A message from Representative Jim Buck

Here's a bit of good news from one of our legislators. We have their attention, and there is some disquiet in both the Washington House and Senate over what the Department of Ecology is doing with this rule-making process.

One of the more interesting things that Representative Buck is telling us here is that we have water rights, not water privileges. Because we have water rights, we have to each get up to speed on water law as much as we can, since Ecology is essentially attempting to convert our water rights into what we can think of as "water use privileges". When we feel that our water rights might come under threat as a result of what Ecology is doing to future water rights holders, we are pretty much individually obligated to protect those future landowners and their water rights. If we don't, then Ecology will be looking for ways to limit our water rights once they get those future water rights under their lock and key.

It's encouraging to hear that there is considerable opposition to Ecology's instream flow rule efforts in several other WRIAs. What needs to happen now is that we need to get to know the folks involved in that opposition in those other watersheds. We also need to talk to our neighbors about the instream flow rule-making process, and where it appears to be going.

Even though our more urbanized fellow citizens in town and those in other areas served by public water systems have an established water right that will not be directly affected by the instream flow rule, we need them to know how it will impact them. If Ecology is able to get this instream flow rule signed and into the Washington Administrative Code, its provisions will cause an artificial shortage of usable property in rural areas not served by public water systems.

Property prices for parcels with wells, whether homes are present yet or not, will go through the roof. Those properties that don't get to have wells will be virtually without value, except as open space. Home prices in town will also skyrocket. When home prices go up rapidly, so do property taxes. Not only that, but when the day comes that our children wish to return to the area to live, most of them will not be able to afford to purchase a home here.

Is that what we want?

So, lend an ear to what Jim Buck has to say. He's welcoming us to an effort that he's been working on for years. In order for legislation designed to curb Ecology's appetite for our water to be passed, there's going to have to be a lot of public participation in the legislative process. That means you, me, and all of the neighbors we can get involved. The Department of Ecology is not directly accountable to us, but our legislators are. We can gather together and strongly encourage them to assert a greater degree of direct control over the Department of Ecology.

Let's help them!

---

Thanks for what you are doing to get the word out about the WRIA 17 planning problems. Activities like yours are the only way legislators sympathetic to this cause can get the support they need to defeat this planning process in the coming session. Please rest assured that DOE does not have the full support of the legislature for what they are doing. In fact, I would say that there is bi-partisan opposition to their efforts on both sides of the dome.

Please remind everyone that this DOE effort is not my salmon recovery bill. We separated salmon recovery from watershed planning in 1998 to avoid fights over water rights just like this. Salmon recovery was HB2496 and watershed planning was HB2514. I warned the legislature at that time that anti-growth interests would use 2514 to do just what they are doing.

Now, I have been in this fight for 12 years. DOE has been trying to use a 1971 law to meter wells, hold up issuing water rights, do away with 6 pack systems and lower the number of gallons per day on existing water rights through rule change. I voted for HB2514 in 1998 because it required a public process at the watershed level before DOE could proceed with changes. This local public process is in line with my party's principle that local control is best. This is a good news bad news scenario. The bad news is this process has been going on for 5 years and most of the people who are most upset about the outcome were not involved in creating the plan. The good news is the current public outcry is a necessary and healthy part of the public process and is happening in many WRIAs all over the state. Hopefully, the public outcry will result in changes to the plans. It very definitely has the legislature's attention. Whether the D leadership in the house, senate and governor's mansion will do anything about it is another story.

One of the most important things I learned about salmon and legal language from the Boldt Decision was the difference between a right and a privilege. A right cannot be conditioned - - - a privilege can. We do not have water privileges. We have water rights. Our citizens need to make full use of the body of water law that protects them even if they have to go to court. They also have to make sure DOE fully complies with the administrative procedures act before implementing any rule changes. Republican legislative legal counsel will be monitoring that carefully. I will continue to support your effort. Its nice to have some support and attention from the public after 12 years of struggle.

