Questions and Answers Regarding Proposed Water Reservation Regulations

Division of Mining, Land and Water

Department of Natural Resources

June 18, 2026

Question 1: Barry Santana (via Water Reg Email) - Why are you sending these changes?

Response: You have received this notice of proposed regulation changes because you were involved previously in the water regulations process or asked to receive information related to the regulation process.

Question 2: Barry Santana (via Water Reg Email) - Does this mean that I have to change my existing water reservation?

Response: Upon review, you have a water right associated with a private well on your property. These regulations do not impact water rights such as yours under AS 46.15.040.

Question 3: Jay Armstrong (via Water Reg Email) - Does the Department interpret Article VIII’s reservation of waters to the people for common use as extending equally to corporations and other artificial entities, or does the Department distinguish between constitutional common use rights held by Alaska residents and permits, privileges, or discretionary approvals granted to corporations?

Response: This question is outside the scope of the current regulation process. However, “person” is defined under the Water Use Act under AS 46.15.260(7).

Question 4: Jay Armstrong (via Water Reg Email) - If the Department makes no distinction, please explain what legal authority supports treating corporations the same as Alaska residents for purposes of common use. If the Department does make a distinction, please identify the constitutional, statutory, or regulatory authority for doing so, and explain whether the Department intends to treat corporate use as a privilege subject to greater cost, conditions, or denial than resident common use.

Response: This question is outside the scope of the current regulation process.

Question 5: Shirley Fields, Francis Adams, Claudi Thompson, Sherri Lewis, Rebecca Rohena, Shelley Campbell, Bailey Williams, Jack Mosby, Father Peter Kamilos, Annalise Hangartner, Jeffrey Bindas, Constance Fredenberg, Sean McPhilamy, Steven Parker, Kendra Zamzow, Mary Ostermick, Michelle Breinholt, Sue Baker, Colin Keating, Dave Atcheson, Mary Clair McCarthy, Deirdre Downey, Tania Rowe – These individuals question  whether proposed changes could make it more difficult for Alaskans to protect water for salmon, wildlife, recreation, subsistence, navigation, and public use.

Response: Updating these regulations would allow a more defined explanation of what information is needed from an applicant to support their application for a reservation of water.  In the past, ADNR has requested this information after receiving an application. The regulation changes would clarify the necessary information to apply for a reservation of water and ensure a more efficient adjudication process.  The regulation changes would also reinforce that the applicant is responsible for installing, maintaining, and reporting gage data during the duration of the reservation of water, as they are the interested party requesting it.

Question 6: Shirley Fields, Francis Adams, Claudi Thompson, Sherri Lewis, Rebecca Rohena, Tania Rowe, Jack Mosby, Annalise Hangartner, Jeffrey Bindas, Lou Brown, Mary Claire McCarthy – These individuals questioned whether requirements such as five years of monthly data, monitoring devices, reporting obligations, and possible cost-shifting will create barriers for Tribes, communities, nonprofits, and public-interest applicants working to protect water for fish and wildlife.

Response: These regulation changes are not intended to impose barriers. They are intended to improve the data requirements for adjudicating a reservation. Periodic gage data is needed to establish a baseline of information for a reservation of water.  The 5-year period allows a more accurate data trend that will create more accurate reservation amounts.  While this initial baseline data is sufficient to establish a reservation of water, additional data needs to be submitted periodically as the initial data ages and becomes less accurate. While continuous gage data is ideal, periodic intervals will likely be set based on current accepted ranges.  Accurate reservation amounts cannot be determined if gage data is lacking or incomplete.

Question 7: Becky Long - Did ADNR create a scoping document that encapsulated a summary of the scoping comments?

Response: The DNR does have information related to scoping period on the project webpage.

Question 8: Becky Long - What is the background behind the proposed changes?

