Advisory Group on Water Trust, Banking and Transfers

26 Results

Sort:

Comment From: Washington Public Utility Dist... (Chris Stearns)

7/31/20 @ 12:07 PM
Summary of all comments made and final conclusion comments

I have already made comments for this group on:

5/7/2020 Individual Comment on Agric. Land Preservation in urbanizing areas of other states (New York) for historic apple production; Question ab...↓

7/8/2020 Individual Comment on concerns over water rights in Lewis Co. Government; Land use history/Past Mining activity - Abandoned Mines and concentrating facilities inside Washington state; WA DNR database on this subject; Serious pollution from old mine tailings especially Lead and Mercury mines in Whatcom, Stevens, Ferry, Pend Oreille, Lewis and Snohomish counties.

6/11/2020 Organization Comment on Water as a resource that merits public oversight and accountability; Dictionary definition of the term: Usufruct; modern perspective on western water law; direct Persian Gulf states investment in groundwater mining in Arizona for large alfalfa farming; Water rights seen as a privilege similar to driving; over allocation of basins, depletion of aquifers; what the public expects this group to do to protect water resources.

7/15/2020 Organization Comment on follow up on evidence for groundwater depletion in Arizona seen from space on a TV program "What on Earth"; California central valley land subsidence from over pumping groundwater; loss of businesses in small towns by farm consolidation in rural North Dakota.

Go look up and read these comments if any of these topics interest you!

My final comment is that many of your solutions on how to operate water banking in our state with the proper oversight and transparency would best be accomplished through current local public entities such as county government or a Public Utility District.
Currently there are 18 P.U.D.'s in our state that are water utilities. Only six are in eastern Washington: Stevens PUD (also operates in northern Spokane Co.); Asotin PUD; Pend Oreille PUD; Douglas PUD; Chelan PUD and Klickitat PUD.
Twelve PUD's operate water utilities on the western side of Washington: Whatcom PUD; Skagit PUD; Snohomish PUD; Kitsap PUD; Thurston PUD; Clallam PUD; Jefferson PUD; Mason PUD #1; Pacific PUD; Wahkiakum PUD; Skamania PUD and the largest water PUD provider, Clark PUD.
PUD's, just like County government operate with public meetings where minutes are kept of each meeting. They are accountable to the public through the Open Records Act. They are run by citizen elected officials who know their communities very well and are well educated on resource and watershed issues in their jurisdiction. They are connected to the public they serve.
I think everyone who has followed this Advisory Group and is not naïve about bringing a bill through the legislative process will admit that the public isn't willing to create new governmental entities, they would like us to work with what we already have! While just the mention of the subject of water rights have been able to make a Republican Senator's eyes roll at a legislative hearing. Nobody wants to tackle a Gordian knot, with many interests at stake. We need to work through the local entities that we already have in place.
Chris Stearns - Water Committee Chair Washington Public Utility District Association and Thurston PUD Commissioner
No attachments

Comment From: Bruce Wakefield

7/30/20 @ 5:12 AM
Just some quick comments related to the Meeting 6 Draft Findings & Policy Tools document. Policy P.2.2 proposes to make water right transfer application information more accessible to the public by posting change applications in a publicly-accessible...↓
The Meeting 4 presentation contains a slide showing state-wide locations of water banking activity. A GIS interface could include a similar map that allows selection of a bank location and display of that location's current banking status. Potential water bank users could see both where and how much water is available for purchase almost in real-time, provided data are updated quickly. This might make the water banking market a bit more dynamic.
No attachments

Comment From: Chris Stearns

7/15/20 @ 2:35 PM
My comments made on 6/11/2020 to this committee about the depletion of groundwater reserves in the state of Arizona by foreign owned alfalfa farms there have recently gained more public attention. The cable program "What on Earth" which searches the ...↓

Poor water management does have serious consequences for the public. Many of you do not know that I have been a Conservation District Associate Member in my county since '94. Before that time I worked on a dryland grain farm in North Dakota mostly cleaning organic grain for market. I used the same machinery cleaning forest seeds for WA DNR. In North Dakota (north-central) I watched as most businesses in a small town disappeared as farms consolidated and residents moved away leaving only unoccupied houses in town, filled to the brim with farm tools, all owned by the regional auctioneer waiting for sale.

