Confidential and Privileged Information
Appendix F: Annual Value of Water Rights in the Klamath Basin, Oregon
FINAL REPORT
Prepared for
United States Fish & Wildlife Service
By
WestWater Research, LLC 805 W. Idaho Street, Suite 310 Boise, ID 83702
December 16. 2020 Confidential and Privileged Information
Table of Contents
Background and Purpose ...... 3 Regional Overview ...... 5 Agricultural Production ...... 5 Upper Basin Water Rights Administration & Reliability ...... 6 Lower Basin Water Rights Administration & Reliability ...... 13 Water Right Value Determinants ...... 17 Water Right Valuation ...... 20 Valuation Approaches ...... 20 Valuation Parameters ...... 21 Sales Comparison Approach ...... 23 Land Price Differential Approach ...... 29 Summary and Conclusions ...... 38 Appendix A: Maps ...... 40 Appendix B: Land Sales Summaries ...... 42
P a g e | 2 Confidential and Privileged Information
Background and Purpose
In 1908, Lower Klamath NWR (LKNWR) was established as the nation’s first waterfowl refuge. Today, less than 25% of the wetlands that existed in the Klamath Basin in 1908 remain. Approximately 105,000 acre-feet of water is needed to optimally manage wetland and agricultural habitat objectives at LKNWR each year. It takes roughly 3 feet of water per acre of wetland habitat to maintain these habitats throughout the year. However, recent drought years associated with limited Klamath Project (Project) water availability and Endangered Species Act requirements have resulted in substantial reductions in deliveries to LKNWR. A potential solution to the water supply shortage at LKNWR is to transfer state-issued water rights from other locations to LKNWR. In the state of Oregon, a temporary water right transfer is a legal change to a point of diversion and/or place of use of an appropriative water right. The transferred water would be used to support seasonal and permanent wetlands and croplands on various units of the refuge.
It is anticipated that the transferred water supply would be established through temporary agreements with willing sellers located in the following subbasins:
• Lost River • Upper Klamath Basin • Williamson River • Sprague River
This report provides the estimated annual value for water rights in the above regions. The analysis primarily relies upon market data (prior water right and agricultural land sales and leases) to estimate the annual value of water rights. The report is organized as follows:
Regional Overview – this section provides a summary of agricultural water use in the region including irrigated crop production, crop yields, and estimates of water use by primary crops. Where available, agricultural data is presented at the subbasin level to identify important differences in production and associated water values. The reliability of the various categories of agricultural water rights in the subbasins is also assessed.
Water Right Value Determinants – this section provides a general description of the factors that influence the value of water rights and their relevance to the Klamath Basin.
Water Right Valuation – this section describes the various approaches that can be used to estimate the annual value of water rights and identifies those that are applied in this analysis. This section also provides an estimate of the expected transferable volume from each acre of irrigated land in the subbasins. This information is primarily used in this analysis to support the conversion of per acre values to per acre-foot values. The estimated transferable volume from each acre is associated with fully reliable water rights. As a result, unit values for water estimated in this report represent the value of “wet” water that can be potentially transferred to LKNWR.
P a g e | 3 Confidential and Privileged Information
The costs required to negotiate and complete a water right transfer can be significant. The values estimated in this analysis only address the payments to water right owners for foregoing the use of a water right and do not include other transaction costs that are necessary to negotiate agreements and support the regulatory transfer process.
Summary and Conclusions – this section provides a summary of the analysis and results.
P a g e | 4 Confidential and Privileged Information
Regional Overview
The Klamath Basin can roughly be divided into two areas bifurcated by Upper Klamath Lake, the Upper Klamath Basin and the Lower Klamath Basin. This section will first discuss agricultural production across the entire Klamath Basin in Oregon, followed by a discussion of water right administration and reliability first in the Upper Klamath Basin, followed by the Lower Klamath Basin.
Agricultural Production
The Klamath Basin in Oregon is climatically diverse. The Upper Basin is characterized by a high mountain climate with a shorter growing season whereas the southern reaches are lower in elevation and support a longer growing season. These climatic differences lead to different crop mixes in each basin. Table 1 shows crop acreage in different watersheds in the Klamath Basin in Oregon. The data are derived from the 2019 Cropland Data Layer from the National Agricultural Statistical Service.1 As shown, pasture represents the most prominent crop in the basin at around 40% of the estimated cultivated area. Alfalfa, other hay crops and grain crops also have significant acreage throughout the basin. Potatoes, onions and other high value crops are concentrated in the lower elevation western portion of the Lost River Basin, which is served primarily with water from Upper Klamath Lake and groundwater, where available.
1 The Cropland Data Layer (CDL, otherwise known as Cropscape) is an annually produced geospatial layer showing estimates of landcover across the United States. It uses satellite remote sensing data and is focused on discerning cultivated crops.
P a g e | 5 Confidential and Privileged Information
Table 1: 2019 Crop Acreage by Region2,3
Lost River Lost River Williamson Sprague Wood Long Lake Crop - West - East River River River Valley Total Grass/Pasture4 28,446 37,669 7,219 13,369 25,017 9,780 121,500 Alfalfa 41,623 27,999 1,509 3,450 187 1,073 75,841 Other Hay/Non Alfalfa 12,078 17,225 520 3,034 260 1,003 34,120 Barley 9,270 2,386 82 262 20 3,717 15,737 Spring Wheat 8,789 841 16 38 - 846 10,530 Fallow/Idle Cropland 5,496 1,694 159 387 56 877 8,669 Winter Wheat 4,552 1,421 398 108 20 182 6,681 Triticale 586 2,228 10 571 - 41 3,436 Potatoes 2,789 359 15 - - 119 3,282 Oats 1,294 128 - - - 547 1,969 Sod/Grass Seed 214 60 48 10 20 700 1,052 Rye 505 223 20 207 - - 955 Onions 313 42 - 15 - - 370 Corn 52 243 - 20 - - 315 Garlic 249 19 - - - - 268 Other Crops 72 10 - - - 132 214 Peas 151 - - - - - 151 Herbs 92 52 - - - - 144 Mint 53 35 - - - - 88 Data Source: 2019 Cropland Data Layer
Upper Basin Water Rights Administration & Reliability
There are a number of drainages that feed Upper Klamath Lake (See map in Appendix A). The largest is the Williamson River which drains into the lake near Modoc Point on the northeast side of the lake. The Sprague River is a major tributary to the Williamson, merging with the Williamson approximately 10 miles above the Lake near Chiloquin, Oregon. The Wood River drains into the
2 Totals with less than 10 acres were removed. 3 Regions were defined as follow. Lost River – West (HUC 10’s: Copic Bay, Lake Ewauna-Klamath River, Lower Klamath Lake, Mills Creek-Lost River). Lost River – East (HUC 10’s: Gerber Reservoir-Miller Creek, Langell Valley-Lost River, Rock Creek-Lost River, Swan Valley Lake, Yonna Valley-Lost River). Williamson River (HUC 8: Williamson River). Sprague River (HUC 8: Sprague River). Wood River (HUC 10: Wood River). Long Lake Valley (HUC 10: Long Lake Valley-Upper Klamath Lake). Note that Fourmile Creek also forms part of the Upper Klamath Lake HUC8 along with Wood River and Long Lake Valley, but was not included here due to the low number of cropped acres. Only HUCs in Oregon were included. HUCs that did not have any cropped acreage were not included. 4 Cropscape has difficultly discerning cultivated and non-cultivated grass pasture and as such the pasture estimates presented here are likely an over estimation.
P a g e | 6 Confidential and Privileged Information northernmost part of Upper Klamath Lake. Crooked Creek adds significant flow to the Wood River, draining into the Wood shortly before it empties into the Lake.
With the exception of the Modoc Point Irrigation District along the Lower Williamson River, water supply above Upper Klamath Lake is dominated by privately owned diversion structures that serve relatively small acreages. As noted in the above section, the area is dominated by pasture cultivation with notable alfalfa cultivation in the Sprague and Williamson basins. Water rights in the area generally have a duty of 3.0 AF/Acre5, however individual water rights may vary. In particular, water rights along the Wood River often have a duty of 5.0 AF/Acre.6
Trans Upper Klamath Lake Transfers Transfers of water rights through Upper Klamath Lake are rare, with only one having occurred previously. In 2017, the USFWS filed for a five-year transfer (T-12642) of portions of water right certificates 42581, 42582 and 42583 from above Upper Klamath Lake down to the LKNWR. The transfer impacted approximately 9,400 acres and yielded around 25,700 AF of additional water to be used at the refuge. Quantification of the volume transferred differed from how most water right transfers are processed in Oregon in that instead of transferring the full duty of the water rights, only the estimated crop consumptive use was transferred.7 The priority dates of the transferred water rights were relatively junior at 1910 and 1920, however some of the acres subject to the transfer had effective priority dates as junior as 1966. The transfer was substantially modified in 2019 to remove approximately 5,300 acres associated with certificates 42581 and 42583 which reverted back to historic irrigation patterns.
The transfer does set a precedent that transfers through Upper Klamath Lake are possible. However, OWRD Staff have indicated8 that the structure of future transfers may differ and the transferable volume may be quantified using different methodologies. What is not clear is whether any different methodology would be more or less beneficial to the recipient. As such, while it is likely that a transfer of an Upper Klamath Basin water right to Lower Klamath Basin may be approved, the volume likely to be approved is presently uncertain.
Tribal Claims & Priority Regulation The Klamath Tribes presently hold 41 claims that establish minimum flows in reaches throughout the Upper Klamath Basin. These water rights were codified in 2013 as part of the Klamath Basin General Stream Adjudication. The Tribe’s water rights were adjudicated with the priority date of
5 3 AF/Acre is explicitly stated in the Annie Creek (1915) and Sprague River Decrees (1929). No decree has been entered for the Williamson River, however a cursory review of Williamson River water rights also shows 3 AF/Acre is common duty. 6 Explicitly stated in the Wood River Decree (1930) 7 The consumptive use of the rights was estimated to be 2.73 AF/Acre which was calculated using figures from the Cuenca Report. 8 Conversation with Kyle Gorman, OWRD South Central Regional Manager, 7/28/2020
P a g e | 7 Confidential and Privileged Information
Time Immemorial, senior to all other water rights. The water rights contain base instream flow rates9 which must be maintained before any junior rights may receive water.
