SENATE BILL REPORT

                   SB 6141

              As Reported By Senate Committee On:

          Agriculture & Environment, February 4, 1998

Title:  An act relating to water rights.

Brief Description:  Regulating public water systems.

Sponsors:  Senators Morton, Rasmussen, Winsley, Goings and Schow.

Brief History:

Committee Activity:  Agriculture & Environment:  1/20/98, 2/4/98 [DPS, DNP].

SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE & ENVIRONMENT

Majority Report:  That Substitute Senate Bill No. 6141 be substituted therefor, and the substitute bill do pass.

  Signed by Senators Morton, Chair; Swecker, Vice Chair; Newhouse, Oke and Rasmussen.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.

  Signed by Senators Fraser and McAuliffe.

Staff:  Bob Lee (786-7404)

Background:  In 1967, statutory provisions were enacted relating to the relinquishment of unused water rights.  Under this act, if all or a portion of a water right was not beneficially used for five consecutive years, the unused portion would revert to the state.  Also, the statute required the filing with the state of claims to water rights that predated the water right permitting system.

As part of the 1967 legislation, an exemption to the relinquishment for five years of non-use provision was provided for rights claimed for municipal water supply purposes.  The 1967 statute did not define municipal water supply purposes.

Under water right law, first a water right permit is issued allowing the holder to begin to apply the water to beneficial use.  When the water is deemed to have been placed to beneficial use, the water right has been perfected and  the Department of Ecology is to issue a certificate of water right.   Generally, water rights issued for municipal purposes contain a quantity that will be needed to accommodate growth.  Interpretations by the agency have not been consistent as to when a water right held for municipal purposes is perfected and a certificate of water right is to be issued.  Current law does not specify  an amount of time during which water associated with a certificated water right held for municipal water supply purposes must be placed to beneficial use.

Irrigation districts are authorized to provide water for residential use and those that do are regulated as public water systems.

Summary of Substitute Bill:  Municipal water supply purposes is defined and has application for both the water right permitting statute and the water right relinquishment statute.  The definition means the use of water that satisfies the needs of (1) cities, (2) towns, and (3) public water systems that deliver water to over 100 equivalent residential units and either a public, commercial or industrial use, and that are under the Department of Health requirements to serve potential customers.  Also, the definition includes the portion of a water right held by an irrigation district that meets the criteria of a public water system.  

Certificated water rights held for municipal water supply purposes are vested, beneficially used, and perfected to the extent that they are needed to supply the system=s approved service area for the most recent 50 year population projection made under the county's growth management plan, approved water system plan, or by the Office of Financial Management.

Substitute Bill Compared to Original Bill:   The substitute bill provides a maximum number of years which a certificated water right may be retained.

Appropriation:  None.

Fiscal Note:  Requested.

Effective Date:  Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.

Testimony For:  Cities and public water systems are required to serve residents that are located within their designated service areas.  Cities are constantly increasing and decreasing in size and have a need to grow into their water rights and to plan for future growth.   The Growth Management Act requires public water systems to provide water for urban growth areas.  Issues regarding the validity of  water rights held by cities and public water systems need to be resolved so that decisions can be made whether to finance expensive capital improvements. 

Testimony Against:  There is concern that increasing withdrawal by cities and public water systems will cause further depletion of instream flows needed by fish.  Increasing use of water by cities may be contrary to needs to recover fish listed under the Endangered Species Act.

Testified:  PRO: Mark Hullinger, Water Cooperative of Pierce County, Lakewood Water; Jeff Johnson, Water Cooperative of Pierce County, Spanaway Water; Jim Haneline, Water Cooperative of Pierce County, Summit Water; Ted Cowan, Washington Property Rights Alliance; Doug Levy, city of Everett; John Woodring, Washington Association of Realtors; CON:  Judy Turpin, Washington Environmental Council; Karla Kay Fullerton, Washington Cattlemen=s Association Ken Slattery, Department of Ecology; Dawn Vyvyan, Yakama Nation.