OLYMPIA — Two Washington state senators Monday introduced a bill to make it clear that livestock can drink from creeks and to rein in the Department of Ecology’s interpretation of water law.

Senate Bill 5882 traces stockwater rights to territorial days, asserting that landowners have a historic right to divert small amounts of surface water for livestock.

The bill rebuffs Ecology’s position. The department in December sought to “clarify” that livestock owners must have a department-issued right to draw from surface waters.

“This is once again the Department of Ecology running amok,” said Oak Harbor Republican Ron Muzzall, who introduced the bill with Issaquah Democrat Mark Mullet.

“There are a lot of groups in the state of Washington that see this as a watershed moment,” Muzzall said.

An Ecology spokesman said the agency is reviewing the bill and has not taken a position.

At issue is Ecology’s policy on responding to reports of livestock drinking from creeks and other surface waters.

The current policy, adopted in 1994, encourages animal owners to divert water to get livestock out of creeks.

The proposed policy states that animal owners need a water right. Ecology points to a 1917 law requiring surface water to be appropriated for beneficial uses.

The department says it’s merely making clear what the law has been for more than a century.

Farm groups say Ecology’s policy revision amounts to a law change. Facing opposition, the department has put the policy on hold to engage in a “stockholder process.”

SB 5882 links stockwater rights to the 1862 Homestead Act and the Washington territorial legislature’s embrace that same year of the common law of England. The bill cites other court decisions and laws, including the 1917 law, to support the position.

Washington Cattlemen’s Association lobbyist Mark Streuli said Monday that SB 5882 affirms longstanding practice.

“We were never unclear,” he said. “If they (Ecology) need clarity, we think this bill does that.”

SB 5882 warns that Ecology’s proposed stockwater policy would trigger a “legal quagmire.”

“If this doesn’t get taken up in the Legislature, it will end up in the courts,” Muzzall said.

Some conservation district officials say the 1994 policy encouraged livestock owners to divert stockwater from creeks, improving water quality.

They warn that requiring a water right will discourage landowners from working with conservation districts.

The bill has been referred to the Senate Agriculture, Water and Natural Resources Committee. No hearing has been scheduled.