Capitol Building, Olympia., Washington

  Center for

  Environmental Law & Policy

Seth Ballhorn

CELP Lobbyist

e-mail

Our Water Future Water_Vision_for_the_Future.htmlshapeimage_4_link_0
Legislative Affairs shapeimage_5_link_0shapeimage_5_link_1
Water Rights Water_Rights_%26_the_Public_Interest.htmlshapeimage_6_link_0
Restoring Rivers River_Restoration.htmlRiver_Restoration.htmlshapeimage_7_link_0shapeimage_7_link_1
Columbia River Watershed ../celpissues/Columbia_Watershed.html../celpissues/Columbia_Watershed.htmlshapeimage_8_link_0shapeimage_8_link_1
Sign-up action alerts http://www.celp.org/mailman/listinfo/celpactionshapeimage_10_link_0
Donate http://www.celp.org/water/celpjoin/Membership.htmlshapeimage_11_link_0

For CELP in the news, click here.

CELP SPECIAL REPORT Water Is Worth It: Making the Case for a Water Management Fee (pdf) http://www.celp.org/pdf/Water_is_Worth_It_CELP_2005).pdfhttp://www.celp.org/pdf/Water_is_Worth_It_CELP_2005).pdfshapeimage_12_link_0shapeimage_12_link_1

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).