2019 August - Ecology’s Eastern Regional Office in Spokane contacted Bob Greiff about irrigated ground south of Ridgeway Road. Mr. Greiff then contacted me and I advised him to conform his use to the water rights as they existed then, document his use for two years with power records and wheel line run times, then file water spreading applications with the water conservancy board, which he did.

2020-2021 – During this time Mr. Greiff uses water within the limits of his water rights for 37 acres on the northern part of the farm, and proves the use of each of his three water rights, by three independent, standard scientific methods: crop demand using climate station data, power records for his pumps, and run-times for his wheel line irrigation systems.

2022-02-23. I file three applications with the Board and they accept them for processing. Each is similar. Example – Application No. SPOK-22-03.

In support of the applications I provided information to the board including a May 23, 2022 technical memorandum documenting that statutory requirements were met for approval. Also including a legal opinion submitted August 4, 2022, from one of the state’s premier water right lawyers, to answer an issue raised by the Board. I then prepared detailed decision reports, in compliance with law to the Board’s specification, ready for signature.

2022-08-22. The Board approves all three applications for spreading onto the same 100 acres. Ecology then has a maximum 75 day review period. Under state law, if Ecology does nothing, the approvals are final and Mr. Greiff’s water right issue would have been solved.

2022-10-20. At this time the Board approvals are still within the 75 day maximum review period at Ecology. Herman Spangle, Ecology’s liaison to the Board, called me twice on this day. He informed me that both he and Jaime Short disagreed with the Board’s decision to increase all three water rights to apply their quantities to the same 100 acres. He told me it wasn’t true when I said Mr. Greiff was unaware about lack of water right coverage south of the road. This and other comments prompted me to write his supervisor the following day. In spite of that, I began working to answer Ecology’s every concern. This was to continue for nearly four months.

2022-11-08. I provide detailed answers to Ecology's requests for information in a supplemental technical memorandum.

2022-11-09. Ecology met with Board chair Kevin Freeman, still during its review period on the Board approvals.  When I asked Jaime Short for documentation of the meeting, she replied that there was none and that it was simply a discussion.

2022-11-10. Mr. Freeman asked me to meet with him which I did. He told me Ecology did not like how the approvals were done and would deny them.  He told me if the Board withdraws its approval decisions and resubmits them with amended decision reports, without overlapping the water rights, Ecology would approve of that. I agreed to attempt this approach.

2022-11-15. Spokane Board withdrew its approval decisions, stating in its decision “The Board intends to revise and resubmit for Ecology review...”

Comment: I spent the next three months trying to answer every question and issue that Ecology raised.

Term of art: ACQ (annual consumptive quantity) is an estimate of water use and calculation that Washington state law requires in order to increase the acres, or “spread” the water rights. It involves estimating actual water use for the prior five years, and averaging the annual use for the highest two. This average becomes the new annual limit of how much water can be used. The water rights are then re-issued with the new annual limit, and the requested increase in acres.

For example, for one of Mr. Greiff’s water rights, No. G3-01333C, I estimated his annual use, using standard methods, to be: 2017 (40 acre-feet), 2018 (29 acre-feet), 2019 (29 acre-feet), 2020 (48.7 ac-ft), and 2021 (73.5 ac-ft). The highest two years averaged: (48.7+73.5)/2 = 61 acre-feet. This same evaluation was done for all three rights, as shown in the technical memo.

2022-11-18. I was unaware at the time but public records show that Board chair Kevin Freeman asked Jaime Short for a “good” example of an ACQ determination “so I have a reference and then could educate myself and the Board when the withdrawn applications are re-submitted”. (emphasis added). Jaime Short says she’ll consult with Herman Spangle, Ecology’s liaison to the Boards.

2022-12-16. Jaime Short provides Kevin Freeman with [large file - 69MB] Ecology's ACQ example. It is from Walla Walla county and, notably, involves a water right that has no other overlapping water rights. The ACQ calculations [same large file] in the example use a crop demand water use estimate, which was the same as I used for Mr. Greiff. For Mr. Greiff, I provided two additional independent estimates of water use: electrical energy use by pumping equipment, and number of hours run-time for wheel line irrigation equipment.

