August – October 2010
(09/15/2010) Please note: Feedback is no longer being accepted for this question. Thank you to all that participated. The responses we received are available below. You can also continue to provide comments or contact us at forum@ecy.wa.gov.
September 6 – September 12
THE ISSUE
Most water uses in Washington State require a water right. If you live in or near a city, chances are you get your water through the water rights held by your municipal water system or public utility district but a change in how a water right is used, or acquiring a new water right for typical uses like a supply for multiple households, irrigation or commercial use, requires an application to the Department of Ecology.
Currently state taxpayers pay for more than 98 percent of the cost of processing water right applications with the cost of processing averaging about $10,000 per application.
>> Learn more about Water Rights in Washington
>> Learn more about General Fund budget cuts reduce processing of water right applications statewide
YOUR FEEDBACK
In your comments, please answer the following question:
> > Scroll down to read all responses.
Create fee categories and use the sum of categories to determine the total charge. This method may better compensate for the amount of work needed to process the right. Larger purveyors can spread out the costs further, rights applications for small local systems would be relatively inexpensive.
amount of water sought: $100 for each acre foot per year
status of basin:
open — $200
partially closed — $2,000
closed — $10,000
place of use:
entirely within basin — $200
partially outside basin — $1,000 * percent outside basin/9 up to $10,000
90% or greater outside basin — $10,000 + $1 per capita within service area (for purveyors)
acceptable mitigation proposed —
complete offset: entire fee discounted 50%
partial offset: discount 1% to 25% (one fourth of proportion mitigated)
It is important to begin my comments by noting that the question should have been restated to read: “The water resources program in Washington has been largely general fund supported because water resource allocation is the key to economic development. Should the state continue to support this method of economic development and job retention to ensure a vibrant economy in Washington?” The answer to this question would be just as informative to Ecology.
In answer to forum question 2, it is important to remember that dollars do not necessarily dictate permit decisions or resource protection. Substantive reform to the present water resources program is critical before permit applicants or water right holders should be asked to fund a greater portion of the program.
The public benefit received in the issuance of a water right is tremendous and certainly warrants a strong level of general fund support.
So in short, the state should continue to support this program.
No. In this State, water is owned by the public and it is supposed to be managed for the public benefit. Therefore, the public should bear the cost of that management. To place that financial burden upon one sector of the public would impose an illegal tax upon them. Alternatively, that could be interpreted as privatizing the water or, at least, a significant step in that direction.
Several years ago, the Legislature considered removing the responsibility for water management from the Department of Ecology and creating a new agency to provide those services. Perhaps, that issue should be revisited, now that DOE, by asking this question, has given the indication that they are considering privatizing the water resources of the State instead of managing them for the public benefit.
The State has an obligation to manage both water resources and growth and as such should provide staffing to administer the water resources program. However, it seems reasonable to have an applicant pay a fee to help offset the State’s costs (not pay the entire cost). A fair share fee proposal should be developed in a committee composed of a broad range of interests (utilities, cities/towns/counties, State DOE/DOH/Commerce, Tribes, MBA, etc.)
Yes, a portion should be paid by applicant. However, the cost and the amount of detail required should also also be based on the quantity of water requested. If not, we are only providing another anvenue for expansion of expempt wells in place of providing water through well managed water systems.
Fees for water right application processing should not be shifted or expanded without fundamental reform and a restructuring of Ecology’s Water Resources Program and the way applications are processed.
Unfortunately, this question is structured in such a way that assumes those applying for a water right actually receive a benefit. The question does not mention important facts like, of the 7,000+ pending water right applications, 4,000 have been waiting in line 10 to 20 years for processing by Ecology.
People pay fees to the state with the understanding they’ll receive something in return — be it a service or a tangible product. Water right applications are an exception to the rule in Washington. In fact, Ecology seems to have adopted internal policies over the last decade or so to find ways to say “no” to new water rights. Asking water right applicants to pay for something this uncertain would be like buying a ticket to a movie that may never come to the theater.
Recent water right fee proposals in the Legislature have been unfair because they haven’t given the agency any incentive to work with greater speed or efficiency. Before Ecology asks water right applicants to pay a larger amount — or the entire amount— of processing, the agency should show buyers what they’re getting in return for higher fees. Applicants deserve to know how things will be done better and should be given greater certainty and predictability when they submit their applications.
