Our Voice: Water rights rule needs adjusting now
Our state Legislature still has a lot of critical work to do.
Yet, after three extra sessions, lawmakers adjourned July 20 without settling two vital pieces of legislation: A $4 billion, two-year capital budget and a countermeasure to new, disastrous restrictions on rural water rights.
It took a select, bipartisan squad of lawmakers to negotiate a compromise on massive school funding reforms before they could approve an operating budget this year.
That same strategy ought to be used to settle this latest standoff between House Democrats and Senate Republicans. Then, once an agreement is reached, Gov. Jay Inslee should call lawmakers back to vote on both proposals. It would be a record-setting, fourth legislative session — but it would be worth it.
As it stands now, everything from school building projects to forest fire prevention, park maintenance, new infrastructure and the $65 million allocated for mental health facilities is all on hold.
That’s unacceptable.
The capital budget is not the sticking point in this scenario, however. It is, instead, being used as leverage in a last-ditch effort to get House Democrats to the table and negotiate a fix to a recent Supreme Court decision that essentially has brought rural economic development to a halt.
Two hundred years of Western water rights history was tossed away last October when the state Supreme Court ruled — in what is now commonly known as the Hirst decision — that counties, in compliance to the state Growth Management Act, must bear the burden of ensuring there is enough water available before new wells can be drilled, otherwise building permits cannot be issued.
We understand that too many wells could lead to a shortage of water, and we must protect the instream flow of creeks and streams. It makes sense to monitor and regulate our limited water supply.
But previously, the state Department of Ecology had that responsibility — and the system worked well enough. Hydrological studies are not cheap. The Yakima Herald reported that $10,000 to $20,000 is not an uncommon price tag.
Needless to say, the counties can’t afford that. The majority of land owners can’t either.
Without a water study, there can be no building permits and without building permits there can be no growth in rural areas — which seems to be the mission of environmental groups such as Futurewise, which was a plaintiff in the Hirst case.
State Sen. Judy Warnick, R-Moses Lake, crafted a bill that would have restored the law without hurting senior water rights, and while it passed in the Republican-led Senate, the House didn’t act on it.
House Democrats, instead, suggested a two-year delay to the new rule. But Warnick noted on her website that “no bank will be willing to lend money on property where no guaranteed source of water is available.”
So Senate Republicans didn’t take the offer, and they refused to approve the capital budget unless the water rights issue is worked out.
On his website, Rep. Joe Schmick, R-Colfax, said that in 2016 there were approximately 3,500 notices filed with the Department of Ecology reporting the intent to drill a residential well. Meanwhile, reports from King County officials indicate they expect to hook up more than 12,000 new rentals and single-family homes next year.
“I am frustrated that groups want to single out and attack rural homeowners for drilling a well and yet our urban cities are left unscathed,” he said.
This is particularly troubling because some of the urban hookups will draw from the same watersheds as those where the wells are needed.
This water rights conundrum caused by the Hirst decision needs to be sorted. On one side are rural property owners and on the other are tribes, environmental groups, municipalities and some farmers.
Schmick told the Herald Editorial Board that he “wouldn’t be surprised” if negotiations on the Hirst issue began soon. We hope his guess is right.
This story was originally published July 29, 2017 at 1:21 PM with the headline "Our Voice: Water rights rule needs adjusting now."