By Bill Poehler | Feb. 26, 2026 | Salem Statesman Journal
The Oregon Water Resources Commission has denied a proposal to build a dam across Drift Creek. The commission found the dam would harm the public interest, citing negative impacts on fish species, water quality, and recreation.
The long-proposed and debated dam on Drift Creek south of Silverton was denied again on Feb. 26th by the Oregon Water Resources Commission.
The commission adopted an order that states the application by the East Valley Water District to build the dam would harm the public interest through potential harms to water use efficiency; threatened, endangered or sensitive species; water quality; fish and wildlife; recreation; economic development; and compliance with local comprehensive plans.
That decision comes after years of legal wrangling that took the decision about a small creek in the hills all the way to the Oregon Supreme Court and back to the commission seven years after it made a similar denial of the dam
“It means that the water resources commission has said, ‘Application denied again,'” said Brian Posewitz, an attorney for WaterWatch of Oregon, which opposed the dam. “That’s an administrative order and technically they could appeal that, also. We obviously hope this is the end.”
Farmers Near Mt. Angel Want More Water
The East Valley Water District is a group of farmers around Mt. Angel that sought additional sources of water so that they can farm when levels are low on the Pudding River. The idea of building a dam on Drift Creek has been around since the 1950s.
In 2013, the district asked the state for the right to store 12,000 acre feet of water behind a 70-foot concrete dam on 384 acres of farmland on Drift Creek in the hills south of Silverton near Victor Point School.
Drift Creek is the only major tributary to the Pudding River that doesn’t have a dam on it.
The Oregon Water Resources Department initially approved that water right, but that set off a series of legal challenges between the farmers from the East Valley district and farmers whose land would be inundated by the water.
Then in 2019, the Oregon Water Resources Commission voted to deny the East Valley Water District application, citing that the state’s in-stream water right to benefit native species of fish including cutthroat trout would be harmed by the dam.
That ruling was challenged to the state Court of Appeals, which upheld the decision.
East Valley appealed to the state Supreme Court, which determined in 2025 that was accurate, but decided the commission hadn’t considered all seven public interest factors in making its decision.
That’s why the decision was returned to the Oregon Water Resources Commission.
East Valley Argues That Order Does Not Balance Public Interest Factors
In arguments to the commission, attorney Kirk Maag of Stoel Rives argued on behalf of the East Valley Water District and said that approval of the application would maximize economic development, increase stream flow and reduce water temperature on Drift Creek.
He also argued that the public interest factors should be balanced by the commission with them all being considered instead of one taking precedent over the others as with the previous order that the cutthroat trout had the most importance.
Maag proposed an addition to the final order that would allow the commission to approve the dam and add conditions such as ensuring lower water temperature and higher flows of water in the summer.
“The proposed order before the commission today is not supported by substantial evidence in the record and does not reflect the careful consideration of the public interest factors required by statute in the Oregon Supreme Court ruling,” Maag said.
Posewitz argued that in a time when the state is spending an estimated $10 million a year to remove dams that adding another would be contrary to the state’s goals.
“In short, we believe putting a dam and reservoir on Drift Creek would just do too much damage to the fish, wildlife and water quality on Drift Creek,” Posewitz said.
“We believe the application also would impair the public interest because it would take land for the reservoir from local farmers who don’t want this project and who fought alongside of us in the contested case to defeat this application.”
For 20 years, the opposing farmers from the East Valley Water District and those who live around the proposed dam have been battling it out in multiple venues.
For now it appears the dam is done, though East Valley can appeal the Oregon Water Resources Commission’s decision again.
“It’s an aging group,” said Joel Rue, one of the farmers opposing the dam. “Their side is aging. We’re aging. Will they concede and say it’s over? I don’t know.”
This article originally appeared in the Salem Statesman Journal on Feb. 26, 2026. WaterWatch makes no claim of ownership to this material.