Times are tough and budgets are tight for both the public and private sectors alike. But before Ecology attempts to shift additional fees to applicants, it should first figure out how to do things better.
Water rights are a critical part of job creation and our state’s economic recovery. Before increasing fees, Ecology should first focus on how to better process valid water right applications rather asking Washington’s water users to pay more.
Hi. I think it is not fully forthright to push forced choice questions like this week’s. That said, it is deserving of a couple of basic comments. There is a huge benefit to the general public when water rights applications are considered and acted upon in an orderly and timely manner. Safe and sufficient drinking water; fire flows; agricultural & silvacultural applications; commercial & industrial uses; recreational opportunities; fish, animal, & plant habitat enhancement; economic development; health & safety of the general public (including flood control & storm water management); and, preservation of scenic & natural wonders all result with orderly stewardship of our water resources. None of these benefits are advanced when applications for new use or change of use of water resources are not processed for decades.
If applicants were to be charged more, the Department of Ecology should first demonstrate a capability to process applications without the historic delays. Second, to be fair, the applicants should only be charged their fair share of the processing costs that would have been incurred during the calendar year that they made their applications. That way, there would be an incentive for timely determinations. Third, when the costs and benefits are balanced between public and specific interests (remembering that many of the applicants are serving or intend to serve the public), I think no more than 25% of the cost of processing should be borne directly by the applicant, but, again, not until the DOE can demonstrate substantial improvements in reducing the backlog of applications.
If costs of applying for or maintaining a water right become too burdensome or delays too long, the pressure will increase to drill or over-utilize permit-exempt wells, greatly adding to the potential for over-appropriation in many aquifers. Or, users will just ignore current constraints in law and mis-use or over-utilize existing rights.
Much more could be said on these issues. It is very appropriate that DOE consider these issues in the light of the extreme strains on the state general fund, but close scrutiny to these public policy issues should be cyclically applied even if the budget were flush. In closing, I would also like to second the comments of the Washington Water Policy Alliance as offered by Kathleen Collins. Thank you.
Access to clean water is a right that every citizen of this state should have available them. Access to water is a basic human neccessity and as part of the services that our state public office of the Dept of Ecology provides to it’s citizens, processing those water rights is essential to fulfilling this basic need. By imposing high fees to somthig as essential as water rights will greatly prohibit Washington citizens from being able to pursue our God given right to freedom and happiness. Imposing this fee will make home ownership even more difficult, if not impossibe for many Washington citizens. Not only that, this will make an already hostile business climate in this state even more hostile and will cost thousands of existing as well as new jobs. By imposing such fees new businesses who ar thinking about coming into state will have another reason why not to do business here as opposied to saying why not do business in Washington state.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment. As an advocate for health and human services, I strongly support the use of fees to relieve pressure on the general fund. Particularly given the budget situation, we need to make sure that general fund dollars are available to help those most in need, and that others are paying their fair share for the government services they receive. Water rights processing and management fees are a fair and prudent way to put many millions of dollars back into the general fund.
Thank you.
Our land in Washington has been zoned for a reason. It directed uses – development, agricultural, commercial and housing. If the land is not rezoned it is my assumption that water will be allocated fairly. No rights will be abused. All parties who use the resource should pay for it. Meters should be placed on current wells. If users go over the limit that should pay extra. Agreeing to this, land owners who currently have a need to drill a well for water use should pay a fee that is reasonable ($10,000 is too high). Meters need to be affordable so that may take some government funds but all users should have equal rights to this life dependent resource. If further studies need to be done in an area, a five year window should be in place as in walla walla, not cle elum. Our government should represent all citizens with equity.
Sure, process my permit, give me my water, and send me a bill. No problem.
If the answer is no water, you can keep your bill. I’m not paying for no.
Just as road users pay user fees (through gas taxes), water users should bear the cost of the water they take — whether that’s through a permitting fee or an ongoing use fee (that recovers the cost over time), the system should generate enough to be self-supporting without general fund dollars.
I thought most water rights that were actually granted in recent years were only completed after the person applying for the water right paid most of the cost. I know there is a long line of applications for water, but how many of those applying have been willing to take the lead of those who have received water recently? If there is already a way to get a water right processed by paying and people are choosing not to pay, I don’t really think there is a problem. If people are willing to sit and wait until Ecology gets around to looking at their application, let them wait-especially if there is another path for people who need an answer now and are already willing to pay.