Response: These updates are intended to definitively state what information is required at the time of application for a reservation of water and define who is responsible for installing, maintaining, and reporting gage data.  These updates will allow ADNR to more efficiently adjudicate both reservation of water applications and existing reservation of water 10-year reviews.

Question 9: Becky Long - Did these proposals come out of the scoping process?

Response: Yes.

Question 10: Becky Long - How will the currently held Instream Flow Reservations, the Certificates of Reservation, be impacted or changed by the proposed 11 AAC 93.146(b) Issuance of a Certificate of Reservation amendment?

Response: Currently authorized reservations of water will not be affected by the proposed updates to 11 AAC 93.146(b).

Question 11: Becky Long - Is the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the US Fish and Wildlife Service considered a resource management agency that could still hold the certificate?

Response: Yes, both agencies are considered resource management agencies and can hold a reservation of water if they are the applicant.

Question 12: Becky Long - Will these proposed regulations help alleviate the unadjudicated reservation applications backlog?

Response: It is unknown whether the proposed regulations will alleviate the backlog.

Question 13: Becky Long - Why is there a fiscal note of zero for these regulation changes? Does this mean there will be no staff to process the Certificate of Reservation applications?

Response: No. DNR has staff position dedicated to adjudication of water reservations.

Question 14: Becky Long - Is there currently a staffing of a Reservation of Water Program?

Response: Yes. The Reservation of Water Program is currently staffed.

Question 15: Becky Long - The Ten-Year Review of LAS 13228 the Talkeetna River Reservation of Water Priority Date 3/19/1991 has happened. It was signed by the Lead Reservation of Water Program staff and the Water Resources Chief on 11/14/2022. Is this process complete and accepted according to the mandate? Was further review necessary?

Response: This question is outside the scope of this public notice process. However, an appeal was received on December 5, 2022, regarding ADNR’s 10-year review decision on November 14, 2022, to continue the reservation of water with no changes.  As of yet, no decision has been made regarding the appeal.

Question 16: Becky Long - These proposed amendments add considerably more application requirements. Water Right Certificates to appropriate water out of a waterbody have considerably less stringent requirements. These certificates are held by non-state agency groups and private people. Why is there this dichotomy?

Response: Reservations of water are water rights requesting a specified amount of water to remain in a given water body.  These requested and potentially authorized amounts are typically vastly larger than the amounts requested or authorized for consumptive water rights.  Reservation amounts can impact the health and safety of fish and wildlife habitat, the quality and amount of recreation, navigation, and transportation that occurs, and even affect public health in and on a reserved water body.  Therefore, DNR supports that more rigorous supporting documentation be submitted with applications for reservations of water than what is requested for consumptive water rights.

Question 17: Becky Long - A public comment extension of a month should happen and be publicly noticed. This is one of the busiest times of the year for the Alaskan public.

Response: At this time, DNR is not proposing an extension of time for this public notice period.

Question 18: Becky Long - A public hearing similar to the ADNR Water Section public meeting in August 2024 needs to occur. This happened during the scoping process for these regulatory changes.

Response:  The scoping process is complete. DNR is not going to a hearing related to this regulation process.

Question 19: Stosh Anderson - Request for a 120-day extension for comment period for water reg changes due to the time of year of the public notice.

Response: At this time, DNR is not proposing an extension of time for this public notice period.

Question 20: Hal Shepherd - Please provide any rational and legal authority that applies to the proposed amendments to 11 AAC 93.142, for requiring the applicant to provide "what trade-off is being considered" and "information on property ownership upstream and downstream of the proposed reservation.".

Response:  Proposed revisions to section 11 AAC 93.142 do not require the applicant to provide “what the trade-off is being considered.”  The authority for the proposed regulations is included in the draft regulation.

Question 21: Hal Shepherd - Please describe how the Proposed changes to 11 AAC 93.146 which would limit the holders of certificates of reservation to state and federal resources agencies complies with Alaska Statute §46.15.145 which explicitly allows private individuals, local governments, state agencies, and federal agencies to apply for instream flow reservations.

