’ve paved the dirt roads that people used one hundred years ago to travel through Central Oregon,
even though horse races through downtown Bend on dirt roads must have been a spectacle to behold.
But the roads were infrastructure that enabled the region to prosper and grow. So were–so are–the
canals. The canals are indeed amazing, but the price we are paying to retain them is the Deschutes
River; it’s a toll that we are continuing to pay every day of every year since they were built.
While I understand that you are tasked with preserving our recent human history, I implore to put this
into the broader context that includes our natural history and all of our community. We can honor and
celebrate the history of the past 100 years, but does that mean we have to preserve every single aspect
of it, even if it is causing us continued harm?
And to consider only the history of building the canals is to overlook the history and hard work of
countless people who have strived for just as long to protect and restore the Deschutes River.
These two documents are just a couple of the signs posts along the tumultuous paths that irrigated
agriculture and the Deschutes River have traveled. They have helped guide us to the place where we
are today, with irrigated agriculture and river advocates coming together so that all of those dependent
on the river – fish, families, and farms - have an opportunity to survive and thrive. We have a shared
vision of a restored and healthy river and sustainable agriculture in Central Oregon.
This year is the 30th anniversary of the Wild and Scenic designation of the Deschutes River, but our Wild
and Scenic river is dying. It’s time to restore the river, together as a community, and in partnership with
the irrigation districts.
Please make the direct connection between piping and restoring the Deschutes, because all of our
grandchildren deserve to inherit a healthy river. That should be their heritage. For that reason, I stand
here this evening in support of Central Oregon Irrigation District’s plans to pipe its canals.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Gail Snyder
The mission of the Coalition for the Deschutes is to
bring the wild back to our river so fish, wildlife, and people can thrive.
www.CoalitionfortheDeschutes.org
From:Matt Martin
To:Zechariah Heck
Subject:FW: "No" on Historic Canal Designations
Date:Monday, April 23, 2018 10:44:14 AM
From: Jeff Wieland <jeffjwieland@me.com>
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2018 9:55 AM
To: Matt Martin <Matt.Martin@deschutes.org>; Tony DeBone <Tony.DeBone@deschutes.org>;
Tammy Baney <Tammy.Baney@deschutes.org>; Phil Henderson <Phil.Henderson@deschutes.org>
Subject: "No" on Historic Canal Designations
Good morning -
I am writing to oppose this and any additional Historic Canal Designations.
Residents along COID irrigation canals have adopted a creative but wrong-minded strategy ofhaving their seasonal water feature designated as a historic site. COID irrigation canals are
just a barely functioning means of moving water from one place to another. The only thinghistoric about them is the historic degradation of one of the most stable, productive rivers in
the United States, a river that is both the reason for Bend’s existence and it’s life blood. Toargue that sterile canals that are barren 7 months out of the year are more important than the
Deschutes is simply self-centered and absurd. The needs of the many outweigh the needs ofthe few.
Piping of irrigation district canals is mandatory if we are serious about restoring the Upper
Deschutes while securing future water supplies for farms and cities in the face of populationgrowth, urbanization, and climate change. Canal dwellers will set forth a number of
arguments about why that is a violation of their right to a water feature, but frankly, it’s theirarguments that don’t hold water:
Wildlife: Both ODFW and OHA (Oregon Hunters Association) have stated that open canals
do little to benefit wildlife. They provide little cover and almost no feed, but the service roadsalong them do serve as predator lanes that put game and birds at greater than normal risk.
Yes, a few ducks successfully nest along the barren canals, and a few deer drink from them,but those numbers are biologically insignificant, and the birds and big game will actually do
much better with a healthy river as their habitat and water source.
Groundwater recharge: The geology of the Deschutes Basin provides less and lessgroundwater recharge as you go North. On the other hand, OWRD has data showing that the
porous river bottom of the Upper Deschutes provides substantial groundwater recharge thatcan be expected to increase exponentially as Winter flows increase from 23 cfs to 500 cfs.
Yes, a few artificial springs created by canal leakage losses will be impacted, but they arenothing compared to the groundwater gains created by more consistent river flows. In any
meaningful sense, the groundwater mitigation credits required for cities to provide water forthe expanding urban population can only be generated by increasing instream flows.
Hydropower: Canal dwellers have stated that the real purpose of piping irrigation canals is so
that Districts can install in-conduit hydro-power turbines to generate renewable electricity andfatten their wallets. Although in-line hydropower can be feasible in smaller systems (TSID for
example), the extreme cost of larger scale hydro running only 5 months out of the year doesnot pencil out: the initial expense is simply too high and the rates of return too low to justify
hydro in COID pipes. Even if future turbine technology becomes more cost effective, therevenue generated would only be enough to fund small scale, future ID system improvements,
but the $$ will not lower rates for patrons or generate greater profits for Districts.
Besides providing adequate, secure future water supplies for fish, farms, and families, pipingof irrigation canals will provide additional benefits:
ESA: Irrigation Districts are currently attempting to secure a permit to continue operating
under the Endangered Species Act listing of the Oregon Spotted frog. Without piping, onfarm efficiencies, and market-based strategies for water conservation, they will be unable to
secure the ITP (Incidental Take Permit) required for them to continue operations. Allowing afew homeowners to disrupt our $150M irrigated agriculture industry, the largest single
economic engine in Deschutes, Crook, and Jefferson Counties, would be irresponsible.
