|
|
|
 |
|
Home / Washington Business - November/December 2004 / PRO-CON: Abolishing Use-It-or-Lose-It Won't Work |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
PRO-CON: Abolishing Use-It-or-Lose-It Won't Work |
|
|
|
Written On: November/December 2004 |
|
|
|
Written By: By Rep. Kelli Linville (D - Bellingham) |
|
|
|
Relinquishment Rules Must be Clear and Easy to Understand
Rep. Kelli Linville is Chair of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee and serves on the House Appropriations Committee.
We all agree that water supply is a critical issue for future economic growth and quality of life. We also agree that the way our state handles water rights must be modernized. But a simplistic refrain to “get rid of use-it-or-lose-it” doesn’t work. Changing relinquishment is just one piece of the solution. The path to success also lies in a clear tally of water resources and local watershed planning.
For better or worse, Washington’s water law is based on the prior appropriation doctrine: water rights that are first in time are first in right. Water law attempts to efficiently allocate this scarce, public resource. According to the law, if right holders don’t use their water, they lose it. Many water users have proposed to liberalize these rules to excuse right holders when they do not use their water right.
While I agree that water right instability is a threat to Washington’s economy, simply “fixing” relinquishment will not solve the problem. The challenge is much greater — the water management system itself must be repaired. Relinquishment rules and instream flows are two important elements of the water management system — both must be addressed to create a dependable water supply.
As astounding as it sounds, Washington’s water system does not have a clear accounting system for water use and allocation; we don’t know how much water is allocated, used, or available. Washington’s water system does not adequately incorporate water obligations based federal laws or tribal treaties, such as clean water or water flows necessary to support salmon. Many watersheds face legal uncertainty related to Endangered Species Act salmon listing, at least partially resulting from low instream flows. Reforming the water management system and addressing the balance between instream and out-of-stream uses are both critical to providing stable, reliable water supplies for people, farms, and fish.
Since 2003, providing water to people, farms and fish is not just an economic or environmental goal, it’s the law. Landmark legislation requires watershed plans to provide sufficient water for production agriculture; commercial, industrial, and residential use; and instream flows. The tough task ahead is how to accomplish these goals.
Modernizing Washington’s water management system is a high priority. To work properly, the system must define the limits of existing water rights, account for water use, and keep water rights current. Solidifying existing water rights will enhance the certainty, confidence, and market value of those rights. The process of changing and transferring water rights must also be simplified so that water can be easily shifted among water uses, including instream flows.
As the process changes, relinquishment rules must be clear and easy to understand by right holders, citizens, and the Dept. of Ecology. Rule changes cannot fundamentally change the relationship between groups of water right holders. Fixing the system also requires creating incentives for efficient water use without the fear of losing water rights.
Changing relinquishment rules without addressing instream needs will not stabilize farm operations or rural economies. The instream side of the water equation can’t be ignored. Instream rules must establish flows that make sense for the hydrology of the region and reflect the needs of fish in the stream. The rules must reflect climatic and seasonal variations. Establishing an instream flow that does not meet these objectives will not achieve ecological or legal certainty. To that end, watersheds must develop instream flow programs to achieve and protect flows.
Neither full water use accounting or instream flow achievement will happen overnight. In the meantime, local watershed plans hold great promise for balancing environmental and economic values. Watersheds in Whatcom County have different challenges than Yakima County; collaboration between farmers, tribes, environmentalists, and governments is essential for citizens to create workable solutions to unique local water problems.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