Response: Under AS 46.15.145(a): “The state, an agency or a political subdivision of the state, an agency of the United States, or a person…” can apply for a water reservation. Proposed changes to section 11 AAC 93.146 do not change or limit who can apply for a reservation of water under this statute. While AS 46.15.145 identifies who can apply for a reservation, it does not identify who can hold a reservation when issued. The proposed revisions to 11 AAC 93.146 clarifies that a certificate of reservation will only be issued to a state or federal resource management agency if they are the applicant. Further, it clarifies that a certificate of reservation will be held by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for all other applicants.  

Question 22: Hal Shepherd - Please describe whether the Proposed changes to 11 AAC 93.146 erode the Alaska State Constitution as it applies to the public right to protect instream flow reservations. Specifically, Section 13 of Article VIII states that except “for public water supply, an appropriation of water shall be limited to stated purposes and subject to preferences among beneficial uses, concurrent or otherwise, as prescribed by law, and to the general reservation of fish and wildlife.”.

Response: The proposed changes to 11 AAC 93.146 do not erode Article VIII, Section 13 of the Alaska Constitution. The regulations would reinforce that water is a public resource managed by the state for the benefit of the public.

Question 23: Hal Shepherd - The Proposed changes to 11 AAC 93.146 “requires the applicant to install measuring devices and monitor and report information at intervals approved by the Commissioner of DNR.” Please describe whether, due to the substantial expense of purchasing installing, maintaining and monitoring instream flow reservation equipment especially in remote and roadless areas, whether this provision would work to exclude many tribal organizations and the general public from supporting the continued existence of an instream flow reservation.

Response: No, the proposed changes would not exclude tribal organizations or the public. The monitoring and reporting requirement ensure reliable data for effective water resource management and public interest determinations, not a barrier to participation. Approved measuring devices and periodic reporting provides essential information on actual flows and compliance. This helps confirm sufficient unappropriated water exists, protects the reservation’s purpose, and supports long-term reviews under AS 46.15.145. Without current data, reservations risk being based on outdated or insufficient information, which does not serve the public interest.  For non-government applicants, DNR holds the certificate; this places primary stewardship responsibility with the state while preserving the applicant’s role in initiating and supporting the reservation. Furthermore, the broader regulatory updates aim for a streamlined, consistent process. Upfront data requirements and monitoring reduce future disputes, enforcement issues, and inefficient reviews. The aim is sustainable protections that align with Alaska’s constitutional framework of managing water as a public resource.

Question 24: Hal Shepherd - Under the Proposed changes to 11 AAC 93.147 "the applicant will now be required to bear the costs of conducting additional research, data collection, and analysis for their respective certificated reservations of water." Please describe whether, due to the substantial expense of purchasing installing, maintaining and monitoring instream flow reservation equipment especially in remote and roadless areas, whether this provision would work to exclude many tribal organizations and the general public from supporting the continued existence of an instream flow reservation.

Response: No, the proposed changes would not exclude tribal organizations or the public. These requirements would support resilient public interest determinations under AS 46.15.145, ensuring reservations are defensible and effective for fish habitat and other beneficial uses. Applicant responsibility for costs of data collection and analysis is reasonable to ensure reservations remain based on current, reliable data. These updates focus resources, encourage data-backed participation, and strengthen long-term viability of instream reservations through accountability and current data.

Question 25: Jack Reakoff - Expressed concerns that there would be significant expenses in the data collection for miners if stipulated.

Response: Miners would only be affected if they submit an Application for a Reservation of Water.  These changes do not affect applicants of consumptive water rights or Temporary Water Use Authorizations.