Best wishes,

Jim Buck

We `did a lousy job' communicating on WRIA 17, Ecology official says

2005-09-28
by JEFF CHEW

PORT HADLOCK -- Following two poundings this month over a maligned and misunderstood proposal to manage water use in East Jefferson County, Department of Ecology officials on Tuesday said the state agency ``did a lousy job'' of communicating with the public.

``I think everybody in the department agrees that we didn't do a very good job of communicating the way we like to,'' said Phil Wiatrak, an environmental planner with Ecology.

He was addressing an audience of about 40 people packed into the Jefferson County Library conference room.

The audience was attending a meeting of the Water Resources Inventory Area 17 planning unit.

The basin stretches from Sequim Bay in Clallam County east through Jefferson County's Quimper Peninsula and south into Hood Canal, beyond Quilcene.

Rule adoption delayed

The lack of communication about the proposed WRIA 17 water management rule could delay its adoption for another six months, said Wiatrak, who works with the planning unit comprised of East Jefferson County representatives.

``You made us understand that we need to very well consider such an idea. We heard you,'' Wiatrak said.

He called the previous two public information forums in Port Hadlock and Port Townsend ``interesting and eye-opening.''

Ecology officials took harsh criticism from well drillers, fruit farmers and others attending the forums that each drew crowds of more than 100.

As a result of comments, questions and criticism, Wiatrak urged the WRIA 17 planning unit to make changes in the panel's makeup.

``I think we have a deficiency in the planning unit,'' said Wiatrak.

``And I encourage the planning unit to seriously discuss that you include someone from the (agriculture) community.''

Wiatrak also encouraged including real estate representatives in the discussion of water management in East Jefferson County.

A modest suggestion for solving instream flow challenges

The Department of Ecology is making a rule for instream flows in WRIA 17. That's no secret. They are under the impression that they need to include some severe restrictions on future water withdrawals, even though we are using only 4% of the almost 46 trillion gallons of annual recharge in the watershed. The restrictions aren't a secret either, but we thought you'd like to know just how much water we're talking about. (That figure does not include the surface water flowing into saltwater bodies, by the way.)

Salmon do, of course, deserve to have enough water available to be viable through their various freshwater life stages, and that's what the instream flow is supposed to be all about. Will restricting newcomers to watering only 1/12 (one-twelfth) of an acre and a maximum daily household use of 350 gallons do the trick? Not likely. If the instream flows are supposedly too low at critical times of the year now, and if current water rights aren't going to be affected, how will seizure of all unappropriated water in the watershed and strict rationing make things any better?

Now, it's one thing to voice our concerns about this, but that doesn't do much to really solve the perceived problem. We need a solution that will actually help make things better. What might that look like?

Since Ecology is the agency that wants to fix this so badly, perhaps Ecology should put together a real solution, rather than simply grabbing ownership of and control over our water resources? What a concept!

Ecology is willing to allow the Big Quilcene River and Chimacum Creek to remain open for water withdrawals for a few months a year. One of the purposes of this interruptible supply is storage. How about if the Department of Ecology builds a partnership with the Departments of Natural Resources and Fish and Wildlife to build reservoirs specifically for the purpose of managing instream flows throughout the year? If these folks are going to take the role of guardians of our fish populations, perhaps they should provide a real solution instead of putting the load on the backs of the people who want to live in this spectacular part of the world.

I know that one of the objections to this will be that the water would warm up, perhaps enough to be harmful to the fish. Since the water withdrawal from the water storage would be at the bottom of its lowest point, though, this should not be a significant issue, since the coolest water of the lake would be at the bottom.

Another objection would be the expense of building the reservoirs. So, what's so bad about asking the state to put its money where its mouth is? Shouldn't all of Washington's residents share the burden of protecting the fish instead of just the people who want to build a rural lifestyle in the county? If the reservoirs are built on the plentiful DNR lands we have here, the timber harvested to make room for the lakes would pay a large portion of the building and operations costs. The burden on the individual taxpayer would then be actually rather light.

There's no provision for doing this in state law, you say? Well, the legislature wrote and passed the law that's being used to take over WRIA 17's water now, right? So the legislature can pass the enabling legislation that would make it possible for Ecology and its partners to build and manage the infrastructure resources to play with instream flows to their hearts' content for generations of both fish and bureaucrats.

