By Mateusz Perkowski | Sept. 18, 2025 | Capital Press
WaterWatch continues to express skepticism over a proposed regulatory scheme to boost groundwater in the Harney basin.
Irrigators and other water users are advocating for alternative groundwater restrictions to be adopted in Oregon’s Harney basin rather than those proposed by state regulators.
The coalition, which also includes tribes and local governments, recently submitted a formal petition asking the Oregon Water Resources Commission to consider a rival set of regulations meant to stem aquifer depletion in the region.
“It’s a different model. Allow us to show we can meet the goal of stability,” said Rep. Mark Owens, R-Crane, who grows alfalfa in the Harney basin, during a recent commission meeting.
Owens urged the commission to give the alternative proposal a fair hearing, as state regulators with the Oregon Water Resources Department have already been offered that chance.
“We ask for that same opportunity,” he told commissioners.
For roughly a decade, state water regulators have been studying and deliberating how to curb the Harney basin’s declining groundwater levels, which have resulted from OWRD issuing too many permits for agricultural wells.
The OWRD — which is governed by the commission — is pursuing regulations that would designate the region as a “critical groundwater area,” allowing existing aquifer withdrawals to be reduced in addition to prohibiting new ones.
Under the agency’s proposal, the “permissible total withdrawal” of groundwater would be decreased by up to 75 percent across seven sub-areas over roughly three decades, with an overall reduction of about 35 percent for the basin as a whole.
Most of the reductions would be imposed during the early years of the plan, with less drastic decreases occurring in later years. The reductions would subject to revisions depending on how effectively the plan stabilizes aquifer levels over time.
Representing the coalition of irrigators and other parties, Owens is now requesting that the commission instead enact another set of rules that would soften economic impacts in the heavily agriculture-dependent region.
Owen said the alternative regulations have the support of important regional organizations, including the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, and are less likely to be challenged administratively or in court than the OWRD’s proposal.
The alternative rules would prioritize voluntary irrigation cutbacks in areas where “groundwater levels are reasonably stable,” allowing the agency to “focus regulatory action in areas where there are excessive declines,” he later told the Capital Press.
Weaver Springs, where the most severe aquifer depletion has occurred, does not represent the entirety of the Harney basin, so the alternative proposal would offer the chance for regulatory restrictions to be lifted in areas that are meeting groundwater stabilization goals, Owens said.
“The proposal is responsive to extensive and consistent community input about managing based on the conditions and needs of each part of the basin — rather than lumping everyone together in one giant groundwater reservoir,” Owens said. “It uses best available science to identify the right scale for setting and achieving management goals.”
In response to the petition, OWRD is seeking the public’s input on the alternative regulations and extending the comment period on the agency’s own proposal, with comments on both plans due by Oct. 7.
The parallel public comment opportunity will allow people to “speak more holistically to the issue at hand — how to achieve stable groundwater levels in the Harney basin,” said Jason Cox, OWRD’s public information and resiliency specialist.
“It also provides a broader range of options for the Water Resources Commission to consider in addressing this issue through a rule-making process,” Cox said, adding that the agency is committed to “hearing local perspectives” on achieving groundwater stability.
While the OWRD appears ready to debate the competing proposals, the alternative plan has already met with skepticism from WaterWatch of Oregon, an environmental nonprofit closely involved in state water regulations.
From an initial review of the alternative proposal, the restrictions would offer “substantially less protection” and likely fail to comply with a state law meant to protect groundwater, said Lisa Brown, staff attorney for WaterWatch.
The alternative regulations seem to be “an 11th hour end run around the agency’s proposed rules,” which have been thoroughly vetted for more than two years, Brown said.
The OWRD’s rules already contain substantial concessions to irrigators and an “adaptive management” strategy under which restrictions can be eased if groundwater is stabilized with voluntary measures, she said.
“They already have a pathway to come up with alternative methods to meet required reductions,” Brown said.
Owens maintains that OWRD had long pledged a “partnership” with the local community but then pivoted to “go all-in” on a basin-wide regulatory approach, he said. “People in areas where the department originally proposed no regulation were completely blindsided.”
Specifically, the alternative plan would divide the basin into five sub-areas based, three of which would rely on voluntary reductions to decrease groundwater withdrawals by 10 percent over 15 years. Regulatory restrictions cut groundwater withdrawals by 30 to 54 percent in the remaining two sub-areas compared to 34 to 75 percent under the OWRD’s proposal.
Minimizing the loss of farmland acres in the Harney basin is critical, as the local “economy relies on agriculture” and the region is “also fairly isolated from other economic outputs,” the petition said.
Decreased agricultural production will directly correspond with job losses “not only on farms and ranches, but also in businesses that supply goods to them” and adversely affect “local shops, grocery stores, and restaurants,” the petition said.
“These proposed rule amendments would impose reasonable economic impacts by targeting and minimizing regulatory reductions and employing voluntary approaches, where appropriate, that allow for greater flexibility and adaptability in achieving substantive policy goals,” the petition said.
This article originally appeared in the Sept. 18, 2025, issue of the Capital Press.