I strongly support the use of fees. Under our current budget situation, it is inappropriate and unfair for taxpayers to subsidize interests that are using our state’s natural resources. Programs that provide services should be supported by fees, not by taxpayer dollars.
I support applicants bearing all, or at least an increased share, of the cost of processing water rights. It is only fair for the beneficiaries of such transactions to bear the cost, and it is unsustainable for taxpayers to do so. Ecology’s Water Resources Department is under-resourced already, and this hampers the Department’s ability to provide for healthy instream flows and meet the needs of water users. Absent user fees that reflect something closer to the full cost of the water and its administration, the ability of Ecology carry out its mission for farms, communities, and the environment will suffer.
Availability of water is critical to economic growth, especially now. Over the years the staff has grown in numbers while their productivity has not. Last year the 48 Ecology staff statewide who are in the permit processing part of the division produced an average of 6.8 decisions per person—for the entire year. Before the staff reduction in 2009, there were 69 people who produced an average of 7 decisions per person, per year. Applicants are faced with a regulatory structure and staff that seems to be designed to delay the process and look for reasons to deny requests, frequently relying on the tortured analysis (not really even science) Mark Peterson describes above. Of the 7,000 or so applications pending, 4,000 plus have been waiting between 10 and 20 years for processing by Ecology.
Last session the Legislature improved an alternative program, cost reimbursement (now there is cost sharing for those who are ready to be processed). Under this scenario applicants with the help of consultants pay the full cost of processing, which averages about $10,000 an application. (Keep in mind the applicant has a lot of cost they pay directly, so it is actually more than $10K.) The Legislature also instituted a new program to allow willing applicants to pay Ecology staff the full amount under expedited processing. (The agency is moving very cautiously in using the expedited tool, so the jury is out on whether it will work.)
Recent water right fee proposals have been unfair to applicants and would provide the agency absolutely no incentive to work faster and smarter. Unlike fee legislation from previous years, they would collect a majority of the money up front with no promise of action, charge those already in line, allow the agency to change and increase fees without legislative oversight, and institute new fees that have never been charged before.
In fact, we expect to see Ecology ask for a NEW charge on EXISTING water right holders to support the two thirds of the agency that does things other than process water rights. These activities are clearly general fund obligations and such a new fee would really be a new tax. How much are we talking about? In rounded off numbers, Ecology has a $38 million dollar budget, of which $31 million is general fund. Of that, $38 million total, only one third of the amount is spent on “managing water rights” which includes processing and some other activities. BTW–Current water right processing fees are not dedicated to the activity; they are put back into the big general fund pot.
The question Ecology is asking is about substituting fee dollars for general fund dollars. Okay, then what? The question from a water right applicant’s perspective is what do we get for that? What changes and improvements will occur so the staff works more productively and are incented to do so? How will the programs instituted this year work and how many applications will be handled through them? While water right processing fees could be adjusted to capture more of the cost, unless the program changes how it does business, I am at a loss to see any benefit to applicants. They will simply be paying a lot to wait…and wait. So the short answer is – no, fees should not be increased without a demonstrated improvement in processing and meaningful reforms. And a fee on existing water right holders for all the other division’s activities gets a simple and clear NO.
I strongly support the use of fees to relieve pressure on the general fund. During a recession, we need to make sure that dollars are available to help those most in need, and that others are paying their fair share for the government services they receive.
Water rights processing and management fees are a fair and prudent way to put many millions of dollars back into the general fund.
Given our current budget situation, it is inappropriate and unfair for taxpayers to subsidize interests that are using our state’s natural resources, while we are unable to pay for such basic services as education for our children.
Irrigators, companies and others who consume water and benefit from this privilege should pay the full costs of having their water rights permits processed, and the costs of managing our state’s water resources.
There are several aspects that I would like to address here. However, I will limit myself to two of them for the time being. Let me preface this with the statement that I am one of those hy-drogeologists that deals with water rights and have done so for several decades. My com-ments are my own and I wish to avoid associating them with my firm to keep that fact clear.
The first issue is one of disappointment that Ecology would so obviously engage in what was labeled as a “loaded question” in my Logic 101 course. I understand that the people who have put this blogging opportunity together are relatively new at the endeavor. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume that the structure of this week’s question is unintentionally loaded. Even then, it suggests an internal culture at Ecology that is blind to the obvious bias of the question.