Worried about high operations and maintenance funding needs? Chances are those needs would be much lower than the funding needs to operate the huge corps of water cops Ecology will be needing to police their water use regimen once they get it put into place in all 62 WRIAs in the state.

Either we allow Ecology to move forward with seizing the unappropriated water and rationing it back to future users, or we push them toward a more useful and practical solution to the instream flow problem they believe exists. If they are so wise as to what our fish need flowing down our streams in any given month or two week period, then perhaps they should develop a solution that will actually reliably provide the exact flows, rather than leaving them to chance.

How about it? They're telling us they want our suggestions ... should this be the one we push?

Water opinions flow at DOE meeting (Port Townsend Leader article)

http://www.ptleader.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=13143

Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Water opinions flow at DOE meeting

There was a lot of applause at the Sept. 20 presentation on proposed new water rules, but it wasn't for the Washington Department of Ecology. DOE staff members were continually peppered with questions and challenges during meeting at Fort Worden State Park attended by more than 100 people, most of who were visibly frustrated.

Tuesday night's meeting was an informal presentation on Water Resource Area 17 (WRIA 17), which includes East Jefferson County and part of Clallam County. The rules don't affect existing water rights, but they do limit the availability of water for those seeking water rights in the future.

Dave Nazy, a DOE hydrogeologist, tried to give an overview of how the agency has analyzed the amount of groundwater and surface water available. People were as upset with DOE's underlying data methodology as with its recommended policies.

One of those challenging the methodology upon which DOE's methodology was Keith Winters, a well driller. He called DOE's theory of water continuity “junk science” as many of the 100 or more people in attendance nodded or muttered in agreement.

“Do you have any real data that demonstrates the impact of wells on streams?” asked John Garrett of Cape George.

“A lot of little things add up to a big thing,” Nazy said of the water supply and fish issues.

No one spoke up in favor of the proposed rules during the boisterous meeting, which lasted nearly three hours.

DOE had planned to release a draft rule on ground and surface water consumption for (WRIA 17) on Oct 5, but Sept. 20, DOE staff said that a final draft of the rule probably wouldn't be available for months. Some said that they wished DOE would go away and never come back.

Hedia Adelsman, a DOE senior policy analyst, recapped the history of the 1998 legislation that created 62 WRIAs in Washington.

“DOE was accused of not protecting fish enough,” said Adelsman, and the WRIA process allows local communities decide how to address the issue. Under the law, DOE has the power to set stream flows if the local WRIA group - typically comprised of stakeholders such as tribes, conservationists, agricultural interests and municipal water systems - cannot reach agreement on its own.

Adelsman talked of progress being made in Eastern Washington, where water storage and conservation measures are making more water available to cattleman. Similar solutions could be implemented in WIRA 17, she said.

“The reality is there's not enough water in many cases,” said Adelsman.

Legislator observations

Although the WRIA process was authorized by the Legislature in 1998, 24th District Representatives Jim Buck (R-Joyce) and Lynn Kessler (D-Hoquiam) both said recently that the Legislature would want to consider changes to the law if its implications are shown to be unreasonable.

“Everybody wanted to do something about salmon,” said Buck of the 1998 legislative session. “But I doubt very seriously,” he said, that the law would have passed if legislators had known the implications being seen today. “These people have a right to be upset.”

Kessler said the rules are going to have a “great impact” on both agriculture and development. And if the WRIA rule-making process hasn't been “broad enough and inclusive enough,” she said, the Legislature is more than likely to step in and fix the situation.

The draft DOE rule for WRIA 17 may be viewed on-line at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/quilsnowbasin.html

‘Open house’ on water rights is Sept. 20

By Barney Burke
Leader Staff Writer

Wednesday, September 14, 2005

The Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) has rented the USO Building at Fort Worden State Park to host what could be a large group of people interested in new rules that could affect future water rights in Jefferson County.

Although not a formal public hearing, the open house scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 20, is an opportunity to learn about in-stream flow rules scheduled to be filed in draft form Oct. 5.