In order for junior rights to be curtailed, the Klamath Tribes must submit a call request at the beginning of the water year in March. Once this request has been verified, the watermaster will curtail junior water rights until the streamflows stated in the relevant Tribal claims are satisfied. Depending on the gap between the tribal water right and the current flow of the relevant reach, the Watermaster may curtail all out of stream uses or only down to a certain priority date. OWRD maintains a running list of priority calls on their website.10
While there are 41 different claims covering 41 different reaches throughout the Upper Klamath, in practice, water calls are made in approximately 15-20 different locations, which are typically applicable to every reach above the calling location.11 OWRD maintains sixteen flow gauges throughout the Upper Klamath Basin. Daily flows from these gauges along with the relevant tribal claim can be viewed on OWRD’s Klamath Tribal Instream Claim Dashboard.12
In order to better illustrate priority administration in the Upper Klamath Basin, Figure 1 through Figure 6 below show actual flow rates, tribal claim base flow rates (indicated by the red line on the figures) and priority calls at six locations from 2015 through July 2020. Priority calls are common and have occurred in nearly every water year in each of the six locations. Generally, the decline of spring runoff causes flows to fall below the Tribal Claim, leading to a priority call. The process is never exact and the Watermaster possesses significant leeway on what to curtail and when to curtail. Priority administration of the Tribal water rights began in 2015 and as can be seen, there has been some evolution as to what flow rates trigger curtailments. As such, recent years may be more indicative of priority calls going forward.
9 The rights typically contain two types of instream flow right, one entitled Physical Habitat Flows which are set to protect minimum flows necessary for fish “health and productivity” and another entitled Riparian Habitat Flow which are set to protect plant species in the riparian habitat. The stated flow rates vary month by month, and the minimum instream flow should be considered to be the maximum of the two in each month. The figures below which show a tribal flow rate show the maximum of the two instream flow rights. A subclassification of the Riparian Habitat Flow is the Riparian Habitat High (Flood) Flow which essentially requires a higher minimum flow during flood events. This high flow rates can be seen on OWRD’s Klamath Tribal Instream Claim Dashboard but are not included in the below graphs. 10 https://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/misc/dsb_area_status/Default.aspx?wm_district=17 11 For example, a call on the Lower Williamson River below the confluence would normally be applicable to every upstream water right in the Williamson and Sprague Rivers; a call on a upstream tributary creek is applicable to only that tributary creek. 12 https://apps.wrd.state.or.us/apps/wr/klamath_sif_dashboard/
P a g e | 8 Confidential and Privileged Information
Figure 1: Crooked Creek - Flows, Tribal Water Rights and Priority Calls
140 120 Flow (c.f.s.) 100 80 60 40 Tribal Water Right 20
Flow (Cubic Feed per Second) per Feed (Cubic Flow
1950 1940 1930 1920 1910 1900 1890 1880 Priority Call Call Priority
(Red is Shut Off) 1870 1860 Time1850 Im. Note: Time Im. = Time Immemorial. Calls down to this line have shut off all out of stream diversions.
Figure 2: Wood River - Flows, Tribal Water Rights and Priority Calls
500 450 Flow (c.f.s.) 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 Tribal 50 Water Right
Flow (Cubic Feed per Second) per Feed (Cubic Flow
1950 1940 1930 1920 1910 1900 1890 1880 Priority Call Call Priority
(Red is Shut Off) 1870 1860 Time1850 Im. Note: Time Im. = Time Immemorial. Calls down to this line have shut off all out of stream diversions.
P a g e | 9 Confidential and Privileged Information
Figure 3: Upper Sprague River - Flows, Tribal Water Rights and Priority Calls
2500 Flow (c.f.s.) 2000
1500
1000 Tribal 500 Water Right
Flow (Cubic Feed per Second) per Feed (Cubic Flow
1950 1940 1930 1920 1910 1900 1890 1880 Priority Call Call Priority
(Red is Shut Off) 1870 1860 Time1850 Im. Note: Time Im. = Time Immemorial. Calls down to this line have shut off all out of stream diversions.
Figure 4: Lower Sprague River - Flows, Tribal Water Rights and Priority Calls
5000 4500 Flow (c.f.s.) 4000 3500 3000 2500 2000 Tribal 1500 Water Right 1000 500
Flow (Cubic Feed per Second) per Feed (Cubic Flow
1950 1940 1930 1920 1910 1900 1890 1880 Priority Call Call Priority
(Red is Shut Off) 1870 1860 Time1850 Im. Note: Time Im. = Time Immemorial. Calls down to this line have shut off all out of stream diversions.
P a g e | 10 Confidential and Privileged Information
Figure 5: Lower Williamson River - Flows, Tribal Water Rights and Priority Calls
6000
5000 Flow (c.f.s.) econd)
Sper 4000
3000 Tribal 2000 Water Right ubic Feed
(CFlow (CFlow 1000
0
1950 1940 19 30 Off) all 1920 1910
ity C 1900 1890 ior rP 1880 Red is Shut
( 1870 1860 Time Im. Note: Time Im. = Time Immemorial. Calls down to this line have shut off all out of stream diversions.
Figure 6: Middle Williamson River Flows, Tribal Water Rights and Priority Calls
1000 Flow (c.f.s.) 900 800 Tribal 700 600 Water Right 500 400 300 200 100
Flow (Cubic Feed per Second) per Feed (Cubic Flow
1950 1940 1930 1920 1910 1900 1890 1880 Priority Call Call Priority
(Red is Shut Off) 1870 1860 Time1850 Im. Note: Time Im. = Time Immemorial. Calls down to this line have shut off all out of stream diversions.
P a g e | 11 Confidential and Privileged Information
Water Supply Reliability In order to provide water to the LKNWR, water rights transferred to the refuge must be in priority. Figure 1 through Figure 6 above show that most if not all irrigation water rights are routinely shut off during periods of each irrigation season to satisfy Tribal water rights. Table 2 provides an indication of how vulnerable senior water rights are to the Tribal priority call. The six years that the Tribal water rights have been administered are separated into two group, dry and not dry. If all out of stream uses were curtailed on at least one day in the indicated month in any of the three years, it is marked with a “Y” in red.
Table 2: All Out of Stream Uses Called? Water Wood Crooked Lower Middle Lower Upper Month Supply River Creek Williamson Williamson Sprague Sprague April N N Y Y Y Y May N N Y Y Y Y June N N Y Y Y Y Dry ('15, July Y Y Y Y Y Y '18, '2013) August N N Y Y Y Y September Y N Y Y Y Y October Y N Y Y Y Y April N N Y Y Y Y May Y N Y Y Y Y Not Dry June Y N Y Y Y Y ('16, '17, July Y N Y Y Y Y '19) August N N Y Y Y Y September N N Y Y Y Y October N N Y Y Y Y Note: “Y” indicates that on at least one day in the stated month at least one of the three stated years all out of stream diversions were shut off.
There are no options for fully reliable, full season water supplies in the Upper Klamath Basin. All out of stream water rights have been curtailed at some point. As can be seen, all water rights in the Williamson and Sprague River systems are routinely shut off in both dry and not dry years. While water may available in these systems under more senior rights on some days in some years, Table 2 clearly indicates that unless there is a significant change in priority administration in the area, any rights from these systems cannot provide a reliable water supply for the full irrigation season.
The Williamson and Sprague basins may offer intermittent water supplies that provide water during the spring in some wet years. Importantly, the most recent years of priority calls have been binary, with either all out of stream uses curtailed, or none curtailed. If intermittent water supplies are a
13 Up through July 2020.
P a g e | 12 Confidential and Privileged Information viable option, the current system of priority administration indicates that junior water rights in the Williamson and Sprague Bains may provide as much water as senior water rights.
The Wood River Basin, including Crooked Creek, is the only drainage in the Upper Klamath Basin wherein at least some senior water rights have remained in priority throughout most of the period since 2015. The sole exception is in July of 2020, when all out of stream water uses were regulated off in both the Wood River and Crooked Creek for the first time. Seniority is important in the Wood River Basin, wherein the most senior water rights have water available in most months of most years.
Lower Basin Water Rights Administration & Reliability
Much of the farmland below Upper Klamath Lake is within the Lost River Basin and is part of the Klamath Project. The Klamath Project supplies water to users in the eastern portion of the Lost River Basin from natural flow in the Lost River, Clear Lake Reservoir in California and a handful of other reservoirs. The western side of the Lost River Basin is supplied by the Klamath Project via natural flow from the Klamath River as well as water stored in Upper Klamath Lake.
There are eighteen major water districts within the Project, supplying irrigation water to over 200,000 acres of farmland in Oregon and California. Water supplies are administered based upon a unique priority system. Every acre within the Project has either A, B or C priority. If Project water supplies fall below 100%, lands with lower priority experience a pro-rata share of the reduction. Priority C is cut first, followed by Priority B, and then finally Priority A.
Figure 7 shows available water supplies by priority based upon overall water availability to the Project. As can be seen, Priority C only receives water if the project has 100% water availability. Priority B starts experiencing pro-rata reductions in water supply when the Project has around 95% supply and receives no water when the project is at 60% overall water supply. Priority A receives full water supplies when the overall water supply for the project is at least 60%, with pro- rata reductions at lower levels of overall Project water supply.
P a g e | 13 Confidential and Privileged Information
Figure 7: Water Availability by Priority
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 100% 95% 90% 85% 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% Irrigation Supplies Available to Priority Project-Wide Irrigation Supplies Available Priority A Priority B Priority C
Source: Environmental Assessment, Implementation of Klamath Project Operating Procedures 2020-2023, US Bureau of Reclamation (2020)
Environmental Water Right Transfers Reclamation supports voluntary transfers of Project water to promote water management flexibility and to maximize Project benefits.14 Presently, the refuges receive additional water supplies in some years through a program funded by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). In water short years, the BOR will conduct a request for proposals (RFP) process to acquire water. Districts within the Project may contract with the BOR to sell some or all their water allocation (water purchases are discussed in detail in proceeding sections). With the exception of the Horsefly and Langell Valley Irrigation Districts which only receive water from the Lost River, the Districts of the Klamath Project have joined together to create the Klamath Project Drought Response Agency (KPDRA).
The KPDRA contracts with the BOR to provide water for fish and wildlife purposes. In turn, the KPDRA contracts with local farmers to perform activities that reduce their overall water consumption, freeing up water that can be transferred to the Refuges. In 2020, the KPDRA offered the following programs:
− Groundwater Supplementation – The KPDRA will compensate participating landowners to switch from surface to groundwater supplies. Landowners will receive payment equal to the groundwater well operations and maintenance costs.
