Committee debates processing reforms in House Bill 3,342; agencies and water providers raise concerns

The House Committee on Agriculture, Land Use, Natural Resources, and Water opened a public hearing March 12 on House Bill 3,342 and proposed dash‑1 amendments that would change several Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) processes for new water rights, transfers and extensions.

Co‑chairs Representative Ken Helm and Co‑Chair Owens described the bills as aiming to reduce backlogs by improving front‑end processing and by creating procedural clarity on transfers and extensions. Brynn Hudson, legislative coordinator for the Water Resources Department, provided a technical overview of the dash‑1 amendments and said the department was not taking a position; she described changes that include defaulting to electronic documents (with paper copies on request), replacing required newspaper notice with the department’s online weekly public notice, and allowing the department to pass through credit/debit card processing fees once infrastructure is set up.

The dash‑1 language also would change key processing rules: it would allow the department to return applications filed in closed or withdrawn areas before performing a full initial review; give the department authority to deny transfers or permanent amendments into critical groundwater areas or withdrawn/restricted areas; change the non‑municipal permit development timeline from five to seven years for new permits and limit extensions for newly filed permits to a maximum two‑year extension subject to conditions; require a phased fee model with an initial review and a 30‑day applicant confirmation window to continue processing; and apply many of these provisions retroactively to applications that have not yet received a proposed final order (PFO).

Stakeholders split on parts of the package. April Snell of the Oregon Water Resources Congress said the group is neutral because many districts had insufficient time to vet amended language; she supported the concept of voluntary, locally based solutions but urged caution on items that affect multiple districts. Doug Riggs and Michael Martin welcomed modernization but flagged concerns for cities, quasi‑municipal providers and small systems about a 30‑day confirmation window and the broad authority to deny applications in groundwater management areas.

JR Cook of the Northeast Oregon Water Association opposed the dash‑1 amendments, saying his basin (which includes four of seven critical groundwater areas statewide) had not been consulted and that the automatic denials could prevent remediation projects (for example pumping and treating contaminated shallow aquifers) and other projects that rely on new permits. Mark Landauer of the Special Districts Association and the Oregon Association of Water Utilities said sections 25–27 would significantly affect quasi‑municipal and group domestic permits and could jeopardize storage projects that need long development timelines.

OWRD staff explained current refund practice: when applicants stop processing after the initial review, the department typically returns fees minus a processing holdback (Brynn Hudson and Amanda Mata described a standard retained amount of $310 for some applications; transfers are adjusted based on work completed). Committee members and witnesses repeatedly urged clearer public education materials, an explanatory graphic of the departmental stages (application, initial review, proposed final order, protest), and careful drafting to avoid unintended retroactive effects.

Committee members repeatedly emphasized the need for further stakeholder work before final language; co‑chairs said additional amendments were expected and that they would continue negotiations. The committee closed the public hearing on HB 3,342 and did not take final action.