“We may actually do some changes based on what we hear next Tuesday,” said Curt Hart, a DOE public information manager. In fact, he said DOE anticipates that the release of the draft rule might be delayed to allow revisions subsequent to next week’s meeting.

A public hearing will be scheduled within 30 days of Oct. 5 and there will be a public comment period of at least 60 days, said Hart.

Rule impacts

Watershed Resource Inventory Area 17 (WRIA 17) is the 22nd of 62 WRIAs in the state where DOE has released draft rules, said Hart. WRIA 17 includes most of East Jefferson County and a small part of Clallam County.

The purpose of the rule is to protect fish species by limiting withdrawal of water from critical streams and rivers. As drafted, the rule does not affect existing water rights or Jefferson County Public Utility District 1’s plans to pipe water from the Chimacum basin to Marrowstone Island.

According to DOE staff, the aggregate volume of water rights already issued in many of the basins in Jefferson County exceeds the amount of groundwater available (many of those who hold water rights to not fully use them). Under the draft rule, it is possible to transfer surplus water from some basins to others where a deficit exists, but only with DOE approval.

Among the areas that would be closed to new water rights under the rule is Marrowstone Island, where seawater intrusion has affected some wells.

“People on Marrowstone Island have done a pretty good job of managing,” said Hart of those practicing water conservation there. As to the PUD’s plans for the island, Hart said, “That’s actually a good thing. It’s a smart move – we encourage that.”

Hart noted that no new surface water rights have been granted in the Chimacum basin since 1946, and no new ground water rights have been issued there since the 1990s. The PUD has an existing water right that it intends to use for Marrowstone Island.

“We’re not talking about closing things down,” said Hart. “We’re talking about wise management.” Where the draft rules allow new water rights, they are to be used for domestic purposes. Outdoor watering with future rights is to be limited to 1/12th of an acre for a single residence. For group domestic water wells with seven to 14 connections, the combined total watering area may not exceed a half acre.

Many residents who attended a DOE presentation at the Jefferson County Planning Commission on Aug. 31 said they feared the rules would be the death knell for agriculture here. Others, however, said that with creeks drying up and fish species endangered, there needs to be a better system of balancing competing water demands.

State legislators

WRIA plans are being adopted and implemented as a result of legislation passed in 1998.

Rep. Lynn Kessler (D-Hoquiam) said this week that she has been following the issue. “It will have a great impact on development” and agriculture, she said. “We really need to hear from the people – not hysterics, but specifics.”

Asked if the Legislature might consider amending the legislation, Kessler said, “They might; they have in the past.” She also noted that Gov. Christine Gregoire “has been keen on getting agriculture and others the water they need.”

Rep. Jim Buck (R-Port Angeles) and Sen. Jim Hargrove (D-Hoquiam) could not be reached for comment.

A draft of the “in-stream flow rule” for the Quilcene-Snow Watershed Planning Unit (WRIA 17) that is scheduled for release on Oct. 5 may be viewed online at

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/quilsnowbasin.html

For more information on the proposed rule, contact Brian Walsh of DOE at 360-407-6647 or bwal461@ecy.wa.gov.

(Contact Barney Burke at bburke@ptleader.com.)

DOE to curb water rights

State's draft "WRIA" rules could limit development
By Barney Burke
Leader Staff Writer

The constraints of state and local land use regulations might seem like a drop in the bucket compared to new rules from the Washington Department of Ecology, which could make it more difficult to obtain new water rights in Jefferson County.

DOE is scheduled to issue draft rules on in-stream flows in the Quilcene-Snow WRIA (water resource inventory area, pronounced "why-raw") on Oct. 5 under legislation that was adopted in 1998.

according to DOE and Jefferson County Public Utility District 1, the rules would not prevent the PUD from piping water from the Chimacum basin to Marrowstone Island.

Also exempt from the rules are existing wells and any new wells drilled to replace failing wells, said Kathleen Enseñat, a DOE environmental planner. The City of Port Townsend's existing water rights are exempted as well.

The bad news for those who want to obtain water rights in the future is that DOE has concluded that five of the 16 basins the WRIA 17 (Quilcene-Snow) have a deficit of groundwater compared to expected demand through 2025.

