By John Oliver | Dec. 16, 2025 | Grants Pass Tribune
A long-running dispute over a water right tied to a 65-acre property in Josephine County has reached a significant turning point, with state regulators declining to cancel the water right despite objections from environmental advocates.
The decision clears one legal obstacle for property owners Andreas and Carole Blech, who are seeking to convert the water right from agricultural irrigation to use in a proposed sand and gravel mining operation, a request that continues to draw scrutiny due to the property’s location near the Rogue River and the recent resignation of Andreas Blech from the Josephine County Board of Commissioners.
At the center of the case is whether the water right associated with the property remains valid under Oregon law. The environmental nonprofit WaterWatch of Oregon challenged the right, arguing it should be forfeited because it was allegedly not used for at least five consecutive years, a threshold that state law requires before a water right can be cancelled. If successful, that challenge would have effectively blocked any attempt to transfer the water right for mining purposes.
The Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) referred the forfeiture question to a contested case hearing before an administrative law judge. After reviewing testimony, records, and technical evidence, Administrative Law Judge Alison Wester issued a proposed order in June recommending that no portion of the water right be canceled. That recommendation has now been upheld by the Oregon Water Resources Commission following oral arguments held on December 12th.
In her ruling, the judge determined that WaterWatch did not meet its burden of proving continuous non-use of the water right between 2004 and 2009, the period cited by the nonprofit. Aerial photographs and satellite imagery presented as evidence did not show vegetation patterns clearly consistent with irrigation, but the judge concluded those materials were of limited evidentiary value because they captured conditions only on specific dates and were not well suited to detecting springtime irrigation, when the water was allegedly applied. The judge also found that testimony from witnesses who said they did not observe irrigation on the property did not conclusively establish non-use, since irrigation could have occurred at times when those observers were not present.
The judge ultimately credited evidence presented by the landowners indicating that irrigation occurred during at least some of the disputed years, specifically in the spring of 2008 and 2009. Because that use interrupted the five-year period required for forfeiture, the judge concluded that the water right remains valid.
WaterWatch objected to the proposed order, arguing that the judge misapplied the legal standard for forfeiture and relied too heavily on testimony the nonprofit characterized as unreliable. Those objections were rejected by the Water Resources Commission, which oversees OWRD, effectively closing the forfeiture challenge.
This was not the first time the water right has faced claims of forfeiture. OWRD records show that similar allegations were raised in earlier proceedings, resulting in final orders issued in 2014 and 2016 that also declined to cancel the right after finding evidence of irrigation use. The commission’s latest decision reinforces those earlier rulings and establishes, at least for now, that the water right remains intact.
While the forfeiture issue has been resolved, the broader controversy is far from over. The Blech family’s application to transfer the water right by changing its point of diversion, place of use, and purpose from irrigation to sand and gravel mining is still pending before OWRD. Environmental groups continue to oppose the transfer, warning that mining could pose risks to water quality, wildlife habitat, and downstream communities near a stretch of the Rogue River that carries federal Wild and Scenic designation.
Adding to the public interest in the case is the political backdrop. Andreas Blech recently resigned from his position as a Josephine County commissioner, a role that placed him at the center of land use, development, and resource policy decisions affecting the region. Although the water rights case is an administrative matter governed by state regulators, the timing of the ruling and the proposed mining transfer has drawn attention from residents who view the situation as an example of how private development interests can intersect with public office and regulatory oversight.
State officials have emphasized that the commission’s decision addresses only the validity of the water right, not whether it should be repurposed for mining. The transfer application will be reviewed separately under Oregon water law, which requires regulators to consider whether a proposed change would injure other water users or harm the public interest.
For now, the ruling represents a legal victory for the landowners on a narrow but critical point. The water right stands, and the path remains open for OWRD to evaluate whether it can be transformed to serve an industrial mining operation. That next decision is likely to determine whether the controversy surrounding the Blech property moves from the administrative record into a broader public and environmental debate with lasting implications for Josephine County and the Rogue River watershed.
This article originally appeared in the Dec. 16, 2025, issue of the Grants Pass Tribune.