Public Land Surplus Water Rights Could Aid Farmers, Communities

OLYMPIA—Farmers, private businesses and neighboring communities could have more access to water if legislators succeed in requiring state agencies to lease surplus water rights on public land.

In prior sessions, some lawmakers have tried to push through legislation allowing local communities to tap into state-held water rights. Rep. Brian Blake, D-Aberdeen, prime sponsor of House Bill 1000, said his proposal is an effort to have a conversation with the agencies about potential revenue from leasing unused water rights managed by the state Department of Fish & Wildlife (DFW).

Co-sponsored by Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wauconda, and Rep. Vincent Buys, R-Lynden, the bill would require DFW to inventory and identify water rights that are not used for beneficial purposes such as agriculture, irrigation and livestock, and lease surplus water rights to the public at a comparable market rate.

Revenues raised would accumulate in the Habitat Enhancement and Leasing Account that then could be used to support regional fisheries enhancement groups, production at state hatcheries, or acquire or enhance habitat for endangered species.

In a public hearing in the House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee Jan. 14, some organizations expressed concerns with the language of the bill.

Bruce Wishart, lobbyist on behalf of the Center for Environmental Law & Policy and the Sierra Club spoke against the bill, claiming, if implemented, DFW would be forced to lease all unused water rights, including in-stream water rights currently maintained in the state’s Trust Water Rights Program.

Unused water rights currently can be placed in the trust program for in-stream uses, such as fish-habitat and groundwater preservation, ecosystem maintenance and hydropower generation. These water rights cannot be relinquished or lost if they are not used for out-of-stream purposes. However, Wishart says this bill would require DFW to lease all unused water rights, including water that is seemingly being unused in streams.

“We’ve over-appropriated many streams around the state, and that’s why we need to be very careful in making these decisions that determine we have enough water left in the stream,” Wishart said.

Clay Sprague, lands division manager for DFW, said the department supports the concept of keeping a better inventory of its water rights usage. However, the department would need to determine what portion of water rights should be retained to restore in-stream flows to meet the agency’s habitat objectives.

Evan Sheffels, associate director of government relations at Washington Farm Bureau and Trinity Stucker, secretary and treasurer at the Okanogan County Farm Bureau said they aren’t happy with a subsection of the bill that would allow DFW to use money in the proposed habitat account to acquire more land for habitat.

Okanogan County and other counties in Eastern Washington already have a high percentage of land under state and federal ownership, so the prospect of adding more doesn’t make sense, Sheffels said.

In addition, Stucker suggested the bill could be improved by adding a section that prioritizes agriculture’s access to these water rights because a majority of the lands purchased by DFW were used for agriculture.

No committee action has been taken on the proposal.