The deficit basins are Chimacum, Marrowstone Island,Donovan, Johnson and Ludlow. Water can be transferred from areas with a surplus under certain conditions, said Enseñat.

Other ways to address the deficits include conservation and the development of storage facilities, such as the PUD's tentative plans to purchase Peterson Lake.

PUD resource manager Bill Graham estimated that in the Chimacum basin, the reserve amount of groundwater being allocated by DOE —— outside the PUD's service area —— would be entirely used up in three years based on the current pace of building permit activities.

Public Comment

Expressing more concerns than Graham were nearly 100 property owners who showed up for an Aug. 31 briefing on WRIA 17 at the meeting of the Jefferson County Planning Commission. Many of them hadn't heard of WRIA until they received an email last week from Judi Stewart, a fruit grower from Clallam County.

"What do we have to do to stop this one?" Richard Hild asked, sounding the tone for many.

"If you need more data [to refine the rules], why is this being rushed through?" asked Jim Hagen, chairman of the county planning commission.

"It leaves nothing for the fish —— and I'm a fish guy," said PUD Commissioner Wayne King.

Dennis Schultz, a kiwi farmer, was loudly applauded when he said the rules would "wipe out agriculture in this county."

Several people claimed that a lot of the problem comes from the City of Port Townsend and Port Townsend Paper Corp. dumping unused water into the bay. After the meeting, City of Port Townsend Water Resource Specialist Ian Jablonski tried to dispel that belief, affirming that the city and the mill draw only what is needed from the Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene rivers, which was about 11 million gallons a day last week.

"Water rights exceed available water," Enseñat tried to explain. She said the state has not been issuing new water rights for several years already because of the impact of low stream flows on salmon.

"So the basic citizen is being shafted?" replied Norm MacLeod. He and others said that the draft limits allow a ridiculously low amount of water, such as a residential garden allowed just 1/12 of an acre.

But at least one man stood up to say that he feels the problem is very real —— and significant. "Water is more important than oil," said John Pitts of Quilcene, who has seen streams in his area dry up in recent years and said he is concerned about declining snowpacks. "This is a finite resource; it does not expand."

Once the draft rules are published, there will be a public comment period and an opportunity to refine them, said Enseñat. However, "it's much more difficult to change after the rule is filed," she said.

Marrowstone Island

Meanwhile, water continues to be a contentious issue on Marrowstone Island, where the PUD is working on a new system to pipe water there.

Ray Harker, who has opposed the PUD project, said WRIA is a "pretty good" way of protecting everyone's rights. He also said he has no intention of using WRIA to thwart PUD's plans.

Harker said that his views have sometimes been misconstrued. "We [he and his wife, Mary] are not trying to stop the PUD from doing anything. We're trying to make sure they're doing it right."

Harker, who has lived on the island for eight years, said he's an environmentalist who's simply trying to protect the streams and salmon. That has "nothing to do with water on Marrowstone Island," he said. Harker sees himself as a steward of the land and said the issue is much broader than whether an island resident has enough water to flush his toilet all the time." It's about "protecting the environment," he said.

Dave Keeler, who has lived on the island for 20 years, said his well went bad about a month ago, and he's having water trucked in at 85 cents a gallon.

"It's frustrating," said Keeler, when you don't have enough water for your family and you have to wear dark clothing because the water stains it. He has erected a plywood sign on his Schwartz Road property to make his views known.

Keeler said he hasn't had a chance to read up on WRIA but is concerned about it based on what he knows so far.

Like Harker, Keeler said the Marrowstone water issue "has nothing to do with water." But in Keeler's view, the issue is "I'm here and you can't come here."

(Contact Barney Burke at bburke@ptleader.com)

WRIA 17 planning in Clallam County being handled by the Dungeness River Management Team

I learned about a different twist to this watershed management process today...and it's not something that the Department of Ecology people have gone out of their way to tell us about during their two most recent public meetings on the WRIA 17 instream flow process. Bear with me here...

