15-SLVR-03822-RobertaFlack-WebAd-770x150.jpg

The Gristle

Water at the Boiling Point
  • Google+

WATER AT THE BOILING POINT: Just as Lake Whatcom reservoir topped our list of stories for 2013, we predict the larger issues of water supply and water rights may top the list for 2014, as a number of streams flow together into a deeper, murkier channel.

In October, the state Supreme Court found the Dept. of Ecology does not have the authority to reallocate water for new beneficial uses when the requirements for appropriating water for these new uses cannot be met. The case stems from the agency’s 2001 instream flow (IFS) rule, which established minimum instream flow requirements for the Skagit River Basin. The 2001 rule prohibits water for new uses when stream flows fall below the minimums established by the rule. Skagit County argued that the rule effectively precludes new development that requires a year round water supply—like residences. Indeed.

Persuaded by arguments of the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, the Supreme Court ruled that Ecology was not justified in reallocating water that is already subject to a minimum-flow requirement based upon a limited cost benefit analysis alone.

“We concluded,” justices ruled, “that a minimum-flow water right is not a limited right, but rather a ‘minimum flow is an appropriation subject to the same protection from subsequent appropriators as other water rights.’”

The significance of the ruling is multifold. First, it is consistent with (and therefore strengthens) other recent court rulings at the state and federal level that find a non-consumptive use of water is, itself, a beneficial use, necessary for fish and habitat. This has been the position of the tribes, including Nooksack and Lummi nations, as they have sought to quantify this non-consumptive use; and it is increasingly clear the courts find these arguments compelling. Additionally, the ruling limits the authority of Ecology to determine and prioritize the public interests served through the allocation of water. The court rejected a view that prioritizes rural residential wells as more beneficial than other uses—literally, the very exemption for so-called exempt wells.

“Under the balancing test, the need for potable water for rural homes is virtually assured of prevailing over environmental values,” the court commented. “But the [state’s] Water Resources Act of 1971 explicitly contemplates the value of instream resources for future populations.”

In December, Ecology awarded Skagit County a $1 million grant to find solutions to improve public water systems in response to the Supreme Court’s finding on the IFS rule. The award is one of 14 around the state, totaling $7.9 million, designed to kickstart more comprehensive regional planning for water­sheds and water basins.

Also in December—as if to slyly slip in a decision still under the control of an outgoing Whatcom County Council majority and an unrepentant, un-reorganized Whatcom County Planning Commission—the county attempted an update of the rural element of its comprehensive plan pertaining to water resource allocation. Laughably, given the scope and complexity of the issues, the planning commission limited its discussion to half an hour.

In June, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) found the county had failed—miserably—to plan growth in areas served by adequate water supply, reaffirming the board’s rejection of the rural element of the county’s plan. The county appealed the board’s ruling, with another hearing on the issues scheduled later this month.

The board noted the limits of DOE’s ability to regulate and protect water resources, observing, “Ecology provides technical assistance and model regulations, but county land use plans and regulations are necessary to assure protection of rural character, including water resource protection.” The board emphasized, “It is local government—and not Ecology—that is responsible to make the decision on water adequacy as part of its land use decision and, in particular, with respect to exempt wells.”

However, the board also cautioned, “The Supreme Court made clear that where Ecology has administratively by adoption of rules closed a surface water body, as in much of Whatcom County, and an applicant intends to rely on a new withdrawal from a hydraulically connected groundwater body, new water is no longer legally available for appropriation and the [development] application must be denied.” The board’s citation anticipated the court’s ruling on the Skagit IFS.

While it rains a lot here and water seems abundant, water is not captured and tends to scour through creek beds in heavy weather events. Ground­water is sufficiently close to the surface that it is vulnerable to surface contaminants. Reduced snowpack and increased urbanization serve to worsen the capacity of the landscape to hold and carry abundant clean water. Sure, call it a conspiracy;  but it is conspiracy borne more of natural systems and cycles than by United Nations agendas.

A 2012 Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission report indicates that 77 percent of recent rural wells in Whatcom County have been been installed in basins closed either seasonally or year round to withdrawals. Tellingly, a similar percentage of county wells also suffer water quality issues typical as a result of reduced groundwater flows.

The rulings of state courts and boards all tend to flow in a particular direction, and not one favorable to the unfettered rights and access of residential well owners in the county’s over-subscribed basins: Ecology can prohibit but cannot prescribe; and counties must lead and may not defer in their coordination of water supply with growth demand. And while it is quite clear no one, at any level, wishes to take away the access of heartland homeowners to their well water, the preeminence of their claims amid a constellation of other competing claims is no longer assumed and unquestioned.

Skagit got a million bucks to wrestle with these problems in 2014. The money won’t stretch far, but Whatcom should watch where it goes and why.


blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Past Columns

May 12, 2015

LOCKED ROOM MYSTERY: With many moving parts still poorly described, the jail initiative continues to be curiously unready for approval by voters.

Whatcom County Council pledged to lock themselves in… more »

May 5, 2015

DOUBLE-JOINTED, PART DEUX: Bellingham City Council recently sat through two joint meetings with other governmental entities. The first, as we noted last week, was the stakeholders that form the Joint… more »

April 28, 2015

DOUBLE-JOINTED, STILL CLUMSY: Bellingham City Council sat through two joint meetings with other governmental entities last week. The first convened the annual meeting of the Joint Councils responsible for the… more »

April 21, 2015

THE JUSTICIABILITY OF JAIL: More than 150 people packed the Whatcom County Council chambers last week to learn more about a sales tax initiative that would finance the construction of… more »

April 14, 2015

TAXATION AND REPRESENTATION:

All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.
—Washington State Constitution Article One, Section… more »

April 7, 2015

NO GET OUT OF JAIL FREE CARD: Whatcom County Council appears uneager to rush a $104 million sales tax initiative in support of a $122.5 million jail and Sheriff’s complex… more »

March 31, 2015

’HAMSTER CAGE: They hugged each other with such fierce, rapturous joy you’d think they’d been granted clemency and released from prison; and perhaps, in a sense, they had. For almost… more »

March 24, 2015

GUT CHECK: “To the winners go the spoils,” Sam Crawford observed, after a rightward lurch in election results in 2009 allowed him—as council president and in control of their process… more »

March 17, 2015

YOUR GERRYMANDERED FUTURE: Marking the midpoint of their regular legislative session in Olympia, representatives of the 42nd District held a town hall meeting at Whatcom Community College last week. The… more »

Cascadia Weekly

Home | Views | | Archives | Advertising | Contact | RSS

© 1998-2015 Cascadia Newspaper Company LLC | P.O. Box 2833, Bellingham WA 98227-2833 | (360) 647-8200