Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reservoir Permit Purpose Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs bill allowing reservoirs to be re-permitted for fish and wildlife uses
Summary
Senate Bill 2141 would let some conditional or perfected water permits tied to reservoirs change their purpose from irrigation or industrial uses to lower-priority uses such as fish and wildlife, preserving reservoir structures when original withdrawals are abandoned.
The House Energy and Natural Resources Committee voted to recommend do-pass on Senate Bill 2141 after sponsors and Department of Water Resources staff said the bill makes it easier to change a water-permit’s purpose for reservoirs with authorized storage and withdrawals.
Senator Dale Patton, who introduced the bill, described it as “a simple bill intended to make it easier to change the purpose of use for water permits tied to reservoirs with an authorized withdrawal.” He said the change addresses reservoirs whose originally authorized irrigation or industrial use is abandoned or never developed.
Andrew Nygren, water appropriation division director for the Department of Water Resources, explained the statutory priority scheme and how it applies. He read the priority order in existing code as: “domestic use, municipal or public use, livestock use, irrigation use, industrial use, and then, lastly, fish, wildlife, and recreation use.” Nygren said a small number of permits tie to reservoirs as irrigation or industrial use and that when those uses are abandoned the permit may be subject to cancellation; the bill would allow the permit to remain by changing the purpose to fish and wildlife or a similar lower-use classification.
A member asked whether the change would allow a permit holder to keep a permit if they did not use it for several years; Nygren said for livestock or fish-and-wildlife uses there are no authorized withdrawals and the only use associated with such reservoirs is estimated evaporative losses.
The committee recommended do-pass and later moved the bill to the consent calendar; no opposition was recorded in committee testimony.
