The impact of any organization's involvement is frequently difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate. The problem is that in order to evaluate the effectiveness of a particular organization; one must attempt to quantify a given set of circumstances, which are not subject to quantification. Put simply, the evaluation of an organization's effectiveness requires an objective analysis of a subjective set of circumstances.

In order to objectively evaluate an organization, one must give close scrutiny to the specific issues in which the organization has been involved. The issues must be evaluated to determine their direct and indirect impact on a particular constituency. In the case of Water for life, Inc., a variety of activities must be evaluated to determine the potential impacts to those individuals who rely on the use and management of Oregon's water resources for their economic livelihood.

In light of the difficulty associated with evaluating the effectiveness of a given organization, the following is intended as an objective review of Water for Life's involvement during the past five-year period.

No issue in recent years has captured the attention of Oregon's natural resources community as fully as the current debate surrounding the management of our state's water resources. Unlike the majority of issues facing Oregon's natural resources industries, the management of our water resources is nondiscriminatory in that it will impact each and every segment associated with natural resources.

The issues concerning water resources management are very complex. Future problems will result from the debate over water uses, or more appropriately, nonuses of water resources. The challenge is clear -- will individuals who rely on the use and management of the state's water resources for their livelihood be able to retain their access to these resources?

The formation of Water for Life was the result of people interested in developing a more effective way to represent agriculture on water issues. The initial meeting included individuals from various organizations. The adoption of adverse legislation and rules illustrated the need for a producer driven group that would represent the views of various irrigation entities on statewide water issues.

Over the past five years, Water for Life has been involved in legislative activities, agency administrative proceedings, public education, and when necessary, litigation on behalf of Oregon's agricultural water users. The following report is an account of some of Water for Life's efforts to protect agricultural water rights.

The need for effective representation of agricultural water users concerns can be best illustrated when one evaluates the adverse laws that were adopted during the 1987 Legislative Session. Laws establishing the creation of in-stream water rights and requiring the screening of all water diversions were approved in 1987. Eight years later, water users are still attempting to modify the 1987 legislation in order to reflect irrigator's concerns.

A proposal that challenged the mere existence of irrigated agriculture and water use was introduced in 1989 as House Bill 3203. Introduced at the request of WaterWatch of Oregon and a myriad of "environmental" groups, HB 3203 contained numerous provisions which would have proven devastating to water users. Some of the more onerous provisions included:

• Restoring streamflows at a rate of 5% per year for waterways determined to be "over-appropriated".
• Defining "waste"; to mean a quantity of water that exceeds the minimum quantity required while using best available technology.
• Requiring the repermitting and recertificating all surface water rights every 20 years.
• Transferring any forfeited water rights along with the original priority date to an in-stream water right.

Although HB 3203 failed to gain approval of the legislative assembly, it is important to note the bill was approved by the House Water Policy committee with a "do pass" recommendation.

1989

In an effort to "undo" unfavorable fish screening legislation that was enacted in 1987, the Fort Klamath Water Users Association (later reorganized as Water for life, Inc. in 1990) retained legislative representation for the 1989 Legislative Session. At the close of the session, the Fort Klamath Water Users Association had accomplished its initial objective with the enactment of Senate Bill 148.  Senate Bill 148 placed a two-year moratorium on the Department of Fish & Wildlife's authority to require the installation of screening or by-pass devices on diversion with a flow capacity of less than 30 cubic feet per second. The legislation also directed the Department of Fish and Wildlife to identify the specific diversions, which should be equipped with screening or by-pass devices and the costs associated with the installation and maintenance of such devices.

If legislation establishing a moratorium on the 1987 law was unsuccessful, the cost to irrigators to screen all irrigation diversions would have equated to approximately $140,000,000.

1991

The issue of fish screening returned in 1991 with the expiration of the moratorium. Throughout the session, Water for Life, Inc., coordinated efforts with a number of the same individuals who were responsible for the initial 1987 legislation, to develop a reasoned and logical approach to the issues of the installation of screening or by-pass devices on water diversions. Water for life's efforts resulted in the adoption of a four-year cost share program that required the screening of no more than 75 water diversion during the 1991-1993 biennium period. The legislation further required the Department to solicit volunteers to install screening or by-pass devices, as opposed to allowing the Department the ability to direct certain individuals to install these devices. With the enactment of HB 3457, water users no longer faced a possible mandate, from the Department of Fish & Wildlife, to install, operate and maintain, at their own expense, appropriate screening or by-pass devices.

What could be recognized as one of, if not the most, oppressive pieces of legislation for individual water users ever gain approval by a portion of Oregon's Legislative Assembly, was debated during the 1991 session. This legislation (Senate Bill 1163) known as the Streamflow Restoration and Water Conservation Act was originally introduced at the request of WaterWatch of Oregon. If enacted, this proposal would have drastically altered the manner in which Oregon's water resources are used, managed and regulated. Included in the legislation were provisions that:

1) Established a private right of action, granting any person the authority to bring an action in the Circuit Court of Marion County against any person alleged to be in violation of any provision of four complete chapters of Oregon's water laws.

