HB 3111 and Oregon's Columbia River Water Laws: What Each One Actually Did

House Bill 3111 comes up often in eastern Oregon water conversations, frequently in the same breath as Columbia River water. The two are related in practice, because both shaped where irrigation water lands around Hermiston and Boardman. In law they are separate. HB 3111 is a 1989 statute about irrigation district maps. The Columbia River supply effort runs through a different set of bills, rules and a 1988 act of Congress.

We checked the statutes and legislative records before writing this. Below is what each law did, and where the record is thinner than people assume.

What HB 3111 actually is

The Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) identifies ORS 541.325 to 541.333 as "House Bill 3111." It said so most recently in an August 2026 notice about a remapping petition from the Burnt River Irrigation District. The statute's history notes show it was enacted in 1989 (Oregon Laws 1989, chapter 1000) and amended in 1993 (chapter 818).

The problem it solved was a paperwork gap. Over decades, water inside irrigation districts moved around. Fields came out of production, others went in, and district records of who used water where drifted away from the state's certificates. Changing a certificate normally means an individual transfer, with a map from a certified water right examiner for each change. For a whole district, that is slow and expensive.

HB 3111 created a district-wide shortcut. Its core provisions:

• Who qualifies. A "district" means one organized under ORS chapters 545, 547, 552, 553 or 554, or an irrigation association formed before 1917.
• The petition. A district may petition the Water Resources Commission to approve a map showing the location and use of water rights within all or part of the district. The district certifies the map; a certified water right examiner is not required.
• The ceiling. The petition and map may not expand the water right of the district or its users beyond the district's total right of record.
• The result. If approved, OWRD cancels the old certificate and issues a new one matching the map, retaining the original priority date.
• Protests. Any affected user may file a protest within 60 days after first publication of the proposed order. Unresolved protests go to a contested case hearing.
• Deadlines. Participation was limited to districts and users who notified the department by July 1, 1993, and petitions were generally due by July 1, 1994. A later amendment carved out an exception for the Walla Walla River Irrigation District, with a June 30, 2010, petition date.

The statute also let landowners in a single quarter-quarter section who agreed on how water was used there file one joint application to bring OWRD records in line, without the usual fees.

Is it still used?

Yes, for districts that got into the process in time. OWRD's August 19, 2026, draft order for the Burnt River Irrigation District found the district met the requirements of ORS 541.325 to 541.333 and proposed confirming present use on 17,905.81 acres of irrigation and 19,951.82 acres of supplemental irrigation, among other uses. The scope of any protest is limited by statute to two questions: whether the district met the petition requirements, and whether the changes would injure existing rights.

What HB 3111 did not do is bring new water. Nothing in it touches the Columbia River.

The Columbia River side: federal first

The first big step toward Columbia River water for Umatilla Basin irrigators was federal. The Umatilla Basin Project Act of October 28, 1988 (Public Law 100-557) authorized Phase I and Phase II water exchange facilities. The Bureau of Reclamation lists their purposes as mitigating losses to anadromous fish and continuing water service to irrigation districts. Columbia River water replaces Umatilla River water that the West Extension, Hermiston and Stanfield districts leave in the river. That exchange is described in detail in our guide to irrigation in the Umatilla Basin.

Oregon's "mitigation" rules for new Columbia River use

New state permits to divert from the Columbia face a separate test. OWRD's Upper Columbia rules (OAR 690-033-0115 to -0140) apply to applications filed after July 17, 1992, above Bonneville Dam, in basins including the Umatilla, John Day and Deschutes and on the Columbia mainstem itself.

To be considered consistent with the regional Fish and Wildlife Program, an applicant must show, among other conditions, that the use:

• does not take direct streamflow from April 15 through September 30, except under listed exemptions;
• does not take hydraulically connected groundwater with potential for substantial interference during that period, other than artificially recharged water;
• meets fish screening, water quality and measurement requirements.

If a use does not meet those standards, the applicant may propose mitigation, and the director decides whether the use with mitigation is consistent. OWRD consults the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, NOAA Fisheries, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, tribes and local governments. This is the legal frame behind the term "Columbia River mitigation" in local water debates: summer withdrawals generally need to be offset.

The state bills, year by year

Bill	Session	Status	What it did
SB 602	2007	Stayed in Senate committee	Would have directed OWRD to plan new Columbia River Basin storage and a supply inventory
SB 1069	2008 special	Chapter 13	Grants for conservation, reuse and storage studies; Umatilla Basin regional aquifer recovery assessment; requests to Reclamation on the Umatilla Basin Project
HB 3369	2009	Chapter 907	Loan and grant process for Columbia River Basin water projects; Water Investment Grant Fund; grants for Umatilla critical groundwater storage projects
SB 839	2013	Chapter 784	Water Supply Development Account; net environmental benefit rules for Umatilla critical groundwater storage; repealed the temporary Columbia River grant provisions from July 1, 2015
HB 2819	2019	Stayed in House committee	Would have created a pilot trading conserved Columbia River water for reduced groundwater pumping

SB 1069 (2008)

Passed in the February 2008 special session, SB 1069 set up a statewide grant program for feasibility studies of conservation, reuse and storage, and directed OWRD to conduct a Umatilla Basin regional aquifer recovery assessment. A 2021 presentation by regional water groups to an Oregon House committee described the bill as authorizing $750,000 for a feasibility study of the Umatilla Basin Aquifer Restoration Project.

HB 3369 (2009)

HB 3369 created a process for OWRD to lend or grant money for water development projects in the Columbia River Basin, established a Water Investment Grant Fund for a Columbia River Basin grant program, and authorized grants for a critical groundwater storage project in the Umatilla Basin meeting set conditions. The legislative staff summary adds that it directed OWRD, with DEQ and ODFW, to develop an Integrated Water Resources Strategy, updated every five years.

SB 839 (2013)

SB 839 replaced the Columbia-specific grant fund with a statewide Water Supply Development Account for loans and grants. It set net environmental public benefit requirements for critical groundwater storage projects in the Umatilla Basin and directed the Water Resources Commission to adopt rules for seasonally varying flows by January 1, 2015.

CRUST and the regional pipelines

Outside the statute books, Governor John Kitzhaber convened the Columbia River-Umatilla Solutions Taskforce (CRUST). Its agreement was announced on February 15, 2013. WaterWatch of Oregon, often a critic of new Columbia withdrawals, called it a menu of balanced options that could add water for Umatilla farmers without harming flows for salmon.

According to the 2021 legislative presentation by the Northeast Oregon Water Association, follow-up legislation in 2013 (SB 846) failed, and the legislature approved $11 million for regional Columbia River supply projects in 2015. Landowners formed a district structure and a Mid-Columbia Water Commission to hold mitigation water rights and collect dues. The presenters reported that two regional pipelines were completed in 2020 and that, by their count, local parties had paid most of the roughly $116 million in capital costs. Those figures come from project proponents and were not independently audited in the sources we found.

What we could not verify

Because the two topics travel together, it is easy to assume HB 3111 was a Columbia River bill. We found no statutory language supporting that reading. The remapping law moved existing rights inside district boundaries. Columbia River supply came from the 1988 federal exchange, state-issued permits under the Division 33 rules, and the funding bills above. We also could not confirm from primary records which individual Umatilla Basin districts completed a 3111 remap, or when, so we have left those dates out.

If you hold land in an irrigation district and want to know whether it was remapped, the district office and the local OWRD watermaster are the places to ask.