|
By PEGGY STEWARD - Capital
Press
from www.capitalpress.com
9/14/01
LACEY, Wash. - Farmers and
agricultural interest groups told legislators that serious
revisions are needed in Washington state water policy to
protect water rights yet provide flexibility to accommodate
changing cropping patterns and weather conditions.
Water users met with more than
a dozen lawmakers for a day-long session that included
testimony from municipalities, counties, public utility
districts, environmental interest groups and the tribes, as
well as agriculture.
Spurred by this year's record
drought and pressure to comply with the Endangered Species Act
and the Clean Water Act, policy-makers focused on four topics
- instream flow targets, water for growing communities, the
state's relinquishment or "use it or lose it" law,
and funding for water infrastructure such as storage and
drinking-water systems.
The 2002 off-year legislative
session will likely last only 60 days, and for water
legislation to succeed, complex issues will have to be ironed
out before the session begins in January, lawmakers said. Last
year, the Legislature passed the first water reform measure in
many years, but only after prolonged and contentious
wrangling.
Kicking off the Sept. 10
listening session, Gov. Gary Locke said the state's
"economy and environmental health depends on the reform
of water laws" to meet the needs of both fish and people.
"Water defines us," Locke said. "It is the
lifeblood of the American West."
Most of those testifying
agreed that solutions to critical water issues must be found
quickly.
Most of the agriculture
representatives testifying were from Eastern Washington, but
water-policy reform is also critically important to farmers on
the west side, said Paul LaCroix, manager of the Western
Washington Agricultural Association.
Water rights are granted based
on the use of a certain amount of water for a specific
acreage, LaCroix said. But if a farmer conserves and cuts
water use by one-half, he isn't allowed to use the other half
on adjoining acreage.
"You should be able to
move water around," said LaCroix.
Farmers who rely on
groundwater also face challenges related to minimum in-stream
flows. In subtidal agriculture in the Skagit, Nooksack and
Stillaguamish valleys, for example, the nearby bay can have
more influence than the river on "hydraulic
continuity" - the principle that says that in some cases
groundwater is connected to river levels, LaCroix said.
Eastside views
Yakima County Commissioner Jim
Lewis urged the lawmakers to consider new water storage in the
Yakima River Basin, citing severe impacts to the region's
economy from this year's record drought. He said that without
action, the Yakima Basin faces increasing hardships.
"The Yakima Basin is a
Klamath Basin ready to happen," Lewis said, referring to
the devastating crisis that has a stranglehold on hundreds of
farmers and has dried up thousands of acres of land in
Southern Oregon and Northern California to protect sucker
fish.
Counties have little
jurisdiction over water issues but are required to carry out
state policies, Lewis said. He said more funding is needed to
help cash-strapped government entities grapple with water
issues.
Zillah apple grower Charlie de
la Chapelle represented several state agriculture groups
including the Washington State Horticultural Association. He
told the lawmakers farmers need water rights certainty,
including consistent interpretation of policy. Without that,
farmers can't plan or make investments on the land, he said.
The state's "use it or
lose" law that requires the relinquishment of water not
used in a five-year period jeopardizes farmers who use
differing amounts of water for changing cropping patterns, de
la Chapelle said.
The Columbia-Snake River
Irrigators Association offered new language to clarify the
relinquishment law to protect water rights while ensuring
adequate water supplies for future social and economic needs.
CSRIA President Tom Mackay of AgriNorthwest, a large farming
operation in the Tri-Cities region, urged lawmakers to change
the five-year nonuse period to 20 years. That would give
farmers and others greater incentives to save water and
provide flexibility for farming operations, he said.
Many of the ag groups
expressed support for CSRIA's alternative water management
plan for the Columbia River Basin. The plan would provide
funding for new storage and efficiency projects in tributaries
and watersheds and revise mainstem target flows. That includes
the National Marine Fisheries Service's no-net loss policy
that dictates no new water can be withdrawn unless it is
replaced somewhere else in the system.
For the last few decades,
state water resources either have not been managed or have
been mismanaged, said Chris Cheney, a lobbyist for several
agriculture groups including the Hop Growers of Washington and
the Washington State Dairy Federation.
Agriculture needs equity in
water issues, Cheney said. Municipalities have flexibility and
can move water for things like golf courses or parks.
Agriculture needs similar flexibility in its use of water, he
said.
The agricultural community in
Eastern Washington is "scared and paranoid," said
Paul Stoker, an Othello farmer representing the Washington
Association of Conservation Districts. The state
relinquishment law is destabilizing, and works against
conservation, he said.
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, any copyrighted work in this
message is distributed under fair use
without profit or payment for non-profit research
and educational purposes only. [Ref.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]
|