|
<br />summaries include background information and a brief
<br />explanation of the effects of the measure as enacted. A
<br />copy of the enacted measure follows each summary.
<br />While the publication was issued prior to their expiration
<br />of the time period in which the governor had to veto
<br />measures passed by the legislature, an addendum is
<br />included which contains copies of the governor's veto
<br />messages.
<br />
<br />Governor Kitzhaber vetoed five bills, one of which the
<br />governor found would have undermined the
<br />effectiveness of Oregon's conservation and use of
<br />conserved water program, changing the current water
<br />allocation formula. In return for funding support for water
<br />conservation projects, recipients agree to provide a
<br />corresponding percentage of the water conserved for
<br />instream flows. Finding that the new formula would have
<br />the potential to give more water to individual uses at the
<br />expense of instream flows, the governor felt that the
<br />existing formula, based upon the percentage of the
<br />public funding contributed to the project, was the fairest
<br />approach. He also wanted more time for the current
<br />program to work.
<br />
<br />The governor vetoed two other bills on the basis of
<br />unnecessary interference with the prior appropriation
<br />doctrine, the foundation of Oregon's water law system.
<br />The governor felt that one bill would substantially change
<br />the nature of regulation relative to limiting groundwater
<br />uses to protect senior water rights. The governor also
<br />strongly objected to another bill, because the legislature
<br />had assumed authority for setting water rights. In
<br />granting water rights to an Oregon irrigation district, the
<br />governor concluded that the bill would suggest to the
<br />public "that the legislature is the proper forum for
<br />establishing water rights, rather than the system that has
<br />been in place for nearly a century."
<br />
<br />Bills passing the Oregon legislature and signed by the
<br />governor include establishment of permanent and
<br />temporary transfer processes for districts, removal of
<br />appurtenancy requirements for some water suppliers,
<br />establishment of criteria for issuance of the groundwater
<br />rights in or above scenic waterways, creation of new
<br />procedures and requirements for the Water Resources
<br />Department affecting water right transfers, limitations on
<br />licenses and exemption of uses, establishment of a
<br />permitting process for aquifer storage and recovery
<br />projects, and creating an exemption from water right
<br />requirements for certain land management practices.
<br />
<br />Copies of the summary may be purchased from the
<br />Oregon Water Resources Department, 158 12th Street
<br />NE, Salem, OR 97310 at $9 including postage.
<br />
<br />WATER RIGHTS
<br />AWWA White Paper
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />The Executive Committee of AWNA has approved a
<br />white paper on water rights and allocations. It will
<br />provide the basis for future AWNA discussions,
<br />government affairs actions and public affairs programs.
<br />Comments on the paper are being accepted by Susan
<br />Blount, AWNA Water Resources Engineer, 6666 W.
<br />Quincy Ave., Denver, CO 80235; fax (303) 794-8915.
<br />
<br />The paper describes how state water rights and
<br />allocation systems have evolved under differing
<br />traditions and conditions. It identifies two key factors as
<br />emerging in the last 25 years and now affecting state
<br />water allocations: federal actions and improved
<br />hydrological science. Federal impacts on state water
<br />rights and resources management include federal
<br />reserved water rights and laws such as the Clean Water
<br />Act and Endangered Species Act.
<br />
<br />The white paper identifies legal certainty or
<br />predictability and security of tenure as the two primary
<br />concerns in a water allocation system. Flexibility is
<br />identified as another important facet of a water rights
<br />system, recognizing changes in economic efficiency and
<br />the value of a given use to society. A water rights
<br />system allowing for voluntary market transfers and
<br />containing protections for other affected parties
<br />promotes efficiency and value in water use.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />However, the paper notes that certain water rights
<br />systems encourage inefficient use of water resources in
<br />practice. It cites the "use it or lose it" rule in some prior
<br />appropriation systems as an example of a tenet that
<br />does not promote efficiency of water use. It promotes
<br />systems' encouragement of water conservation by
<br />providing credits for water conserved and allowing
<br />credits to be banked or soid. It recommends recycling
<br />and r"use prograrns to promote efficient water use.
<br />
<br />The paper recommends inventory of resources,
<br />consideration of the relationship between water quantity
<br />and water quality, evaluation of existing and future
<br />demands, and assessments of structural and
<br />nonstructural aiternatlves to meet future needs. It
<br />promotes an integrated approach towater management
<br />that encompasses planning, regulation, conservation
<br />and project development involving governments and
<br />users, to balance the demands placed on water
<br />resources. It also includes environmental values in the
<br />integrated resources planning process. The goal of
<br />consumptive use management efforts recommended in
<br />the paper is to assure maximum availability and efficient
<br />reuse of available wat r resources.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />The WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL Is an organization of representativ!,s appointed by the Governors
<br />of member states - Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon,
<br />South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming - and associate member states Alaska, Montana and Washington.
<br />
|