14 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation April 2020. 2020 Drought Plan, Klamath Project.
P a g e | 14 Confidential and Privileged Information
− Focused Well – The owners of the top 30 most efficient wells15 in the Klamath Project would be compensated to switch from surface to groundwater supplies and would receive compensation equal to the cost of power plus $20/AF.
− Fallowing – Otherwise known as “Drought Response,” this program would pay irrigators to fallow their lands. Landowner payments for 2020 have not been determined according to information available on the KPDRA website.
− Split Season Fallowing – Otherwise known as “Limited Irrigation Drought,” this program would pay irrigators to fallow their lands so long as irrigation ceased by May 12, 2020. As with the other fallowing program, landowner payments for 2020 are not yet known and are dependent on available funds.
Water Supply Reliability Available water supplies for each priority are governed by available flow and the operating procedures of the Klamath Project. Currently, the BOR has initiated a consultation process to develop a long-term Operations Plan, which is expected to be completed by 2023. Currently, the BOR has put in place an interim plan for April 2020 – March 2023. The plan dictates, in part, the volume and timing of water availability to the Project based upon available water supplies. Figure 8 shows the simulated availability of water supplies under the current interim Operations Plan using historically levels of available water supplies from 1981 through 2019. Out of the 39 years modeled, C-contract holders receive no water in 20 years and thus have around 50% reliability. B-contract holders receive a full water supply in 19 years, a partial supply in 16 years and no water supply in 4 years. A-contract holders receive a full water supply in all but three years.
15 As measured by the now-defunct Klamath Water and Power Administration in 2015
P a g e | 15 Confidential and Privileged Information
Figure 8: Simulated Water Supply Availability under 2020-2022 Klamath Project Operating Procedures 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019
Priority A Priority B Priority C
Source: Environmental Assessment, Implementation of Klamath Project Operating Procedures 2020-2023, US Bureau of Reclamation (2020). Note: Chart represents the Preferred Action Alternative
As stated, Figure 8 models available water supplies using historic water supply levels. The Klamath area has been in sustained drought for much of the past 20 years. Utilizing only the period from 2001 through 2019, C-contract holders only received water in 5 or 28% of years. B-contract holders received water in all but one year, but also only received a full water supply in 5 years, receiving only a partial water supply in 12 or 67% of years. Finally, A-contract holders received a full supply in all but one year.
P a g e | 16 Confidential and Privileged Information
Water Right Value Determinants
Water right values are localized such that prices observed in one region are often not applicable to others. Even within a region, water right values are influenced by the legal and physical characteristics of the water right. Some of the factors affecting water right values are briefly described below:
Transferability
Unlike land, water and water rights can be moved from one location to another to meet changing demands. However, there are regulatory constraints that limit changes in the place of use for a particular water right and, therefore, limit the market (universe of potential purchasers) that would be interested in a water right. The market for a water right is defined by physical and regulatory conditions that limit the ability to move water rights from one location, use, and water source to another. Generally, water right transfers are limited due to the potential for “injury” to existing water rights.
In some markets, the value of a water right is affected by the amount of water that can be moved from its current use to a potential new use (e.g., irrigation to municipal). In fully appropriated systems, changes in use can be limited to the consumptive quantity for a particular type of use. The transferable quantity is determined through regulatory review to ensure that the resulting transfer does not injure other water right holders. In such a review, OWRD may consider changes to the following elements of an existing water right: place of use; point of diversion or withdrawal; additional point(s) of diversion or withdrawal; or purpose of use. The transferable volume applied in this analysis is addressed in the valuation section of this report.
Alternative Water Supplies
The availability of alternative water supplies in the market area is an important value consideration. Water right prices tend to be lower in areas where there are alternative water supplies available to meet existing demands. In contrast, water right prices are higher in regions that have little water available to support new uses or have water sources that are costly to access and utilize. OWRD is not issuing new water rights in the Klamath Basin. As a result, new water uses are generally required to lease or purchase existing primary water rights.16
Reliability/Seniority
The legal characteristics of a water right can have significant impact on value. Each water right has a priority date that refers to the date it was established. The priority date has particular
16 Supplemental water rights cannot, by themselves, provide a source of water supply without also including the primary water right.
P a g e | 17 Confidential and Privileged Information importance because it determines the likelihood that water will be available for use under low- flow conditions. During times of water shortages, older, or senior water rights are the first to receive their water allocation. Junior water rights are required to forgo or curtail diversions in order to ensure that the water needs of senior water right holders are met. Senior water rights provide a reliable claim to water, even during low flows, and therefore, command a premium price.
The determination of seniority (reliability) is an important characteristic in estimating the value of water rights as well as in determining the volume of water that is eligible for transfer to a new use. This analysis estimates the unit value for fully reliable water rights in each region. As a result, the estimated unit values apply to each acre-foot of water that can be transferred to LKNWR. It is anticipated that USFWS will structure water right lease agreements such that the negotiated unit price is applied only to the volume of water that is actually transferred to the refuge.
Water Quality
The quality of the source water can limit the potential new uses of the water right or affect the costs required to utilize the water right. For example, in some areas, groundwater rights are more valuable for agricultural production and other uses due to concerns over the potential for pathogens and contamination in surface water sources. In other areas, municipalities and private companies are leasing and purchasing surface water rights for flow augmentation (to enhance water quality) as a way to reduce onsite water treatment costs or mitigate for new withdrawals. In the Klamath Basin, source water quality is not considered to be an important factor to consider when valuing surface water rights.
Transaction Size
The size of the transaction can influence the value of water. Evidence from areas with developed water markets indicates that transactions involving large quantities of water sell for less on a per unit basis than small water sales. This is due in part to the fact that transaction costs are spread over a large volume of water as well as the smaller number of buyers that require large volumes of water. Limited market information in northwest Oregon makes quantifying the impact of water volume on unit price difficult. However, WestWater has completed research and analysis in other more actively traded markets and has consistently observed a negative nonlinear relationship between unit price and transaction size, indicating that volume-induced price impacts diminish greatly beyond relatively small volumes of water. In other words, the volume discounts tend to level off and approach a relatively constant unit price as transaction size increases. The influence of transaction size on unit prices for water rights in the Klamath Basin is analyzed in the valuation section of this report.
P a g e | 18 Confidential and Privileged Information
Period of Use
The period of use allowed by a water right can influence its marketability and value. Municipal, industrial, and commercial water rights often provide for year-round water use. In comparison, irrigation water rights generally are limited to water use during summer months. However, the period of use allowed by irrigation rights generally coincides with the peak demand requirements for many year-round uses. Further, the allowed period of use for irrigation water rights may, under some circumstances, be extended when changing the purpose of use from irrigation to municipal, for example, although the instantaneous diversion rate may be adjusted downward to accommodate the extended period of use. As a result, it is often more beneficial for municipal water users to maintain the period of use associated with an irrigation water right to preserve the allowed diversion rate.
A majority of the water rights that are transacted in Oregon are seasonal irrigation rights. However, there have been some year-round water rights sold. There is no clear relationship between the observed unit price and period of use. In other words, the unit price associated with water rights that provide access to water throughout the year is not discernibly different from the unit price associated with water rights that provide access to a water source for only a portion of the year. As a result, this analysis considers transactions involving both seasonal and year-round water rights.
Urban Influence
Water rights that can be marketed and transferred to urban buyers (municipalities, real estate developers, etc.) routinely sell for higher prices than those that can only be marketed to agricultural or environmental buyers. This is due to the fact that urban buyers generally have a higher ability to pay for water rights than agricultural users.
Units of Trade
In Oregon, as in most water right markets, the common unit of trade is acre-feet (AF).17 For some buyers, the instantaneous diversion rate represents an important factor. However, in the vast majority of transactions, water is priced according to the annual volume of water that is transferred to the buyer. While less common, some water rights do not have an established duty limitation. Under these circumstances, the annual volume and unit price is estimated by assuming continuous diversion over the allowed period of use.
17 Irrigation water rights are often marketed on a per acre basis. However, they generally have an annual duty limitation which allows for a simple conversion to AF.
P a g e | 19 Confidential and Privileged Information
Water Right Valuation
There are a variety of approaches available to estimate the value of water rights. The selection of appropriate valuation technique(s) is determined by the characteristics and nature of the water rights, the proposed transaction structure, the level of market activity, and the availability and quality of information, among other factors.
Valuation Approaches
The methods available to value water rights are briefly described below:
• Sales Comparison Approach: The Sales Comparison Approach compares a water right with similar water rights that have been sold or leased to determine market value. A reasonable number of sales are required to make accurate comparisons. Where necessary, adjustments should be applied to account for differences in physical and legal characteristics between the comparable sales and a particular water right. This analysis presents information on prior water right transactions as a comparison to the proposed transaction.
• Income Approach: The Income Approach estimates the value of a water right according to the contribution that water provides to net income for a business. The method is based upon the expectations of future benefits from the water right and often can be subject to speculation if the future benefits are associated with a new rather than current use. This approach can be a useful alternative to comparable sales in regions where prior sales activity is limited. It is best suited to estimating the annual value associated with a water right lease (rather than sale) and is most applicable to water rights used for agricultural purposes. An Income Approach is not applied in this analysis as it is considered less preferable to the alternative valuation approaches applied.
• Cost Approach: Under some limited circumstances, the cost of developing alternative water supplies similar to that provided by the subject water right can be used to establish value. The approach requires specific knowledge about the range of opportunities and costs associated with water supply development alternatives and consideration of the subject water right in context with the available alternatives. Cost-based agreements are commonplace in environmental water transactions in the Pacific Northwest for transactions that involve infrastructure such as piping to conserve water for instream flow. Within the Klamath Basin, groundwater has historically been pumped to substitute for surface water that has been leased for environmental uses.
• Land Price Differential Approach: The Land Price Differential Approach, also referred to as the “before and after” analysis, estimates the value of the larger parcel including the
P a g e | 20 Confidential and Privileged Information
water right and considers the value in the absence of the water right. The method, which is an application of hedonic price analysis, uses the difference in the property’s value with and without access to water to estimate the contribution that water availability provides to the overall sale price. The approach is particularly useful in regions where irrigation water rights are routinely sold with land but where sales of water rights separate from land are rare. Since sales of water rights in the Klamath Basin are relatively uncommon, this analysis considers the value of irrigated land in the region to estimate the value of agricultural water rights.