Drying out our upstream counties has real consequences to those who still remain. If not enough people working our lands remain, at some point a threshold is reached where vital businesses leave, which after a while, devastates our small rural communities. I've seen it occur! Chris Stearns Thurston PUD Commissioner
No attachments

Comment From: Mark Peterson

7/14/20 @ 8:25 AM
Love your work! see attached file
Attachments:

Comment From: Washington State Association o... (Paul Jewell)

7/08/20 @ 5:14 AM
These comments are specifically regarding the "Draft Findings and Potential Policy Tool- for Meeting 5" document. They are organized specific to the numbered findings and the numbered potential policy tools (PPT). I have numbered the overall commen...↓

1. Regarding finding F.1.3, I'm not sure its accurate to state that "water rights cannot be transferred back upstream". While is is difficult to transfer water rights back upstream in many cases, it isn't always impossible. In addition, there are ways to preserve that ability as part of the transfer/sale transaction. Where usable infrastructure exists, or can be constructed (reservoirs, ground water storage, etc.) there is additional flexibility.

2. Regarding PPT P.1.1, there may be some legal restrictions regarding a strict "right of first refusal". I'm not sure that WSAC would support this proposal as written as we have members on both sides of this issue (potential sending basins/counties and potential receiving basins/counties). However, a modified concept that allowed a county of origin for a potential water right transfer to purchase and retain a portion of a right may be acceptable (for instance 30%). This would allow some of the resource to remain in-county, protecting upstream environmental and economic interests while also preserving the ability for water right holders to market their right. It would also protect the interest of potential buyers by assuring the resources expended in finding and negotiating a potential sale are not lost. Water markets could continue to work effectively by being responsive to need and effective use without creating other upward pressure on pricing.

3. Regarding PPT P.1.2, this just doesn't seem like a reasonable approach. It's not clear how Ecology would make this decision. For instance, what basins would qualify as "most affected". Also, this proposal ignores simple facts that markets change, needs change, and in many cases it makes absolute sense to redistribute resource use, including the use of water. While we appreciate the attention to the plight of upper basin communities being negatively impacted by downstream transfers, this proposal has too many uncertainties.

4. Without commenting on the other PPT or the Ideas Not Recommended (NR) in this section (Out of Basin Transfers) we very much appreciate the conversation and ideas to assist in addressing the concerns of upper basin communities and counties. We remain concerned about the long-term economic and environmental health of those communities who are often targets for water purchasers as water rights typically transfer down stream relatively easily. For most of those communities, when water rights originating in their counties are transferred downstream, they rarely, if every return. This creates a significant impact over time and limits the sending county's economic prospects from a variety of perspectives. We remain committed to working with stakeholders to find reasonable and acceptable solutions to this problem.

5. Regarding the findings for the "Transparency in Water Right Sales" section, we agree that public notice requirements of sales and transfers are adequate. Increasing notice requirements won't likely change the water markets or whether there are willing participants. Additionally, focusing on who is the purchaser of a water right and limiting who can purchase water rights, is not really addressing what we see as the problem with sales and markets. Rather, focusing on how the water can be used and/or marketed after it is purchased would be our preferred strategy.

6. Regarding finding F.3.2, flexibility is one of the program's greatest assets and limiting that flexibility could hamper creative water solutions. Therefore, as the future need and use of water resources is not entirely predictable, flexibility should be maintained when possible. However, we do not agree with the portion of this finding that states "the value of flexibility outweighs any potential concerns of 'abuse' of the TWRP." Rather, as we have witnessed several abuses in the past when the TWRP has been used for conveying mitigation for new uses of water in certain circumstances, we should take action to prevent those abuses in the future. To do nothing would be irresponsible and would hurt the public and the resource.