The Deschutes River: Studies have shown that a healthy, stable Deschutes can contribute asmuch as $20M per year in recreational fishing income, not to mention the lifestyle and societal
benefits of a restored Upper Deschutes. Piping canals are a critical part of restoring the UpperDeschutes, and it is expensive. Senator Merkley has arranged $50M of funds to help fund the
restoration. Irrigation Districts are required to come up with another $50M of matching fundson their own. Each successful historic listing of a canal stretch will require an additional $3-
5M to pipe around the site, a waste that neither Districts and nor the Public can afford if weare to conserve the large amounts of water needed to restore Winter Deschutes flows out of
Wickiup to 500 cfs and to reduce high Summer flows and flooding of some properties.
Trails: Working in cooperation with Bend Parks and Recreation and County agencies, COIDwill be able to develop a nearly 100 mile network of bike and hiking trails along the former
open canals for the benefit of all Bend and Deschutes county residents.
So, your choice is clear: support the restoration of 60+ miles of Wild and Scenic River for thebenefit of all Central Oregonians, or enable small groups of canal dwellers to keep their
seasonal ditch of a water feature for 5 months of the year at the expense of the UpperDeschutes and the rest of us. 17,000 South County residents urge you to vote for The River
and against historic designation.
Jeff WielandUpper Deschutes Resident
Cell: 541-280-3237
From:Matt.Singer@hklaw.com
To:Zechariah Heck; Zechariah Heck; Peter Gutowsky
Cc:chorrell@coid.org; srae@coid.org
Subject:MPD Document - Irrigation Projects in Oregon
Date:Tuesday, April 17, 2018 12:48:17 PM
Attachments:CareyAndReclamationActsIrrigationProjectsInOregon1901-1978.pdf
Zechariah,
I am writing to follow up on the HLC's request for a copy of the Multiple Property Document. The document is
attached. Please confirm your receipt of this email.
In light of some of the public comment last night, I am also writing to correct some
misstatements/misunderstandings that were made by members of the public. Please treat this email as supplemental
public comment from Central Oregon Irrigation District.
An MPD is a device under the National Historic Preservation Act for the nomination of property groups associated
with historic contexts. The Carey and Reclamation Acts Irrigation Projects in Oregon MPD nomination was
prepared over several years by Christopher Hetzel, a senior historian at ICF International. Mr. Hetzel conducted a
survey of the entire irrigation system, and his findings regarding the Ward-to-Gosney section are summarized in a
chart within the JRP Historical Consulting peer review that we submitted to you last week.
Before the MPD was finalized, the document was subject to multiple public hearings before SHPO and the State
Advisory Committee on Historic Places. The MPD went through multiple revisions based on suggestions from the
state advisory committee. It was then signed off by the Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer, and ultimately
approved by the National Park Service and added to the National Register of Historic Places in July 2017.
During public comment last night at the HLC meeting, various property owners asserted that the MPD "cut out the
public," that it "allowed piping," or that it otherwise dictated particular outcomes or processes. These statements are
all wrong . The MPD is a nomination to the National Register, just like the Ward-to-Gosney Road nomination. The
only difference is that an MPD is far more comprehensive, and is used when there are groups of properties tied to an
historic event. The MPD also provides guidelines and a framework for identifying items of significant historic
worth. But nothing in the MPD document cuts out the public, changes jurisdictions, or does anything nefarious.
Rather, the document is a significant recognition of the important history of irrigated agriculture in our community.
As articulated in the peer review that we have submitted from JRP Historical Consulting, one of our concerns with
the Ward-to-Gosney Road nomination is that it ignores the already-listed Multiple Property Document. The whole
point of the MPD was to recognize the historic value of the entire irrigation system, and to create a framework for
identifying which sections warrant further and unique protections.
Finally, it is worth noting that the Ward-to-Gosney section of the Central Oregon Canal is gated on both ends.
There was much comment from the property owners about the feature they enjoy in their backyards, but lost in that
discussion is any explanation of how the nomination will benefit the public at large. It was telling that one
commenter suggested the HLC members use his private driveway to view the canal, and another commenter stated
that this would be the best way to see the canal. As the HLC considers the historic value of this small section of
canal that winds through a subdivision and past a few larger parcels, it should consider, as COID did with its
Brasada Ranch nomination, whether there are better sections of the canal that show its historic context and also
allow the public meaningful opportunities to engage and view Central Oregon history.
Thanks to you and the HLC for your hard work on this matter. We appreciate the opportunity to provide this
additional comment and respectfully request that the HLC recommend against nomination of the Ward-to-Gosney
section of the Central Oregon Canal. While the second draft of the nomination has been polished, the revisions do
not alter the fundamental problems with the integrity, the lack of connection of this section to important events, and
the general failure to articulate why an unremarkable, short section of canal running through a private, hard-to-
access neighborhood should be listed on the National Register.
Best regards,
Matt Singer | Holland & Knight
Partner
Holland & Knight LLP
Alaska | Oregon
Phone 907.263.6318 | Fax 907.263.6345 | Mobile 907.830.0790
matt.singer@hklaw.com | www.hklaw.com
________________________________________________
Add to address book | View professional biography
________________________________
NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm, Holland & Knight LLP (“H&K”), and is intended solely for the use of the
individual(s) to whom it is addressed. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender
immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. If you are not an
existing client of H&K, do not construe anything in this e-mail to make you a client unless it contains a specific
statement to that effect and do not disclose anything to H&K in reply that you expect it to hold in confidence. If you
properly received this e-mail as a client, co-counsel or retained expert of H&K, you should maintain its contents in
confidence in order to preserve the attorney-client or work product privilege that may be available to protect
confidentiality.