Valuation Parameters
This section describes some of the key parameters that are applied in this analysis to estimate the annual value of water rights.
Transferable Volume Estimation of the likely volume of water that can be transferred from agricultural to refuge uses is an important component of the valuation process because it allows for the conversion of values between different units. For example, water right values derived through the Land Price Differential Approach are measured in dollars per acre. Converting from dollars per acre to dollars per acre-foot requires an estimate of the volume of water that will be approved for transfer by OWRD or Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). The volume of water that can be transferred from agricultural to refuge use from each region will be specific to the individual water rights involved. For example, the transfer of a surface water right from the Sprague Basin to the LKNWR may be limited to the consumptive use of diverted surface water that would have occurred absent the transfer which is influence by the crops being grown, the physical availability of water, and the priority date of the water right, among other factors. For simplicity, this analysis applies an estimate of the average consumptive use for forage (pasture and hay) and grain crops as the transferable volume from each region. These crops are the most common irrigated crops idled for water transfers. Higher valued crops such as potatoes and specialty crops are unlikely to be fallowed to supply water for transfer. The consumptive use estimates are not reduced to address drought conditions, priority calls, or water use from sources that may not be transferable (e.g. groundwater).
In Oregon, estimates of crop water use are often calculated using an Oregon State University Extension Service report entitled Oregon Crop Water Use and Irrigation Requirements 18 . Commonly known as the Cuenca Report after its author, it provides estimates of net irrigation
18 https://catalog.extension.oregonstate.edu/em8530
P a g e | 21 Confidential and Privileged Information requirement (NIR)19 for different crops at weather stations throughout the state. In the Klamath Basin, the Cuenca Report estimates average NIR for the four crops as provided in Table 3.20 These estimates are then applied to the pasture, hay and grain crop acreages in Table 1 to produce an estimate of the average transferable volume per acre in each basin.
Table 3: Klamath Crop Irrigation Requirements Average Net Crops from Irrigation Crops from Cuenca Report Requirement Cropscape (AF) Alfalfa, Other Alfalfa Hay 1.75 Hay/Non Alfalfa Spring Wheat, Grain (Spring) 1.95 Barley, Triticale Grain (Winter) 1.74 Winter Wheat Pasture 2.84 Grass/Pasture
The estimates of average transferable volume per acre by region is provided in Table 4. The volumes are associated with fully reliable water rights that can satisfy the full crop water requirements during the irrigation season. The average across the Klamath Basin is 2.26 AF/Acre. The lowest estimate in the Klamath Basin is the in the western portion of the Lost River at 2.08 AF/Acre. This estimate is driven in large part by the relatively low proportion of high water demand pasture in the western Lost River basin. Accordingly, the Wood River has the highest proportion of pasture acreage in the Klamath Basin and has an estimate of 2.82 AF/Acre. It is important to note that the regulatory process for quantifying the transferable volume from each water right acre appears to be evolving at this time and ultimately may differ from the estimates applied here.
Table 4: Per Acre Transferable Volume Estimates Basin AF/Acre Lost River - West 2.08 Lost River - East 2.22 Williamson River 2.56 Sprague River 2.46 Wood River 2.82 Long Lake Valley 2.44 Klamath Basin 2.26
19 Net Irrigation Requirement (NIR) is defined as the total volume of water needed by the crop less water provided by precipitation. 20 The selected NIR values are the estimated irrigation requirement for “19 out of 20” years provided in the Cuenca report.
P a g e | 22 Confidential and Privileged Information
Discount Rate and Term Some water right valuation approaches applied in this analysis rely upon market sales of land and water rights. Application of a discount rate and term (years) is necessary to develop an equivalent annual value from the sales data. This analysis applies a discount rate of 9.39% and term of 30 years to develop annual estimates of water value. The discount rate reflects the 10-year, inflation- adjusted average return to annual irrigation cropland in the Pacific Northwest including annual appreciation and income.21
Sales Comparison Approach
This section reports available water right transactions information from the Klamath Basin. The transactions data is used to develop regional estimates of value for water rights. The analysis begins with a summary of transactions completed in regions above Upper Klamath Lake followed by a summary of market transactions below Upper Klamath Lake. Importantly, water right transactions above Upper Klamath Lake in recent years have consisted entirely of long-term agreements and permanent sales. In comparison, transactions below the lake have consisted entirely of annual water right leases.
Upper Klamath Basin Table 5 provides a summary of long-term and permanent water right transactions that have been completed above Upper Klamath Lake. Due to the extended time period for the sales, the unit prices ($/acre) were adjusted to current dollars using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The $/AF sale prices were estimated using the average transferable volumes for each region described above. The sale values were annualized using a discount rate of 9.39% and term of 30 years to provide an estimate of the equivalent lease value. All of the water rights were acquired from agricultural sellers by non-governmental entities (NGOs) for environmental purposes. No water right transactions between private parties were identified during research conducted for this analysis.
Between 2010 and 2020, the Klamath Basin Rangeland Trust (KBRT) and Trout Unlimited (TU) completed five permanent water right purchases (one transaction closing is pending) and one 30- year water right lease. Among the transactions, negotiated unit prices range from $937/acre for the 30-year transaction to $3,485/acre for a permanent transaction involving senior water rights to Sevenmile Creek. The average negotiated price among the five permanent transactions is $2,423/acre with the three most recent transactions within the $2,100/acre to $2,400/acre range.
21 NCREIF, January 2020. NCREIF Farmland Index. The annual nominal return over the last decade is 11.15% while inflation as measured by the change in the Consumer Price Index has averaged 1.76% (11.15% - 1.76% = 9.39%).
P a g e | 23 Confidential and Privileged Information
Table 5: Upper Klamath Basin Environmental Water Right Sales, 2010-2020 Adjusted Estimated Adjusted Adjusted Total Price Unit Price Volume Unit Price Unit Price Year Term Basin ($) ($/Acre) (AF/Acre) ($/AF) ($/AFY) 2010 Upper Permanent $2,800,000 $3,485 2.82 $1,236 $124 Klamath 2011 Upper 30 Yr $59,839 $937 2.82 $468 $47 Klamath 2013 Permanent Sprague $162,690 $1,881 2.46 $941 $95 2013 Permanent Sprague $1,080,080 $2,239 2.46 $1,119 $113 2016 Permanent Sprague $499,734 $2,138 2.46 $1,069 $108 2020 Upper Permanent $1,000,000 $2,372 2.82 $879 $89 Pending Klamath
Based upon the available water right transactions information from within the Upper Klamath Basin a sale price range of $900/AF to $1,100/AF is considered representative of the value of transferable component of water rights in the Upper Klamath Basin. The available water right sales information is not robust enough to allow for value estimation specific to each region in the Upper Klamath Basin. Applying a 9.39 percent discount rate and a 30-year term, the equivalent annual price range is $89/AFY to $124/AFY.
Lost River There have been a number of water acquisition programs implemented by USBR and the Klamath Water and Power Agency (KWAPA) over the last two decades. The primary objectives of the water acquisition programs have been to satisfy Klamath Project obligations to maintain lake level in Upper Klamath Lake, support lower Klamath River streamflow, and to provide water to refuges. Water has been leased from Klamath Project and Lost River irrigators on an annual basis to compensate for land idling, groundwater substitution, and groundwater pumping. This analysis focuses primarily on land idling payments as groundwater substitution/pumping is not likely a viable option for refuge water supply from the Lost River Basin.22 This section first analyzes the three water leases completed by the USBR since the dissolution of the Klamath Water and Power Agency (KWAPA), followed by an overview of the historic transaction activity in the different water banks in the Klamath.
Table 6 shows the three most recent transactions in the Lost River Basin. The USBR has been leasing water during dry years to improve water supplies to area wildlife refuges including LKNWR and Clear Lake NWR. In 2020, the USBR leased water from the Klamath Program Drought Response Agency (KPDRA) which represents all districts in the Klamath Project that receive water from Upper Klamath Lake. This followed a separate lease between USBR and KPDRA in 2018.
22 Information on the methods used to supply water under the recent agreements with KPDRA was not available. As a result, the payments for land idling cannot be separated from payments for other actions such as groundwater substitution.
P a g e | 24 Confidential and Privileged Information
KPDRA utilizes various programs to reduce water use throughout the districts to deliver water to the refuges. The methods include fallowing (land idling), source switching to groundwater and allowing return flows to reach the refuges instead of being diverted to other uses. In 2018, the USBR also leased water from the two east side districts (Horsefly Irrigation District & Langell Valley Irrigation District) which only receive water from the Lost River System. This water was utilized within the Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge at the headwaters of the Lost River. This lease was not repeated in 2020 as the Lost River system was not as water short, with users along the Lost River expected to receive full allocations.23
The total expenditures in the three agreements was more than $18 million for approximately 50,000 AF from Upper Klamath Lake and Clear Lake (Lost River Basin). Pricing in the agreements was established through negotiations and varied from $290/AFY to $370/AFY, representing a large increase over payments in prior years. The higher prices reportedly resulted in part from the drought conditions being experienced in the basin and the timing in which the agreements were established.24 Landowners that participated in the KPDRA fallowing leases in 2018 received lower payments of $400/acre, or $200/AFY assuming an average of 2.0 AF/acre. The water supplied from Klamath Lake was used at LKNWR while the Clear Lake water supply was used at the Clear Lake NWR.
Table 6: 2018 and 2020 USBR Water Right Leases Water Total Price Unit Price Buyer Seller Year Source ($) Volume (AF) ($/AFY) USBR KPDRA 2020 Klamath Lake $8,140,000 22,00025 $370 USBR KPDRA 2018 Klamath Lake $9,504,000 26,400 $360 East Side USBR 2018 Clear Lake $812,000 2,800 $290 Districts
Prior to the present system wherein USBR negotiates with the KPDRA for water supplies from Upper Klamath Lake, a series of water banking programs operated in most years from 2001-2015 under a variety of different names and managing entities. These banks were typified by individual users submitting bids showing the volume of water they could conserve and the price at which they would supply the water if their bid were accepted. Table 7 shows summary information for each year a water bank operated in the Klamath (No water bank operated in 2002, 2008, 2009 & 2011).