7. Regarding finding F.3.5, We do not agree with this statement that "most participants were not concerned over the use of the TWRP in ways that yield private profit". We have advocated strongly for increased regulations and oversight where use of the TWRP is by private, for-profit entities as they are utilizing a public resource. Many participants expressed agreement with the arguments made in this regard. Like the next finding, this would be accurate if it was redrafted to state that "some" were not concerned rather than most.

8. Regarding PPT P.3.1, we believe it is appropriate to distinguish between certain uses of the TWRP. It should be easy to put water in the TWRP for instream flows, to protect it from relinquishment, and for simple agricultural transfers/uses. However, as water rights are placed in the trust for uses that would provide mitigation for new commercial and/or domestic purposes, and that are intended to perpetuate a for-profit business model, oversight and regulation should increase significantly.

9. Regarding finding F.4.3, the way this finding is stated, it appears to contradict the previous finding (F.4.2). This finding should be removed as it is not accurate.

10. Regarding finding F.4.4, it is not accurate to state that "several thought the bill passed in 2016 (SB 6179) resulted in significant improvement and that no further action is needed..." This bill was not discussed in depth and the conversation that did occur did not leave a sense that there was much awareness of the legislation among the group and certainly not agreement that it solved all the problems.

11. Regarding PPT P.4.1, we may support this idea so long as any future change to the prospectus would also need to be filed and there would be an additional opportunity for public comment. We would also like to see this required prior to the negotiation and approval of a trust water right agreement and the opportunity to amend the trust water right agreement if the prospectus is amended. This proposal would improve transparency as to the real intentions behind the formation of a water bank and provide input by the community that could bring potential concerns to light that may be addressed in the trust water right agreement.

12. Regarding PPT P.4.2., this is appropriate for certain types of water banks, including those which provide mitigation for new commercial and domestic uses and those with a for-profit business model. However, developing a water bank for purely environmental purposes like in-stream flow enhancements and for agricultural purposes provides significant public benefits and current cost responsibilities may be adequate in those and similar circumstances.

13. Regarding PPT P.4.3., this is an appropriate requirement for water banks that are operating as a for-profit entity and providing mitigation or transfers for new commercial and/or domestic uses. We think this can also likely be accomplished as a matter of negotiation in a trust water right agreement. We saw instances in Kittitas County where only one water bank was operating in an area, and/or where only one could operate because of limited existing water rights that could be repurposed, and some sales were refused because of related competitive considerations from the private bank. This should be avoided and if private banks are trusted to provide a public resource, they shouldn't be allowed to refuse to provide the resource to a willing and able purchaser. We are happy to explain this concern in more detail if needed.

14. Regarding PPT P.4.4., we do not agree with this proposal and believe it simply isn't necessary if our other concerns regarding monopolistic practices prevention, increased regulation, transparency, and cost recovery are addressed.
No attachments

Comment From: Sarah Mack

7/08/20 @ 4:43 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Chris Stearns

7/07/20 @ 8:59 PM
Thank-you for taking into consideration future uses of water, whatever they may be inside upstream WRIA's. Many local elected officials, such as Lewis County Commissioners have expressed concerns about the loss of water rights inside their county to ...↓

Scarcity of quality fresh water will play a larger role in our state's decisions in how we can best be prepared for the ability to meet our future needs of this resource. We must avoid promoting a speculative frenzy to determine how best to meet this need. We must also seek to find ways to augment groundwater supplies in a proactive manner that can help to meet this resource's growing demand as our state continues to grow faster than the national average (for decades now).