The second issue is that the question and many of the responses are seriously myopic as it is discussed. The process is not merely for the benefit of the applicant (or in some lucky cases for the recipient of a water right). The process exists to protect senior water right holders. The process exists to protect habitat and the process exists to protect “the public interest”. Those benefits are not part of the product received by the applicant they are a function that benefits a broader group. Further, the use of water is generally facilitating other societal functions. If you make the acquisition of a water right cost more for the applicant who intends to grow wheat, it would be disingenuous to suggest that cost will not show up in the cost of bread. The argu-ment of “the person who gets the water should pay for the process” also fails the fairness test in circumstances where the applicant pays for a denial. In that case, 100% of the benefit is to the protected interests.
I am merely trying to move the debate toward a more comprehensive understanding of who receives what from the processing of water right applications. All of us use water. All of us, therefore, benefit from the proper management of water resources. Much of the cost of proc-essing water right applications is related to water resource management. In fact, the largest cost of the process in today’s regulatory environment goes to protection of stream flows. These interests are broader than just the individual applicant. Water resource management is every person’s self interest. That is largely why the legislature initially saw this as a general fund issue.
I would like to thank Ecology for providing a forum like this for us to discuss our various points of view. Let’s all try to use it wisely! (and often)
Requiring applicants to bear most or all of the costs for the service of having their water rights processed is sound policy and makes good fiscal sense. The system is currently subsidized in a way that is unsustainable, and does not ultimately serve the interests of those who rely on the resource. Ecology’s water program is perennially underfunded, and water rights processing will never get its fair share of resources, especially in tight budget times. By eliminating general fund reliance, Ecology can run a program designed to most effectively and efficiently gather the info and the science to make good decisions.
While I always support government efficiencies, I believe that other commenters’ concerns about the $10,000 average cost are misplaced. Many applications costs much less that this to process, but there are also large, complicated proposals in water short basins where a significant amount of work is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that other water users would not be adequately affected. Ecology generally does this work more cheaply than private consultants.
The general public does not understand how completely subsidized water rights processing and water management are. If and when that issue becomes fully day-lighted, there will be a public outcry. It is time for a solid, well-crafted and fully vetted fee proposal to move forward and fix this antiquated way we fund water resources management in this state.
Yes, we strongly favor the user fee approach to assure stable funding to better protect aquatic live.
We need a reialable system to assure water is used wisely. User fees to cover the costof this service is needed to support their use of water and the processing of the permit.
If past performance is an indicator of what a fee proposal would do for water right applicants, than the answer would be NO. There are thousands of applicants some waiting decades for a decision and DOE is processing an average of about 7 a year.
Why should applicants pay to wait in a log jam decades old with no guarantee they will ever see their application processed. DOE has had opportunities to revise how applications are processed, yet still seem to be set on the least productive most costly version. I think DOE should look into real reforms in managing water right applications first.
State general fund dollars should be used to support programs that benefit us all. While we all have a stake in an orderly process for granting water rights, only the recipient of those rights gains the benefit from this public good. As an education advocate who believes the state has failed in its constitutional paramount duty, I strongly support the use of fees to relieve pressure on the general fund. During a recession, we need to make sure that dollars are available to help those most in need, and that others are paying their fair share for the government services they recieve. Water rights processing and management fees are a fair and prudent way to put many millions of dollars back into the general fund while maintaining this valuable service to our state’s citizens.
I think the State should continue to pay for the majority if not ALL of the cost for the water right application. The State continues to make the water right more difficult to get and will only make the application more difficult in the future. If we allow the cost to be oaid by the person applying then only the wealthier people will be able to afford the process. Also the state has no reason to keep costs down.
Applicants pay for an answer. A portion of the cost to process should be bore by the applicant. However, Ecology owes the people a resonsibility to protect this valuable resource and so instreams and all water holders are not impaired. So how much to portion costs is the real question.
Currently Ecology has minimal staff for processing. New legislation gutted Ecology and the wave is to allow contractors to be hired to process applications. Ecology is being subcontracted out every where…they have lost their responsibility. Privatizing the decision recieves an answer fast, but the answer may be paid for….most consultants want return customers. Ecology only has retained minimal oversight and final determination. Perhaps Ecology should retake their responsibility and hire qualified engineers to actually make decisions, yes or no. Water rights data needs to available that makes decisions based on math….not on a regions staff schedule or work ethic….which often is more political than not.
Statistics should be presented on the success of water conservancy boards. Go to the link and research WCB’s. WCB’s are trained citizens and charge minimal fees to reach a decision. The process takes an average of 6-9 months by volunteer citizens!
In Thurston County the Olympia Brewery water rights were all processed by the WCB. If applicants were charged more than what the WCB charges, why would they ever apply at Ecology for 10k, m/l???
Ecology and the legislature has already delegated this responsibility to consulants and WCBs. They either to need take this back and improve staff and processing efficiency, or charge less than the consultant or WCB.
First step is to reclaim their “trusted duty.” Otherwise, farmed out consulants and trained volunteer WCB’s will continue to make water rights decisions. How can raising fees bring in applicants when they already get better results from outside? Ecology needs to take responsibility back…and it is a uphill battle…fees will do nothing for Ecology.
PS Applicants already pay for their own consultants to documents hydrogeo/impairment and pay to provide information needed or requested by Ecology for a decision.
I am a healthcare and social service advocate and I strongly support the use of fees to relieve pressure on the general fund. It is fair to ask irrigators and companies who use water to pay their fair share for the services they receive.
The alternative – to have taxpayers subsidize interests that are using our state’s natural resources – is not just bad for the environment but is also bad for state services like healthcare and education.
Water rights processing and management fees are a fair and prudent way to put many millions of dollars back into the general fund. Water permit fees should be increased substantially.
I agree with most of the points brought up by Krause, Tall, Sharman, Marble, and Clark. DOE’s approach has cost this state millions in lost income. Who will invest money in land and equipment and then wait 10, 15, or more than 20 years before they find out if they will have water. DOE can spend many millions of dollars on questionable environmenta;l projects, but very little on water right processing that will be much more beneficial for the common good. Control of the water is power and DOE exercises this power for its own benefit. Watershed planning and water right processing should be taken away from DOE and given to a new organization that has very tightly defined responsibilities and limits.
The short answer is YES. The taxpayer should not be paying for other peoples benefits.
As far as the cost to process an application being $10,000, it is because the supply of available water is very low and demand for free water is very high. Thus the cost to determine availability/impairment is very burdensome. Ecology should be honest with the pubic and tell them where in the state water is simply not available(at this time). Now if Ecology would follow the law and relinquish water from people who aren’t using it OR are wasting it to preserve their right, redistribution of this now “available” water would be very straight forward and cheap. There would be a lot more water for new users and the future of Washingtonians. The prior appropriation doctrine does not say some farmer that set up shop in 1870 gets to monopolize that water forever. He must put it to beneficial use or forfeit it.
Water related programs need to be removed from the department of Ecology. What you see is merely political corruption.
Totally agree on removing the department and taking back on the job to protect our water resources. Add that to my comment!
People already have different forums to have applications processed efficiently….and probably better than Ecology could. A new trust department should be established and repeal consultant use and WCB’s. Ecology should be able to run on the same type of fee raise…along with proper funding to protect the peoples resources. What a shame that this is area is so delegated out already.
PS Most changes are transfers of “existing water rights”…can be a simple location of well or from owner X to city Z….they are not all the same or require the same evaluation or time. no new ones are issued….which is a good thing to use up what is already out there. The real problem in all this mess is the exempt wells and lack of data/meters. For another question!
The question, as others have noted, is disingenuous and loaded. WDOE would be happy, I suspect, if the average cost of processing a permit rose to $500K since it would mean more staff and management positions in the agency.
And, who selected the questions? NRDC? WEC? The Evergreen State MES faculty? Interested Water Resources staff?
Every human needs water for life support, sanitation, food production, recreation, power, and transportation. It is in the public interest to allocate among uses and users in a rational, fair and efficient manner. Issuing and amending water rights is one of the basic tools for achieving that goal. Consequently this decision-making process has a societal benefit that should be borne, in part, by the public at large.
If we’re serious about water CONSERVATION then find a way to eliminate barriers to achieving it, e.g. the “Use it or lose it” insanity. Market conditions change what crops will be grown and what the water needs will be. The present legal arrangement forces the irrigator to use the entire right even if its wasteful. Going fallow has a direct positive effect on in-stream flow – clearly a beneficial conservation use – whereas leasing to downstream users – a legal “beneficial use” to protect the right during periods of the land being fallow – conserves nothing.
As a non-municipal water system trustee I have access to power-conservation rebates from BPA to reduce the costs of pumping irrigation water, but only disincentives to conserve the quantity of the water we pump! The Emperor really is wearing no clothes.
For those questioning why it costs an average of $10,000 to process a water right application:
The water right application process is not a simple process that can be done by untrained staff. Significant scientific and technical analysis is required for each application by licensed hydrogeologists and other qualified environmental professional.
Under Washington state law, the waters of Washington collectively belong to the public and cannot be owned by any one individual or group. Therefore the law requires users of public water to receive approval from the state prior to the actual use of water. Ecology is given the authority by the state legislature to make these decisions.
Since much of the water in Washington has already been allocated or claimed, new water rights are increasingly difficult to obtain. This means that any new water right is subject to existing (more senior) rights. Therefore water right applications may be denied, or water use may be regulated or modified, if it adversely affects existing rights. This protects existing water rights against any impairment (harmful effects) by future applicants.
Ecology is required to conduct an investigation on each application to determine the physical and legal availability of water, if the proposed use will impair existing water rights and if the proposed use is detrimental to the public interest.
Many applications are for groundwater and because groundwater is not readily visible to help determine physical availability, it takes a fair amount of research and staff time in order to determine physical availability and if a new use of groundwater will impair senior uses.
In addition, many stream basins in Washington state are closed to new withdrawals (from both surface water and groundwater in the basin) during all or part of the year. In order to receive a permit, water right applicants may need to provide mitigation in order to ensure that water rights are not impaired.
The results of a water right application investigation are summarized in a Report of Examination (ROE). The ROE contains Ecology’s decision on the water right request. Ecology can recommend a denial, an approval, or an approval with conditions. In addition, other (senior) water right holders, cities, water districts, farmers, Indian tribes and environmental interest groups can all appeal Ecology’s decision. All of this takes time and resources.
While I do agree that having applicants absorb more of the costs, I do have concerns about how to make that change equitably. A modest fee system would not cover the costs (if the 10K figure is indeed correct, I’ll hold out to see the data). Having users pay the actual costs would require significant administrative overhead to acurately estimate and bill (and collect) those costs and I suspect would not save much money or make the process more timely.
Water Right applicants should be required to pay a majority share of the cost associated with processing their application. This policy would significantly reduce number of meritless applications that are currently awaiting DOE processing. For the old $50 application fee, why not take a shot at getting a water right?
However, the use of some general funds is justifiable in processing water rights. Each water right that is processed adds to the general knowledge of that water source, and can and should be used in considering other water right applications and water supply issues in that particular basin.
The proposed “cost reimbursement” model should also address the long standing issue of newer water right applicants being responsible for paying for the processing of any/all senior applications before their application could be processed. Cost sharing of the expenses associated with water rights processing from a particular source or basin is appropriate. If a water right applicant doesn’t want to share in the prorated cost of processing their application, their application should be “leap frogged” by those who do participate in cost reimbursement processing. The non-participating application is not processed, and those applications junior to them are processed while ignoring the senior application dates.
Efficiencies in processing would certainly be welcome. In this economy, I’d like to see a public/private bidding process. Could a hungry hydrogeologist prepare a water right certificate of examination more cost effectively than Dept of Ecology staff? Perhaps.
Finally, water rights should be accompanied with a requirement to efficiently utilize the water access being granted. While state law mandates water use efficiency for municipal water purveyors; irrigation users, industrial users, and private well users all have not efficiency standards, or goals. In that the vast majority of Washington’s water is NOT used by municipal purveyors, this loop hole should be addressed.
Currently applicants do pay nearly all of the costs of processing an application for change to water rights. Central Regional office has all but shut down their permitting opperations. The only DOE expense associated with these change applications are board trainings and review of decisions. DOE review of decisions would become far more efficient if such a review were limited to addressing meaningful impairment issues.
Allocation of DOE efforts should be determined by the quantity of water at stake in the proposed application. Key to this concept is the acceptance that at some point the amount of water at issue is truly negligible to the public’s interest and not worthy of further DOE opposition. Negligible should be defined as the amount of water that if even the foreseeable cumulative impacts of similar quantities occurred there would still not be a meaningful threat to existing rights. This threshold conceptis the same as is used in SEPA
In most cases instream flows are cited as the rights most likely impacted by proposed changes. Further, instream flows quantify to a substantial degree a particular watershed’s ability to sustain freshwater production. Applications to DOE have been filed at the state wide rate of about 300-400 change applications per year. It seems very difficult to argue that within the next 50 years any water shed would see more than 1000 applications to change and most water sheds would receive far fewer than 100. These numbers all provide a basis for evaluating the potential cumulative impacts of the change process relative to water sheds.
