HB 1117—Appears to abolish  statutory relinquishment.  CELP opposes.

·  Hearing: Jan. 20 at 8:00 a.m., House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources;

·  Relinquishment is essential to preserve the beneficial use of water which is fundamental to the Water Code’s purpose of maximizing beneficial use. 

·  Getting rid of relinquishment encourages people to sit on their water rights, and removes the incentive for people to place water in trust to benefit flows, fish and Washington citizens. 

·   Irrigators complain that relinquishment causes uncertainty about the extent of their water rights.  Any uncertainty could be  addressed with the adoption of specific reasonable efficiency standards to guide farmers and other irrigators. 

HB 1297 --  15-year look back for relinquishment.  CELP Opposes

·  Hearing: Jan. 20 at 8:00 a.m., House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources

·  This bill weakens relinquishment by tripling the “look back” period encourages people to sit on their water rights, discourages beneficial use, and works against returning water to streams and rivers. 

HB 1378—Adds clause requiring “liberal construction” of the “sufficient cause” exemption for non-use of water (that saves water from relinquishment).  CELP Opposes

·  Hearing: Jan. 20 at 8:00 a.m., House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources

·  Because relinquishment preserves the Water Code’s purpose of maximizing beneficial use, it should not be abolished or weakened especially when instream flows and base flows are increasingly going unmet

·  Judge Redden recently rejected the NOAA’s biological opinion for the Columbia and Lower Snake because it failed to provide specific enough measures to protect salmon and he specifically directed NOAA and Oregon and Washington to examine increasing flows.  Relinquishment is one way flows in the over-appropriated Columbia and Lower Snake are augmented without harm to existing agricultural uses.

·  The language “liberal construction” provides no guidance to the courts in construing and applying the already specific and generous exceptions for non-use in the existing statute.

HB 1381—Adds exemption to the relinquishment statute “waiting for Ecology to make a final determination on a change application. CELP is Neutral but has some concerns

·  2012 Referred to Senate Agriculture, Water and Rural Economic Development.

·  Exemptions to the relinquishment standard should not be encouraged.  We need as much water returned to the public interest as possible to augment flows.

HB 2310 – Gives a special exemption to water public utilities from the statute governing water right changes to allow pooling of multiple rights or permits from the same aquifer.  CELP Opposes.

    This bill may undermine a pending citizen lawsuit challenging WSU’s pooling of water rights to supply a new golf course.

Legislature 2012

Website Contents

1. -Office of Columbia River
   

2. -Odessa Subarea & Economics
   

Links:

CELP POSITION ON WATER RIGHTS & RELINQUISHMENT

The Center for Environmental Law & Policy (CELP) generally opposes bills to weaken or eliminate relinquishment of water rights. Here’s why:

•   Washington allocates water under the prior appropriation doctrine which operates on principles of “first in time is first in right” and “use it or lose it.”

•   Relinquishment is an essential component of prior appropriation. If a water user does not need their water right, someone else does. Unused water returns to the public domain and is re-allocated for new uses.

•   The system is designed to maximize water use. It is also intended to prevent hoarding or speculation in water rights. This is important because water markets are developing around Washington and many water users want to sell their rights – or at least sell the part they are not using.

•   Environmental needs must also be considered in water allocation calculus. Rivers need water for healthy ecological conditions. Groundwater systems around the state are declining, and water levels need to be protected.

•   If water users are allowed to keep their unused rights, only to sell or revive them in the distant future, this will have a negative impact on other users and environmental needs.

•   Reasonable efficiency is another requirement of state water law. Water users must use their water efficiently. The Supreme Court has held that a party who is wasting water does not have a right to that water.

•   Unfortunately, Washington has no standards to define efficiency and no program to enforcement against water waste.

•   When water users say that relinquishment causes them to use water they really don’t need, they are essentially saying that they are wasting water – an unacceptable practice.

•   The answer to relinquishment problems is to develop “reasonable efficiency” standards for all classes of water use and require that all water users adhere to those standards.