August – October 2010
(10/04/2010) Please note: Feedback is no longer being accepted for this question. Thank you to all that participated. The responses we received are available below. You can also continue to provide comments or contact us at forum@ecy.wa.gov.
September 27 – October 3
THE ISSUE
The “permit-exempt” well provision of Washington state’s 1945 Groundwater Code was also known as the homestead exemption because it allowed a rural homeowner to dig a water well for personal use without obtaining a water right permit, provided the homeowner limited water use to 5,000 gallons per day (gpd) for in-house use and a sufficient amount for a half acre lawn and garden.
While these wells have supported rural development and housing for decades in many parts of the state, they have contributed to a depletion of the groundwater in those watersheds where rapid population growth is occurring.
Typical rural water use ranges from 200 to 500 gpd for in-house use but because Ecology has no authority to reduce the 5,000 gpd limit, the agency has only one tool to reduce the proliferation of permit-exempt wells in water short basins: close the entire basin to new groundwater withdrawals.
Learn more >> Groundwater Permit Exemption
YOUR FEEDBACK
In your comments, please answer the following question:
The answer is NO. I have read all of the replys, and it is evident that a wide variety of opinions are presented, however I did not see a lot of emphasis on
Ecology’s “SCIENCE”, I know that some of the data gathered from local watersheds/river-flows etc.are
based on “high water” winter run-off rather than an average year yearly flow. I have been personally informed that the water usage levels for WRIA 18
have low summer levels factored in the equation.
So what gives, it appears to me that the same folks who are touting the glories of the Elwah dam removal
project and the harebrained “salmon” restoration programs being perpetrated, are also using the same sciecne to obsfucate what is presented to the public.
It is neccessary to validate EVERY STUDY, AND VERIFY THE RESULTS.IF PROJECT HAS BEEN COMPLETED CHECK IT’S SUCCESS OR FAILURE.YOU WILL FIND FAR MORE FAILURES THAN VIABLE,LIVABLE, AFFORDABLE SOLUTIONS.
Why not revise that whole section to finally clarify what a reasonable permit exemption ought to be instead of trying to develop different levels for different watersheds? The issue isn’t whether small scale domestic users have to forgoe watering the lawn it’s “exemption stacking” where the State ends up with a whole host of different intrepretations of what is exempt.
Because that would make sense. Are there any lawmakers that can do this?
Exempt wells comprise approximately 1% of water use in this state and much of this use is recharged back into the aquifer via septic systems. Why is all this energy and effort expended on such a miniscule portion of water use? Do the arguments to expand not elected, unaccoutable DOE’s authority to make water law and give them a ‘user fee’revenue stream nuts or what?
Two words, Easterday Ranches.
Ecology has mis-handled water usage in this state for years. It is ridiculous that DOE can ignore Water Right applications for years and get away with it. If they are given any more power, it will be more of the same. Keep the law making powers in the Legislature where the voters have some control.
DOE keeps ignoring the fact that the Permit Exempt well is the lifeblood of the small farmer. As a small market farmer, I depend on my well to irrigate. It limits my size, but it at least allowed me to start farming. I have been waiting for a Water Right for 13 years and will probably die of old age before DOE looks at it. I agree that we need better data on how these wells are used. But, no one trusts DOE to meter and not later start charging us for the water. Our local Watershed Rule (WRIA17) has stopped any new small farms from starting up. This is the beginning of the end of our local Farmer’s Market as the current vendors start dropping out. Most small vendors only last a few years in the market and there is a steady turnover of new vendors.
Remember a typical Permit Well user irrigating a small farm only irrigates during the summer, and then not every day. He may only use 2-300,00 gallons if he runs at 5,000 gpd and a large percentage is returnrd to the ground. 12″ of rainfall on a 5 acre plot, amounts to over 1.6 million gallons. The arguement is used, that a lot of irrigation water is evaporated – compare this to the evapotranspiration rate of 5 acres of Douglas Firs. A good argument can be made for clearing our forests to ‘save’ the water.
I firmly believe that we should realistically manage our water. DOE has shown that they are incapable of doing this. They just write restrictive rules.
A water management plan should consider:
How much water we have and where it is located
How much is available for use
How it is currently used and who has claims on the water
The interaction between users
When and where water is needed
Future requirements
And, water use should be under local control, not DOE.
Absolutely not!! The drive to take everything away from the hands of individuals and place the resources under control of the government is completely backward to the premise of our government: limited governmental rights given to the government by the people. Since Ecology isn’t even an elected group and doesn’t seem to have any oversight, I emphatically do not want this to happen.
Absolutely not! The law gives exempt wells 5000 gal/day. Unless that law is changed, it should stand. Ecology is an unelected, unaccountable agency, and the rules made are most often based on computer modeling, which can be tweaked to reach predetermined outcomes. This issue is about control, not shortage of water. Most people are careful with water consumption already. There’s no need to oversee and micromanage peoples’ lives; it goes against both our US Constitution and our State Constitution’s principles.
