At the risk of 1) oversimplifying the issue and 2) not getting all of the nuances correct; I will try to explain some of the issue.
Washington State University has water rights to the aquifier underlying the University and the Golf Course. The Aquifier has been 'drawn down' over time suggesting over use. Water rights, as I understand, must be used or the holder of the right will lose them. Historically, I believe that the government wanted the rights used to spur development and thus grow commerce. That is why the laws are written the way they are.
Environmentalists, concerend with the draw down, think the golf course uses too much water. Although the course really only uses about half, as I understand, of what they are allowed. If the University gives up the rights no one knows who would get them or how much water they would use. While the environmentalists have an understandable concern, a new water rights holder might actually use their entire allotment.
So do you keep the known entity or do you, with all of the correct feelings end up with something worse? I believe the issue remains in the courts.
If someone has more information or a clarification I would welcome it.