Hanford Ranchers Challenge Power Company Water Rates
When the Pacific Power Company tried to hike rates to cover their own overhead, White Bluffs ranchers fought back with a fight over what an irrigation season is actually worth.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Surprising the power company by his thoroughness, M. M. Moulton, representing the ranchers and landowners in this valley, ably assisted by Lon Boyle, presented a remarkably strong case before the Public Service Commission at the hearing of the Hanford water case in Kennewick this week. Much of the evidence was of an expert nature. The Power company contended that the maintenance charge should be large enough to cover not only the operating expenses of the irrigation system and power plant, but also taxes, depreciation, and a fair return on the invested capital of $900,000, and that this entire charge should be placed against the 3,763 acres of land that their books show now to have a Hanford water right. This would bring the annual maintenance up to a trifle over $32 per acre. Mr. Moulton’s contention was that the maintenance charge should be whatever sum was necessary for the operation of an efficient system, apportioned equally over the 8,000 acres below the ditch that the system was built to water, taking into account also what the land could afford to pay. This, he figured, would amount to approximately $4 per acre for 48 acre-inches of water spread over an irrigation season of seven months.
“Mr. Moulton’s contention was that the maintenance charge should be whatever sum was necessary for the operation of an efficient system, apportioned equally over the 8,000 acres below the ditch.”
This 1918 dispute over water rights and the financial burden of infrastructure on local farmers remains a persistent tension in the semi-arid Columbia Basin. Today, the argument over whether service costs should be socialized across all benefited lands or borne strictly by current contract holders continues to define the region's agricultural policy.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.