By Mateusz Perkowski | Feb. 11, 2026 | Capital Press
Environmentalists oppose House Bill 4006 , which would allow irrigators who rely on three pipeline projects in Northeast Oregon to more flexibly manage the “color of water” drawn from the river.
Several environmental groups claim a bill meant to simplify government oversight of irrigation from the Columbia River will actually subvert water protections in Northeast Oregon.
“This bill exempts Umatilla irrigators from important laws, legalizes enlargement of water rights, upends years of cooperation, and sets a dangerous precedent for the state,” said Kimberley Priestley, senior policy analyst with WaterWatch of Oregon.
House Bill 4006 means to allow irrigators who rely on three pipeline projects in Northeast Oregon to more flexibly manage the “color of water” drawn from the river.
Water rights identified by various colors must currently be tracked individually by the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) as they are collectively distributed through the pipelines, which supporters of HB 4006 claim is unnecessarily burdensome.
Under HB 4006, OWRD would still regulate the total amount of water withdrawn from the river and applied to fields, but users would be able to exchange water with each other more freely within the regional distribution system.
Specifically, irrigators could shift among different points of diversion along a 50-mile stretch of the river and transfer water rights without formal approval from OWRD for each transaction. According to proponents, such exchanges will reduce groundwater pumping and generally improve efficiency.
“This flexibility allows water to be directed where it delivers the greatest benefit — housing, industry, agriculture, and infrastructure — while also continuing to operate within well-established environmental regulatory frameworks,” said David Stockdale, city manager of the City of Umatilla.
Supporters argue HB 4006 is solely focused on “modernized water management” and will not expand the amount of water consumed by irrigators, as the limits on their water rights will otherwise be unchanged.
“We don’t believe that this bill has any impact on existing terms and conditions for existing water rights, around measurement, reporting, or compliance,” said David Filippi, an attorney who supports the bill “We’re not increasing the total number of acres, we’re not increasing the overall rate, we’re not increasing the volume, and we’re not changing the season of use.”
But WaterWatch of Oregon and a coalition of 11 other environmental organizations are now disputing those claims, arguing the language of HB 4006 lacks key restrictions that will expand irrigation and undermine OWRD’s ability to block harmful transactions.
“If that is what they mean, those words should be in the bill,” Priestley said during a recent legislative hearing on HB 4006. “What this bill does is allow legal enlargement of water rights.”
For example, opponents say the bill only requires “no increase in the rate or season of use” but does not mention “acreage and duty limitations,” which will effectively allow for more land to be irrigated with river water.
In water rights law, “rate” refers to the flow through irrigation diversions while “duty” is the total volume withdrawn during the irrigation season.
Critics also argue that HB 4006 will prevent OWRD from reviewing water transfers to ensure they don’t injure senior water rights holders, allowing a select group of irrigators to bypass regulations by which others must abide.
Oregon already doesn’t require that water transfers be examined for environmental impacts — only for the effect on other water rights — and the bill would effectively expand this “loophole” in the region, according to opponents.
“This bill would mark a sea change by entirely exempting certain users in a specific place from even needing to run these things by the state,” said James Fraser, Oregon policy director for Trout Unlimited. “That takes our outdated and unfair water system backwards in time, not forward.”
Opponents allege these shortcomings won’t only affect water quantity but also water quantity, as increased irrigation will also cause more nitrates to seep into the region’s groundwater, which is already polluted with the nutrient.
“Nitrate is increasing in areas where irrigated agriculture is the only plausible source of contamination. There’s no septic tanks for miles,” said Kaleb Lay, policy and research director for Oregon Rural Action.
This article originally appeared in the Feb. 11, 2026, issue of Capital Press on Feb. 11, 2026.