Unfortunately, certain historical land uses have left a legacy of badly impacted surface flows in many sub-basins inside our state. I have previously examined the abandoned mine database found at the Earth Resources Division of our state's Dept. of Natural Resources (WA DNR). The greatest concerns I had were the mining of Mercury and Lead throughout our state. Mercury mining has occurred in Lewis County near the town of Morton with a concentrating facility near Spencer Lake. Also in Whatcom County several mines existed throughout that county and even impacts urban shorelines there today. The largest concentration of mining activity in our state occurred during World War I over 100 years ago mostly in the three Northeast counties of our state (Ferry, Stevens and Pend Oreille). The principal ores removed then were for Lead and Zinc which were both utilized in the manufacture of munitions at the time. Several old mining districts like the Monte Cristo area (Eastern Snohomish County) were sulfide deposits which when exposed to the above ground surface soon created "Acid Mine Drainage" (AMD) and helped to place many types of heavy metals like arsenic, cadmium etc. in our surface water that wasn't present before in high concentrations. Sulfide deposits are found throughout our state and are associated with Copper, Silver and Gold extraction which continues even today.

Good news is some areas of our state, mostly on USFS lands, have undergone clean-up such as Railroad Creek a tributary of upper Lake Chelan between Holden (an old mining camp) and Lucerne which is on the lakeshore. The forest service has been funding these clean-ups and still has many to do! Several old mining sites were not on federal lands and remain a problem still to be addressed for our state on our private lands. The legacy of mining pollution is a significant factor in the way we must manage our fresh water resources. Looking at the Upper Columbia basin watershed in Northern Stevens County above Lake Roosevelt the legacy of the outfalls of the Canadian Smelters at Rossland and Trail are still apparent today.
Chris Stearns
No attachments

Comment From: Darryll Olsen

7/07/20 @ 7:00 AM
Please see attached BCWCB-FCWCB comment memorandum.

D.O.
BCWCB
509-783-1623
Attachments:

Comment From: Tom McDonald

7/07/20 @ 5:57 AM
Hi,

Great job you are doing. I am attaching some comments below.

Thanks for the opportunity.

Attachments:

Comment From: Western Water Market (Kristina Ribellia)

7/07/20 @ 4:54 AM
July 7, 2020

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the advisory group on water trust, banking, and transfers, and for the opportunity to review and comment on Ecology's draft findings and potential policy tools document for meeting 5.

I under...↓

I strongly feel the greatest threat we face is the esoteric water market that largely has and continues to persist. I don't believe we need increased regulation, including closed basins (P.1.2); I believe we need a more open, publicly accessible market that helps connect water right buyers and sellers locally – like what westernwatermarket.com now offers.

(See https://westernwatermarket.com/news/new-tool-less-regulation)

Reducing barriers for local transfers, coupled with the ability to more easily move water rights back upstream (as suggested under P.1.3), from my perspective, address many, if not most of the concerns that prompted this year's legislative activity -- without major, potential implications from increased regulation and government spending.

To compete financially with out of basin buyers and out of state investors, I think there are creative solutions that could create competitive offers. For example, two or more local buyers could be combined to increase the offer price and to achieve multiple local benefits, while reducing transaction costs. Non-profits, conservation districts, and others could help facilitate these connections, utilizing Western Water Market as a tool and resource.

Specific comments on Potential Policy Tool P.1.1:

Potential policy tool P.1.1 is concerning and doesn't make a lot of sense to me, especially as proposed. If the goal is to help keep water rights local and in agriculture, shouldn't local, private property owners be the ones who are given the right of first refusal?

Why would we put the financial and political burden on taxpayers and local governments to acquire water rights, who then have to determine a fair and cost-effective approach for re-selling or leasing them back to the public locally? The potential political pressure the state and local governments would feel to "save" the water rights from being transferred out of basin would be horrendous and would likely lead to very public and costly bidding wars and legal battles.

Some advisory group participants have suggested that non-profit organizations should also be given a first right of refusal. If non-profits are interested in developing agricultural water banks, they have the expertise and ability to do that now. If funding is an issue, there are likely many private funding sources that would gladly support and invest in the agricultural water market either through grants, donations, or as a traditional investor.

I don't believe its fiscally responsible to use taxpayer dollars to fund local governments and non-profit organizations' ability to acquire water rights for agricultural purposes when the private market can, should, and does facilitate this now.

