Watershed planning

Wenatchee River near Leavenworth, Washington.

Photo: John Osborn

Watershed Planning & the WRIA Rules:
Setting & Forgetting Instream Flows

“It appears that the new watershed rules establish that rivers are already fully allocated, then go ahead and allocate more water out of the rivers.”
-- Anonymous (agency biologist)

The problem: we are deluding ourselves into thinking we are doing something positive for rivers when we adopt these rules, when in fact we are doing nothing or, in some watersheds, making matters worse.

History of Instream Flow Rules & Watershed Planning

In the 1970s, the Department of Ecology divided Washington into 62 Water Resource Inventory Areas or WRIAs (pronounced “why-rahs”) – administrative units based on watershed boundaries. Starting in 1977, the state adopted 18 watershed or WRIA rules, but a legislative moratorium in 1983 halted the process when the rules started getting too ‘river-friendly.’ In that era, WRIA rules were considered innovative because of their watershed approach and because the instream flows were deemed by statute to be a form of “water right.”

But, the rules were beset by three major flaws:

First, the instream water rights established in the rules were (and are) “junior” to all pre-existing out-of-stream water rights. Hence, in the many watersheds where water is over-appropriated, the instream flows deemed necessary were (and are) often not achieved.

Second, political negotiation and compromise influenced what should have been a purely scientific determination of the instream flow quantities needed to support fisheries and other aquatic needs.

Third, the rules did not include mechanisms for implementation. In other words, despite the fact that many of the instream flows were not being met, the rules did (and do) nothing to improve flows in Washington’s rivers.

In 1995, the Department of Ecology published a series of Watershed Assessments that revealed that, for most rivers where instream flows were set by rule, the rivers were not in fact meeting those flows – especially during the naturally low flow period of late summer. For example, as shown in the graph below, the Wenatchee River was not meeting its regulatory instream flow levels for up to 69 days per year.

This graph, from Ecology’s 1995 Wenatchee Watershed Assessment, shows the number of days that the Wenatchee instream flow was not being met at the Peshastin stream gage.

A major innovation in thinking was occurring as the Department of Ecology realized that stream flows were being depleted not only by surface water rights, but also by pumping of hydraulically connected groundwater. In 1996, the state began to work on a backlog of water right applications, denying both surface and ground water rights in river systems where instream flows were not being met.

The denial of water rights around the state led to much discontent by water users. In response, the 1998 state legislature enacted and funded HB 2514, the watershed planning statute (now codified at RCW 90.82). This new program directed local stakeholders to determine their water budget and human and environmental water needs - and to determine how those needs are to be met. Watershed plans lead to adoption of formal rules for each basin (or amendments to pre-existing rules) that establish instream flows for the river and various water management requirements.

This “local control” model of watershed planning has pros and cons. Most of the groups are dominated and driven by local water users, including municipal water utilities, agricultural users and others. One big question is whether these planning groups are capable of protecting rivers as they plan for future water needs. As new rules in water-short basins are beginning to emerge, it is painfully evident that none of the planning groups are including river restoration as part of their proposed rule package.

For more background on watershed planning, click here.

New WRIA Rules

Since 2000, the state has adopted three new instream flow rules (in the Skagit, Stillaguamish and Entiat watersheds), is finalizing amendments to the Walla Walla rule (originally adopted in 1977), is accepting public comment on draft amendments to the Wenatchee rule (originally adopted in 1983), and is contemplating rule-making in several other watersheds.

Despite the passage of time, and promises from state officials that the state intends to “set and meet” instream flows, there has been virtually no improvement to the policies that guide instream flow rulemaking. The new rules establish flows that are junior to pre-existing diversionary water rights, often involve compromised science, and lack implementation mechanisms.

Indeed, the new WRIA rules exhibit a few new problems, driven in part by a state guidance document that promotes increased water allocation of rivers through the use of “reserves.” Reserves allocate a set quantity of water supply for future off-stream water uses. Rather than adopt conservation goals and standards, promote reclaimed water use, or support other mechanisms that allow for transfer of existing water rights to higher and better uses, the reserve approach allows watershed planning groups to meet their future water supply needs by simply taking more water out of over-stressed rivers and aquifers.

The WRIA rules are also flawed for their failure to acknowledge and address projected problems of climate change. Climate scientists are warning that warmer temperatures will lead to reduced snowpack, increased spring flooding, lower summer streamflows and – overall – less water available for human and ecological uses. Yet the WRIA rules contain virtually no planning for this coming eventuality.

The rules also should include basic water management provisions, including water user metering and groundwater monitoring programs. While some of the rules do contain provisions for metering of some new uses, universal metering is not required (and hence it is impossible to know how much water is being used in the watershed).

Certain watersheds such as the Skagit and Stillaguamish are not yet over-allocated for water rights and therefore the instream flow rules for those two watersheds may turn out to be effective in protecting the rivers from future depletion. (However, these two rules do call for reserves and increased pumping from tributary streams that are presently over-stressed).

In contrast, the draft Walla Walla rule amendments establish instream flows for a river system that is seriously over-allocated. Just as in the bad old days, the Walla Walla instream flow rule established flows that are not fully supported by science, very troubling given the status of endangered and threatened fisheries in the basin. The rule also allows future depletion of flows through shallow groundwater withdrawals, notwithstanding that water regulation is already occurring in the basin and some water users are not getting their full apportionment. It appears the Walla Walla rule may create even more havoc and litigation over water rights in the future.

The newest rule, in the Wenatchee basin (WRIA 45), is circulating for public comment right now. While CELP believes the Wenatchee planning group did a good job of water planning, the rule contains the same problems described above: junior instream flows, no river restoration provisions, reserves to take more water out of the system, etc. We encourage our members and the conservation-minded public to comment to Ecology about the lack of effective water management provisions in the draft rule for protection of the Wenatchee River and its tributaries. It is time for the Department, and watershed planning groups, to re-think their approach to river restoration and water management.

CELP comments on all new WRIA rules. Click for our comments:
• Skagit
• Stillaguamish
• Walla Walla
• Wenatchee Talking Points

Dry river bed,

Walla Walla River

Wenatchee River, click on image to enlarge. (Google Earth)

Upper right:

confluence with Icicle Creek (Sleeping Lady Mountain).

Lower left:

confluence with the Columbia River.