Senate committee tackles in-stream flow issue

Bill would set parameters for long-term water use, conservation

By KELLY BOSTIAN
In 2018 when a water conservation concept called “in-stream flow” hit the desk of Sen. David Bullard, R-Durant, he was confused.
His first year in office, “I didn’t even know what it was,” he said.
Four years later he’s passionate about it and, since he’s still trying to define it, he’s asking Oklahomans for their help.
“I’m going to run a bill again,” he said. “No question.”
While western states face long-term drought and water shortages, Oklahoma suffers from what appears to be a lack of scientific knowledge about what its aquifers actually hold and the state lacks parameters to manage what exists with certainty for the long term.
“What I figured out in four years of arguing this is we try to do the whole thing in one shot and it makes everybody really nervous,” Bullard said. “What I’m looking for is I want to set the goalpost and then let’s start working from there.”
Complicated and esoteric as it might be, Oklahoma is the only state without a statute that guides the parameters for in-stream flow. It’s known in other states by various names, including minimum flow, required flow, or sustainable flow. A day will come when residents wonder why it wasn’t defined earlier, before a disaster hits Oklahoma too, he said.

Starting from scratch

Despite past legislative efforts that have been stymied by confusion and uncertainty, on Monday Bullard started over again with an interim study in front of the Senate Energy Committee.
Eight presenters offered their views on the subject after Bullard led them off.
“What I found that became the biggest issue that I faced with in-stream flow is what is it?” he said. “I think a lot of people have different looks at it. They have different understandings of it. Everybody has a different definition of what that means, in-stream flow.”
What it means to people in urban areas differs from rural areas and concerns in the panhandle are very different from the southeast, he said.
The breadth of possible views showed early in the 2 ½-hour meeting as Howard (Bud) Ground, president of the Environmental Federation of Oklahoma, first said Oklahoma struggles to define the issue because it does not exist. Millions of gallons of water flow through the state annually and only a small fraction is permitted for use, he said.
He posed that there is no shortage of water, just issues with distribution and timing.
Making changes to water rights, permitting and distribution is fraught with dangerous steps that could quickly cause unnecessary shortages and cost billions, he said.
“Unless you’re trying to fix a problem, all you’re going to do is create more problems,” he said.
Among the eight presenters, he was alone in that stance.
Mike Fuhr, Oklahoma state director for The Nature Conservancy, said examples are plentiful of states facing water issues because they lacked legal frameworks with the tools for communities to address them outside the courts.
“Search Google and you’ll see countless examples,” he said.
He recalled a time he visited Georgia when drought conditions landed Atlanta residents in a spot where residents faced having only a 32-day water supply.

One size doesn’t fit all

“It was water for people versus an endangered sturgeon in the river system and they had not planned for that,” he said. “I want to be proactive so we don’t get into the situation where it’s us versus the fish. We don’t want to be in that situation,” he said.
University of Oklahoma researcher Russell Dougherty, speaking to studies of freshwater mussels and water in the Kiamichi River, echoed Fuhr’s sentiment and made clear that in-stream flow is not just about water quality and quantity for wildlife and recreation.
“In-stream flow is typically thought of as something that protects the environment, but that’s only one small piece of in-stream flows,” he said. “When we talk about in-stream flows in the scientific community, and I think also in the broader community, what we’re talking about is protecting all of the needs in the basin. That includes consumptive and non-consumptive uses of water, private property rights, and domestic riparian rights… It’s more about protecting people and the natural environment.”
Other presenters included the representatives of the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Conservation Coalition of Oklahoma, Choctaw Nation, and Oklahomans for Responsible Water Policy.
Most focused on a need to define in-stream flow as a tool to set priorities for water use and conservation that would be adaptable to the wide variety of situations Oklahoma regions might face.
A one-size-fits-all statewide edict is not possible, but a set standard that can guide hard decisions to the satisfaction of the wide variety of stakeholders involved, no matter the location, could be developed, Fuhr said.
“It needs to be an integrated approach where we look at all the components,” he said. “Success comes from having as many people sitting at the table as possible to get it done.”
Ethan Schuth, Choctaw Nation senior water resource manager, said water supply and water rights issues face difficult politics with international, national, state, local and non-profit organizations all approaching the situation with different definitions of sustainability and different worries about what is detrimental.
“They all differ to some extent, but the main point behind all of them is to make sure there is water available for future generations and that what you do currently does not impede future utilization,” he said.
Asked by the committee who it is that decides what is detrimental, Schuth put a pin in why the definition is needed. The state legislature sets the parameters and agencies like the Oklahoma Water Resources Board put the tools to work, he said.