23 https://www.capitalpress.com/ag_sectors/water/klamath-project-water-allocation-could-fall-well- short-of-demand/article_bf111eb2-7903-11ea-89ff-bffb80130bc3.html 24 The agreements were negotiated during the irrigation season when cropping decisions had already been made which may have limited the flexibility of agricultural producers to provide the water supply for transfer. 25 As of 6/23/2020, only 1,500 AF had been delivered.
P a g e | 25 Confidential and Privileged Information
The first year of operation in 2001 was also the worst drought in modern times and was associated relatively high water prices, average $136/AFY. In 2003, unlike in other years, USBR accepted water under a fixed price of $187.50/acre, or an estimated average price of $76/AFY. From 2004 through 2007, the USBR operated a relatively competitive bid program with resulting prices ranging from $59/AFY-$74/AFY. In 2008, the USBR contracted with the KWAPA to run a water banking program. KWAPA switched to a format wherein a price ceiling was set and all bids below the ceiling were accepted up to the targeted volume or available funding. During this period, prices increased form $61/AFY in 2012 to $150/AFY in 2015 as the Project water supply available from Upper Klamath Lake declined. KWAPA ceased operating the program in 2016.26
Table 7: Historic Klamath Water Bank Activity27 Program Total Total Average Average Year Program Name Manager Total Price Acres AF $/Acre $/AFY 2015 Water User Mitigation Program KWAPA $6,955,191 23,184 46,368 $300 $150 2014 Water User Mitigation Program KWAPA $4,793,438 16,432 32,864 $292 $146 2013 Water User Mitigation Program KWAPA $1,791,525 7,341 14,682 $244 $122 2012 Water User Mitigation Program KWAPA $535,404 4,411 8,822 $121 $61 2010 Water User Mitigation Program KWAPA $6,014,659 36,047 72,094 $167 $83 2007 Klamath Basin Pilot Water Bank USBR $1,226,650 13,800 35,400 $89 $67 2006 Klamath Basin Pilot Water Bank USBR $1,413,238 15,100 22,600 $94 $70 2005 Klamath Basin Pilot Water Bank USBR $2,965,461 25,600 39,900 $116 $74 2004 Klamath Basin Pilot Water Bank USBR $1,327,479 15,500 20,100 $86 $59 2003 Klamath Basin Pilot Water Bank USBR $2,705,636 14,400 18,200 $188 $76 2001 Pilot Irrigation Demand Reduction Program USBR $2,830,000 15,797 20,809 $175 $136
Figure 9 shows the annual volume of water leased and the Project water supply available from Upper Klamath Lake. As shown, the volume of water leased has tended to increase with declines in water available from Upper Klamath Lake as the demand for water supply for environmental purposes is higher during dry years when the Project water supply is lower. However, in very low water supply years, the lease volume also tends to be lower (e.g. 2001 and 2020).
26 https://www.opb.org/news/article/klamath-irrigators-should-not-have-gotten-32m/ 27 Data from 2010-2015 from 8/8/2018 memorandum from G. Moss Driscoll, Updated Pricing Water to be Acquired for National Wildlife Refuges – 2018 Emergency Drought Assistance – Klamath Project, Oregon- California. Data from 2003-2007 from WestWater internal data. Data for 2001 from Expert Report of Professor David Sunding in Klamath Irrigation District et al. v. United States of America (Case no. 01-591 L)
P a g e | 26 Confidential and Privileged Information
Figure 9: Annual Lease Volume and Upper Klamath Lake Project Water Supply
80,000 400,000
70,000 350,000
60,000 300,000
50,000 250,000
40,000 200,000
30,000 150,000
Lease Lease Volume (AF) UKL UKL Project Supply(AF) 20,000 100,000
10,000 50,000
0 0 2001 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2010 2012 2013 2014 2015 2018 2020
Lease Volume (AF) ULK Project Supply
Prior analyses have postulated that the unit price should increase with an increase in total lease volume.28 This generally follows the idea that higher lease volumes are associated with idling of higher valued crops which require higher compensation or that some agricultural producers are more reluctant to lease water and require higher compensation to participate in a transfer. Figure 10 provides a comparison of the annual lease volume from 2001 through 2020 and the adjusted average unit price.29 As shown, there does not appear to be a strong relationship between the annual lease volume and unit price suggesting that, even at higher volumes, the leasing activity is not affecting the production of higher valued crops grown the region such as potatoes.
28 ERA Economics, August 5, 2018. 2018 Klamath Water Valuation. Prepared for Somach, Simmons, & Dunn. 29 Unit prices were adjusted to current dollars using the Consumer Price Index.
P a g e | 27 Confidential and Privileged Information
Figure 10: Unit Prices and Lease Volume
$450
$400
$350
$300
$250
$200
Unit Price Unit Price ($/AFY) $150
$100
$50
$0 0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Lease Volume (AF)
Figure 11 compares the adjusted average unit price to the total Project water supply available from Upper Klamath Lake from 2001 through 2020. For the leasing programs operated from 2001 through 2015, there is an inverse relationship between Upper Klamath Lake water supply and the average unit price. This generally follows trends observed in other markets where water prices respond to changes in hydrologic conditions. Figure 11 also shows the pricing for the 2018 and 2020 leases (symbolized by the green dots) which clearly depart from the pattern observed in prior years. However, it is worth noting that in 2018 landowners that idled land (reportedly 15,703 acres) received a payment of $300/acre although the transferable volume from each idled acre could not be determined with available information. The remaining funds were managed by KPDRA to reduce district operations and maintenance charges and other activities.30
30 BOR, April 2020. Environmental Assessment – Implementation of Klamath Project Operating Procedures, 2020-2023.
P a g e | 28 Confidential and Privileged Information
Figure 11: Unit Prices and Upper Klamath Lake Project Water Supply $450
$400
$350
$300
$250
$200
$150
Adjusted Unit Price ($/AFY) $100
$50
$0 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 UKL Project Supply (AF)
Based upon the available lease transactions in the Lower Klamath Basin, the relevant unit price for temporary land idling agreements is between $125/AFY and $200/AFY with the lower end of the range generally reflecting values in wetter years and the upper end of the range associated with values in drier years. This range excludes the 2018 and 2020 lease payments to KPDRA as they represent outliers from the broader set of transaction data. As previously described, the surface water supply to the project is highly variable particularly for priorities B and C. Unit values for water are generally lower in wetter years and higher in drier years. The value range is for “wet” water and therefore only applies to available surface water that can be transferred to LKNWR. The recent transactions completed by the BOR in 2018 and 2020 are not considered to be representative of market values that would result from a competitive process. Importantly, the payments to participating landowners from KPDRA are below the prices paid by BOR and are within the range estimated above.
Land Price Differential Approach
This section provides water right value estimates using agricultural land transactions. Land values above Upper Klamath Lake are presented in the next section followed by an analysis of land sales in the Lost River Basin. In the Upper Klamath Basin, a simple linear analysis was applied because the limited number of land sales did not lend itself to the type of statistical analysis applied in the Lost River Basin. The simpler analysis applied in the Upper Klamath Basin has a higher risk that the value attributed to water rights could be overestimated because it does not control for other factors affecting land values such as location or elevation.
P a g e | 29 Confidential and Privileged Information
Upper Klamath Basin This section reports agricultural land sales identified in the Upper Klamath Basin from 2010 through May of 202. The land sales data is used to estimate a range of value for water rights in the study area. The sales data was obtained through both Klamath County Assessor parcel data and a proprietary, nationwide land sales database. All data were CPI adjusted to current dollars. The following criteria were applied to select the transactions most applicable to the analysis:
Location – The parcels involved in each sale were mapped in GIS to determine the property locations. Those sales that fell outside of the UKB were excluded from the analysis.
Transaction Size – Transactions involving less than 50 acres of land were excluded from the analysis. This limit was applied to select transactions that are more reflective of commercial agriculture/ranching.
Property Class – Sales where at least one parcel with an agriculture related property class code were included.
Improvements – In order to remove sales where large improvement values may obscure true land value, sales where the assessed value of the property’s improvements were over 20% of the sale price were removed.
Sale Type – Sales involving related parties or business associated were excluded.
Newer sales were further inspected via satellite imagery to determine if the transacted lands truly represented irrigated and/or non-irrigated agriculture. Properties that consisted mostly of timber, wasteland, or that were obviously purchased for the amenity value – such as riverfront property – were then removed.
A total of 34 transactions remained following application of the above criteria and can be seen in Table B1 in Appendix B. Each of the transactions involved a different mix of irrigated and dryland acres. Property information maintained by the Assessor was determined to not be fully reliable for identifying irrigated land. Therefore, this analysis relied upon GIS files showing the locations of water rights in the UKB.31 The water rights data was intersected with the parcel boundaries for each transaction to classify the proportion of the land involved in each sale to which a water right was appurtenant, known here as the water righted percentage.
The sales ranged from 61 to 3,581 acres. Many of the sales included some improvements, such as homes and outbuildings. To account for them in the analysis, the assessor estimated market improvement value was deducted from the total sale price. The reported price per acre removes the assessor determined market value. Per acre prices range from $369/acre to $5,152/acre. This
31 GIS information was drawn from the Oregon Water Resources Department. This data does not include irrigation district water rights and as such, properties within irrigation districts were double checked using tabular data to determine irrigated acreage.
P a g e | 30 Confidential and Privileged Information analysis assumes that the differences in per acre values are largely attributable to the percent of water-righted land involved each transaction. Water righted percentages for each sale range from 0% to 100%. The transactions primarily were located in the Wood and Sprague regions although a number of transactions in the Lower Williamson regions were also identified.
Figure 12 plots the per acre price against the percentage of water-righted acres involved in each transaction. As anticipated, the per acre price increases with the percentage of water-righted acres. However, there is significant variation in prices which can be due to a variety of other factors such as sale size, soil types, location, and water right priority. Due to the limited data set, it is not possible to consider all of the potential factors influencing sale prices.