Again, creating and supporting a more active and accessible local market is key to increasing the local exchange of water rights.

Further, if the purpose, in part, is to provide local governments and non-profits a right of first refusal so they can acquire water rights for instream flow purposes, this seems even more illogical. It doesn't matter if a private, out of state investor acquires water rights for downstream agricultural purposes to be held in trust for 25 years or a non-profit acquires water rights for instream flow, the impact (and benefits) are the same to the local economy and instream flows.

There are robust, public funding sources currently appropriated and being utilized by local governments and non-profits to acquire water rights for instream flow and mitigation. Let's continue to support these outreach and acquisition efforts to ensure local water supply needs are met well into the future.

The private sector has provided critical solutions and continues to offer tremendous opportunities. Perhaps we should be looking to them more and more as potential partners, rather than as threats. When we work together, in a more open and efficient market, I believe that's when we'll be able to solve our greatest challenges.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Kristina Ribellia
Western Water Market
No attachments

Comment From: Okanogan Conservation District (Craig Nelson)

7/07/20 @ 4:48 AM
Please see comments in the document I uploaded and titled: "7-7-2020 Ecology Water Transfer Policy Comments.pdf".
Attachments:

Comment From: Culp Jon

7/07/20 @ 4:12 AM
Please see attached document.
Attachments:

Comment From: Daniel Haller

7/07/20 @ 4:07 AM
I'm uploading comments on the policy document attached. In short, my comments are aimed at increasing competition and providing Ecology with the staff resources to encourage this. I think competition will address most of the past / potential concer...↓
Attachments:

Comment From: Methow Valley Citizens Council (Lorah Super)

7/07/20 @ 3:00 AM
Please see the attached comments from the Methow Valley Citizens Council
Attachments:

Comment From: Mary McCrea

7/06/20 @ 11:16 AM
These are my comments on Draft Findings and Potential Policy Tools-for Meeting 5.

Thank you for this chance to comment and all your work on this effort.

Mary
Attachments:

Comment From: Dawn Vyvyan

7/06/20 @ 8:25 AM
Attachments:

Comment From: Glen Smith

7/01/20 @ 5:57 AM
Having listened throughout past "Advisory Group on Water Trust, Banking, and Transfers" (online) WebEx meetings, and speaking on behalf of Washington State Ground Water Association as the association's Government Affairs Coordinator, I remain pleased...↓

Having already weighed in with my survey comments made following the more recent meetings, I feel that the overall concerns raised, combined with the general direction of discussions that have transpired, taking into consideration important water supply considerations that embrace the concerns of more than a million private (domestic) well owners across Washington State... our association remains in general concurrence with the overall water issues, balance and safeguards that have been raised throughout the WebEx meetings.

I've appreciated the discussion framework and substantial participation by myriad water stakeholder interests during each of these periodic WebEx (online) gatherings. Indeed, there's a wealth of knowledge, experience, and varied viewpoints from which to draw upon, which, in turn, further assists Ecology in crafting its draft recommendations to the Legislature later this year.
No attachments

Comment From: Glen Smith

7/01/20 @ 5:56 AM
Having listened throughout past "Advisory Group on Water Trust, Banking, and Transfers" (online) WebEx meetings, and speaking on behalf of Washington State Ground Water Association as the association's Government Affairs Coordinator, I remain pleased...↓

Having already weighed in with my survey comments made following the more recent meetings, I feel that the overall concerns raised, combined with the general direction of discussions that have transpired, taking into consideration important water supply considerations that embrace the concerns of more than a million private (domestic) well owners across Washington State... our association remains in general concurrence with the overall water issues, balance and safeguards that have been raised throughout the WebEx meetings.

