|
|
|
 |
|
Home / Washington Business - November/December 2005 / Point of View: Whose Water Is It, Anyway? |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Point of View: Whose Water Is It, Anyway? |
|
|
|
Written On: November/December 2005 |
|
|
|
Written By: by Rep. Dan Newhouse, R-Sunnyside |
|
|
|
Rep. Newhouse is serving his second term representing the 15th Legislative District. He is the Assistant Republican Floor Leader as well as serving as the Assistant Ranking Republican on the House Capital Budget Committee and a member of the Economic Development, Agriculture and Trade Committee, and the Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee.
Whose water is it? That seems to be an age-old question in Washington. Certainly some bodies of water in Washington are public. But there are those in state government who believe all water in Washington belongs to the public and none can be owned by any one individual or group and water permits should be allocated on a temporary basis reverting to the state in a kind of revolving permit process.
However, if you go by the letter of the law which has been on the books for more than 100 years, a water right is considered appurtenant, or a part of the land in which the permitted water is being used. This system has served us well and has fostered considerable investment and economic growth throughout our state.
As a farmer, I understand very well the relationship between landowners and their lifeblood—water. The agriculture industry has invested heavily in our irrigation systems that feed our crops and fuel our local and state economies, making it the number one employer in all of Washington. Yet for all our success, current water policies threaten the future growth of the industry and stifle communities and industries throughout our state.
There’s no question that water law and water rights issues are complicated and controversial. Of the number of issues to be resolved, one of the most significant in the agriculture community is relinquishment. Talk to any group of farmers about water-management policy and you will quickly understand that the use-it-or-lose-it approach is one that must go.
Relinquishment requires that a water right revert to the state if it hasn’t been put to beneficial use for a period of five years. Enacted to ensure water rights are exercised and surplus water conserved, the policy accomplishes the first goal but is counterproductive in our efforts to conserve water. Farmers and other water users feel compelled to use their water, whether it’s being used efficiently or not, out of fear of forfeiting it to the state.
Why would anyone conserve their water at great financial expense if they face the risk of losing it by doing so? Under the current law, we discourage conservation. It simply doesn’t make sense for users to cut off any rights to the use of water in the future by conserving water now. In the end, the system in place to presumably protect the resource lacks any incentive to use less, resulting in unnecessary diversions from rivers and streams.
Our water resource is being stretched between the needs of agriculture, fish, industry, residential development and hydropower generation. It is put at further risk by our inflexible water-management policy and the users’ inability to work with that policy to serve the greater good.
Farmers have advocated changing how we manage our water resource for years. Unfortunately, many lawmakers and state agencies have remained so rigid in their positions that common-sense water-management policy changes have eluded us.
We must restructure the way that water is governed to both encourage conservation and provide assurance that water rights will be preserved.
A more positive, proactive approach to water management must include creating additional water storage facilities that will allow us to save up water during peak river flows and release water needed during periods of low flows.
We need to stop the move toward a socialist-style water policy and embrace our long-standing system that recognizes water rights should remain attached as a part of one’s private property rights. This basic principle is important for the agricultural industry and fish and is vitally important to the economy of the entire state of Washington.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