Figure 12: Land Price by Water-Righted Acres 6000
5000
4000 y = 2191.3x + 811.09 R² = 0.4915 3000
2000 Unit Price ($/Acre) Price Unit 1000
0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% % Water-Righted Sprague Lower Williamson Wood Valley
Including all transactions, the trend indicates an average water right value of approximately $2,191/acre. Further, based upon the available data, it appears that the land values and corresponding water right values in the Wood Valley are generally higher than the Sprague. For example, transactions in the Sprague with more than 80% water-righted land have an average price of $1,821/acre. In comparison, land transactions in the Wood Valley with more than 80% water-righted land exhibit an average price of $3,263/acre. While not conclusive, the available information suggests that fully irrigated land values in the Wood Basin are in the neighborhood of $3,000 to $4,000/acre while non-irrigated land values are approximately $1,000/acre. This indicates a value of approximately $2,000/acre to $3,000/acre for Wood Basin water rights. Based upon available land sales in the Sprague, water rights contribute approximately $1,000/acre to $1,500/acre. Available land sales in the other regions (e.g. Williamson) are limited but indicate water right values of approximately $2,000/acre.
P a g e | 31 Confidential and Privileged Information
As previously described, the reliability of water rights in the Upper Klamath Basin has been negatively impacted by Tribal water right calls. This has undoubtably affected the land values applied in this analysis. To account for this, the upper end of the estimated value range is applied in the Wood Basin ($3,000/acre) and the average value from the above analysis is applied to the Williamson and Sprague basins (approximately $2,200/acre). This indicates an annual value for transferable water of $125/AFY in the Wood Basin, $87/AFY in the Williamson Basin, and $90/AFY in the Sprague Basin.
Table 8: Estimated Upper Klamath Basin Water Right Values Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Value Volume Unit Price Unit Price Region ($/Acre) (AF/acre) ($/AF) ($/AFY) Upper Klamath $3,000 2.82 $1,241 $107 Williamson $2,200 2.56 $859 $87 Sprague $2,200 2.46 $894 $90
Lost River This section reports agricultural land sales identified in the Lost Creek Basin in Klamath County Oregon between 2015 and May of 2020. The land sales data are from the Klamath County Assessor and are used to estimate a range of value for water rights in the study area. All data were CPI adjusted to May 2020 dollars. The following criteria were applied in order to select the transactions most applicable to the analysis:
Location – The parcels involved in each sale were mapped in GIS to determine the property locations. Those sales that fell outside of the Lost Creek Basin were excluded from the analysis. Sales in the Swan Lake sub-basin were also excluded as the entire sub-basin falls outside of the Klamath Project and there is no surface water connectivity. Transaction Size – Transactions involving less than 50 acres of land were excluded from the analysis. This limit was applied to select transactions that are more reflective of commercial agriculture/ranching. Property Class – Sales where at least one parcel with an agriculture or tract property class code were included.32 Sale Type – Sales involving related parties or business associated were excluded. Improvements – The estimated value of property improvements is controlled for in the statistical analysis provided below.
32 All counties in Oregon utilize a three digit system to denote the use of each parcel. The first digit of the number delineates a high level categorization for land use. The digit 5 is used for all agricultural parcels. The digit 4 denotes ‘tract’ parcels. While these parcels are technically vacant/bare land, the property classification is often mis-applied to agricultural parcels and as such the parcels were included here.
P a g e | 32 Confidential and Privileged Information
Sales were further inspected via satellite imagery to determine if the transacted lands truly represented irrigated and/or non-irrigated agriculture. Properties that consisted mostly of timber, wasteland, or that were obviously purchased for the amenity value – such as riverfront property – were then removed. Sales where mobile homes were included on the property, but not included in the assessor’s improvement value estimates were also removed.
A total of 88 transactions remained following application of the above criteria. Each of the transactions involved a different mix of irrigated, dryland and forest acres. In order to determine if a property contained a water right, water rights place of use spatial data was intersected with the parcel boundaries for each transaction to classify the proportion of the land involved in each sale to which a water right was appurtenant, known here as the water righted percentage. Water right place of use data in the western portion of the Lost River Basin is complete and is considered to be accurate. However, water right place of use data are missing in many areas of the eastern Lost River Basin. All sales in the eastern lost river basin were manually investigated using satellite imagery to determine the actually irrigated acreage. The ratio of acreage irrigated and/or covered by water rights to total acreage involved in the sale is known here as the water righted percentage.
A table summarizing the 88 sales and can be found in Appendix B (Table B2). The sales ranged from 56 to 2,386 acres. Many of the sales included some improvements, such as homes and outbuildings. In order to account for them in the analysis, the assessor estimated market improvement value at the time of the sale was deducted from the total sale price. As shown, per acre prices range from $160/acre to $6,580/acre. This analysis assumes that the differences in per acre values are largely attributable to the percent of water-righted land involved each transaction. As shown, the water righted percentages for each sale range from 0% to 100%. The transactions primarily were located in the Mill Creek subbasin, with a significant number of sales also in the Langell & Yonna Valley sub-basins.
P a g e | 33 Confidential and Privileged Information
Figure 13: Lost Creek Basin Selected Agricultural Land Sales
$7,000
$6,000 y = 28.584x + 946.28 R² = 0.3579 $5,000
$4,000
$/Acre $3,000
$2,000
$1,000
$0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Water Righted Percentage
Figure 13 plots the per acre price against the percentage of water-righted acres involved in each transaction. As anticipated, the per acre price increases with the percentage of water-righted acres and indicates a price premium of $2,858 for each acre that is 100% water righted versus an acre with no water rights, on average. However, there is significant variation in prices, especially for properties with a water righted percentage over 80%. This variation may be due to a variety of other factors such as sale size, soil types, location, and water right priority.
To account for some of this variation, a simple hedonic price model was developed utilizing the 88 transactions. Regression techniques were used to determine the influence of each of the variables on sale price. To avoid having large sales dominate small sales, sale price was converted to price per acre. For data consistency, other continuous variables tested in the model, with the exception of acres and year, were divided by total sale acres as well.
The results of the regression are reported in Table 9. Certain variables were originally included but dropped from the analysis as they were either statistically insignificant, or highly correlated with other independent variables within the model. Variables that were tested but dropped in the final model included straight line distance to Klamath Falls, detailed property class, acreage in
P a g e | 34 Confidential and Privileged Information the sale and irrigated capability class.33 Binary variables for individual basins (HUC10) were also tested, however the relatively few sales in most basins led to the basin being divided into east and west, with basins below Klamath Lake designated as west and basins that receive water only from the Lost River designated as east.
The dependent variable in the model is the sale price per acre. The model included five independent variables as displayed in Table 9. The first variable indicates the proportion of the property that is water righted. The second and third variables are binary variables which indicate whether the sale property primarily contains acreage designated as Priority A or B & C.34 The fourth variable indicates the elevation of the sale property (expressed in meters). Finally, the last variable indicates the dollar value of improvements for the sale divided by the number of acres.
Table 9: Land Price Differential Analysis Results Coefficient Variables Estimate Standard Errors T-Statistic Proportion of Sale Acres Water-Righted 16.109 4.879 3.30 Klamath Lake (Priority A) 632.678 339.094 1.87 Klamath Lake (Priority B & C) -789.714 304.943 -2.59 Elevation -17.067 5.370 -3.18 Improvements Per Acre 1.0588 0.0738 14.34 _cons 23359.05 7075.096 3.30
Observations: 88
R2: 0.78758
The coefficient estimate indicates the degree to which each individual characteristic of the land sale influences sale price. The t value associated with each coefficient estimate is defined as the coefficient estimate divided by its standard error. The t value tests the hypothesis that the true coefficient estimate is zero and therefore has no influence on the overall sale price per acre. When
33 Irrigated Capability Class (ICC) is a measure of the productivity of a soil type when irrigated. ICC is often used in hedonic models that estimate the value of water. For this model, irrigated capability class was tested as an indicator of value but was found to have little explanatory power for the 88 sales in the model. This is likely due to the low number of sales in the model and the relative homogeneity of ICC throughout the Lost River Basin. Other models that have utilized ICC data in the Klamath basin have often applied the data to parcels throughout the basin, from the headwaters of the Williamson and other tributary rivers north of Klamath lake, to Tule Lake in CA, allowing these analysis to utilize the wider heterogeneity in ICC throughout the basin. 34 Priority A+B was aggregated with Priority A, Priority C was aggregated with Priority B.
P a g e | 35 Confidential and Privileged Information the absolute value of a t-statistic is greater than 1.96, the variable is considered statistically significant. Other than Klamath Lake (Priority A), the included variables were found to have a statistically significant influence on the price per acre of agricultural land.
The coefficient on the Proportion of Sale Acres that are water-righted is 16.109. This indicates an increase of $16.109 in the price per acre when the percentage of the acreage that is irrigated increases 1%. As such, a property that is 100% irrigated has a premium in value per acre of $1,611. To estimate the value of water, this value premium must then be combined with the geographic/priority binary variables as well as the elevation variable. The West (Priority A) variable indicates that sale properties located in the west area of the basin that are predominantly Priority A have an additional price premium of $632.68/acre. Sale properties located in the west area of the basin that are predominantly Priority B & C have a negative price adjustment of - $789.71/acre. The Elevation variable indicates that as the elevation of a sale property increases by 1 meter, the value of the property declines by $17.07/acre. Finally, the coefficient on total improvements per acre was positive as well, with a $100 increase in the value of improvements per acre leading to a $105.88 increase in the sale price per acre.
This model allows for the estimation of the value of water in the Lost River basin for lands that do not receive water from Klamath Lake, and lands that receive water from Klamath Lake that are either Priority A or Priorities B & C. Table 10 shows the average elevation across the entire dataset, as well as for properties that do not receive water from Klamath Lake and properties that do divided between Priorities A and B. The difference between the means of the three areas and all sales is calculated and multiplied by the Elevation coefficient of $17.07/acre to yield the average difference in the per acre value of a property due to elevation.
Table 10: Calculation of $/Acre Difference due to Elevation
Area Average Elevation Elevation Difference $/Acre Difference All Sales 1,263 Non-Klamath Lake 1,277 14.17 -$242 Klamath_A 1,242 -34.71 $592 Klamath_B & C 1,253 -23.69 $404
Table 10 shows the calculations for the estimated value of water for irrigation per AF in each of the three areas. In order to calculate the $/acre value for the presence of water rights in each of the three different areas, the $/acre difference found above in Table 10 is first added to the price premium of $1,611/acre for a property that is 100% water righted versus a property that is 0% water righted. For the properties that receive water from Klamath Lake, the value of each coefficient is further added. Sale properties that do not receive water from Upper Klamath Lake are estimated to have a value of $1,369/acre. Sale properties that receive water from Klamath Lake under Priority B are estimated to have a similar water value of $1,226/AF. As expected, sale
P a g e | 36 Confidential and Privileged Information properties that receive water from the lake under Priority A have a significantly larger estimated water right value of $2,836/acre.