Question 26: Vernon Adams - With all the drilling and huge drilling equipment the animals will not want to return to the birthing grounds of caribou, migratory birds and all other animals that give birth in Alaska Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Once the water, streams, river or lakes get contaminated the animals will not return. With all the oil revenues we have drilling all over Alaska and no future for the PFD. State and the PFD department capped it at $1,000 while the State collects its share they are also robbing the citizens of Alaska from the permanent fund dividend. For over 16 years they have stolen from the PFD to support the wasteful spending of the State’s budget.

Response:  This question is outside the scope of the current regulation process.  However, it is DNR’s function to responsibly manage Alaska’s natural resources.

Question 27: Shelley Campbell, Sean McPhilamy, Michelle Breinholt, Patrick Solana Walkinshaw, Lou Brown, Dave Atcheson, Mary Claire McCarthy – Any measuring, monitoring, and reporting requirements should be reasonable, affordable, and appropriate for remote watersheds, and should not make public-interest water protection impossible.

Response: Existing regulation 11 AAC 93.146(d)(1) already requires an applicant to be responsible for the installation, maintenance, and monitoring of gage equipment, as a condition in any authorized reservation of water, at the discretion of the commissioner.  Factors that determine the manner of gaging always includes consultation with other resources agencies knowledgeable in that process, with just a few examples being DF&G, NOAA, USGS, and USFWS.

Question 28: Shelley Campbell, Bailey Williams, Father Peter Kamilos, Constance Fredenberg, Mary Ostermick, Lou Brown, Dave Atcheson – Any changes to 11 AAC 93 should strengthen Alaska’s ability to protect instream flows for salmon, wildlife, recreation, and public use.  The process should not become easier for industrial appropriation while becoming harder for public-interest reservations.

Response: These regulation changes are proposed to more comprehensively state what information is needed to apply for a reservation of water and reinforce who is responsible for installing, maintaining, and monitoring gage data.  The intention is to increase the efficiency and accuracy of the adjudication, authorization, and 10-year review processes associated with reservations of water.  DNR’s holding of reservation certificates on behalf of non-agency applicants consolidates holdership of these specific reservations under one resource agency in the public interest. DNR’s function is to responsibly manage Alaska’s natural resources on behalf of the public.

Question 29: Shelley Campbell, Tania Rowe, Bailey Williams, Jeffrey Bindas, Constance Fredenberg, Steven Parker, Kendra Zamzow, Mary Ostermick, Sue Baker, Dave Atcheson, Deirdre Downey – Water reservations are the one and only legal mechanisms that keep water in a stream for fish habitat, migration, and spawning.  Salmon need water left in rivers, not only the water allocated after industrial and other consumptive uses are considered.

Response: DNR’s Reservation of Water Program does just that, “protection of fish and wildlife habitat, migration, and propagation”, as stated in 11 AAC 93.141(1).  These proposed changes are intended to further clarify what supporting data is needed for efficient and accurate adjudication of incoming applications for reservations of water, and to have DNR hold certificates applied for by non-agency applicants to consolidate management. Please note that reservations of water are still water rights, with priority dates based on their respective dates of application submission and acknowledgment of completion.  Holders of senior water rights, consumptive or non-consumptive, with older priority dates, utilizing the same water body must still be observed and respected.

Question 30: Jack Mosby, Sean McPhilamy – If DNR holds certificates for reservations filed by non-agency applicants, the regulations should clearly explain how the original applicant, affected communities, and the public can ensure the reservation is monitored, defended, and maintained over time.

Response: Under the proposed regulations, when DNR holds certificates, it ensures consistent public-interest management through 10-year mandatory reviews utilizing approved measuring devices, regular reporting, and data collection. This structure centralizes stewardship while preserving stakeholder input, aligning with AS 46.15.145.

Question 31: Father Peter Kamilos, Annalise Hangartner, Constance Fredenberg, Steven Parker, Michelle Breinholt, Patrick Solana Walkinshaw, Sue Baker, Lou Brown, Colin Keating, Deirdre Downey – DNR should engage in meaningful government-to-government consultation with Alaska Native Tribes before adopting changes that could affect salmon, traditional waters, and protection of water.