Comment: Based on the example Ecology provided to the Board, my investigation and technical supporting materials for calculation of ACQ were on a par or at a higher standard than Ecology’s example. In addition, Ecology’s example did not include overlapping water rights, which I addressed.

2022-12-28. Jaime Short finally states in writing (bottom of page 1, linked document) the common knowledge fact that water rights can overlap. “Overlapping rights have been approved by the agency over time; there is no law prohibiting it. The challenge with this particular portfolio is the small number of acres authorized by each of the rights.” She also adds (middle of page 1) “...the Board will have to decide if it is reasonable and feasible to spread each of these rights to 112 acres”. [emphasis added]

Comment: Professionally, throughout this process, I tried to keep my tone even, with the goal for my client in mind.  Personally, however, my frustrations were at boiling, dealing with what was either deliberate obstruction, ignorance, or just a lack of serious engagement on the issues. Ecology’s own guidance document (page 13, Scenario 4) allows what we were asking, the only difference being two water rights instead of three. Even Mr. Greiff’s existing water rights overlap each other as originally approved, as shown on this map (see current rights shown on north part of farm).  Inexplicably, Jaime Short stated that Mr. Greiff’s situation was not the same (very bottom page 1) as Scenario 4 “Farmer Sam”. 

"The example you cited from Ecology’s Guidance 20-11-065 is not relevant as these three rights are not approved for the same number of acres. In this case Mr. Greiff is not ‘Farmer Sam’.”

That was clearly wrong, the example applies directly to Mr. Greiff's proposed spreading. Two water rights covering the same acres with additive quantities.  I responded here (page 1, my Item No. 4), here and again here.

It was beginning to seem as if there was nothing Mr. Greiff or I could do to satisfy the Eastern Regional Office of Ecology, short of just giving up farming.  Without the approvals, the farm was not economically sustainable.

2023-01-04. Still needing to get the approvals, and thinking I had finally achieved a breakthrough of in-writing admissions from Jaime Short, I submit amended applications. Bob wished to included an additional 12 acres for a total of 112 acres so I knew this was the opportune time, with the decisions withdrawn and, I was told, planned to be re-issued.

2023-01-26. Without including me or inviting me, Mr. Freeman sent an email to Ecology requesting technical assistance on the applications and “invites Ecology to our next schedule Board meeting on February 13, 2023 at 4:00 p.m. for the purpose of presenting to and educating the Board on calculation of ACQ [annual consumptive quantity], particularly as it relates to the applications under consideration.”

2023-01-30. Herman Spangle responds “Thank you for the opportunity to work with the Board on these applications for change/transfer. Jamie and I will attend your meeting on the 13th @ 4:00 pm to provide our knowledge of the Acq process. See you then. Herman”

2023-02-03. I send an email to Tony Kiepe with the Board for an address correction because of returned mail. He gives the address and doesn’t mention the February 13 meeting change from the regular schedule.

2023-02-06. After more than two months of extensive communications involving Ecology who kept raising issues, I submitted the proposed final approvals as revised “with hopes for decisions at the next board meeting.”

2023-02-07. Mr. Freeman forwards my work to Herman Spangle at Ecology with message “For your review and consideration as part of your review.”

2023-02-13. Still without informing me of their change in meeting date or their request for technical assistance to Ecology, the Board holds meeting. Meeting minutes reflect they opened discussion of technical assistance from Jaime Short and Herman Spangle. At the end of the discussion, Mr. Freeman makes the motion and they vote to decline any further processing of the Greiff applications.

2023-02-22. Still unaware of this devastating event, I email the Board asking whether the Board is ready to decide the decisions at its next regularly schedule meeting, 4th Monday Feb 27. I am informed for the first time of the Board’s February 13 meeting and decision.

2023-02-22. I request a place on the agenda for the upcoming meeting, and explain the impact. “Please help [the Greiffs]”, I wrote.