Table 11: Calculation of Irrigation Water Value in Lost River Basin Elevation Area Base Value Difference Priority $/Acre Non-Klamath Lake $1,611 -$242 $1,369 Klamath_A $1,611 $592 $633 $2,836 Klamath B & C $1,611 $404 -$790 $1,226
The primary objective of this analysis is to estimate the annual value of water that can be potentially transferred to LKNWR. As described above, Priority A land generally receives its full water supply while Priority B & C land often receives less than its full contract volume. Given this, the value of Priority A water rights is the most suitable for estimating the unit price for transferable water supplies. Table 12 provides the estimated unit values for water rights in the Lost River Basin using the per acre value estimated for Priority A lands ($2,836/acre). The analysis indicates that the annual value is between $129/AFY and $137/AFY for each transferable acre- foot.
Table 12: Estimated Lost River Basin Water Values Estimated Estimated Estimated Estimated Value Volume Unit Price Unit Price Region ($/Acre) (AF/acre) ($/AF) ($/AFY) Lost River - West $2,836 2.08 $1,363 $137 Lost River - East $2.836 2.22 $1,277 $129
P a g e | 37 Confidential and Privileged Information
Summary and Conclusions
This analysis provides estimated annual values for selected regions of the Klamath Basin. The intended user is USFWS which has an interest in developing voluntary agreements with water rights holders in the Klamath Basin to improve the water supply to LKNWR. This analysis utilizes completed water right sales and leases and agricultural land transactions to estimate the annual value of water rights in the region. The following provides a summary of key information and conclusions from the analysis.
• Analysis Regions – This analysis estimates the unit value for water rights in the Upper Klamath Basin (Wood Valley, Sprague, and Williamson basins) and the Lower Klamath Basin (Lost River Basin).
• Valuation Approaches – This analysis uses completed water right transactions and land sales to estimate water right values with the Upper and Lower Klamath Basins (above and below Upper Klamath Lake). Importantly, the objective of the analysis is to identify the unit value associated with “wet” water that is potentially transferable to LKNWR. To accomplish this objective, this analysis selects values from the available market data that are associated with reliable water rights. This is particularly relevant to valuation approaches that rely upon water right sales and land sales information which involve varying water right priority dates and associated reliabilities.
• Transferable Volume – The transferable volume of each acre of a fully reliable water right is assumed to be the weighted-average crop consumptive use for hay, pasture and grain crops within each of the analysis regions. Hay, pasture, and grains are the most produced crops within the analysis regions and are also the crop types that are commonly idled for water transfers. The actual volume of water that is transferable to LKNWR will be determined by OWRD and BOR and may differ from the crop consumptive use estimates applied in this analysis.
• Unit values for water in the Lower Klamath Basin do not appear to be particularly sensitive to the total volume leased each year. This suggests that higher valued crops such as potatoes are not being idled to supply water for the lease transactions.
• Unit values for water in the Lower Klamath Basin varying inversely with overall Project water supply indicating that higher payments are required during dry years to secure water under lease transactions.
• Estimated Value Ranges – Table 13 provides a summary of the estimated water right value ranges by analysis regions and valuation approach. As shown, the estimated annual value of transferable water from the Upper Klamath ranges from approximately $90/AFY to $125/AFY. The estimated unit value in the Lower Klamath ranges from $125/AFY to $200/AFY with the upper end of the range most applicable during dry years.
P a g e | 38 Confidential and Privileged Information
Table 13: Estimated Annual Water Values ($/AFY) Upper Klamath Lower Klamath Valuation Approach Lost River - Lost River - Wood Sprague Williamson East West Water Right Sales $89 - $124 $89 - $124 $89 - $124 N/A N/A Water Right Leases N/A N/A N/A $125 - $200 $125 - $200 Land Sales $107 $87 $90 $129 $137
P a g e | 39 Confidential and Privileged Information
Appendix A: Maps
P a g e | 40
Confidential and Privileged Information
Appendix B: Land Sales Summaries
Table B1. Selected Upper Klamath Basin Agricultural Land Sales Sale Price Total # Owner Sale Date Imprs. ($2019) $/Acre Subbasin WR % ($2019) Acres 1 K. Holbrook 6/14/2010 $79,977 79 $1,009 Sprague 2% 2 LM Cattle 4/30/2010 $886,907 $44,099 207 $4,075 Wood Valley 57% 3 Dennis Mack 6/14/2010 $79,977 79 $1,009 Sprague 2% 4 Sprague River Cattle Co. 12/17/2010 $1,010,821 $1,126 608 $1,662 Sprague 88% 5 Sprague River Cattle Co. 4/6/2010 $22,449 61 $369 Sprague 0% 6 Robinson Best LLC 6/27/2011 $19,088,598 $636,410 3581 $5,152 Wood Valley 98% 7 Bonanza Conversation LLC 9/27/2011 $2,493,658 $70,849 3079 $787 Sprague 27% 8 Daniel Kirk 11/7/2011 $89,206 80 $1,111 Wood Valley 0% 9 Klamath Lake Land Trust 2/2/2012 $473,231 316 $1,496 Sprague 86% 10 Mathew Mountanos 6/9/2012 $418,032 $33,741 512 $751 Sprague 35% 11 Maggie Davis 11/16/2012 $851,755 $70,004 269 $2,905 Sprague 35% 12 Goose Nest Ranches LLC 12/26/2012 $586,353 $34,957 195 $2,832 Wood Valley 98% 13 Limnes Land Company 3/11/2013 $6,945,668 $165,227 2257 $3,004 Wood Valley 79% 14 1789 Land Company 3/11/2013 $6,420,180 $254,631 1789 $3,446 Wood Valley 97% 15 Sevenmile Creek Ranch 3/11/2013 $1,134,029 $57,537 317 $3,401 Wood Valley 100% 16 C. Vogt 7/14/2010 $1,064,037 $28,562 495 $2,092 Sprague 45% 17 S. Patterson 11/26/2012 $1,225,128 $204,766 339 $3,010 L. Williamson 93% 18 3M Livestock LLC 4/30/2015 $701,867 $86,710 191 $3,214 Sprague 60% 19 Fort Klamath Land Co. 6/1/2016 $6,123,249 $191,295 1501 $3,953 Wood Valley 94% 20 Kenneth & Kimberly Say 11/18/2016 $174,531 319 $547 Sprague 0% 21 M. Demaree & B. Ethan 3/13/2017 $306,580 $58,030 135 $1,844 Sprague 99% 22 Jake & Jack Land & Cattle LLC 3/23/2017 $1,442,430 $224,000 1503 $810 Sprague 49% 23 Amy Marie Wheeler 7/5/2017 $384,584 $4,330 555 $685 Sprague 0% 24 Debra Vedder 10/9/2017 $856,854 $163,750 262 $2,646 Wood Valley 92% 25 Dennis Cole 12/20/2017 $39,650 61 $655 Sprague 0% 26 Njn Flynn Investments LLC 1/3/2018 $84,165 165 $511 Sprague 0% 27 Garrett Duncan 4/24/2018 $425,748 $27,020 269 $1,484 Sprague 97% 28 Casey & Cynthia Ballard 6/8/2018 $103,174 $11,730 64 $1,427 Sprague 0% 29 E G Kerns Ranches LLC 8/10/2018 $390,048 $26,540 274 $1,327 Wood Valley 80% 30 Fred Brown 10/12/2018 $204,438 $2,700 252 $801 Wood Valley 55% 31 Leonard & Karen Eisenberg 1/14/2019 $1,331,704 $50,830 1854 $691 Wood Valley 0% 32 Five Mile Ranch LLC 6/24/2019 $627,641 $81,280 215 $2,542 Sprague 52% 33 United Logistcal Solutions 2/28/2020 $325,000 $64,070 101 $3,231 Sprague 81% 34 Michelle Proulx 3/27/2020 $175,500 $49,660 159 $1,101 Sprague 0%
P a g e | 42 Confidential and Privileged Information