I've appreciated the discussion framework and substantial participation by myriad water stakeholder interests during each of these periodic WebEx (online) gatherings. Indeed, there's a wealth of knowledge, experience, and varied viewpoints from which to draw upon, which, in turn, further assists Ecology in crafting its draft recommendations to the Legislature later this year.
No attachments

Comment From: WPUDA Water Committee Chair (Chris Stearns)

6/10/20 @ 8:41 PM
"Water should be seen as a resource overseen by the public to assure effective and efficient use of a public resource. Private investors affect political decisions that are not transparent nor regulated." This statement came from a P.U.D. Commissione...↓
The Webster's dictionary definition of "usufruct" is:
In Roman & Civil Law, the right of using and enjoying all the advantages and profits of the property of another without altering or damaging the substance. Utilities are a form of civil usufructuary function in our society, whose operation needs to be kept accountable to the public. Water rights, their transfer downstream or use as a speculative commodity has the potential to deprive our state's citizens of the right to an effective and efficient use of a public resource that benefits us all.

Western water law was created in a different time and for a different purpose than what we have now become. I often feel that the use of it to properly manage today's water resource issues is much like a person handicapped by a head looking backwards to the past while attempting to walk into our future. Let's not try to hide our head once more in the sand here, speculative use of water by foreign investors is rampant and broadly known in the west. Recently, in a televised special on the subject of water it was revealed explicitly that Persian Gulf states have invested in extensive groundwater mining in Arizona to grow alfalfa depleting the state's groundwater reserves.

I have heard very little mention of a public resource in our discussions thus far! While many seek some sort of profit from either holding, trading or speculating in these uses of water. I will warn property owners who depend on water for the effective use of their property. If you encourage or allow the unheeded speculation of a vital resource that prevents access to that vital resource by the rest of our citizens through over burdensome costs, YOU WILL LOSE THAT RIGHT.

I view water rights more as a privilege that everybody needs and legally I view it much like driving. That is a privilege that when one poorly impacts the public, it can be taken away! So far I've seen an interest in preserving the retention of the value of water rights appurtenant to property as an extension of property rights. I have heard nothing about protecting the state's waters from alteration or damages of that important resource. I feel if we now require municipal water entities to engage in water conservation measures, we must also follow suit. All transfers, changes or exchanges of a water right should also have a requirement to implement water conservation measures to improve the condition and durability of that public resource from which we all depend upon.

There is no doubt that over allocation exists in many basins, with more on the way. Does Ecology wish to promote a dustbowl in order to sustain a positive direction to move the management of water resources into the future? Depleted aquifers are a serious matter that have to be addressed before restoration will no longer be able to match the original condition of that resource. Managing our water resources in a rapidly growing state presents some challenges in what our state laws must now prioritize for public use. I hope our regulatory authorities and state lawmakers can see the value of getting ahead of the protection of our state's water resources. The public at large expects no less from us all.
Chris Stearns Thurston P.U.D. Commissioner
No attachments

Comment From: Sarah Mack

6/10/20 @ 9:25 AM
Carrie, Dave, and Barbara, you have done an excellent job so far with the difficult remote format. As you think about policy recommendations, I hope you will resist the temptation to treat the repeated but vague and facile opposition to "speculation...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Doug Miller