Response: DNR is committed to meaningful consultation with all affected entities in Alaska, including Alaska Native Tribes, on matters affecting salmon, traditional uses, and water protection. We recognize Tribes’ important role in stewardship of these resources. Input from all affected entities, including Tribes, received through the public process is considered before finalizing changes to 11 AAC 93.

Question 32: Susan Klock – Alaska waters are public and should not be reserved by other entities. I fish salmon and other species and boat Alaska rivers and private entities should not be given rights to public waters.  Regulations strengthening protection of Alaska waters should be enacted, not weakened.

Response: By having DNR hold certificates of reservation, the regulations would clarify that applicants do not gain “private ownership” of the water. Instead, they would reinforce that water remains a public resource, with the state serving as its steward for the benefit of all Alaskans.

Question 33: Kendra Zamzow - I agree that five years of data should be collected prior to issuing a reservation of water (in-stream flow, ISF) certificate. This should include not only flow data but also temperature data. Temperature can easily be monitored for years on a frequency of every minute, every hour, or every day with a simple data logger that costs under $100. Both flow and temperature information are becoming more important as we see more extreme fluxes in temperature, snow load, and rain and as our fish populations shift and decline.

Response:  High-quality, long-term data is essential for sound decisions. The proposed regulations emphasize a minimum of 5 years of monthly data to quantify reservations, and we welcome additional relevant information such as temperature data where it strengthens the application and public interest determination. Low-cost data loggers make this feasible, and DNR will continue coordinating with applicants and ADF&G to ensure the best available science supports these important public resources.

Question 34: Kendra Zamzow - I strongly disagree with DNR holding the certificate.  This disincentivizes organizations and federal agencies from investing tens of thousands of dollars and years of effort into collecting the required data. And yet, in a state with remote populations and chronically underfunded state agencies, we should be adding incentives for data collection, not removing them. This legislation appears to want others to come up with the money and do the work while DNR holds the certificate.

Response: We recognize the significant investment of time and resources, and under the proposed regulations, DNR holding the certificate does not diminish that effort. Instead, it ensures long-term stewardship while preserving the applicant’s role in data collection, monitoring, and review processes. This approach aligns with DNR’s mission to manage water as a public resource for all Alaskans, provide consistent enforcement and defense of reservations, and avoids fragmented private control.

Question 35: Kendra Zamzow - I did a quick survey of records available on the state of Alaska site https://gis.data.alaska.gov/datasets/SOA-DNR::reservation-of-water-1/explore?layer=2&location=60.993609%2C-149.186264%2C4&showTable=true. 

Of 433 records, there are a total of 149 certificates issued, 275 have been applied for but no decision has been rendered, and 9 are on appeal. 

DNR - 1 certificate held

ADFG - 143 certificates held, 40 more applied for, 1 on appeal

BLM - 1 certificate held, 16 more applied for

USFWS - 2 certificates held, 213 more applied for

Tribes - 0 held, 6 applied for

Non-profit organizations - 2 held, 8 on appeal 

For those on appeal, it appears that the problem was not lack of data. They were actually approved for a certificate, but industry organizations objected. They have been on appeal for 10 years. Call me cynical but this suggests to me that people prioritized a water body for fish and wildlife that wouldn't have been studied if they had not paid for the work themselves. 

There is an obvious problem that the office in DNR that processes ISF applications is understaffed and underfunded. Applications languish for years.  

There is also the problem that organizations, including ADFG, can perform due diligence and be approved to hold a certificate, and be held up for years if industry objects.  

If industry objects. To reserving water in a stream for use by fish and wildlife.  The ISF certificate is not meant to balance the benefits of industry versus wildlife. It is there to ensure fish and wildlife can complete their life cycles. Yet DNR has left those certificates on appeal for 10 years. 