After recently talking to a DOE employee this idea sounds ridiculous. DOE is incapable of monitoring or enforcing water rights on the largest users. Why would they even propose the ridiculous idea of pretending to regulate the smallest users which there are probably a million of.
The exemption was created because relatively smart people realized the smallest users or uses could NEVER be managed. If we had smart people in the legislature today, they could easily solve this problem by creating a new “domestic” exemption that guarantees someone gets x amount of water for “living” purposes. This new exemption could be written to be free of the bastardized water code. Now people could go back to their constitutional right of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Then you can let those that are flood irrigating hundreds of acres fight amongst themselves. Not keep people from having a home.
No to DOE. Yes to the lawmakers.
The need to monitor and meter water use is an issue that affects everyone. Call them overburdened, spread thin, or lazy if you will, but the Deparment of Ecology has the responsibility to serve the best interest of the public and the environment and maintain open public forums for all of thier policy making issues. Widespread use of exempt wells is a problem in many areas and developers can easily utilize those antiquated regulations to their advantage, which can result in large impacts to existing wells. I agree with some of the comments here that existing exempt wells should have grandfathered use in perpetuity, but construction of new wells should be more closely regulated. Ecology should have the authority to reduce withdrawals in basins where flows and levels have reached a critical minimum threshold. This is consistent with the methods and authority of agencies in other states, precidents have already be set across the country.
In a state where often many areas are underwater in the rainy season,you would think that ecology would store water for use in times of need. The last thing this society needs is more regulation from degreed people that have little care about local problems. Marv is right: water issues are best dealt with at the local level. For the 20+ years I have followed the antics of ecology the one thing that is clear is that their people(experts) come and go and retire but we the people must live with their poorly crafted policies.Bob, Sequim
One size does not fit all. Water control and distribution should be controlled locally – not by an arrogant, sometimes stupid bureaucracy from Olympia. Ecology’s agenda goes way beyond what the agency was set up for and is a danger to all rural citizens of this state. I agree that laws should be made by the legislature.
Marv
Whoever put Water Resources in Ecology made a huge mistake. Other states don’t do it this way.
Leaving resource allocation up to politicians is a horrible and inequitable idea. Resource allocation should be left to market driven forces. The problems you see in the Water Resources program start at the top of our government.
It seems as though the Municipalities are tripping over themseves on the way to the bank while letting existing residents down, they should have grandfathered wells and moratoriums on building new residences. Its the old money talks and existing public trust don’t matter.Your elected officials at work for you.Yes, when a shark bites down, its closes its eyes.Just sayin…
ABSOLUTELY NOT! Agencies staffed by unelected officials who are not responsible to voters having rule making authority is unconstitutional, and dangerous.
With the ability to make rules comes, enforcement authority which is necessarily followed by police power. Such an idea could go in the wrong direction fast, followed by the need for more funding to support new divisions of regulation, enforcement and more.
This topic should be put to rest quickly.
The LEGISLATURE should be mature enough to admit that 5000 gpd was not carefully determined in 1945 to be the amount needed for the uses listed (single in-house plus garden, etc.) and so the LEGISLATURE should amend that number itself! The 1945 water code should be updated so that its vagueness, resulting in loopholes, cannot be manipulated for unintended benefits (or the most obvious ones at minimum).
Agree with Progressive totally. What do people think of a 5K a day in Arizona. Way to much and DOH can advise on the needs for a family.
Amend the entire statute and reclassify exemptions….and amounts to each class.
Finally, the best thing we can do now is require ALL wells to have meters. Make all pay over 8 years or something.
If Ecology can’t regulate exempt wells, who will? The people writing in so far all seem to live in areas where there is an ample water supply. The situation in Okanogan county is far different. Most of the county receives only 10 to 15″ of rainfall a year. During drought years, of which there are many, the groundwater supply is often exhausted and wells, springs and streams go dry. Yet the county is a prime target for large developers who mis-use the exempt well statute to get their projects veted.
Many watersheds are already over-approprited with water rights, and the senior water rights users are being shorted when large residential/recreational developments move into their watershed. From personal experience I have seen what can happen when a developer is allowed to drill a series of exempt wells for a subdivision with no consideration of how this will affect neighboring farms and residences. The county planning dept. ignores Ecology’s requirement that large subdivisions require water rights, and unless the neighbors take it to court there is no way they can prevail in this county. If the counties regulated the exempt well rule, Ecology might not need to institute a rule, but in this case that is not happening.
If the conditions are that dire (I have not doubt) then the Basins you speak of should have long since been closed to new appropriations, and that does include exempt wells.
I’m from a similar basis (over appropriated and then some by the mid 20th century) and overage of 15″ of rain. Yet inexplicably, Ecology drafted rules to allow the continued use of exempt wells in dense zoning. And we have a housing surplus to boot and a low (1%) growth rate.