5/28/20 @ 9:24 AM
These are comments as an individual with opinions.
Moving water downstream to provide for use of water in a similar capacity is of some degree acceptable. To move water downstream and out of basin, especially when it moves out of a political boundary...↓
If water is in a pool (such as in behind a major river dam), water should be able to be used from the same pool, be it at the head or the tail or body of the pool, until such time the physical barrier separates the pool from it movement downstream. This would include different uses than the original right, as long as the amount over time remains the same. And it should be without loss of any of the original right, as that in effect is theft under a legal jargon that is not of merit.
For an instance: it is acceptable in a basin to have someone voluntarily relinquish their water in the hopes of saving water for fish high up in the spawning grounds of a natal river, inclusive of the water required to keep the water that is consumable and that which is consumed, and then that the water is removed because there is a junior water right that was needing fulfilled, and thus all that water is lost to the fish in only a few short miles of river. Legally perhaps. Morally or Ethically it fails the smell test. So when we discuss water being moved or transferred or put in trust, we need to verify the expected results to the public and to the originator to be certain this is what we want as citizens of our State.
More discussion: why not work with public entities for saving water that is not volunteered to be relinquished. For instance, how many saw mills have stopped employing workers, and have shut down due to poor pricing in available products. When the mill shuts down, the workers have a choice to live on where they are or move on. And what about the water? Should it go to the community without having to struggle thru the hoops of Ecology or the courts? Thinking that this water has been spoken for over many decades and the river system was doing fine as the water being used was not an impact, nor is the water being returned creating an increase in flow that could be accountable for. While not every situation such as this is for every person, it should be an easy option for the community to retain that water for future hopes. Maybe put into temporary to permanent if nothing is done to make a use of the water after a number of years (20 years?) and only then after a hearing to determine that there has not been a sufficient effort to find a use for this water.
By keeping water within a basin, it keeps the opportunity for our citizens to have a future. Removal of the water, or transferring to lower basins may help an individual or industry, but it has taken the fiscal opportunities away from the communities or Counties, solely due to their location as headwaters.
Allowing purchasing by anyone for future gain as equity should be nixed. The water law was instituted to address use and consumption by the citizens of this State, in a fashion that was based on seniority: that which was to allow future use of the water by the next user and the continued productivity that the water can provide.
On a different subject. The big ditch that flows across the middle of this State needs to be continued and expanded. Observation is that without the flow from the big ditch, the allocation of groundwater is creating a future harm to the communities that rely on a known quality of water to provide potable water to the citizens. Large commercial and agribusinesses are consuming this vital resource that would be much better served by a replenished stream of water that is readily available and does not require the typical treatment process that a community would need to use if that was available.
No attachments

Comment From: Dan Haller

5/26/20 @ 5:34 AM
This comment is for meeting 3 please. Under RCW 90.42.080, some trust donations do require a full extent and validity determination. That is required in RCW 90.42.080(11) if the originating right is municipal or hydropower. If there are other relin...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Benton-Franklin WCBs Benton-Franklin WCBs

5/07/20 @ 7:44 AM
See attached Technical Memorandum, review of proposed Water Trusting-Banking legislation.

D.O.
BCWCB
509-783-1623
Attachments:

Comment From: Chris Stearns

5/07/20 @ 6:00 AM
Will Lower Columbia water rights transfers encourage similar transfers to the Oregon side of the lower Columbia from Umatilla to Hood River?
Water Rights law isn't designed to handle all of the local concerns or even all the statewide concerns. Other ...↓
No attachments

Comment From: Alan Chapman

5/07/20 @ 5:54 AM
Re:Out of Basin Transfers

1. Primary concern is the speculative use of transfers of water rights to different locations and uses for monopolistic manipulation of water markets in the future in over appropriated basins. Provisions in law seem to allow ...↓

Transfer of water rights should be publicized by the reviewing agency (DOE) through a list serve of parties to the level of their geographic or legal interest

A change in the law to allow local management of water within a WRIA under a board under binding agreement to maximize benefits of increased priority instream flows, and efficient use of irrigation. Instream flows are only a part of the habitat necessary to provide valued ecosystem benefits of fish and wildlife. Lower flows can perhaps be mitigated by improved habitat structure and function.

I hope this deals with some of the questions raised. Values are sometimes more cultural, or social than monetary.
No attachments

Comment From: Daniel Haller

5/07/20 @ 4:27 AM
Two things for Ecology to consider as a follow up to this great meeting on May 7, 2020.

First, the data you provided is helpful. I think it would be further helpful for the group to see a break out of those 75 transfers according to public or private...↓

Second, as we move towards solutions, I think the magnitude of this problem is manageable. I'd rather see a tracking system that allows downstream transfers to be credited 1:1 against future upstream transfers to ensure that water can indeed return to counties of origin. Attached is the start of some proposed legislation that could make that work, although I'm sure details remain to be worked through.
Attachments: