| OCR Text |
Show become available and the regional needs. State assistance is considered only after the municipality applies for help in the construction of a project identified in the regional plan. Generally, the state participates in impoundments which include water for recreation, municipal water supply, agricultural irrigation, and sustained stream flow. In some cases, without any charge to downstream landowners, the state intentionally releases water to maintain low flows. However, sustained stream flow releases are not made to dilute waste loads as this would be at variance with the provisions of the Water Quality Act of 1972. If the state is petitioned to release water for downstream withdrawal for agricultural irrigation, the water is sold to the user at prevailing rates. Recent Experience of Washington State with Water User- fee Legislation A bill which would have required irrigators and other water users to pay a fee to the state for the use of water per se was introduced in the 1975 session of the Washington State Legislature at the request of the governor. The governor explained his request as follows: In 1917 the legislature passed the water code for the State of Washington and legislatively stated very clearly that ' all waters within the state belong to the public.' We gave it away and have consistently given it away because we thought that it was abundant. But water today, just like land, is scarce. Fifty- eight years after adoption of our water code we now face a water shortage in essentially every river basin in the state with the exception of the lower Snake and the mid- Columbia. So existing water supplies in many areas of our state are today inadequate. Irrigation is the largest potential use of water in the state. We today use more water for irrigation than for all other purposes combined. Today about a million and a half acres of Washington State land is under irrigation. Ten million more acres are potential for irrigation. My concern was expressed... in the conversation and agricultural messages I presented to the legislature near the beginning of this session, indicating my belief, which I still hold strongly, that the future of this state is very much involved with the development of agriculture. The agricultural surpluses of a few years ago are now world wide shortages. The governor explained that his bill specified that 80 percent of the proposed charge for water would go into a fund ' which would be used for a grant and loan program to expand and develop the very thing that we are talking about: the enormous agricultural future of the State of Washington ( The Idaho Falls Post Register, September 19, 1975). The bill ( House Bill No. 458; copy in Appendix G) specified that " the fee shall relate only to rights to divert or withdraw and make use of significant amounts of public waters for industrial, commercial, and agricultural irrigation purposes." Initial and immediate opposition arose from irrigation interests. One real estate developer saw the bill as a " socialistic drive" to gain state control of water, and a threat to private development ( Tri City Herald- Pasco, Kenne- wick, Richland, Washington, February 19, 1975). An Eastern Washington legislator said that fee would amount to double taxation, noting that " farmers pay taxes on their land and charging for water would be another tax" ( Tri City Herald- Pasco. Kennewick, Richland, Washington, February, 13, 1974). Legislators observed that it was a drastic break with tradition, and that no other states are " taxing farmers for water." One Senator and former Farm Bureau leader expressed concern that the Winters doctrine would apply and that Idaho and Canada could justly come in for a portion of the revenues ( Idaho Falls Post Register, September 30, 1975). Some individuals argued that the governor seemed to be overly influenced by environmental and ecology interests ( Idaho Falls Post Register, September 23, 1975). Although there was some expressed support for the bill and the user- fee concept within the Washington legislature, the upshot of the adverse publicity and strong special interest opposition killed the bill in committee. 8 |
