Senate Rules advances amendment to water-transfer bill after debate over tribal role and pre‑1909 rights

Senate Bill 1153 (dash-10) would bar approval of certain water-right transfer applications that "result in the loss of in-stream habitat" for sensitive, threatened or endangered aquatic species and would allow federally recognized tribes to elect to review transfer applications in specified counties and provide input to the Water Resources Department (OWRD).

Kathleen Taylor, state senator (District 21), read a statement of legislative intent, saying the phrase "contributes to" should be read narrowly: "Therefore, 'contributes to' looks at the effects of the specific transfer in question on stream flow of the stream at the time the application is made." She asked that statement be entered into the record as legislative intent.

Michael Mason, state lobbyist for the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, said the Warm Springs Tribal Council unanimously supported the dash-10 amendment and that many transfers in Central Oregon fall within their treaty area. Mason said the tribe has developed processes used as a model in the bill's tribal provisions.

Jeff Huntington, senior policy adviser to Governor Kotek on natural resources, said the dash-10 amendment "does not impact the capacity of any tribe to adjudicate or or determine in the future their scope of their water rights under the McCarran amendment or the Winters doctrine. What it does do is creates an administrative process for the tribe to call out if it's worried that a transfer by a party might impact its fish habitat and other values that are specified in the bill." His remarks framed the amendment as an administrative, not adjudicatory, review.

Committee members debated whether the bill would in effect allow OWRD to limit transfers based on administrative determinations about tribal interests before any adjudication, and whether that process would bypass due process for pre-1909 rights. One senator described the bill as a modest response to changed conditions since 1909 and defended narrowing the standard to native migratory fish and specific transfer types; another said the bill "fundamentally modifies some sacred rights within established water law" and opposed it on principle.

Vice Chair Bonham moved adoption of the dash-10 amendment. The committee recorded the following roll call on the amendment: Senator Golden — Aye; Senator Manning — Aye; Senator Patrick — No; Vice Chair Bonham — No; Judge Jones — Aye. The amendment passed on that roll call. Later, the committee moved the amended bill to the floor with a due-pass recommendation and referral to the Joint Committee on Ways and Means; a subsequent roll call recorded: Senator Golden — Aye; Senator Manning — Aye; Senator Thatcher — No; Vice Chair (recorded as Bauchner) — No; Chair (recorded as Sanders) — Aye. Motion passed and a minority report was acknowledged.

The transcript records both substantive testimony in favor of the tribal consultation provisions and sustained committee debate over legal consequences for pre-1909 rights and the standard language ("contributes to" and timing of the injury analysis). The committee directed the bill to the floor with a due-pass recommendation and referral to Ways and Means.