Capitol Building, Olympia., Washington
Capitol Building, Olympia., Washington
Home | Contact Us | About Us | Join CELP | Ralph W. Johnson
Center for
Environmental Law & Policy










For CELP in the news, click here.
CELP Legislative Comments, 2010
CELP letter to Sen. Phil Rockefeller re: SB 6267. January 15, 2010
CELP letter to Rep. Brian Blake re: HB 2591, HB 2542, HB 2508, HB 2468, HB 2532, HB 2548. Jan. 14, 2010.


Water and the Legislature - 2010
CELP works in all venues to protect Washington’s water resources - and that includes the Washington Legislature.
In 2010 CELP is represented by lobbyist Seth Ballhorn. Our focus will be on promoting exempt well reform, opposing bad bills on exempt wells (of which there are many these days due to our work in the Kittitas and on stockwater issues).
With a terrible budget situation, Ecology’s water resources budget will be slashed - as it was last year.
Ironically, that means there is interest in the private sector to find ways to fund water right processing. CELP has traditionally supported a reformed water rights fee structure.
A water rights fee bill, HB 2591 proposes a set of fees for water right processing that places the cost of water right applications squarely on the private parties who stand benefit from the public’s water. CELP strong supports this bill. For CELP this is not a new issue. In 2005 CELP issued a special report Water is Worth It: Making the Case for a Water Management Fee. CELP’s report remains relevant today. Download and read it here.
Center for Environmental Law & Policy
Comments on E2SB 6267 -- February 17, 2010
CELP is now opposed to amended Senate Bill 6267. CELP has changed its position from supporting “with concerns” because of substantial and serious additions to and subtractions from the original bill. Ultimately this bill would severely undermine Ecology’s ability to manage water resources in the best interests of all the people of Washington state.
As an initial matter, we believe the water resources management problems at issue in SB 6267 are better addressed by the approach set forth in HB 2591. That bill would retain Ecology’s stewardship and authority over management of water resources while allowing the state to recover the costs of processing water right applications which benefit private parties.
In contrast, SB 6267 would fully privatize the water right decision process, placing the cost on applicants, but severely limiting Ecology’s ability to protect the public interest in public water resources.
Specific Issues:
Ecology currently administers a cost reimbursement program in which the agency maintains direct control over the qualifications and hiring of consultants who participate in expedited processing of water rights, as well as the decisions they recommend.
In contrast, Section 3 (subsections 5 and 6) of amended SB 6267 would allow water right applicants to hire any consultant of their own choosing, with no oversight as to the consultant’s qualifications and abilities. Ecology would then be required to respond to whatever “decisions” such consultants make, regardless of the quality or bias of the decision. Rather than serving as contractor for the state (and therefore retaining the ability to partner with Ecology in independently reviewing impacts on public interests and water resources), cost-reimbursement consultants would become direct advocates for would-be water users. While Ecology would retain decision authority, this approach places a huge burden on the agency to police and review the quality and outcome of applicant-driven decisions.
As amended, SB 6267 eliminates Section 4 of the original bill, which would allow Ecology to apply its determination that water is not available to all applicants within a common watershed or basin. This provision was one of the most meritorious aspects of the original bill. It provided a tool for Ecology to efficiently and equitably resolve the water right application backlog. Now, any applicant that wishes to hire its own consultant to make a finding of water availability (whether correct or incorrect) will force Ecology to expend resources and priority on review of the decision.
Rather than saving money, the costs of amended SB 6267 will be substantial. The fiscal note incorrectly states that the cost of water rights administration to Ecology would be minimal. In fact, the cost of Ecology review of cost-reimbursement based processing would be substantial. Some of these costs will be shifted to applicants, but the approach envisioned in this bill will fundamentally change the work of the agency to address whatever applications are brought before it, regardless of priorities (both in terms of priority date of water rights, and agency work priorities).