Although we have been presented with the impression that the rule-making under way is for the entirety of WRIA 17, it seems that planning for part of WRIA 17 in Clallam County (JimmyComeLately, Bell Creek, and Johnson Creek sub-basins) is being handled by the Dungeness River Managment Team as the result of "...a Memorandum of Understanding between planning units..." You can learn a bit more about this at

• http://www.clallam.net/environment/imagemaps/sequim_bay.htm

You more commonly arrive at this page by clicking on WRIA 17 on Clallam County's interactive watershed map at:

• http://www.clallam.net/environment/imagemaps/watershed_map.htm
  

As we have been given to understand, the process being undertaken in setting instream flows for WRIA 17 is being handled on a watershed-wide basis. So this begs the question of why the planning is being handled for a portion of the WRIA by the team responsible for planning for WRIA 18?

As if things weren't confused enough through governing water use across county boundaries by defining the management unit as being the totality of the watershed identified as WRIA 17, they split off part of WRIA 17 in Clallam county and hand it over to the team responsible for planning for a completely different WRIA.

Does this mean that a WRIA 17 instream flow will apply to the entire WRIA, or will the above three sub-basins be exempted from the rule set for the rest of us? If we manage to blunt Ecology's thrust in WRIA 17, will a different instream flow rule in three of the sub-basins mean that all of our work would be for naught, or would any improvement we gain apply to those areas and be an exception for whatever happens in WRIA 18?

Or is this simply one more bit of information that points to a process that the Department of Ecology believes is a foregone conclusion that will be applied state-wide? That would speak to an incredible level of government overreach and arrogance that should not be allowed to continue.

After all, we as taxpayers provide the salaries of all Department of Ecology employees. That makes us their employers. Are you aware of any form of legitimate business where the employees are allowed to tell the employer what to do on pain of penalty? Perhaps it's time we, as the employer, take back our responsibility for close supervision and guidance of our runaway employees.

They're coming for your water

http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/05/09/04/100loc_water001.cfm

Water rights are property rights. If you don't believe this, then take a look at this article from today's Everett Herald, where Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 5, the Stillaguamish River Basin, now has a new instream flow rule, signed August 26, 2005.

The article sets off by saying that this is a controversial rule. Why might that be? Well, for all existing properties served by a well, the exempt water right allows you to draw 5,000 gallons of water a day for single residence domestic use. The new rule is aiming toward an average of 350 gallons a day for single residence domestic use for wells punched after the adoption of the rule.

The rule drew fire from WRIA 5 residents, but Ecology went ahead and did it anyway.

You are also limited to watering a lawn, or a garden, or a combination of the two, of no more than 1/12 of an acre. That's right, one-twelfth of an acre!

Not only that, but Ecology took all water not already allocated to water rights for itself, and will assert full control as a senior water rights holder over anyone needing to draw water from the watershed in the future. Landowners will be having to supplicate at the government alter for permission to have even the pittance of water that they will deign to allow the subject to use. Somehow, I don't think this is the position the Founders wanted government officials to have in respect to their citizen employers.

You should really become more informed about the WRIA instream flow process, because you live in one of those WRIAs, and this process is coming to you. The WRIA 5 process and final rule is available online at...

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/stillaguamishbasin.html

I live in WRIA 17, where the process is well under way, and I've been attending the public meetings. We're generating larger turnouts of mainly opposed landowners than the Ecology folks have anticipated. We've got people asking good, hard questions, and we are learning that Ecology is not playing with a full deck of science, and that the scientific process they are using would not gain a passing grade in a high school science class. They are attempting to make highly restrictive rules without adequate data to back up even the need for the rule, much less the restrictiveness they are seeking.

They've succeeded in WRIA 5, at least unless the PUD or County take them to court on the rule. We hope to see that happen soon...

Reserves are set for future development. Once the allocation to the reserve for a sub-basin has been reached, no additional well permits will be issued. This means that the Department of Ecology is using instream flow rules to limit development...limiting property rights...artificially limiting the ability of people to build homes...artificially driving up housing costs beyond their already astronomical levels.

The WRIA 17 process is online at...

