MOSES LAKE — If you can’t beat the law, then change it.

That’s what the Moses Lake Irrigation and Rehabilitation District (MLIRD) is trying to do in response to a 2020 ruling from then-Grant County Superior Court Judge David Estudillo stating the district could no longer levy assessments under the irrigation portion of state law because the district had no way of providing irrigation water to anyone.

Bill Bailey, president of the MLIRD board of directors, said the district has asked local legislators to amend the law and put the irrigation and rehabilitation district solely under the jurisdiction of the law creating it. Currently, the MLIRD is governed by two separate sets of state code.

“This will take the confusion away from the assessment methodology,” said Bailey.

At the heart of the dispute are two sections of state code — one governing irrigation districts, and a second, later law governing irrigation and rehabilitation districts.

Irrigation districts provide water to customers and in exchange levy a small assessment on property owners within the district. Irrigation and rehabilitation districts, however, also regulate and protect a body of water for recreation purposes, such as fishing and boating.

According to Bailey, the second law was passed in 1962 specifically for the Moses Lake Irrigation District to become an irrigation and rehabilitation district, something he said residents at the time wanted in order to better manage the lake.

“We’re the only I and R (irrigation and rehabilitation) district in the state,” Bailey said. “The legislation was crafted with Moses Lake in mind.”

Under the 1962 law, an irrigation district is allowed to become a rehabilitation district as well if it contains “the major portion of an inland navigable body of water” and has yearly rights to 50,000 acre feet from that body of water. At the time, only the Moses Lake Irrigation District fit that description.

An irrigation and rehabilitation district is allowed to levy up to 25 cents per $1,000 in value on property within the district, according to state law, whereas the irrigation district statute only says districts may charge “reasonable” rates or assess a levy — or both — on landowners to help pay for water distribution.

While the irrigation and rehabilitation district section of the law gives them all the powers of irrigation districts, Estudillo found the MLIRD provided no legal justification for the portion of its levy above 25 cents, and ruled the MLIRD had no power to levy under the irrigation district portion of law.

“We don’t actually deliver water, which all other irrigation systems do,” Bailey said.

While the MLIRD is in talks with the city of Moses Lake to use a portion of the 50,000 acre feet of lake water in which it has rights to provide water to a proposed city irrigation system for lawns and parks, Bailey also said the MLIRD seeks to change the current law so the district’s functions come entirely under the 1962 act, as opposed to both irrigation statutes.

“An irrigation and rehabilitation district is a different entity from an irrigation district,” Bailey said.

Bailey did not give any details about what specific changes the MLIRD is seeking. However, Rep. Tom Dent, R-Moses Lake, said the legislation is unlikely to pass this year because legislators have a lot to do during this year’s very short session.

“A group of us are talking about it, but the proposal came really late, at the very beginning of the session,” Dent said. “It needed to be in by late November, early December.”

Dent said he has been able to review a draft change to the law, but legislators likely won’t have time to get to it this session.

“We’re swamped this year,” Dent said.

The MLIRD did not impose the 25-cent levy in 2021 or in 2022, and Bailey said the district has enough in reserves to pay its bills.

“We talked with all our representatives on multiple occasions, and we’re waiting for a final change in the proposal,” Bailey said. “I hope it’s done this year.”