Legislative Deal Reached in Washington Water Dispute that Stalled New Construction

SEATTLE (AP) — Top state lawmakers have reached a deal on a rural water dispute that has held up approval of more than $4 billion in new school and other construction projects for months, officials said Thursday.

Rep. Larry Springer, a Kirkland Democrat, said that top Republican and Democratic leaders reached a negotiated agreement earlier this week on both the water dispute and the two-year capital budget.

House Minority Leader Dan Kristiansen, a Snohomish Republican, told TVW’s Inside Olympia that a deal was reached late Wednesday after a meeting with Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat.

The state Senate is scheduled to vote on the water bill and the capital budget Thursday night.

New money for local water and sewer projects, school construction, mental health facilities and other construction across the state have been on hold since lawmakers adjourned last year without approving the capital budget.

Republicans had insisted first on getting legislation to fix the so-called Hirst court decision. That 2016 state Supreme Court ruling effectively restricted new household wells in certain rural areas if they affect water kept in streams for fish or other senior water rights.

The negotiated deal would allow landowners in rural areas to tap household wells — more commonly known as permit-exempt wells — while newly formed local committees come up with longer-term mitigation plans for individual watersheds, said Springer, a key negotiator on the water issue.

The proposal also includes $300 million over the next 15 years for projects that improve stream flows and restore watersheds, Springer said. Examples include reconnecting floodplains, buying water or other improvements that offset potential water used by wells.

The deal would also allow counties to rely on the Department of Ecology’s water rules as they had before the Hirst decision. In its 6-3 ruling, the state’s high court said counties must make its own independent assessment of water availability before issuing building permits in certain areas. Many counties said they didn’t have the resources or expertise to do the kinds of studies that would have been required under the ruling.

Sen. Judy Warnick, a Moses Lake Republican, said last week when the Senate agriculture, water and natural resources committee passed Senate Bill 6091 — which attempts to fix Hirst — that the issue is simply about helping people who want a well for their home.

The Senate plans to take up an amended version of that bill, sponsored by Sen. Kevin Van De Wege, a Sequim Democrat.

Property owners have provided emotional testimony in Olympia, recounting how they spent thousands of dollars to prepare lots to build homes or to dig wells but weren’t able to get building permits.

Building, real estate and property rights groups and other critics said the court ruling resulted in staggering economic impacts in rural communities, from declining home values to stalled building.

Environmental groups and several tribes across the state maintained that the Hirst decision correctly required local governments to plan ahead so new water withdrawals don’t take way from water in streams or from those with senior water rights, including tribes, municipalities and farmers.

Under the proposal, Springer said that landowners who already began drilling wells would be grandfathered in.

And until new mitigation plans are put in place for specific watersheds, landowners who want to access a domestic well would pay a $500 fee to use a permit-exempt well. The amount of water they could withdraw would vary depending on the watershed basin.

People with wells in some areas would be allowed to take 950 gallons (3,600 liters) a day, while others would be allowed 3,000 gallons (11,400 liters) a day.

Related News

From Archive

• Most Read
• Most Commented