That is the heart of the problem. Agencies, and even non-profit organizations, are attempting to do what the state should already prioritize -- keeping water in streams for fish and wildlife and recreation. For healthy ecosystems that then generate untold benefits to all of us. 

Alaska's water belongs to the public and should be managed to benefit all Alaskans, including for habitat, subsistence, and community use.

Response: This comment is beyond the scope of this public notice process for the proposed regulation changes. However, we acknowledge the backlog and processing challenges, which the proposed updates to 11 AAC 93.142, 146, and 147 are designed to address through clearer standards, which will assist efficient adjudication, and better resource allocation. Under AS 46.15.145, reservations are a public resource tool granted only when they meet statutory criteria; no injury to prior rights, demonstrated need, sufficient unappropriated water, and the public interest.

DNR adjudicates applications and appeals impartially, balancing all beneficial uses – including fish and wildlife habitat, subsistence, recreation, and economic development – consistent with the Alaska Constitution and statutes. Delays in appeals often stem from complex protests and legal processes, not a failure to prioritize habitat. Allowing DNR to hold certificates for non-agency applicants strengthens long-term stewardship and enforcement while fully crediting applicant data and involvement in monitoring and reviews. This reinforces that Alaska’s waters belong to the public and are managed for maximum benefit to all Alaskans.

Question 36: Kendra Zamzow - The proposal to have only DNR hold certificates of water was proposed in 2024 and perhaps earlier.  Until DNR gets its own house in order and is able to process the applications already on file, they should not be given the additional work of holding the certificates and ensuring that monitoring is conducted. Until we as citizens can trust the state to prioritize our streams and lakes for non-industrial uses, we should not have the agency that issues water withdrawal permits (DNR) to industry be the same one that holds certificates to ensure there is enough water for fish and wildlife.

Response: We recognize the current backlog and are actively working to improve processing efficiency through the proposed regulatory updates. Having DNR hold certificates for non-agency applicants streamlines stewardship, ensures consistent monitoring and enforcement, and avoids fragmented management – without adding undue workload, as DNR already oversees reviews, compliance, and defense under AS 46.15.145 and 11 AAC 93.147. DNR is statutorily responsible for balancing all water uses in the public interest, including fish and wildlife habitat. Consolidated state holding strengthens protections for public resources rather than creating conflicts, and we remain committed to transparent, data-backed decisions that serve all Alaskans.

Question 37: Mike Bronson – Please withdraw your proposal to toughen 11 AAC 93, instream reservations.  DNR should lower the barriers for protecting fish populations. I have used the Talkeetna, Chuitna, Susitna rivers, as well as Moose, Alexander, Willow and Fish creeks for boating and fishing since 1979. I expect your department to do everything to keep them in good shape. If you finalize this bad Dunleavy proposal, we will overturn it with the new governor.

Response: The proposed changes to 11 AAC 93 aim to improve efficiency, ensure robust data-backed applications, and strengthen long-term management of reservations as a public resource under AS 46.15.145 - not to raise barriers to protecting fish habitat.

Question 38: Kenneth Widmer – These rivers need to be protected, removing water from any salmon stream should be by a permit that limits the amount and needs to be denied if it has any negative effect on the salmon/ fish in the river.

Response: The proposed regulation changes are unrelated to removal of water from salmon streams. Under AS 46.15.145, other existing processes such as consumptive water rights, temporary water use authorizations, and reservations of water are designed to prevent negative impacts to fish and wildlife habitat. DNR evaluates applications for water withdrawals to ensure they do not injure prior rights, including reservations, or the public interest, incorporating fish and wildlife needs.

Question 39: Cathy Teich – I think that it is important to make water reservation requirements stronger instead of making them weaker.  All over the United States, I see corporate America invading rural areas and destroying farm lands and sucking up valuable water resources.  Some of those corporate projects are disguised in "Green Language":  solar farms...also taking up valuable land for agriculture to feed ourselves and using water resources that are disappearing.  In Alaska, it is important that our water stays in streams, rivers, and lakes so that our fish (one of Alaska's most valuable resources) have a healthy habitat.

