Introduced by Sen. Bob Morton, (R - Kettle Falls) (R) on January 13, 2003
To give local citizens and governments authority to determine the allocation and management of water in a water resource inventory area (WIRA). The bill declares and reaffirms that a core principle embodied in chapter 90.82 RCW is that state agencies must work cooperatively with local citizens in a process of planning for future uses of water by giving local citizens and the governments closest to them the utmost opportunity in determining the future allocation and management of water in the WRIA. The bill also finds that this process of local planning must have all the tools necessary to accomplish this task and that it is essential for the legislature to provide a clear statutory process for implementation so that the locally developed plan will be the adopted and implemented to the greatest extent possible. See also Companion HB 1541. Official Text and Analysis.
Referred to the Senate Natural Resources, Energy and Water Committee on January 13, 2003
Testimony in support offered to the Senate Natural Resources, Energy and Water Committee on March 3, 2003
By Darryll Olsen, Columbia-Snake River Irrigation; Dave Monthie, King County; Mike Schwisow, WA State Water Resources Assn.; Chris Cheney, Hop Growers of WA; and Scott Hazlegrove, Water and Sewer Districts. They testified that the rules for obligated government participants need to reflect local needs and designs. Affected local initiating governments need to be given great deference. DOE needs to be restrained from imposing top-down solutions. Negotiated rulemaking will help accomplish that.
Testimony in opposition offered to the Senate Natural Resources, Energy and Water Committee on March 3, 2003
By Mike Moran, CELP. He testified that state interest should supersede local interests. We need to see what planning unit products are first before we tweak the process. There is concern that deferring to the majority vote of the planning unit, when initiating governments only have one vote each, will lead to unintended results. Wait until next session, after the first WRIA plans are adopted and into the implementation stage. Implementing or initiating governments should be given deference, not planning units.
Substitute offered to the Senate Natural Resources, Energy and Water Committee on March 3, 2003
To contain funding and matching provisions not contained in the original bill. The substitute bill does not contain the original bill's requirement that the adoption of watershed plan obligations and implementing rules take place within a negotiated rule-making context. With regard to the modification of adopted plans, the negotiated rule-making concept in the original bill is retained, in a more concise form, in the substitute bill.
The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on March 3, 2003
Referred to the Senate Ways & Means Committee on March 3, 2003
Substitute offered to the Senate Ways & Means Committee on March 10, 2003
To state that the bill is null and void unless funding is provided in the budget.
The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on March 10, 2003
Referred to the Senate Rules Committee on March 10, 2003
To give local citizens and governments authority to determine the allocation and management of water in a Water Resource Inventory Area.
Received in the House on March 15, 2003
Referred to the House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee on March 15, 2003
Amendment offered in the House on April 4, 2003
To require a 10 to 25 percent (rather than a 10 percent) local match for the Phase IV grants. The amendment also: requires the DOE to adopt its implementing rules through negotiated rule-making (rather than modifying obligations under a plan through such rule-making) and broadens the "affected interests" who may participate in the rule-making; allows a county to opt out of watershed planning only if it has less than 5 percent of the territory contained in the planning area; states that an approved watershed plan provides the framework for making water resource and water quality decisions in the watershed (rather than guide the DOE's decisions); requires local planning groups under the Water Resources Act to have at least the range of representation required under the watershed planning laws; requires enhanced planning with timelines and milestones for achieving objectives; requires instream flows to be set for not less than the main stem or the
principal stream or river in each WRIA; requires the coordination of TMDLs and salmon recovery planning with watershed planning for water quality and habitat; deletes provisions allowing a planning unit to allow a state agency to adopt policies, procedures, or agreements in lieu of implementing rules; and requires the bill to be implemented within existing funds (rather than requiring specific funding for it in the omnibus
The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on April 4, 2003
Referred to the House Rules Committee on April 5, 2003
The bill did not pass both chambers during the 2003 regular session, so the bill automatically returned to the Senate Rules Committee when the regular 105-day session adjourned on April 27, 2003.