2023-02-24. I wrote to Jaime Short that I was asking the Board to reconsider but in meantime had an alternative approach for Ecology to consider: Mr. Greiff would enroll his existing rights in the state’s trust water rights program as protected instream flows, and Ecology would issue one new permit with no overlap, for 112 acres. The new permit would be offset by the instream flow rights.

Jaime Short was discouraging towards my alternative, though expressed willingness to discuss it. Then she began, again, to question the 112 acres (refer back to 2022-12-28 TIMELINE entry where she says it's the Board's call).  She states “We can certainly discuss the option you’ve described below but I don’t think it will achieve the results that Mr. Greiff is aiming for. The rights are simply too small to cover 112 acres of irrigation.”

2023-02-24. I continued trying to correct Ecology’s lack of understanding about Mr. Greiff’s farming practices, explaining that some acres may receive a minimal amount of water to establish, and the rest of the season can be farmed dryland. It was feasible for Mr. Greiff to irrigate 112 acres.

2023-02-24. I decided I needed to focus on Ecology, based on Ecology’s past influence over the Board, and because the Board would have to go through them in the end.  I wrote the Board stating “No need to respond [to my request to reconsider], I won’t take any more of the Board’s time.”

2023-02-25. The Board replied “We are happy to put you on the agenda for our March meeting. We do want to help the Griefs [sic] out and make sure they get the water they need. Tony”

2023-02-26. That reply struck me as painfully disingenuous. I gave a detailed reply “My previous email was intended to signal complete closure between my client and the board. The board’s reply message offering help is so contrary to what has transpired that I’ll respond once more...the board wasn’t required to give any reason, but chose to add prejudicial statements to its letter (‘significant issues’... ’would subsequently be denied by Ecology’). I don’t think my client could stand any more of that kind of help...”

2023-04-11. Having heard nothing from Ecology, who was now the only agency that could decide the applications, I mailed a letter to Jaime Short formally requesting Ecology to decide the changes.

2023. Instead of deciding the change applications, Ecology took enforcement action. I attempted to mediate the situation with Mr. Greiff, trying to find affordable flow metering solutions. There were reasons flow metering was unworkable.

The meter couldn’t go at the surface pump, due to pipe configuration, the physical setting in muck, the asbestos-cement piping materials, depth of pipe bury, lack of access to power except at the pump, all the practical realities including cost of maintenance that made Ecology’s requirement out of reach for Mr. Greiff. The water contained sediments and organics and would have interfered with meter accuracy and function. I did what I could and tried to communicate this to Ecology.

State regulations allow alternatives including power use reporting, and variances to flow metering when unduly burdensome, and Mr. Greiff was willing to submit annual power records. These were reasonable to apply under the circumstances and would have, again, fixed the problem.

2024-09-06. After holding the applications for nearly a year and a half without acting on them, instead of approving them, Ecology rejected them, leaving Mr. Greiff no path he could access, for approval on the south part of his farm.

2024-09-23, 6:30am. I took the situation up the ladder by emailing a letter to Ria Berns, state-wide Program Manager for Ecology’s Water Resources Program, explaining this, asking her to intervene.

2024-09-23, 3:40pm. Nine hours later that same day, Ria Berns replied with the same talking points as the Spokane regional office of Ecology. I knew she couldn’t possibly have taken the time needed to look into it, and I informed her so.

She had said “...we welcome resubmission of a change application to advance this conversation.”

Comment: The applications were still in Ecology’s possession to re-instate and decide. There was no reason to re-submit the applications, and doing so would have caused even more delays. I came to realization Ecology management was not going to question its staff and had little understandinng of the applications already in play. I realized it was pointless for me to try further.

2024-09-24. With extreme regret, I terminated my consulting relationship with Mr. Greiff, knowing there was nothing more I could do. My communication to Mr. Greiff included “...I wish you well and I absolutely hate what the Dept. of Ecology is doing. I regret I could not fix this. They are horrible.”

END TIMELINE. Last updated 2025-12-05.