Family Farmer Advocate Ben Tindall: Washington’s Water Fight Puts Farmers in the Crosshairs
- Dave Price
- 56 minutes ago
- 3 min read
Water has always been life in agriculture. In Washington state, it’s also become a source of tension for some family farmers.
From expanding stream buffers to changing interpretations of long-standing water rights, growers across the state say they are fighting a wave of regulations that threaten productive farmland and create uncertainty for future generations.
“Right now, we actually just had a call with some of my colleagues about the (Washington) Department of Ecology and some of the over-regulation when it comes to the management of natural resources, in particular water,” Ben Tindall, Executive Director of Save Family Farming told American Farmland Owner from his office in Olympia, Washington.
His organization -- which advocates for family farmers and serves as a communication bridge between agriculture and those who don’t work in agriculture – is concerned that water regulations aren’t just a matter of policy.
Save Family Farming believes that they could further challenge the future of farming for some families in the Pacific Northwest.
Ben Tindall bio:
Save Family Farming – Executive Director
Washington Farm Bureau – Former Governmental Affairs Outreach Director/Policy & Member Specialist
Washington State House of Representatives – Former legislative assistant
Cove House Emergency Homeless Shelter – Former executive director
According to Tindall, one of the biggest issues involves proposed expansions of riparian buffers, the strips of land near waterways where farming activity is restricted or prohibited.
What are riparian buffers?
“There have been a number of bills, pieces of legislation over the past several years that are looking at buffers and riparian buffers around streams and waterways,” he said. “In essence, looking to increase those buffers.”
Supporters argue the expanded setbacks are necessary to protect fish habitat, particularly salmon populations that are deeply tied to Washington’s ecology and Native American tribal history. But Tindall said many farmers believe the proposals are moving far beyond what science supports.
“We would argue that they’re not relying on the best science and the data,” Tindall said. “They’re looking more on what we would see as arbitrary numbers.”
Water restrictions for farmland
The practical impact, he said, is the steady removal of workable farmland from production.
“Each legislative session, we keep seeing new legislation, new bills that are coming, or new rules coming out of ecology that are pushing for larger buffers around streams,” he said.
Tindall pointed to situations where buffers could stretch hundreds of feet from waterways.
“Smaller 20- to 30-foot buffers, those have value to protecting fish habitat,” he said. “But when we go into 200, 250 feet of buffer, really, it exponentially has little to no effect. And yet, we have these excessively large buffers that are taking away productive farmland.”
For farmers already battling rising costs, labor shortages, inflation, and weather volatility, losing acres can quickly change the economics of an operation.
Water rights rules for agriculture
The frustration extends beyond buffers. Tindall said farmers are increasingly worried about how state agencies interpret water rights rules.
“We also have the agency, the Department of Ecology, that is punishing farms that are spreading water,” he said.
He described situations where growers hold valid water rights but are using that water across multiple parcels connected to the same farming operation.
“In their mind, we have this set of water that we can use,” Tindall explained. “But Ecology is kind of changing the rules a bit, reinterpreting the rules.”
That uncertainty, he said, creates fear throughout agriculture because water access is foundational to land values and farm viability.
“We’re pushing back, saying that you don’t have the right to come in and reinterpret the law simply based on what a new administration wants,” he said.
Regulatory overreach concerns in agriculture
Tindall believes many of these disputes reflect a broader pattern of regulatory overreach.
“We’re seeing over and over that an agency is willing to, if you give them an inch, they’ll run that mile until they’re held accountable,” he said.
At the center of the debate is a difficult balancing act between environmental protection and food production. Tindall acknowledged the importance of protecting salmon and waterways.
“Fish and salmon in particular have been historically a huge part of our ecology,” he said. “They need to be valued and respected.”
But he believes policymakers are often creating a false choice between agriculture and environmental stewardship.
“In our perspective, really, this is just the state government prioritizing an interest over food and farm production,” he said.
