Oregon Senate Bill (SB) 1153—a proposal to change water rights transfer—is drawing sharp debate as it moves through the legislature, with environmental groups and state officials backing it while agricultural organizations push back.
The bill requires state regulators to weigh the public interest when considering changes to water rights and grants Tribes a say in certain modification requests. The bill directs the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) to evaluate whether specific water right transfers could lead to the loss of in-stream habitat for sensitive, threatened or endangered aquatic species in unprotected stream reaches or worsen water quality in already impaired streams. It also authorizes the department to impose transfer conditions, such as requiring water use measurement and reporting, water level monitoring or the installation of fish screens or bypass devices.
Chandra Ferrari, natural resources policy adviser for the Office of the Governor, said at a Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildfire hearing that SB 1153 is a necessary step to modernize water management.
“Our water management system was designed for another era,” she said, emphasizing that existing laws were initially crafted to allocate water for consumptive use rather than considering ecological and Tribal interests.
Ferrari highlighted key concerns, including the over-allocation of surface water, declining groundwater supplies, climate change and the increasing demand for water transfers.
She also acknowledged concerns from stakeholders and reiterated the state’s willingness to engage in discussions to refine the bill.
“We maintain an open dialogue and continue to invite input on how this legislation can work better for everyone,” she concluded.
Current water rights
In Oregon, all water—whether from lakes, streams, or groundwater—belongs to the public, and using it generally requires a permit from OWRD. The state operates under the principle of prior appropriation, meaning older water rights take priority during shortages. Once established, a water right is tied to the land and can only be transferred with department approval. To remain valid, water rights must be actively used; failure to do so for five or more years can result in forfeiture under the “use it or lose it” rule.
Water rights are granted for beneficial uses such as irrigation and domestic and industrial purposes. Since 1987, state agencies have also been able to apply for instream water rights to protect fish, water quality and recreation. During a governor-declared drought, water for human consumption and livestock takes priority over instream uses. Oregon law allows water rights holders to sell, lease or donate their rights for instream purposes through temporary or permanent transfers. When a transfer is requested, OWRD ensures it does not expand the right or harm other users, and if concerns arise, the department may impose conditions or deny the application.
Ag opposition
A coalition of agricultural and natural resource water users has voiced strong opposition to SB 1153, arguing that it would significantly slow water rights transfers and hinder water management flexibility.
“As we head into a future where new water rights are no longer available, the water right transfer process will provide crucial flexibility for water right holders,” the group said.
They contend that SB 1153 would introduce two new evaluation standards that could delay transfers for farms, ranches and irrigation districts, making it harder to manage existing water rights efficiently. With surface water sources largely appropriated and new groundwater allocations increasingly restricted under recent OWRD rules, the group believes that now more than ever, administrative processes should promote—rather than obstruct—responsible water management.
“OWRD is charged with water quantity allocation and does not have the authority or expertise to evaluate the impacts of water right transactions on aquatic species or water quality,” they said.
Instead of adding new burdens, they urge lawmakers to focus on streamlining OWRD’s existing processes to improve efficiency while still protecting water rights.
Support for bill
Oregon Water Partnership, a coalition of conservation groups advocating for balanced water policies, wrote a letter supporting SB 1153.
The organization said they have pushed for reforms to the state’s water laws, and the bill prevents water rights transfers that could harm habitat and water quality—two critical public resources that have suffered under the current system. The letter argues that 97% of streams lack instream water rights and the state is an “outlier” in that it has not taken action to close the loophole.
“Our sister states have all managed to bring new water values into the process for changing old water rights,” the organization said. “It’s time for the Oregon Legislature to do right by the resource and the ecosystems, economies, and cultural connections it sustains.”
The group has also backed SB 427, which takes a different approach to closing the state’s transfer loophole by preventing applications that would reduce streamflow. While SB 427 keeps the review process within OWRD, SB 1153 provides additional protections for habitat and water quality.
The group urges lawmakers to pass long-overdue reforms and is committed to further discussions in the 2025 legislative session. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
1 Comment