Keep watching the water legislation

There’s scarcely a better way for the Oregon Legislature to scare farmers and ranchers than to debate bills that mention water rights.

People in the ag business pay particular attention to such legislation.

Their scrutiny isn’t prompted by paranoia, either.

It’s awfully hard, after all, to run a farm or ranch without an ample supply of water.

For most producers in Baker County some of that water — most of it, in many cases — comes from rivers and streams.

In Baker County some of those rights are almost as old as Oregon, dating to the early 1860s.

What has ranchers and farmers worried is a handful of bills that according to some could make it more difficult for them to get the water they need.

Curt Martin, a North Powder rancher who is legislative committee chairman for the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association, said recently that he believes the legislation represents “a chiseling away of ag water rights.”

On one hand, we’re not convinced the situation is as dire as Martin suggests.

None of the bills would cancel existing water rights or overturn the concept of “prior appropriation” which is the basis of Oregon’s 1909 water law.

(Under prior appropriation, the person who has the oldest water right is the last to have water shut off when supplies are short.)

But on the other hand, the slate of bills Martin cited would force ranchers and farmers to spend more money to use their water rights. And that could be just as harmful to producers as losing their water rights, since water you can’t afford to use won’t irrigate your crops.

Senate Bill 740 would charge a $100 yearly fee for each water right.

This is not the right time to add another bill to any business’ ledger.

Martin also is worried about Senate Bills 193 and 194. He contends the legislation would lead to the wholesale revamping of Oregon’s water law to favor urban uses over agricultural.

None of the bills says this, although legislation is not a model of clear prose.

Senate Bill 193 does list as a goal “to restore and protect stream flows,” a phrase which seems to mean leaving more water in the stream, which means less for farmers and ranchers.

But the bill also refers, more than once, to Oregon’s “water needs, including but not limited to in-stream, underground, human consumption and water supply needs.” The bill doesn’t say any of those is more important than another.

Of course we wouldn’t expect any lawmaker to come right out and admit that the goal of a bill is to take water away from agriculture, which is Oregon’s second-largest industry.

It’s conceivable that certain legislators might favor such a shift, though.

The bottom line is that no matter how great or small the risk that any bill poses to farmers’ and ranchers’ access to water, it’s crucial that groups such as the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association watch what’s happening at the Capitol.

In cases involving a commodity as vital as water, it’s better to be accused of exaggerating that risk than to ignore it until the bills have become law.

By that time the matter, as the old saying goes, is water under the bridge.

Which is another way of saying it’s too late.