SALEM — Oregon farm organizations are leery of a bill that would buttress the state government’s authority to require irrigators to measure and report water use.

State regulators have been able to require irrigators to measure water use under certain circumstances for more than a century, but that authority is currently “fragmented” among various statutes, according to the Oregon Water Resources Department.

Those laws also contain “inconsistencies” regarding OWRD’s ability to enforce water measurement and reporting requirements, said Raquel Rancier, the agency’s deputy director.

House Bill 3419 would impose more uniformity on water measurement and reporting provisions and standardize the OWRD’s enforcement procedures, Rancier said during a recent legislative hearing.

By improving the agency’s ability to collect information, for example, the bill will help OWRD determine how much groundwater is available for additional irrigation, she said.

A coalition of conservation groups, the Oregon Water Partnership, is urging lawmakers to pass HB 3419 because “we can’t manage what we don’t measure,” said Caylin Barter, a representative of the group.

“Oregon lacks foundational data in order to make smart water-related decisions,” Barter said.

However, the proposal has been met with skepticism among agriculture groups, who say they’re uneasy about the associated costs for irrigators as well as the state government.

The Oregon Water Resources Congress, which represents irrigation districts, isn’t opposed to water reporting or more consistent procedures, but fears HB 3419 contains overly broad language that could have unintended consequences.

“It’s important that we have the people as well as the technology and structures to handle any additional data we get,” said April Snell, the group’s executive director, noting it’s unclear OWRD would have the resources to analyze the information.

The Oregon Farm Bureau supports science-based policies but worries the bill will create regulatory burdens and privacy concerns for irrigators without a commensurate benefit, said Ryan Krabill, government affairs manager for the group.

The proposal would require water measurement and reporting even in situations where there’s no conflict among water users, Krabill said. “We believe this to be an inefficient use of resources.”

While the OWRD considers the existing legal provisions for water measurement and reporting to be “scattered,” it’s likely that lawmakers purposely limited the agency’s power that way, said Sarah Liljefelt, an attorney and representative of the Oregon Cattlemen’s Association.

“I think that authority was drafted narrowly to address specific problems in certain areas,” Liljefelt said. “This bill is broad, wide, sweeping authority that’s kind of blanket authority, without specific needs in mind.”

Though the bill does call for the government to share the costs of measurement devices with irrigators, there’s no guarantee that money will actually be appropriated or disbursed, she said.

The Northeast Oregon Water Association, which represents irrigators in the region, understands the value of water measurement and reporting but is concerned such requirements can be “weaponized” by OWRD in disputes with water users, said J.R. Cook, the group’s founder.

WaterWatch of Oregon, an environmental group, countered that unlike similar proposals in the past, HB 3419 is not “prescriptive” as to measurement methods.

The proposal also doesn’t expand measurement and reporting requirements, but simply improves OWRD’s consistency and flexibility, said Kimberley Priestley, senior policy analyst for the organization. “There are no new mandates in this bill.”