A recent transfer of water rights from 80 acres in Okanogan County to Benton County on Washington's southern border with Oregon highlights the lengths to which some growers are willing to go to secure the ever-more-scarce commodity.
Okanogan County in north-central Washington state, long established as an orchard growing area, has some of the best water rights in the state, thanks to the "first in time, first in line" approach of Western water law that saw the earliest settlers in the state secure some of the best rights to water in terms of both diversion points and allowable volume. Today, similar rights are difficult to secure because capacity is maxed out in many areas, while the application process is arduous.
"It's harder to get a newer water right; there's more justification that has to go into it," said Doug Rushton, a water planner with Washington state's Department of Ecology.
That's not to say people aren't trying.
Applications for changes to water rights in the department's central area--the seven counties from Okanagan south to Oregon--totaled 101 in 2006, and this year there were nearly 60 applications by the end of June.
Since there's not a lot of "new water" to allocate, Rushton told
Wines & Vines that the state is encouraging users to tap older water rights. There's less to negotiate in terms of quantity and diversion points, which means users typically know what they've got to work with and the state knows what's at stake.
"It's just easier to do it that way for everyone involved," Rushton said.
Demand for older water rights is increasing as the state's vineyards continue expanding, however.
The most dramatic illustration was the deal that grapegrower Andy den Hoed of Vigneron Management LLC in Grandview, Wash., struck when he purchased 80 acres in Okanogan County. The deal gave den Hoed rights to water that flows down the Okanogan River into the Columbia River, where it will irrigate den Hoed's vineyards.
Den Hoed said the water rights he managed to transfer would irrigate 200-plus acres of vines south of the Tri-Cities area, highlighting greater efficiency. Prior to purchase he considered hundreds of properties and narrowed his selection down to five or six that met his criteria--primarily sites for which records showed that enough water use could be transferred to justify the deal. Since a seller can only transfer rights to the amount of water he has been using, there's no sense in buying a property for its rights if only 20% are available for transfer.
Since the rights remain within the same river system and come out farther down rather than upstream, Rushton said there's an argument to be made that the diversion has less impact on the environment.
"And the cool part is, if it's a more efficient use, there can actually be some water savings," Rushton said.
Comprehensive data on rights transfers isn't available, but Washington's Department of Ecology notes that of the 58 applications approved in Central Washington before the end of June, just more than a dozen were transfers of rights out of a particular basin. These represent the majority of transfers in the state.
There are significant issues to transfers of rights downstream or within watersheds, however. Rights attached to a particular tract of land affect its value, which in turn affects the tax base of local governments. Moreover, concerns exist that transfers from one area to another stand to reduce local access to water.
The matter is serious enough that the Washington state legislature earlier this year approved a $150,000 study on the impact of water-rights transfers. The study will examine how other states have handled such transfers, and how local stakeholders would like to see transfers handled in Washington.