2) Forfeited 50 percent of the amount of a water right that was being transferred. The forfeited amount would be transferred to the state as an instream water right.

3) Required the conversion of the amount of water recovered though the reduction of "waste" to an in-stream water right.

4) Required the conversion of 50 percent of the amount of water conserved, as a result of any conservation measures, to an in-stream water right.

Although opposed by Water for Life and the majority of other agricultural related organizations, other organizations, including the Oregon Water Resources Congress continued to promote the legislation. A written statement sent to Water for Life from OWRC states, "OWRC agrees that most of the concepts within the bill (SB 1163A) are workable with minor changes. Some additional amendments will be necessary in the House in order for Legislative Counsel to clear up confusion and conflicts as to how new language fits into existing related statutes." During consideration by the House Committee on Rules and Reapportionment, the Oregon Water Resources Congress continued to suggest the legislation was necessary in order to avoid the filing of an initiative petition by the proponents of the legislation. The threat of the initiative petition was not taken lightly; however, the principles embodied in the legislation represented such a profound change in the management and regulation of Oregon's water resources, Water for Life, Inc., firmly believed acquiescence was tantamount to sacrificing the economic viability of each and every ranching and farming operation within the state.

Water for Life remained steadfast in its opposition to SB 1163 throughout the 1991 legislative session and ultimately, defeated this legislation in the closing days. In the absence of Water for life, SB 1163 would have become a reality during the 1991 session and water users today would have been faced with the overly restrictive, damaging and onerous provisions of this legislation.

1993

Responding to increased concerns regarding the regulation of small ponds, Water for Life worked to develop legislation to legalize existing impoundments. Primarily through the efforts of the natural resources community, principally Water for Life, provision were successfully incorporated into HB 2153 exempting certain existing ponds from the current requirement to obtain a formal water right permit. A simplified process was also established for those ponds that did not meet the exemption criteria. Although the measure was a compromise between varied interests, HB 2153 provided pond owners with a process to legalize ponds that were technically considered to be illegal and subject to penalties.

Following the successful efforts of Water for Life during the 1991 Legislative Session in establishing the state's fish screening program, modifications the 1991 law were made to further reflect the concerns of water users. The revisions gained legislative approval as HB 3457. The legislation expanded funding of the cost-share program.

Perhaps debated more than any other water-related legislative proposal, House Bill 2215, established a pilot watershed management program within Oregon. From the outset, opponents HB 2215 strenuously argued the original proposal would be tantamount to establishing a land use planning process for Oregon's water resources, stripping authority from the local level, and centralizing all water management decisions in the hands of the state. Water for Life successfully negotiated substantial amendments to the legislation and considerably narrowed its scope. In its final form, the bill encouraged local control in developing voluntary programs to protect and enhance watersheds.

While many of Water for Life's efforts to enact legislation were successful, Water for life was also instrumental in defeating a variety of legislative proposals which would have been detrimental to the interests of agricultural water users. Adverse proposals addressed: water user fees, streamflow restoration, expanded authority for the Water Resources Commission, increased permitting requirements, expansion of Water Resources Department enforcement authority, in addition to various other concepts.

A considerable amount of time is devoted to working with the Water Resources Department and Water Resources Commission. Water for life provides a consistent presence before the agency and commission by attending all work group and commission meetings. When appropriate, Water for Life provides testimony on behalf of water users. In addition, Water for Life has actively worked to influence the development (or deletion) of various rules and policies.

Conservation and Riparian Management Policies:

The Conservation and Riparian Management Policies proposed by the Water Resources Department allowed Water for Life to create statewide awareness. Water for Life was responsible for holding pre-meetings prior to thirteen hearings that were held. The proposed Conservation Policy contained numerous adverse provisions. Included in the policy were requirement to use "best practicable technology"; define "waste" as the "efficient use of water"; and define streams as of over-appropriated" if water was available less than 80 percent of the time. Water for Life's efforts resulted in deletion of the "best practicable technology" requirement and modifications to the definition of "waste". 

Allocation Policy:

Once again, Water for Life was called upon to lead the charge and encourage water users to voice their opposition to adverse policies. The Allocation Policy proposed by the Water Resources Department contained controversial provisions that impacted future water rights. The most conspicuous provision involved the inclusion of a requirement that allocation decisions take into account "potential instream flow needs" on stream that do not have instream water rights. An additional concept established an 80 percent exceedance standard for new water right permits as opposed to the 50 percent standard previously used.

Although successful in encouraging people to attend the eight hearings, Water for Life failed to gain substantial revisions to the policy. Future legal action challenging the provisions and statutory basis of the allocation policy continue to be under consideration.

