Bill would raise water application permit fee to $500

Increase may impact farmers, could speed up application process

MOSES LAKE — A state representative says area water users could be devastated by increased water application permit fees, but a water rights consultant says he's not concerned.

Rep. Janea Holmquist, R-Moses Lake, said in a statement last week that she will do all she can to protect local water users from the proposed increase, originally found in House Bill 2300, introduced March 23 by a Democrat leader in the House, and now found in House Bill 2309.

Under the bill, a $10 fee normally charged for an application to change the point of diversion, withdrawal, purpose or place of use for water would be increased to $500.

"Our farmers and anyone else dependent upon water for their livelihoods are already bracing for a tough ride through an expected drought year," Holmquist said in her statement. "And now to be hammered by this unbelievably high fee increase is irresponsible and ludicrous."

The bill also calls for a $10 fee for the examination of an application permit to appropriate water to be increased to $200.

Additionally, it would cost $500 to grant an extension of time for beginning construction work on a permit to appropriate water and for each year the extension is granted. Fees would be raised from $10 to $200 for the examination of safety plans that outlines control of storage for 10 acre-feet or more of water.

Ed Kemp, owner of H2O4U Consulting in Ephrata, said he is not concerned about the bill, which he doesn't think will have any cause and effect because all public ground water in the Quincy Ground Water Sub Area is fully appropriated.

"If somebody were to make an application, it would be filed away and not see the light of day until hell freezes," he said with a laugh.

Kemp said many people don't understand that under state law, an individual can pay to have the application processed. The Washington State Department of Ecology solicits bids from individuals to do the work for them, and the applicant pays an administrative cost to the third party to perform the function.

Those that don't know or take advantage of that opportunity place the burden on the Department of Ecology, which is grossly understaffed in Kemp's opinion, having also to contend with legal issues.

"Something needs to happen to essentially get a reasonable time period," Kemp said, noting that he is more concerned that the way applications and actions submitted to the Department of Ecology "sit and stagnate and the economic impacts of that."

Bernie Erickson, a farmer who has raised potatoes, wheat and corn in Ritzville for 20 years, now semi-retired, explained that every year, farmers in the Odessa sub-area make seasonal changes and move water from one location to another without water rights, necessary to support the health of a potato plant or many other crops requiring rotation.

"We've been doing that at virtually no cost," Erickson said. "In our case, we probably make six to seven changes on our farms. In other words, instead of $60, it would be $3,000. You can see the impact."

Erickson wonders where the money would go; he said he might be able to understand if the money were to be spent for purposes affecting the Odessa aquifer. But he suspects it will probably go to general funds, he said.

Kemp has worked with individuals who put in for seasonal changes, who need to know ahead of time if they're going to be able to have those changes approved. When that doesn't happen, the individuals are left "holding the bag. Something needs to be done to expedite the process. Hopefully, the $500 would do that."

Kemp noted that he is operating under the assumption that the $500 would go into expediting the application process, and that it's not a way to line the coffers of the Department of Ecology.

According to her press release, Holmquist suspects the new water permit fee increases may be one of the methods House Democrats, in the process of writing a general funds budget proposal, plan to use to generate more revenue for the budget.

"This seems to be one more irresponsible gimmick to go after a one-time money source to generate long-term revenues to pay for their increased spending proposals in the budget," Holmquist said. "This will devastate our farmers and local water users throughout eastern Washington … I plan to fight hard against these outrageous fee increases."

Erickson said that the fee increase discourages the efficiency of reservoirs, or "re-regulating ponds" which store water for a period of time and are pumped. They're expensive to build and the Department of Ecology requires a plastic lining, he said.

"Why is it needed?" Erickson asked. "Ecology has already got way too many people up there, and they're just not making good use of the funds they have."

Erickson said he thinks the bill is probably an effort to discourage the movement of water for whatever reason, and an attempt to bring more revenue into an industry that is already over stressed.

"It's certainly going to increase the cost of farming," he said. "It's just one more expense in a whole array of expenses that have gone up immensely, especially the increase in diesel fuel, fertilizer, the cost of equipment and yet commodities are not increased. It's making it very difficult to make a profit in farming."

Heath Gimmestad, farm agronomist for Friehe Farms, says that the bill could have a fairly dramatic effect.

"Any more money spent is not good," he said. "(The bill) doesn't sound very positive to me and doesn't sound like something introduced by a farm-oriented legislator."

Gimmestad and Erickson both said they are not very familiar with the bill.

Bill Gray, deputy area manager for the Upper Columbia Area office for the U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, and Dick Erickson, manager of the East Columbia Basin Irrigation District, both said that they would see little or no effect from the fee increases. The Columbia Basin Project's water rights are in place, Gray explained, and the irrigation project only works with the state regarding changes to its water rights on an infrequent basis, Dick Erickson said.

"(It would) mostly have an impact on individuals," Dick Erickson said. "A lot of those people change place of use on an annual basis."