|
|
|
 |
|
Home / Washington Business - November/December 2004 / PRO-CON: We Need to Change the Relinquishment Statute |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
PRO-CON: We Need to Change the Relinquishment Statute |
|
|
|
Written On: November/December 2004 |
|
|
|
Written By: Rep. Bruce Chandler (R - Granger) |
|
|
|
Farmers Should Not be Penalized for Being Good Water Stewards
Rep. Bruce Chandler serves on the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee and currently owns and operates a commercial fruit orchard near Granger.
When legislators convene in January the challenge most in need of attention is restoring our economy and creating jobs while protecting our quality of life. One crucial element to meeting that challenge is substantive reform of our state’s water relinquishment law.
From our early days of statehood Washington recognized the “use-it-or-lose-it” principle common throughout the western states by employing the common law doctrine of abandonment. If it was demonstrated that a water right holder was no longer putting the water to beneficial use and did not intend to put it to use the water right would be revoked and the water could be available for someone else to use.
In 1967 the Legislature adopted a water relinquishment statute. It declares that the failure to put water to use for five consecutive years causes the right to the unused water to revert to the state. The statute applies most directly to our state’s agricultural and manufacturing sectors while municipal water systems and federal reserved rights are exempt. Proponents of the law argued that it would prevent hoarding and make more water available for additional appropriation. But it hasn’t worked out that way.
The manner in which the relinquishment statute has been applied has created numerous adverse consequences and threatens to compromise the future of Washington agriculture. Farmers are penalized for changing crops, being good stewards by improving the efficiency of their operations, and long term weather patterns. Any diminishment of use over any five-year period results in incremental loss of your water right. In addition they face an increasing burden of documentation to prove their water use. The resulting uncertainty is causing lenders to be increasingly reluctant to finance loans and potential investors are reluctant to invest in agricultural enterprises.
The harmful effects of the relinquishment law are having serious implications for our entire state. Washington agriculture is a cornerstone of our state’s economy. Contributing almost $30 billion, it represents fully 20 percent of our gross state product. One third of our farm commodities are shipped to international markets through the ports of Seattle, Tacoma and Vancouver, adding even more value to our economy.
The uncertainty caused by the relinquishment statute has begun to reach beyond agriculture. As local governments wrestle with growth demands and plan for future water needs the law is obstructing their efforts to acquire the water rights necessary to continue serving their residents. Much of the land being encompassed within urban growth areas was previously farm land that is no longer economically viable for agriculture. Cities and other public water providers need the opportunity to acquire the water rights appurtenant to that land to provide future service.
The prospect of relinquishment is also discouraging efforts to better preserve our environment. Attempts to provide temporary and long-term water to augment stream flows by leasing or purchasing water rights through a water trust program have been undermined by the risk of permanently losing water rights. Too often those that oppose reform have argued from the presumption that there is not enough water to meet the demands of communities, businesses, farmers and fish. That presumption is simply false. More fresh water flows through our state than any other state except Alaska. Our total consumption from all uses comprises only 1.7 percent of the total water supply that comes into our state each year. Evaporation accounts for 16 percent and fully 82 percent of the water flows into the Pacific Ocean. The challenge is not a lack of water but having water where it is needed when it is needed.
The added pressure of habitat for salmon and bull trout is leading the Dept. of Ecology to actively push for “optimum” instream flows for fish instead of focusing on the base flow needed to sustain and maintain enough water for fish while not shutting down the economic engine of Washington. The optimum flow regime has already shut down much of rural Skagit county. DOE needs to revisit the guidance being provided on instream flow setting and return to a base flow model.
The Legislature has a big job ahead of it. My colleagues and I need to get down to business and seriously address providing more certainty for water right holders. Two proposals have been proposed in recent years. One would simply repeal the relinquishment law and return to the abandonment doctrine. The other would amend the relinquishment statute to allow a longer period of time before the water right reverts to the state and accommodate some mitigating circumstances that are not currently allowed in statute. Both of these proposals deserve to be thoroughly debated and reforms adopted- the future of agriculture and Washington’s economy depends on it.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
