Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Metering topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee advances bill to revise EPD agricultural water‑metering rules
Summary
The Senate Natural Resources and the Environment Committee voted to pass House Bill 143, which makes changes to the Environmental Protection Division's agricultural water‑metering program and, according to presenters, will reduce costs for farmers and the state.
The Senate Natural Resources and the Environment Committee voted to pass House Bill 143, a measure to modify the Environmental Protection Division’s (EPD) agricultural water‑metering rules, during its meeting.
Committee Chair Senator Anderson said the measure reflects about a year of engagement between lawmakers and EPD staff and described the bill as intended to “strengthen and maintain the integrity” of the state’s water‑metering program while making more water resources available to farmers. Director Jeff Cowen and Margie (Marjorie) Rockmore of EPD’s metering program were present to answer questions. Anya Tuzinski, head of EPD’s watershed protection branch, was also identified as part of the agency team.
The bill, as described to the committee, makes technical changes to the department’s rules and code to improve water‑data collection and management. Committee remarks noted the measure is designed to keep the metering program flexible for both the department and agricultural users and to ensure the program remains usable in ongoing or future litigation.
Sponsors and presenters said the changes would reduce costs for both farmers and the department. A figure was given in committee discussion that the bill would save farmers $9,300,000 and would save the department “millions of dollars.” Those dollar estimates were presented by bill proponents in committee testimony; the committee record does not include supporting budget documents.
A motion to do pass was made and seconded on the floor of the committee; the committee chair called for a voice/hand vote and said the bill “carries.” Senator Sam Watson was identified in committee remarks as agreeing to carry the measure in the Senate.
Because the committee vote was recorded in procedural form (“all in favor raise your right hand. It carries.”) no roll‑call tally was entered in the transcript provided.
The bill was presented as an EPD‑sponsored change to agency rules and permitting practice. EPD staff were available to answer technical questions but no additional agency guidance or fiscal note was entered into the transcript during the hearing.
The committee advanced the bill to the next step in the legislative process; the transcript records that a Senate sponsor would be named to carry the bill forward.