If the threshold for “negligible” impact was .01% or one ten thousandth of the 20 year lowest flow of the river gauge downstream of the proposed change location then all foreseeable changes for the next 50 years would be unable to produce a measurable impact. The following example is intended as a test drive of this approach.
Example: Assume a 2 cubic feet per second, 400 acre foot per year right for the irrigation of 100 acres of orchard from “Tributary River” on parcel A, adjacent to the river. Application to change from surface to ground to support 20 residences and pasture use on parcel A. The balance of the water is proposed to be transferred to a downstream well within 500 feet of the Columbia for municipal use. The downstream gauge in the tributary has recorded a 20 year low flow of 300 cfs. The Columbia’s relevant gauge low flow record is 50,000cfs.
Parcel A proposes 5 acre feet, .01 cfs for domestic and 1.8 cfs 270 acre feet for 90 acres of turf irrigation.
Problems for parcel A portions of the changes under current allocation of DOE resources:
1. change in season of use represents a potential impact in the non-irrigation season to instream flows.
2. Consumptive use may increase for the domestic portion of the right if the proposed septic systems are ever replaced by a sewer system that transports effluent away from the historic return flow path which may also create a potential impact on instream flows.
3. Timing of the return flows may change due to changes in place of use
4. Timing of the withdrawal impacts on the Tributary river may be effected by the shift to the ground water source for potable water.
5. Change in crop may produce an enlargement of consumptive use.
Under the threshold approach the Tributary River water shed threshold would be .0001 times 300 cfs. The proposed domestic uses for parcel A are identified at .01 cfs which is less than the .03 cfs threshold so these first 4 issues would be negligible and not an impediment to approval. The irrigation component would exceed the threshold so further inquiry into enlargement is required until the quantity at issue is less than the threshold.
Parcel B’s use of .19 cfs as municipal will have similar issues under the current allocation of DOE resources, but because the Columbia threshold would be 5 cfs these uses would also be approved.
Timing, enlargement and impairment considerations usually involve a relatively small portion of the overall right. Moreover, changes generally produce numerous benefits for other rights that more than offset the potential impacts. The smaller the instream flows the greater the attention that would be paid to these details until it was clear that the threshold of negligible was reached.
When the potential impacts are so small relative to any other water right interest then the expenditure of public resources to oppose them no longer makes any sense and in fact greatly damages the credibility of the DOE water resources program; profoundly inhibiting its ability to do other work that has far greater merit. This policy could be implemented as a Guidance document rather than a rule as it would not adversely impact any pending application. Further, to oppose its implementation a party would have to demonstrate a stakeholder interest in negligible water that on further analysis probably is amply mitigated by the very nature of downstream change applications.
Fees should apply. Exempt well fees should be modest – less than $100. Other wells should cost more but not $10,000. Fee should relate to amount requested. All requests should be on a level playing field meaning municipalities should pay the same fees as industrial requestors, etc. However, the full cost of $10,000 is absurd. Department costs are excessive as are all costs of government operation – you have no competition or any other incentive to cut costs. Fees should based on the amount requested and process water use applications should pay more. Irrigation uses should pay less.
There is nothing wrong with the premise of them paying for the cost, the problem is Ecologys rediculous way of implementing it. Instead of having an established fee upfront that represents the cost of making a determination they make you pay for the processing of all apps in front of you then yours.
So yes, have them pay for it, but do it but establishing a fee to be charged with the submittal of an application.
Fee should be based on amount of water requested and there should be a waiver for citizens that are impoverished with low wages!
Water permit fees should be increased substantially. I supported an effort years ago in the legislature to raise the fees so that they covered half of the cost but unfortunately it failed to pass the House. I also have supported term permits in the past. These ideas are not new but neither is the opposition. The current budget situation brings urgency to making changes but this is hardly a new issue. The general public and other water users in the area in question have a stake in having high quality processing of applications, but the party making the application should be paying the majority of the costs.
I think that the cost should be shared by the private owner who will benefit directly from those rights, and the public who more indirectly has a stake in what happens with the water on the specific site. Perhaps some ratio could be figured out that might be considered fair, where the private owner paid a given portion of the application fee, and the public paid some portion of the fee. After all our rights are shared rights, we all have a stake in the water, air and earth that we share.
