Pending legislation in the Washington legislature could impact the future of private domestic water wells and have an even wider reach by limiting growth in terms of housing and economic development.
State lawmakers are considering legislation in response to a 2016 Washington State Supreme Court decision known as the Hirst Ruling that deals with issuing permits for new domestic water wells. The ruling said those wishing to drill household wells need to show they will not disrupt ground water levels or instream flows that could impact fish before issuing well permits.
The court ruling has caused confusion as each county is being forced to come up with its own system of predicting impacts to water supplies. Before the decision, counties relied on information from the Washington State Department of Ecology.
Passage of the bill during the last legislative session was held up as it was tied to the state’s capital budget, and with Republicans holding the majority of seats neither issue was resolved. When the legislature reconvened on Jan. 8, the landscape changed as Democrats now hold the majority 52-48 in the House and 25-24 in the Senate, however passing laws may still be stifled as a 60 percent majority vote is needed.
Supporters of overturning Hirst include the Washington Farm Bureau (WFB) and the Washington Cattlemen’s Association (WCA).
Evan Sheffels, WFB assistant director of government relations and a lobbyist for WCA explained the court ruling stemmed from a challenge to the Whatcom County decision governing growth management. Although the decision applied to one county, Sheffels said the language was overly broad and other counties are concerned that it will soon apply in their areas. The proposed legislation would answer questions and provide more clarification before additional obstacles arise.
He explained that while the court decision does not directly impact agricultural wells it does impact rural communities.
Sheffels told WLJ that the agricultural groups are following the matter. “Agriculture is involved because we need to build homes for our workers and we need to build homes for our kids and grandkids, so they can come home to farm, and now there is no way to get a building permit in many parts of the state.” He added, “We think if we can’t get a legislative solution out, farm families and workers won’t have access to domestic water supplies in rural areas.”
Additional concerns for the ag community come from potential limits on economic growth opportunities. Sheffels said, “Just because growth isn’t happening doesn’t mean tax revenues or property tax revenues go down. Counties still have their expenses and it just means there will be a property tax shift onto folks that are left there to pay for it.”
The ag groups, Sheffels said, are not opposed to a capital budget, but the water issue is important to the state as well. “We have our work cut out for us to explain to urban legislators in our state why it is important for them that we have viable farms and ranches … All we’re trying to do is to grow their food.” He concluded, “It’s a challenge but we do have some important members (of the legislature) that have farm and ranching backgrounds and they can help us make the case to our urban friends.”
At press time a new bill to address Hirst was being discussed in the Senate Agriculture, Water, Natural Resources and Parks Committee. — Rae Price, WLJ editor
