HOUSE BILL REPORT

E2SSB 6724

As Amended by the House

BYSenate Committee on Ways & Means (originally sponsored by Senators Barr and Hansen)

Revising provisions on water resources.

House Committe on Natural Resources

Majority Report:  Do pass with amendments.  (11)

      Signed by Representatives Sutherland, Chair; K. Wilson, Vice Chair; Amondson, Basich, Beck, Bumgarner, Butterfield, Dorn, Fuhrman, Hargrove and Sayan.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (7)

      Signed by Representatives Belcher, Cole, Haugen, Meyers, Schmidt, Spanel and S. Wilson.

House Staff:Bill Koss (786-7129)

AS PASSED HOUSE MARCH 3, 1988

BACKGROUND:

The Department of Ecology has the exclusive authority to establish minimum flows or levels for any stream or lake of the state.  Under the specific minimum water flow legislation, Chapter 90.22 RCW, the Department may establish minimum flows for the purposes of protecting wildlife resources, recreational, or aesthetic values of the public waters whenever it appears to be in the public interest.  Any permit to make beneficial use of water is conditioned to protect the minimum flows or levels which have been adopted and are in effect at the time the permit is approved.

Under the Water Resources Act of 1971, Chapter 90.54 RCW, the Department is directed to develop and implement a comprehensive state water resources program to provide a process for making decisions on future water resource allocation and use.  Base flows are to be retained in perennial rivers and streams and any diversions from the rivers which conflict with the base flows are allowed only where it is clear that overriding considerations of the public interest will be served.

Based on increasing water demands and pressures on allocation, the Washington Ecological Commission held a 1985 meeting allowing public discussion of water allocation issues.  Following the meeting, the Department of Ecology decided to conduct a program review.  The review resulted in preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the Instream Resources and Water Allocation Program.  The EIS identified five alternative water allocation proposals.  From the five, a Preferred Alternative was developed.  It is possible for Ecology to implement the Preferred Alternative late this year.

SUMMARY:

The legislature finds that it must review the fundamentals of water resource policy in order to ensure that the states water resources are fully used for the greatest benefit to the public.

The department of ecology shall hire a fact finding service.  The fact finder shall consult with all parties interested in Washington's water resource policies and laws.  The purpose of the fact finding is to 1) identify their opinions on the fundamentals of water resource policy, and 2) determine if a need exists to clarify or make more consistent state water laws and policies.  A report must be prepared by the fact finder by June 30, 1988 and delivered to a joint select committee on water resource policy.

Both the fact finder and the joint select committee may consider the results of state and federal reports.  They may also consider he department of ecology's instream resources and water allocation program review.  Neither the fact finder nor the joint select committee shall duplicate other work.

Until July 1, 1989 or until the legislature has passed legislation based on recommendations of he joint select committee the department of ecology is prohibited from taking certain steps.  The department may: 1) not amend or alter the guidelines, standards or criteria governing instream flow and water allocation plans; 2) not adopt any water reservation; 3) not adopt the preferred alternative of the instream resources and water allocation environmental impact statement; 4) for new applications for surface water appropriation, only issue temporary appropriations.  These appropriations may not reduce the water necessary to provide for wildlife, navigation, water quality, and other important instream resources. The temporary appropriations shall be conditioned such that they may be reduced based upon enactment of legislation or adoption of rules resulting from recommendations of the fact finder or the joint select committee.

None of the restrictions above may impede the issuance of water rights associated with the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project.

The joint select committee will address the findings of the fact finder.  It will consist of 12 voting members jointly appointed by the speaker of the house and the president of the senate. Members selected to the committee shall represent the spectrum of interest groups concerned with water use. Non-voting members may be appointed to the committee by either the speaker of the house or the president of the senate.  Cochairs will lead the committee and will select staff from House and Senate committee staff.

By December 1, 1988 the committee shall prepare a written report to the legislature containing its recommendations.  The shall include recommendations on allocating water resources and may include an evaluation of the need to set priorities for water use.  The committee may also include recommendation for changes in water policies and laws.

To monitor implementation of the recommendations and the any legislation enacted, the committee continues through June 30, 1991.  During that period it may review other water resource issues at its discretion.  The committee shall report periodically to the legislature.

An emergency clause is included.

Fiscal Note:      Requested February 17, 1988.

Effective Date:The bill contains an emergency clause and takes effect immediately.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Senator Barr, Prime Sponsor; Hedia Adelsman, DOE; John Kirner, City of Tacoma and Tacoma Utilities; Kathleen Collins, Association of Washington Cities; David Parkinson, Seattle Water Department; Jim Miller, WA Water Utilities Council; and Marlyta Deck, WA Cattlemen's Association and WA Dairy Federation.

House Committee - Testified Against:      Elizabeth Tabbutt, WEC; Michael Rossotto, Friends of the Earth; Polly Dyer, Olympic Park Association; and Jim Anderson, Northwest Rivers Council.

House Committee - Testimony For:    The preferred alternative developed by DOE is not balanced and does not represent all the issues raised during the discussions of the past two years.  DOE exceeded the bounds established in state law and is now developing new state policies through regulation.

Conservation alone will not stop cities from needing additional water sources.

Because some water laws seem to conflict, the Legislature needs to review them to determine a clear state policy.  DOE should not have to interpret the laws.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      The preferred alternative was developed with a substantial public involvement.  Environmentalists worked in good faith to reach an agreement.  It provides the out-of-stream users with ample flexibility and requires them to mitigate for any damages caused.  It represents major compromises and concessions.

Mandated mediation is not good public policy and may not be acceptable to some groups.  Some portions of the preferred alternative are not negotiable.  Mediation should only examine actions beyond those in the preferred alternative.

In light of current water waste and the minimal efforts of conservation, agriculture and municipalities should not have easy access to more water.