| |
Protecting
water rights, allowing conservation,
and helping farmers be
profitable
By Reps. Bruce Chandler and Judy Warnick
For the Capital Press Newspaper
Last week in the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, we
held public hearings on several important bills dealing with water
relinquishment, exempt wells, and stock watering purposes. We
co-sponsored four bills regarding water rights and relinquishment
because we believe they are vital to ensuring flexibility and
profitability for farms across our state.
House Bill 1266 allows an application to the Department of Ecology
for a change in a water right to be sufficient cause for nonuse. Since
every water right transfer requires DOE approval and the department, due
to budget constraints has severely curtailed their staff for the
processing of water right applications, we believe water rights must be
protected from relinquishment while idling in DOE’s change/transfer
application line.
House Bill 1267 requires courts and the department to “liberally
construe” legitimate reasons for protecting a water right from
relinquishment. The language proposed in this bill would especially be
helpful anytime a water right comes before the department for a
change/transfer or when an adjudication is initiated by a county court
pertaining to a particular basin.
House Bill 1268 allows the continuance of a water right if the owner
uses at least a portion of the water right for the established purpose
of use. We think this would be a huge incentive for farmers and other
water rights holders to conserve water and leave more in the stream for
fish and habitat.
House Bill 1269 changes the definition of "crop rotation" so both
short and long-term changes in crops are included in considering a loss
of a water right. If you’re producing a high duty crop, and then you
switch to a different crop to regenerate your soil or meet market
demands, it is currently very difficult to switch back to a high duty
crop since you’ve most likely lost your water right after five years of
beneficial use.
These are common
sense bills that reflect what our farmers and communities need to grow
and prosper into the future. All of these proposals would allow water
rights holders to optimize their water rights and consequently allow
more water to remain in stream for environmental and fish values.
Some of the
concerns raised about these bills during the hearing made the assumption
the legislation would expand current rights or create new water rights.
It’s not about additional water – we’re talking about protecting a water
right that people currently have been using beneficially. It’s improving
the use of the water they already have a right to. When this assumption
was challenged in the hearing, we received no direct response.
Another concern
was that these proposals could be used to manipulate the system, to
somehow use extra water or abuse water rights. However, there are
already provisions that make wastage and hoarding of water illegal. The
Department of Ecology has the authority to stop either of these water
rights violations.
There are two
sides to water issues. One side says we have a diminishing supply of
water and not enough for everyone, even though the Columbia River is the
largest volume flow of water from North America into the Pacific Ocean.
We firmly believe we have the water available in our state and that
farmers are extraordinarily responsible managers of this great natural
resource which provides them and others a livelihood.
Effectively
managing water resources requires balancing supply and demand. During
the winter and spring, we have the supply from the melting snow, but not
the demand. During the summer, we have little supply and yet a high
demand for crops and personal use. If we properly manage our water
resources with efficient irrigation, water storage, and in our municipal
water systems, we can ensure we have the water when it’s needed and
where it’s needed. This flexibility helps your farms and communities be
more successful and viable in changing economies and climates.
While we were
encouraged by the support for our efforts by many who even opposed the
legislation, there is a tendency to delay work on this issue. We would
like to see both sides come together this year to find a solution which
will ensure certainty for water users and for stream flows. Water is no
different than the air we breathe for us who live and dwell in rural
Washington.
This is the time
to work on this issue – this year, in a long session. Investors are
concerned about not just the economy here in Washington, but the
predictable and stable availability of water to create profitable farms.
Agriculture is at risk. Our state is at risk: by employing more than
160,000 people, and producing 11 percent of the state’s economic output,
constrictions on agriculture would be a devastating loss for our state.
Government should
be helping farmers be successful, not standing in their way. Especially
in an economic downturn, we need to look for solutions that will help us
create economic vitality for the many great industries in our state. We
hope you will join us in fighting for common-sense solutions to help
agriculture not just survive, but thrive in our state.
# # #
For more information, contact:
Sarah Lamb, Public Information
Officer - (360) 786-7720
|
|