To stipulate that the annual consumptive quantity of a water right may not be deemed to be less than the actual peak historic use of a water right, even if the right is not being fully exercised at the time of change or transfer, if: the reduced use is due to cropping patterns or system efficiencies; the water right holder intends to fully exercise the right; and the water right holder has the ability to make beneficial use of the full right. See also Companion HB 1536.   Official Text and Analysis.

By Jim Halstrom, WA State Horticultural Assn.; Tom Myrum, WA State Water Resources Assn.; Chris Cheney, Dairy Federation, WA Cattlemen's Assn., WA Fryer Commission; Darryll Olsen, Columbia-Snake River Irrigation; Hertha Lund, WA Farm Bureau; Kathleen Collins, WA Water Policy Alliance; Scott Hazlegrove, WA Assn. of Sewer and Water Districts; Mike Kaysen, Fryer Commission. They testified that Washington has the second most water of any state, second only to Alaska. Everyone needs to eat and water is necessary to raise that food. This bill would address some interpretive problems related to relinquishment. It would help ensure that water rights are eventually transferred to higher economic activities by removing some of the disincentive to transfer agricultural water. Failure to utilize water efficiently has a huge economic detriment to Washington State. This is one positive step forward. We currently have no idea how a conservancy board or DOE will rule. Now everyone with any right knows to pump every drop they can.

By Richard Reich, Steve Wehrly, Muckelshoot Tribe; Nancy Rust, Mike Moran, CELP; Dawn Vyvyan, Yakama Nation; Kevin Lyon, NW Indian Fisheries Commission; Josh Baldi, WA Enviro Council; Denise Smith, LUV Washington. They testified that, in effect, the bill prohibits relinquishment of water rights for agricultural irrigation. We need to encourage efficiency in water use while keeping the agricultural economy healthy. This issue needs further debate. If water is to be treated like any other property, it should be taxed. Do not expand the ability to use water rights, allowing more to be taken out of rivers and aquifers, without regard to environmental impacts. This bill would hydrate old paper rights. We need to wring paper out of the system so we know where we are. Under the first in time, first in right doctrine, because tribes were here first, adequate in-stream flows for tribal purposes must come first. We need to ensure sustainable rights to protect flows.

To amend the condition requiring the "ability" to make beneficial use of a full water right to require a water right holder to have the "facilities in place" to make beneficial use of the full right. Language allowing changes within the agricultural use category without application is added. Language removing DOE's forfeiture authority is added.

To strike everything after the enacting clause and insert new language.

Concerning water rights and annual consumptive quantities of water.

To strike, for determining the "annual consumptive quantity," the authority to use the year of historic peak use and establishes a different means of calculating that amount. The amendment clarifies that this authority and calculation to apply ground water rights as well. With regard to the use of water with the general category of an agricultural use, the amendment: limits the use for watering livestock in confined feeding operations to those with applicable land use and water quality permits; requires notification of the DOE for certain changes of uses within the category, and requires notice with the opportunity for DOE review, and certain information to be provided to the DOE, regarding changes that involve a change in the season of use of the water; establishes a 45-day period (that may be extended) for the DOE to determine that the proposal raises concerns regarding the potential impairment of other rights; and does not allow such a change under this procedure if the DOE makes such a determination. The amendment also adds provisions expressly limiting the stock-watering exemption to 5,000 gallons per day for new rights and grandfathers existing withdrawals of ground water for stock-watering from this limitation to the maximum extent of the withdrawals before the effective date of the amendment.

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.