Agricultural Water Management Plans:

Although only four hearings were held, Water for life was successful in encouraging hundreds of people to comment on proposed "Agricultural Water Management Plan" rules. The proposed rules were developed with the help of a subcommittee of the Conservation Advisory Committee. The sub-committee was comprised primarily of irrigation district managers.

Unfortunately, the proposed rules demonstrated another attempt to force potentially disastrous requirements on irrigators. As proposed, "water management plans" would have been required from any irrigator or group of irrigators who irrigate 500 acres or more. New requirements would be forced on irrigators if deemed to be "feasible" by the Water Resources Department. In addition, irrigators would be subject to a reputable presumption that they were "wasting water" if they fail to submit a plan. Enforcement provisions allowed for civil penalties, escalating sanctions, permit cancellation and regulation of water use if the water user fails to satisfactory implement the water management plan".

The considerable opposition generated by Water for Life resulted in the rules being sent back to an "new" Conservation Advisory Committee for revisions. Linda Barrett of Bonanza represented Water for Life on the new committee. It is largely a result of Linda's and Water for Life's efforts that the rules were modified to be voluntary and apply to only irrigation districts that were required by law to complete a conservation plan.

Water for Life has actively communicated water users concerns on rules addressing storage, withdrawals, basin plans, water right application processing, public interest review, ground water interference, conserved water, in-stream water right leases, drought, water quality and dam safety. In addition, we have commented on numerous rules that were necessary to implement changes in Oregon water law.

The rules and policies adopted by the Water Resources Commission have had a substantial impact on water users. The opportunity to influence the appointments to the Commission has recently resulted from the change of leadership in the Senate. Water for Life has been instrumental in blocking an unprecedented four appointments. Although the Executive Appointments Committee was controlled by a majority of Democratic Senators, Water for Life was able to stop many of the appointments at the committee level by encouraging one or more of the Democratic Senators to vote with the remaining Republican committee members. 

Educating the public on issues relating to the use and management of water is critical if the concerns of agriculture are to be understood. In addition, water users must be well informed of the challenges surrounding water use. Water for Life has recognized the need to educate its members and the public.

Information is distributed to Water for Life members in various forms. Newsletters, informational meetings, special reports and direct mail are all used to provide accurate and timely information. Often times the information contains a thoughtful analysis of issues that impact water users. The information is developed to encourage action from members and other organizations.

Although admittedly not enough, Water for Life works with various media sources. Comments from Water for Life staff are often included in articles in the Capital Press and Cascade Cattlemen. In addition, Water for Life staff has been quoted in the Statesman journal, The Oregonian, and numerous local newspapers.

In response to a series of articles that appeared in The Oregonian, Water for Life took the lead in coordinating meetings with editors of the paper to discuss the inaccurate information that was presented. Representatives of the Oregon Farm Bureau, Oregon Cattlemen's Association, Oregon Association of Nurserymen and the Oregon Wheat Growers League were included in the discussions. After an initial meeting with editors representing the editorial board, Water for Life was asked to return to discuss the issue with three additional editors representing the management and news department. Although not directly attributable to Water for Life's actions, it is worthwhile to note that the reporter responsible for the articles resigned shortly after the meetings took place.

Water for Life has recognized the need for water users to defend against proposals that erode away their rights. In some instances, the necessity to protect these rights requires litigation. Water for Life's appeal of the Water Resources Commission order, regarding the review process for all instream water right applications is an example of its dedication to protecting the interests of water users.

Repeated attempt to encourage the Water Resources Commission to modify the in-stream water rights process were made by Water for Life. Although Water for Life pointed out the inherent problems and the blatant mistakes that were made, the Commission went ahead and adopted the review process. This action by the Commission left Water for Life with no other alternative than to pursue litigation.

The challenge initiated by Water for Life forced the Commission to repeal its rules and modify the in-stream water right review process. A settlement of the judicial review was later reached after the Commission adopted new rules that provided a greater opportunity for public input. An important accomplishment of the lawsuit was that all pending and future instream water right application would be subject to the new rules, which required a thorough "technical review" to be completed. In addition, Water for Life was reimbursed for money spent in filing the action and continues to receive copies of all of the completed technical reviews.

The effects of Water for Life's actions were significant. Under questioning from judge Milo Pope, Assistant Attorney General Jane Ard admitted that the Commission's decision was "monumental" in its affect on water users. The thing to note is that Water for Life stepped forward as the only agricultural organization to challenge the instream water rights process. Actions such as the judicial review displayed that Water for Life and it members were not content to accept adverse decisions.

As initially stated, it is very difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of a particular organization. This review highlights a handful of issues of particular significance to water users. Upon a close review of these issues, it becomes vividly apparent, laws and regulations pertaining to the use and management of the state's water resources would be significantly different than they are today had Water for Life not been a participant.

Water for Life has a proven track record on behalf of water users and deserves the support of each individual who relies on the continued use of Oregon's water resources for their economic livelihood and well being.