Oregon Groundwater: A Modest Proposal Revisited and the Operational Definition of Insanity

On 2 October 2016 I posted an article that provided my assessment on The Oregonian's 'Draining Oregon' series about the depletion of Oregon's groundwater, especially in eastern Oregon. You can also read the post by Malia and Gregory Kupilllas in response to my post.

Here is a PDF of the Oregonian article:  Download Draining_Oregon_0826d

In my post I proposed assessing annual fees on large-capacity wells (irrigation, municipal, and industrial) and even a smaller fee on domestic ('exempt') wells. The money collected would be applied to much-needed groundwater studies by the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) and its collaborators.

Here's exactly what I said:

Charge each of the 17,000 irrigation and other large-capacity (municipal and industrial) wells $150 per year and put this money towards groundwater work. Owners of the so-called ‘exempt wells’ those not requiring a water right and limited to 15,000 gallons per day (about 16 acre-feet per year) - would pay $20 per year. There are about 150,000 of these wells so their effects can be locally significant. No one really knows how much these wells use – they are not metered.

The above proposal would raise over $5.5M per year. Perhaps that is an embarrassment of riches. Maybe we could cut the annual fees to $100 and $10, respectively. That would raise about $3.1M per year. Or keep the same amounts but make them biennial to correspond to Oregon's two-year budget cycle. 

No one likes to pay fees to use something, especially something that's perceived as 'free' and has been treated as such by many water users. But if all users get socked with a fee, then there's less excuse to grumble that one particular group is being singled out. Sure, some will say 'It's my water! (it's not - Oregon water is publicly owned) or something similar.   

If you would like to see something more realistic, Andrew Theen penned an article in The Oregonian about State Representative Ken Helm's (D-Beaverton) proposal to raise fees. In summary:

Helm said he's not sure how much money the state could collect from a $100 annual fee on water rights holders, but would spend the money on groundwater research. The plan caps fees at $1,000 for water users with multiple permits and charges cities a maximum of $2,500 per year. The proposal would not apply to the roughly 1 million Oregonians who draw drinking water from personal wells.  

As Helm said: "You can't plan if you don't know what you have."

His proposal seems reasonable to me. Irrigators are not singled out. I would still like to see some kind of annual or biennial fee on domestic well owners. We all need to feel some pain. 

Note added on 30 December 2016: in response to Nancy Rorick's comment: 

I would assess all surface water and groundwater rights holders, be they municipalities, irrigators, industries, irrigation districts, or whatever. 

This may seem unfair but my belief is that: 1) we are all in this together: and 2) Oregon recognizes the connection between surface water and groundwater. 

I can't speak for what Rep. Helm would do.

Will Helm's proposal or a similar one pass? I'm not optimistic. I believe there are some powerful groups who don't want to see such a fee.  

So take your pick or devise a scheme of your own. But we need to find a reliable, adequate source of funding so we can assess our groundwater resources. We cannot keep doing what we've been doing and expect things to change in terms of achieving groundwater sustainability, if that's what we seek. 

As for my modest proposal from the 2 October post:

I will offer to teach a 3 to 4 hour 'Groundwater 101' course in Salem for legislators at the start of the 2017 session. No charge. I'll let some people in Salem know about my offer.

This offer conflates nicely with the Groundwater Visibility Initiative  and Oregon State University's land-grant university status. 

This course will not solve the problems so cogently described by The Oregonian but will help our state's lawmakers better understand groundwater so they can make better decisions and choices. 

 No response yet, except from my own state senator Sara Gelser (D) whom I copied on the email. I'm not holding my breath.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein 

Comments

[Michael]

Hi, Laurel.

Thanks for your comment - much appreciated!

We're not quite as 'insane' as Arizona. One thing to remember - unlike Arizona and California but like your eastern neighbor New Mexico - Oregon legally recognizes the connection between surface water and groundwater. That makes a big difference when it comes to managing groundwater.

Let's hope both our states (and California) get our acts together!

[Laurel Lacher]

Thanks for your excellent insights. I am amazed to learn that Oregon is as insane as Arizona in this arena. We could look to the mining or petroleum industries to remind us what happens when we tap out a finite natural resource. Time to move on to the next state/continent/planet. We as constituents can no longer wait for our politicians to develop the stomach for scientific facts. Keep on keeping on!

[Michael]

Hi, Nancy.

Great questions - thanks for asking.

I would assess all surface water and groundwater rights holders, be they municipalities, irrigators, industries, irrigation districts, or whatever.

This may seem unfair but my belief is that: 1) we are all in this together; and 2) Oregon recognizes the connection between surface water and groundwater.

I can't speak for what Rep. Helm would do.

[Nancy Rorick]

Would this be just for water rights that obtain water from groundwater or would it include surface water rights? What about irrigation districts?