I think it would be appropriate for water right holders (myself included) to bear a larger (all?)portion of water right processing. A couple of caveats/thoughts.
1. Water right applicant should not bear the cost of appealing the decisions made by Ecology. I know it may sounds paranoid, but it would create a possibility where outside entities could easily litigate needlessly to prevent the issuance/trasnfers of rights or make it to expensive to bother.
2. It could “unclog” the applications line. For example some basins show requests for new water rights, AFTER the date the basin was closed to new appropriations. What’s that about? I may not understand the WRTS info so maybe I’m wrong.
3. I know there will be concerns about cost affecting business/ag, but should tax payers subsidize these costs, or should it just be worked into the business plan, i.e. if it’s too costly/unprofitable, do something else?
4. While the average may be $10,000 I suspect there is more to it, for example what’s the median value/cost? It would be interesting to see more information on how this number was calculated, how the data is distributed.
THIMC–
$10,000 to process a permit???
Ecology has been working on a permit application SINCE 1970!!!!!!!!!!!
How about increasing the efficiency of the agencies involved in the permitting process.
Yes, potential users should pay ALL of the permitting expenses.
Dear Ecology,
We believe that it is acceptable for those requesting use of public waters bear a portion, or even the entire cost of processing a water right application. However, we also believe that the scope of work required to process such an application should be clearly defined. An applicant should not be expected to pay to satisfy the curiosity of a reviewer, nor for additional information requested by those protesting a water right. Those protesting or disputing the findings of a qualified examiner should have to pay a disinterested third party to examine the validity of the claim. The disinterested third party should be agreed upon by both the applicant and the protesting body. For example, in theory, groundwater withdrawals for irrigation from an aquifer in Lewis County would, in theory, increase the amount of evapo-transpiration and therefore increase rainfall in Whitman County. Obviously, requiring such an effect to be investigated and reported should not be a burdon placed upon an applicant. We also believe that the scope of work for which the applicant needs pay must be clearly scientifically justified. Since a large portion of the cost in processing an application is the amount of time required to process the application, we also believe that clearly defined response times for Ecology and any protestors should be put into place where the objection or protest becomes null if it is not substantiated or resolved in the time limit allowed. If water is not available for beneicial use, the examiner and Ecology will find that the application should be denied. If water is available, it should not be made “unavailable” through endless delays, protests,and requests for additional information.
Why would an application cost $10,000? Is it because a bloated government bureaucracy is enforcing unnecessarily stringent environmental regulations?
It is my understanding that a single water right application may cost as much as $10,000 to “process” and that some water rights applications made years ago, still have not been “processed”. I believe your question is premature simply because the public has no clue what is involved in “processing” and why it could possibly cost up to $10,000 per application – and can you explain the delay of literally years in processing some applications? Until you explain and demonstrate a system of processing that is cost efficient and timely, the cost certainly must remain with the General Fund.
Over the past several decades, Department of Ecology has shown itself to be an overreaching, out of control bureaucracy that exploits their charge to oversee water rights in order to increase their departmental power over all land use throughout the state. When places like Forks, where annual rainfall is measured in feet rather than inches, are deemed to have water shortage issues, clearly the problem is water management, not water shortage. Remove water rights processing from DOE purview and watch that $10k figure come under control.
Why in the world would the applicants pay a ridiculous fee of $10,000 to support what is obviously State inefficiency? Why are these applications not processed in a timely way? I suggest that the State revise their process to lower costs and respond within a reasonable time period.
This is another leading question, geared at getting everyone to answer “yes.” I question why it costs an average of $10,000 per application to do the processing. And, many of the applications that have been sitting there for many years, will continue to do so, regardless of the amount of money spent.
“…those who want to use the water of Washington”
Wow, this one was loaded up right at the start. If Washington owns the water, does it own the clouds as soon as they hit the border – or do the clouds form over the oceans making the waters “international”?
Those that want to use the water should definately pay a larger portion of the cost. The rates charged today are extremely low. Howerever before agreeing that they should pay the full cost of processing ($10K) Ecology really needs to look at reducing this cost. In addition the State should look into requiring water rights to be renewed every 4 or 5 years and that Ecology be informed about the sale or subdivision of land that have water rights attached. This would greatly increse the accuracy of the data needed to manage water rights.