Table B2. Selected Lower Klamath Basin Agricultural Land Sales Sale Price Imprs. Total WR # Owner Sale Date $/Acre Subbasin ($2019) ($2019) Acres % 1 Dupont Roderick J & Barbara A 6/12/2017 $445,322 $269,310 86.05 $2,045 Gerber Reservoir-Miller Cr. 37% 2 Gillen Robalee 8/29/2017 $117,661 $57,500 81.14 $741 Gerber Reservoir-Miller Cr. 11% 3 Becklin Land And Cattle Llc 5/25/2018 $829,850 $0 1130.92 $734 Gerber Reservoir-Miller Cr. 2% 4 King Alan Marti & Kaycee Alise 2/20/2019 $553,889 $89,810 76.73 $6,048 Lake Ewauna-Klamath River 93% 5 Duane Martin Ranches Lp 3/27/2015 $8,021,599 $423,410 1751.06 $4,339 Lake Ewauna-Klamath River 75% 6 Yarbrough Living Trust 1/29/2018 $519,438 $205,330 77.95 $4,030 Lake Ewauna-Klamath River 100% 7 Cheyne Rodney 4/3/2019 $201,614 $0 60.85 $3,313 Lake Ewauna-Klamath River 99% 8 Hartman, William & Danette 3/28/2016 $500,717 $18,530 165.02 $2,922 Lake Ewauna-Klamath River 98% 9 E.G. Kerns Ranches Llc 2/16/2016 $376,990 $14,190 142.09 $2,553 Lake Ewauna-Klamath River 94% 10 Howard Timothy M 1/27/2017 $108,870 $0 241.46 $451 Lake Ewauna-Klamath River 18% 11 Bartlett Brett Michael 8/9/2018 $397,620 $61,830 67.53 $4,973 Langell Valley-Lost River 96% 12 Hammerich Inc 2/7/2020 $746,310 $0 162.48 $4,593 Langell Valley-Lost River 83% 13 Medin Mark Edward 8/30/2018 $1,012,538 $289,670 164.28 $4,400 Langell Valley-Lost River 64% 14 Amerititle Trustee & 6/22/2016 $632,526 $0 153.61 $4,118 Langell Valley-Lost River 91% 15 Schooler Jerry D 3/9/2015 $429,325 $14,280 145.09 $2,861 Langell Valley-Lost River 95% 16 Hubbard Family Trust Et Al 2/28/2019 $2,307,870 $41,970 829.34 $2,732 Langell Valley-Lost River 24% 17 Holland Stanley & Lela 3/6/2020 $528,195 $21,990 192.07 $2,636 Langell Valley-Lost River 95% 18 Horsley Helen E Etal & 1/10/2017 $1,349,992 $5,000 525.80 $2,558 Langell Valley-Lost River 26% 19 Bath John R Et Al 11/14/2018 $254,398 $0 106.40 $2,391 Langell Valley-Lost River 99% 20 Landis Davie & Stevenson Deborah 8/17/2017 $481,342 $30,860 197.15 $2,285 Langell Valley-Lost River 99% 21 Neilson Gordon K & Sandra L 5/9/2016 $214,832 $0 121.41 $1,769 Langell Valley-Lost River 84% 22 Neese Bryn Summer & Aaron Lee 3/11/2019 $255,322 $136,220 79.72 $1,494 Langell Valley-Lost River 97% 23 Bloom Joshua & Amanda 5/2/2016 $3,139,847 $510,980 1825.17 $1,440 Langell Valley-Lost River 42% 24 Berg Pamela A 8/4/2017 $246,019 $85,680 166.79 $961 Langell Valley-Lost River 0% 25 Dyer Sidney R & Rita E 1/23/2020 $79,919 $0 90.81 $880 Langell Valley-Lost River 0% 26 Potato Karma Llc 5/18/2018 $7,261,184 $0 2385.54 $3,044 Lower Klamath Lake 98% 27 Park-Hickey Hay Sales Llc 12/23/2019 $1,502,630 $283,510 585.97 $2,081 Lower Klamath Lake 82% 28 Patterson Gary Patrick & Rose D 12/3/2018 $380,956 $0 197.44 $1,930 Lower Klamath Lake 93% 29 Cox Michael N 9/14/2017 $276,784 $185,410 67.25 $1,359 Lower Klamath Lake 76% 30 Patterson Gary Patrick & 5/26/2017 $655,873 $204,200 68.64 $6,580 Mills Creek-Lost River 91% 31 Fernlund Carl & Nancy 7/27/2015 $417,884 $79,210 56.40 $6,005 Mills Creek-Lost River 85% 32 Duncan Family Trust Et Al 7/31/2018 $3,829,428 $536,740 561.52 $5,864 Mills Creek-Lost River 97% 33 Gallup Hesston M 10/24/2016 $546,349 $138,330 71.76 $5,686 Mills Creek-Lost River 83% 34 Mlm Property Llc 4/18/2017 $344,278 $0 61.21 $5,625 Mills Creek-Lost River 87% 35 Lennon John J & Kelly Linda M 3/6/2017 $593,733 $298,460 57.97 $5,094 Mills Creek-Lost River 78% 36 Simon Fred Vernon Trustee & 4/23/2015 $292,105 $0 59.54 $4,906 Mills Creek-Lost River 85% 37 Heaton Gregory Drew & Melissa A 6/20/2017 $576,655 $0 121.39 $4,750 Mills Creek-Lost River 87% 38 Staunton Curtis & Michelle 12/10/2019 $1,152,017 $0 247.00 $4,664 Mills Creek-Lost River 88% 39 Cheyne Rodney & Nichelle 10/8/2015 $944,325 $490,750 97.70 $4,643 Mills Creek-Lost River 95% 40 Staunton Holdings Llc 10/24/2018 $366,490 $21,750 78.98 $4,365 Mills Creek-Lost River 99% 41 Hamel Ryan A 3/28/2019 $291,067 $0 66.94 $4,348 Mills Creek-Lost River 91% 42 Randall Nickolas M & Kelsie M 10/16/2019 $559,054 $118,030 101.44 $4,347 Mills Creek-Lost River 98%
P a g e | 43 Confidential and Privileged Information
Sale Price Imprs. Total WR # Owner Sale Date $/Acre Subbasin ($2019) ($2019) Acres % 43 Bedford Scott Gordon 11/14/2017 $238,945 $0 57.45 $4,159 Mills Creek-Lost River 95% 44 Cheyne Rodney A & Nichelle 7/23/2018 $279,299 $0 67.36 $4,146 Mills Creek-Lost River 99% 45 Finley Brothers Properties Llc 6/18/2018 $284,729 $0 71.08 $4,006 Mills Creek-Lost River 100% 46 Frank Barry J & Lisa M 2/28/2019 $430,289 $25,120 103.05 $3,932 Mills Creek-Lost River 92% 47 Stastny Edwin J Revocable Living T 3/10/2016 $361,629 $55,140 77.97 $3,931 Mills Creek-Lost River 90% 48 Hamel David A & Cynthia L 10/25/2016 $349,663 $0 92.02 $3,800 Mills Creek-Lost River 93% 49 Walker Weston & Hill Tricia 12/25/2015 $919,801 $447,750 135.28 $3,489 Mills Creek-Lost River 99% 50 Parks Timothy C & Darla D 5/15/2017 $268,360 $0 79.72 $3,366 Mills Creek-Lost River 98% 51 Bedford Scott & Bedford Matthew S 8/14/2015 $474,188 $146,390 97.54 $3,361 Mills Creek-Lost River 88% 52 Crawford Bartholomew & Alexandra 5/25/2018 $788,357 $520,860 79.68 $3,357 Mills Creek-Lost River 96% 53 Gutherie Jesse C & Tara K 5/10/2019 $655,236 $342,070 93.43 $3,352 Mills Creek-Lost River 84% 54 Duncan Criss 12/21/2018 $222,396 $0 67.13 $3,313 Mills Creek-Lost River 93% 55 Emerging Markets Capital Llc 11/1/2019 $772,813 $0 241.36 $3,202 Mills Creek-Lost River 82% 56 Souza Clayton Gerald & 11/19/2019 $324,921 $0 101.72 $3,194 Mills Creek-Lost River 41% 57 Sturm Hay Company Llc 3/29/2018 $836,991 $111,400 236.45 $3,069 Mills Creek-Lost River 96% 58 Heaton Gregory Drew & Melissa A 7/10/2015 $445,631 $0 145.52 $3,062 Mills Creek-Lost River 98% 59 Crawford Paul & Alysha 3/11/2015 $282,451 $80,740 71.20 $2,833 Mills Creek-Lost River 91% 60 Henslee David & Benji 4/5/2019 $405,254 $179,400 80.09 $2,820 Mills Creek-Lost River 67% 61 Smith Alex G & Ronna A 1/14/2019 $508,861 $266,060 86.23 $2,816 Mills Creek-Lost River 87% 62 Maack Ramon Carl 8/30/2016 $373,609 $162,770 75.33 $2,799 Mills Creek-Lost River 94% 63 Platt Jack R Trustee & 2/19/2015 $558,088 $18,590 199.29 $2,707 Mills Creek-Lost River 100% 64 R&C Ag Llc 6/23/2015 $607,631 $0 235.41 $2,581 Mills Creek-Lost River 87% 65 Parrish John Claude & Sara Lynn 3/23/2016 $320,459 $103,780 91.46 $2,369 Mills Creek-Lost River 96% 66 Imbach Ron Et Al 7/13/2018 $832,724 $306,220 243.59 $2,161 Mills Creek-Lost River 72% 67 Barringer Casey A 10/17/2018 $653,946 $320,000 163.90 $2,037 Mills Creek-Lost River 64% 68 Diaz Delyle D & Danielle M 7/11/2016 $313,327 $21,260 161.41 $1,810 Mills Creek-Lost River 92% 69 Walker Weston W & 9/27/2018 $309,004 $121,020 158.81 $1,184 Mills Creek-Lost River 99% 70 Duncan Criss Charles 11/30/2018 $25,697 $0 63.07 $407 Mills Creek-Lost River 0% 71 Whitcomb James T Trustee & 7/31/2017 $578,912 $118,450 78.93 $5,834 Yonna Valley-Lost River 87% 72 Jespersen Lauren M & Molly M 11/16/2016 $487,126 $0 86.49 $5,632 Yonna Valley-Lost River 89% 73 Sierra-Cascade Nursery Inc 10/16/2017 $1,429,557 $0 339.88 $4,206 Yonna Valley-Lost River 92% 74 Timm Rich 1/3/2020 $479,512 $179,430 76.30 $3,933 Yonna Valley-Lost River 98% 75 Jrd Cattle Company Llc 6/25/2019 $1,511,653 $261,720 356.40 $3,507 Yonna Valley-Lost River 86% 76 Chapman Jason J 3/14/2016 $726,039 $0 221.85 $3,273 Yonna Valley-Lost River 94% 77 Windy Ridge Llc Et Al 9/27/2019 $1,053,704 $34,860 320.77 $3,176 Yonna Valley-Lost River 86% 78 Reis Mike R & Maureen 12/6/2019 $536,439 $295,000 83.86 $2,879 Yonna Valley-Lost River 91% 79 Cron Danny L & Laurita L 4/27/2018 $802,397 $233,440 216.89 $2,623 Yonna Valley-Lost River 82% 80 Cole Robyn L & Aaron D 11/29/2016 $509,019 $361,920 71.69 $2,052 Yonna Valley-Lost River 90% 81 Noble Livestock Llc 11/20/2019 $1,999,517 $80,310 937.26 $2,048 Yonna Valley-Lost River 21% 82 Ryckewaert Jerry Trustee & 11/1/2017 $265,494 $0 151.66 $1,751 Yonna Valley-Lost River 15% 83 Howard Timothy Et Al 5/16/2019 $221,772 $59,100 95.32 $1,707 Yonna Valley-Lost River 95% 84 Mdln Of Oregon 6/10/2015 $1,939,012 $245,950 1035.00 $1,636 Yonna Valley-Lost River 55% 85 Schooler Jerry D & Janice E 5/18/2018 $518,656 $0 324.86 $1,597 Yonna Valley-Lost River 23%
P a g e | 44 Confidential and Privileged Information
Sale Price Imprs. Total WR # Owner Sale Date $/Acre Subbasin ($2019) ($2019) Acres % 86 Buck Butte Llc 8/3/2016 $1,813,102 $548,200 1540.78 $821 Yonna Valley-Lost River 11% 87 Oberle Christopher T 8/11/2016 $988,965 $276,280 1324.61 $538 Yonna Valley-Lost River 2% 88 Sanchez Carlos & Drucilla 1/21/2020 $19,980 $0 124.53 $160 Yonna Valley-Lost River 0%
P a g e | 45