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/quilsnowbasin.html

The Department of Ecology Instream Flow rule page is located at...

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/isfhm.html

The other WRIA processes currently under way are...

Entiat River Basin
Samish River Basin
Lower Columbia River Basin

Some of the WRIAs cross county lines. In establishing this form of cross-boundary jurisdiction over the water resource that every resident needs, the Department of Ecology is diminishing the powers of the county government in many respects where land use and permitting are involved.

Is that something we should stand still for? Is it better to have to petition the county or the Department of Ecology for property rights issues?

The Department of Ecology is only now gearing up for the instream flow process across the state. It's time for as many of us as possible to get involved and work these issues where we live.

The Herald - Everett, Wash. - www.HeraldNet.com
Published: Sunday, September 4, 2005

New rule limits water rights
Drawing of more water in the Stillaguamish River Valley will be granted only with an agreement to stop if the water level gets too low.

By Scott MorrisHerald Writer

Water is not an unlimited resource, even in a place as rainy as the Stillaguamish River Valley.

For new development, that means a new way of doing business.

That's the cautionary premise behind a controversial new rule written by the state Department of Ecology.

The rule sets minimum stream levels designed to keep enough water for fish, boaters, water quality and aesthetics in the Stilly during dry summers. Low flows result in dirtier water with less oxygen, which hurts threatened fish species.

The rule steers new farmers or new businesses away from applying for new water rights. Instead, it encourages them to find and purchase existing water rights.

New water rights for farms and industry will be granted only if they agree to shut off their spigots whenever the river gets too low.

In dry years such as this one, that could mean most of the summer.

Existing farms and businesses will not be affected.

That idea of an interruptible water right drew fire when the new rule was first proposed this year. State officials received more than 700 comments, many from farmers.

With agriculture already struggling, attracting new farmers is going to be nearly impossible if they can't get water in the summer when they need it most, said Hank Graafstra, owner of Country Charm Dairy in Arlington.

"This is the end of any dairy farms being in here," Graafstra said.

Not necessarily, said Ecology Department spokesman Curt Hart.

The department has records for about eight times more existing agricultural water rights and claims than are currently being used, Hart said.

New farmers can buy or arrange transfers of those water rights, he said.

The rule also sets a cap on the amount of groundwater that new rural homes can tap into with wells in the next 20 years.

That amount, 3.2 million gallons, would limit rural growth in the valley to about 9,000 homes, assuming an average daily use of 350 gallons.

"That's more than enough water to provide for 20 years of rural growth," Hart said. "But we don't pretend that this rule is going to provide for all future growth."

More homes could be permitted if water conservation measures are used, Hart said.
The Ecology Department will track how many building permit applications are turned in to Snohomish and Skagit counties' planners, Hart said.

For Graafstra, it seems a shame to watch the steady rains of winter wash out to sea and then face drying trickles in the summer.

"To me, we're going to have to retain some of the water in the wintertime," Graafstra said.

That's actually an option Arlington is considering. The city is scrambling to line up enough water to meet its projected growth goals of as many as 30,000 people in the next 20 years. The city has more than 15,000 people now.

Arlington gets two-thirds of its water from wells at the city-run airport, said Mike Wolanek, a city water-quality specialist. The rest comes from Spada Lake in a deal with Everett and the Snohomish County PUD.

At its projected growth rate, the city could need additional water sources as early as 2011. So the new rule concerns the city's water planners.

While the city will pursue purchases of more Spada Lake water and other existing water rights closer to home in the Stilly valley, it is also looking into capturing winter's excess flows.

To store the water, the city is exploring pumping it back into the ground near its airport wells, said Bill Blake, Arlington's natural resources coordinator.

"I think we can do that up and down the valley in a few areas if we do this right," Blake said. "The rule might cause people some problems, but it's also a reality check. The good part is we're talking about it now instead of when there's a crisis."

Reporter Scott Morris: 425-339-3292 or smorris@ heraldnet.com.

For more information

New farmers who want to know from whom they can purchase or transfer existing water rights can call the state Department of Ecology at 425-649-7270.

To read the new rule, visit www.ecy.wa.gov.