The radical environmental nonprofit WaterWatch of Oregon has secured another regulatory approval in its multi-year effort to remove Murphy Dam on the Applegate River in Josephine County, despite widespread local opposition and concerns over impacts to water users, agriculture, recreation, and property owners.
On Friday, July 24, 2026, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) issued 1200-C General Permit coverage to WaterWatch for the proposed Murphy Dam removal project. The permit addresses stormwater construction and erosion control for upland areas. DEQ also released its response to public comments on the same day.
The action follows a June 12, 2026, Section 401 water quality certification for the in-stream work. DEQ emphasized in its documents that the 1200-C permit is narrowly focused on stormwater discharges associated with construction activity and does not authorize the dam removal itself or evaluate broader project impacts.
Heavy Public Opposition Met with Narrow Review
During the 14-day public comment period for the stormwater permit, 310 members of the public submitted comments — an unusually high number for a 1200-C application, which DEQ noted typically receives none. The overwhelming majority addressed the dam removal itself, including potential effects on fisheries, water rights, groundwater levels, historic preservation, sediment release, riparian habitat, wildfire mitigation, recreation, property values, reservoir loss, project costs, and agency priorities.
DEQ stated that almost all comments fell outside the scope of the stormwater permit review and responded substantively to only three. The agency directed those with broader concerns to other processes, such as the previously issued 401 certification.
Lawsuit-Driven Settlement Set the Stage
The push to remove the more than 120-year-old irrigation dam stems from a 2024 Endangered Species Act lawsuit filed by WaterWatch against the Murphy Ditch Association, which owns the structure. The nonprofit alleged the dam harms threatened coho salmon by blocking migration, creating warm water conditions that favor non-native predators, and operating an ineffective fish screen and ladder. Under a settlement agreement approved by a federal judge, the association agreed to work with WaterWatch to seek funding for dam removal and to replace the diversion with a solar-powered pump system to maintain water supplies for irrigators. Similar settlements have been reached for other dams targeted by WaterWatch.
Local Concerns and Limited County Response
Josephine County officials have voiced significant reservations. In a statement this week, a county commissioner highlighted potential economic consequences for farms and businesses reliant on the river and diversion system, as well as impacts on agriculture, fisheries, recreation, and nearby property owners.
The county is monitoring the process, reviewing information, and assisting affected residents within its legal limits but has not authorized litigation. Commissioner Smith has helped identify attorneys for community members considering challenges. Commissioner Martin added that the high volume of public comments “shows that there is significant community interest and concern” that should not be dismissed, even if outside the narrow scope of individual permits.
Background materials from the WaterWatch permit submission indicate the project received grant funding due to its classification as a fish passage barrier removal priority. The development marks the latest success for WaterWatch in using federal lawsuits and environmental permitting processes to eliminate aging irrigation infrastructure across Southern Oregon. Local stakeholders continue to question the scientific necessity and overall impacts of the removal.
Opinion and Analysis
WaterWatch of Oregon is notorious for threatening private property owners with lawsuits to force the removal of dams on rivers and creeks in Southern Oregon and throughout the state. The Murphy Dam and its related association of nearby property owners is just the latest of many victims in Southern Oregon.
This one is especially bad, according to the affected property owners who have spoken at several public and private meetings in recent weeks. One main concern is the new infrastructure will be much more costly to operate, risking property owners withdrawing from the association and making it too costly for remaining association members to pay for the operating cost of the proposed new pump station.
Add in the fact that WaterWatch appears to be using both state and federal government grants to fund this project, essentially millions of our own tax dollars are being used to shut down irrigation and a very simple water diversion which is only in place for about six months out of the year. This isn’t even a permanent dam and is more of a part-time water diversion for half the year. In other words, our tax dollars are being used to make things more expensive and worse for us here in Josephine County. This is a lose/lose/lose project proposal.
One of the most concerning parts of this whole process is that Murphy Ditch Association representatives and many members of the public have stated that the Murphy Dam doesn’t actually block salmon or harm the salmon in any way. An email sent out by the Republican Party of Josephine County on June 24 stated the following in regard to the Murphy Dam:
“There is currently an excellent fish ladder in fantastic condition on one end of the dam. The other end of the dam is so short that a fish ladder is not needed, and fish easily pass it. Near the center of the dam there is a notch that fish can also pass through. The obstruction to fish is less than many naturally occurring obstructions that fish must pass in the rivers and insignificant.
This has never been a fish passage issue. It is about an organization taking taxpayer money to remove infrastructure with an excuse. WaterWatch has done this repeatedly with cooperation from the state of Oregon.”
Ironically, according to a Murphy-area resident, the fish ladder on the Murphy Dam was considered state of the art and designed by the Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW) in the 1980s. And now ODFW appears to be offering about $2 million of our tax dollars to remove it, covering almost 50% of the estimated project cost.
Members of the public and stakeholders in the Murphy area have also claimed that WaterWatch has not provided any proof that the Murphy Dam water diversion is harmful to fish. It seems like a no-brainer that before any such dam removal project moves forward or any government grant money is given towards a dam removal project, proof of the project need or proof of damage being done to fish must be provided to various government agencies.
It’s not clear if that proof has been provided in this case. Further research on the government grants that are actually funding this multi-million project seems warranted in this case, especially given about half of the project cost appears to be coming from our state tax dollars and the other half appears to be coming from federal tax dollars.
There may also be a path of success for Murphy-area residents that worked in fighting WaterWatch in another similar dam removal and related lawsuit. In 2020, WaterWatch and a coalition of fisheries and conservation groups sued the Winchester Water Control District on the North Umpqua River in federal court. They alleged the district’s operation of the dam caused “take” (harassment, injury, or death) of the threatened Oregon Coast coho salmon under the ESA.
In August 2025, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut ruled in favor of the dam owners, concluding that the environmental groups had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the dam physically kills or injures coho, or significantly impairs their migration. As the Murphy Dam is a relatively simple part-time water diversion, WaterWatch may have an even harder time proving this “dam” is harmful.
Our local, state, and federal elected representatives should all watch this project closely and get involved to prevent an absolute waste of more than $4 million of our tax dollars. It appears there are at least over 300 members of the public that are demanding just that.