Authorizes holders of certain Columbia River water rights to change the point of diversion or use the water right on land to which the right is not appurtenant, provided certain conditions are met.
HB 4006 makes a set of targeted changes to Oregon water law for certain Columbia River water rights, specifically those with points of diversion between river miles 252 and 303. The bill allows holders of qualifying irrigation water rights to change the point of diversion or use the water on land that is not otherwise appurtenant, so long as the change does not injure existing water rights and other conditions are met. It also creates a special exemption from the usual application process for certain Columbia River irrigation rights when the change stays within the specified river-mile corridor and does not increase the rate or season of use; the bill defines irrigation to include shoulder-season and winter irrigation.
The measure also exempts certain intergovernmental entities’ irrigation systems from some laws governing irrigation ditches and reservoirs when the diversion point is on the same Columbia River corridor. In addition, it expands the definition of “district” for purposes of district water-rights mapping to include certain intergovernmental entities, and it allows the Mid-Columbia Water Commission, or its successor, to participate in the district mapping process for these water rights if it gives notice by June 30, 2027. The bill requires annual reporting for 10 years on how many properties gained access to regional water systems, how much groundwater use was avoided, and the value of integrating municipal, industrial, and agricultural water needs.
HB 4006 would affect Oregon statutes governing water-right transfers, district mapping, and distribution of irrigation water, including ORS 537.211, 540.270, 540.520, 541.325, 541.327, and 541.329. In practical terms, it would give qualifying Columbia River water-right holders and certain water districts more flexibility to move water use and coordinate infrastructure without going through the full transfer process in some cases, while preserving protections against injury to existing rights and requiring notice, fish-screen conditions where applicable, and ongoing oversight through reporting.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text and its framing is supportive of water-system flexibility, regional coordination, and improved access to irrigation water for lands served by Columbia River systems. Because there are no recorded votes or committee transcripts provided, there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from debate, but the bill’s structure suggests an effort to facilitate water-right administration for a specific region and set of users rather than a broad statewide overhaul. The reporting requirement also indicates an interest in monitoring whether the changes produce measurable benefits.
Notable points of contention are likely to center on the bill’s narrow but significant exemptions from standard water-right transfer procedures, especially the ability to change diversion points or use water on nonappurtenant land without a full application in the specified corridor. Potential concerns may involve impacts on existing water rights, administrative oversight by the Water Resources Department, and whether the special treatment for the Mid-Columbia Water Commission and related entities creates a precedent for region-specific exceptions. The bill attempts to address these concerns by requiring no injury to existing rights, limiting changes in rate and season of use, and preserving notice and fish-protection requirements where relevant.
HB 4006 would amend Oregon water law to create special transfer and use rules for certain Columbia River irrigation water rights, particularly those with diversion points between river miles 252 and 303. It would modify statutes governing water-right changes, irrigation district administration, and district mapping, and would add a 10-year reporting obligation for the Mid-Columbia Water Commission or its successor. The bill would primarily affect water-right holders, irrigation districts, intergovernmental water entities, the Water Resources Department, and users of regional irrigation systems in the Columbia River corridor.
The bill appears generally favorable toward water-right flexibility, regional water delivery, and coordinated irrigation management. Its language emphasizes access, efficiency, and integration of municipal, industrial, and agricultural water needs, suggesting a policy goal of improving use of existing infrastructure and reducing groundwater reliance. No votes or committee testimony are provided, so there is no recorded floor-level controversy or formal opposition in the supplied materials.
The main likely points of contention are the bill’s targeted exemptions from ordinary water-transfer application requirements and its special treatment of Columbia River rights in a defined geographic corridor. Critics could question whether allowing changes to nonappurtenant land or bypassing standard review weakens oversight or risks injury to other water-right holders, while supporters would likely argue that the bill preserves injury protections and merely streamlines administration for a unique regional system. Another possible issue is the expanded role for the Mid-Columbia Water Commission and the creation of region-specific mapping and reporting provisions, which may be viewed as either practical coordination tools or preferential treatment for a particular area.