|
<br />J2J d;Ji ~~~
<br />
<br />However, over the past six years only two applications
<br />for a right to conserved waters have been received by
<br />the Oregon Water Resources Department ryvRD), and
<br />neither have been approved. Last spring, WRD
<br />Director Martha Pagel testified that the program did
<br />not work because stringent requirements "contributed
<br />to the reluctance by irrigators to take advantage of the
<br />conservation program."
<br />
<br />Under the 1987 act, 75% of any "conserved water"
<br />could be granted to the conserving water rightholder
<br />as a new right with a priority set at one minute after
<br />the original right. The remaining 25% was dedicated
<br />to the state to augment instream flows, The WRC
<br />could increase or decrease these percentages through
<br />rulemaking. The first hurdle was the 1987 law's strict
<br />definition of "conserved water" as only that which
<br />otherwise would b~ "consumed or irretrievably lost."
<br />Second, the law required that conservation projects
<br />cause "no injury" to other users. Third, project
<br />applicants could not know upfront how much of the
<br />conserved water they might receive, and therefore
<br />could not wisely invest in costly capital improvements.
<br />Lastly, the process of proving water was conserved
<br />could take several years. Last year, WRD staff drafted
<br />proposed legislative changes which were discussed
<br />with various interests and introduced as H,B. 2155-A.
<br />
<br />H.B. 2155-A redefines "conservation" to be a
<br />reduction in the amount of water "diverted to satisfy
<br />an existing beneficial use," and redefines "conserved
<br />water" as that amount "measured as the difference
<br />between: (a) the smaller of the amount stated on the
<br />water right or the maximum amount of water that can
<br />be diverted using the existing facilities; and (b) the
<br />amount of water needed after implementation of
<br />conservation measures to meet the beneficial use
<br />under the water right certnicate." The law declares it
<br />to be state policy to: aggressively promote
<br />conservation; encourage the highest and best use of
<br />water by allowing the sale or lease of the right to the
<br />use of conserved water; and "encourage local
<br />cooperation and coordination in development of
<br />conservation proposals to provide incentives for
<br />increased efficiency and to improve stream flows."
<br />
<br />H.B. 2155-A adds that any person or group of
<br />persons holding one or more water right certificates
<br />may submit a conservation proposal. Proposals need
<br />only describe existing diversion facilities and estimate
<br />the amount of water that can be diverted, as well as
<br />
<br />the amount of water that would be needed under
<br />existing rights after implementation of conservation
<br />measures and the proposed use of the conserved .
<br />water. The Water Resources Commission will give
<br />notice of receipt of proposals in accordance with
<br />existing law, and then allocate the conserved waters
<br />and approve modification of water rights. The new law
<br />removes the commission's discretion to change the
<br />allocation formula, and the amount of conserved water
<br />to be allocated to the user would be determined In
<br />advance, rather than after the project was completed.
<br />
<br />Under the 1987 law, the commission was required
<br />to find that a proposed conservation measure was
<br />feasible, would produce conserved water, could be
<br />affected without injury to existing water rights, or
<br />would adequately mitigate any effects on other water
<br />users, and would not adversely affect the public
<br />interest. Under the new law, the commission must
<br />only determine "the quantity of conserved water, if
<br />any, required to mitigate the effects on other water
<br />rights." Then the law states, "The commission shall
<br />allocate 25% of the remaining conserved water to the
<br />state and 75% to the applicant, unless the applicant
<br />proposes a higher allocation to the state or more than
<br />25% of the funds used to finance the conservation
<br />measures come from...public funds," in which case
<br />water will be allocated to the applicant In proportion to .
<br />the percentage of other funds used to finance the
<br />conservation measures, However, in no event is that
<br />applicant to receive less than 25% of the remaining
<br />conserved water unless the applicant proposes a
<br />higher allocation to the state,
<br />
<br />Finally, the Water Resources Commission is to
<br />determine whether or not the water allocated to the
<br />state is necessary to support instream flow purposes.
<br />If sO,the water is to be converted to an instream water
<br />right with a priority one minute following the original
<br />right. Otherwise, the water reverts to the public for
<br />appropriation by the next user in priority. The
<br />commission must now adopt rules and standards
<br />necessary to carry out the revised program.
<br />
<br />Enactment of H,B, 2155-A is expected to further
<br />encourage conservation by removing unworkable
<br />requirements. The Water Resources Commission
<br />adopted a statewide water conservation policy in 1990.
<br />It is in the process of adopting and implementing rules
<br />requiring agricu~ural and municipal water users and
<br />suppliers to prepare plans for more efficient water use.
<br />
<br />The WESTERN STATES WATER COUNCIL is an organization of representatives appointed by the Governors of .
<br />member states - Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota,
<br />Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, and associate member state Oklahoma
<br />
|