Response: The proposed updates to 11 AAC 93 seek to strengthen the program by requiring more robust data for new reservation applications – ensuring they are defensible and effective – while improving efficiency, not weakening standards. This supports keeping water in streams, rivers, and lakes for fish and wildlife, consistent with AS 46.15.145 and the public interest.

Question 40: Cathy Teich - I don't feel especially comfortable with DNR holding certificates for successful applicants, as they do not have adequate staff to monitor whether or not these reservations are following the rules.  I have heard that there is a 30 year back log of reservations at this time.  It is my understanding that many of these reservations concerned fish and wildlife habitat, navigation and community water resources all over the state.  I have concern about what will happen with all of those applications.

Response: The proposed changes to 11 AAC 93 are intended to improve efficiency in the processing of applications and long-term oversight. When DNR holds certificates, it enables consistent monitoring, compliance checks, and enforcement under AS 46.15.145 and 11 AAC 93.147 - leveraging state resources for better stewardship of these important public resources for fish habitat, navigation, and community needs.

Question 41: Tim Troll - I would like to request an extension of time to provide detailed comments on the proposed regulations. As I am sure the Department is aware, the month of June is a particularly busy time for Alaskans. Those who may be most affected by these changes, including myself, are now busy getting ready to get out on the water, and find it difficult to give this matter the focused attention the issue needs. It would have been much easier to respond to and comment on the proposed changes if they had been made public during the winter months of 2025/2026. I request an extension of time to at least October 1, 2026. Additional time to comment would also provide those who would like to comment

the opportunity to evaluate the Department’s responses to any questions submitted by June 20.

Response: At this time, DNR is not proposing an extension of time for this public notice period.

Question 42: Tim Troll - Please identify and provide responses to any questions that would be answered differently as a result of these proposed changes from ADNR’s responses to proposed changes dated March 26, 2021.

Response: DNR is not in a position to respond to this hypothetical question. During the current public notice period, DNR is focused on questions/concerns on the current proposed changes.

Question 43: Tim Troll - Does the formal recognition of Federally recognized tribes as legitimate governments with the passage of HB 123 in 2021 alter any of the Department’s March 26, 2021, responses to questions regarding tribes holding certificates of reservation?

Response: DNR is not in a position to revisit prior responses. During the current public notice period, DNR is focused on questions/concerns on the current proposed changes.

Question 44: Tim Troll - To what extent do the proposed regulations affect certificates of reservations already issued under existing law and regulations to a “person”?

Response: If adopted, the proposed regulations would not affect existing certificates of reservation.

Question 45: Tim Troll - To what extent do the proposed regulations affect applications for reservations from a “person” that have been perfected, submitted and approved by the Department pursuant to existing law and regulation, the approval of which has been appealed to and remains pending before the Commissioner?

Response: If adopted, the proposed regulations would not affect approved applications currently under appeal before the Commissioner.

Question 46: Tim Troll - To what extent do the proposed regulations affect applications for reservations by a “person” pursuant to existing law and regulation that are perfected, submitted and awaiting adjudication by the Department?

Response: If adopted, the proposed regulations would not affect applications for reservations of water currently awaiting adjudication by the department.

Question 47: Tim Troll - Did the Alaska Department of Fish & Game provide a fiscal note regarding the cost of implementing these regulations? If so, please provide a copy.

Response: No.

Question 48: Lou Brown – How would the original applicant remain involved if DNR holds the certificate for the reservation of water on behalf of the non-agency applicant?

Response: DNR will maintain periodic communication with the applicant to determine viable gaging equipment and processes so that accurate updated data is available when needed.  The applicant may contact DNR at any time to discuss the reservation of water.

Question 49: Lou Brown – How would affected communities ensure the reservation is monitored, defended, and maintained over time if DNR holds the certificate for the reservation of water on behalf of the non-agency applicant?

Response: Affected communities, and any agencies or other parties, that were initially contacted during a reservation of water’s public notice period will automatically receive a copy of the Review & Determination for Certification.  Anyone can request information from DNR regarding any aspect of any water right, reservation of water or otherwise, either by contacting DNR’s Water Resources Section or via a Public Records Request.

Question 50: Lou Brown – What happens if DNR’s priorities shift or if future development proposals put pressure on reserved water if DNR holds the certificate for the reservation of water on behalf of the non-agency applicant?

Response: Authorized certificates for reservations of water are protected by AS 46.15 and 11 AAC 93 and are subject to those statutes and regulations set at the time of authorization.  AS 46.15 cannot be modified without an act of state legislation. 11 AAC 93 cannot be modified without public input.  Future modifications to either would not affect certificates for reservations of water that have already been authorized.

Question 51: Lou Brown - One of the most troubling parts of the proposal is the potential for costs to be assigned to applicants or certificate holders for additional research, data collection, analysis, or review methods. This could discourage Tribes, nonprofits, and public-interest applicants from even trying to protect water for salmon and wildlife. Alaska’s water belongs to the public. The process for protecting public water should not depend on whether a community can afford years of technical studies or unexpected agency-directed costs.

Response: Under the proposed regulations, if the commissioner considers installing, maintaining, and monitoring equipment to be necessary, the responsibility will remain with the applicant as they are the interested party.

Question 52: Lou Brown - Alaska’s water protections should be strengthened, not weakened. The goal of revising water reservation regulations should be to strengthen Alaska’s ability to protect instream flows, salmon habitat, wildlife, recreation, navigation, water quality, and public use. The process should not become easier for industrial appropriation while becoming harder for public-interest water protection. Alaska needs regulations that recognize the public value of water left in rivers, not only water removed from them.

Response: The proposed regulations do not relate to the removal of water. Rather, DNR’s intent is to enhance the effectiveness and durability of reservations of water. The updates emphasize the collection of more robust data and efficiency, while allowing DNR to remain focused on balancing all beneficial uses while recognizing the high public value of water left in rivers.

Question 53: Lou Brown - DNR should revise the proposal to ensure that water reservation applications remain accessible to Tribes, communities, nonprofits, local governments, and individuals. Data requirements should be flexible and reasonable. Monitoring and reporting should be practical and scaled to the watershed. Cost-shifting should not prevent public-interest applicants from protecting salmon habitat. And any change to certificate ownership must include clear accountability to the original applicant, affected communities, and the public.

Response: These regulation changes are not intended to impose barriers. They are intended to improve the data requirements for adjudicating a reservation. We recognize the significant investment of time and resources, and under the proposed regulations, DNR holding the certificate does not diminish that effort. Instead, it ensures long-term stewardship while preserving the applicant’s role in data collection, monitoring, and review processes. This approach aligns with DNR’s mission to manage water as a public resource for all Alaskans, provide consistent enforcement and defense of reservations, and avoids fragmented private control.

Question 54: Adam Cuthriell - I am against the proposed changes to 11 AAC 93.  My whole

existence and livelihood for myself and our 15 employees depends on the Su and it's

tributaries having water for healthy fish populations. As it says in our state constitution "water as a public resource, to be managed for the maximum benefit of the people. Water reservations help make sure water stays available for public values, not only for industrial or other consumptive uses." DNR needs to put Alaskans first, the fact that DNR is trying to impose such heavy bureaucracy on citizens, tribes, and other agencies for keeping water in the river is lunacy. It should be on the agencies, people, and entities who are trying to take water from the river to show and illustrate the whys and how's and potential outcomes for doing so.

Response: The proposed regulation changes are intended to strengthen – not weaken – reservations by requiring more robust data, ensuring they are durable and defensible. This protects public values like fish habitat while improving efficiency.