Makes no sense.
No, it doesnt make sense. Did anyone protest or fight it?
Ecology does seem to buckle to political pressure…and the county commissioners buckle to the developers!…so unless there is a lot of citizen group noise, or actual lawsuits they will go the easy route, in this case allowing exempt wells where there shouldnt be.
NO..NO…NO and if it does happen…all prior wells and existing dwellings better be grandfathered!!!!!
I totally agree that Ecology already has way too much power. Law makers are accountable to their constituants but Ecology can do what they please. People should have the rights to water crops and livestock or just a small lawn. We need to retain the up to 5,000 per day exemption that we already have.
I suspect the proposed rule making authority above would be a far greater burden on Ecology than it would be a welcome addition to the agency toolbox. As others have pointed out, if there is not sufficient water to allow additional consumptive uses, then the basin should be closed to further appropriation — including disallowing new permit exempt withdrawals. Any other discretionary department action not specifically prescribed by the legislature is likely to escalate the intensity of legal challenges along with increasing the general level of political discord and distrust.
There is a basic fairness issue at work here, having to do with equal treatment under the law — think of the possibility — various basins around the state with different and changeable permit exempt amounts. Any and all differences in hydrologic analysis, administrative process, local financial resources, and area influential personalities could become issues in the ensuing skirmishes.
Other problems can also be forseen, such as how to treat those who can document or give reliable evidence that their daily exempt usage has been perfected at a greater amount than that allowed under any reduced volume limits? How about those who cannot? Or should only new wells be limited to the lesser amounts? And how could Ecology be expected to equitably enforce the lower limits?
I believe the authority to limit permit exempt withdrawals should remain with the Legislature, and the Legislature should do so. At a minimum I suggest they give Ecology authority to designate an intermediate permit-exempt level where a consistent designated quantity — perhaps 350 gpd — would be available for new *household* use. The legislature could direct Ecology to implement this restriction immediately for the many closed and partially closed basins around the state.
I realize this isn’t a likely event, so this additional suggestion is even less likely to come to pass, but here goes: The legislature could also tackle the uncertainty around the various uses associated with the permit exemption, and clarify their intent that 5000gpd be the combined total exemption for all uses specified in RCW 90.44.050 — as alluded to in RCW 90.44.105:
“The amount of the water to be added to the holder’s permit or certificate upon discontinuance of the exempt well shall be the average withdrawal from the well, in gallons per day, for the most recent five-year period preceding the date of the application, except that the amount shall not be less than eight hundred gallons per day for each residential connection or such alternative minimum amount as may be established by the department in consultation with the department of health, *and shall not exceed five thousand gallons per day*.”
No. In the drainage basins that I am familiar with, the supposed “exhaustion” is an artifact of their scientifically invalid models and studies and the instream flow rules that they based upon them.
In addition, WRIA 18, (that is the Dungeness Valley on the North Olympic Peninsula) was not satisfied with merely an exhaustion of “paper water” but advocated programs that depleted the groundwater resources and, then, used that to foster the false perception among the public that the groundwater was being depleted by domestic overuse. The cause of these changes is more likely found in the replacement of irrigation ditches with pipes and the shift to more efficient irrigation methods. These programs, which they advocated, reduced the infusion of water into the upper unconfined aquifer and eliminated most of the tail-water. The result was that the groundwater level dropped, some domestic wells went dry, and some small streams and wetlands dried-up. However, domestic wells usually tend to raise the water level in the upper unconfined aquifer and, at rural densities, domestic uses of the land consume less water per acre than irrigated farmland. The problem was not agricultural irrigation but the Department’s programs for “improving” their methods of irrigation.
Furthermore, domestic wells are too important to rural life for them to be governed by agency rule-making. But even if that were not the case, we should consider the Department’s track-record for rule-making before enlarging their authority. — In every WRIA in which I participated, they or the local agencies who were collaborating with they, attempted to set the minimum instream flows at more than the average natural flows. The worst case was the Sammish River, for which they attempted to set it at approximately ten-times the average natural flow. — They have a record of making unreasonable rules, even absurd rules.
In conclusion, the Department of Ecology’s rule-making authority should not be enlarged, until they start doing valid science, stop creating environment problems that provide a justification for their continued existence and funding, and start writing reasonable rules. But, even when they have demonstrated that they have made these changes, domestic-wells are too important an issue to be dealt with by agency rule-making.
I don’t believe so. Ecology already has the statutory authority to close a basin if water resources are close to depletion. Albeit, the 5,000 gpd exemption is generous for most residential uses, but amending the quantity of groundwater withdrawal would be a slippery slope. At what point would the general public begin to suffer under the curtailment? How would Ecology monitor it? I say no.
No. To second other comments, rulemaking authority lies with the legislature. Most people would agree that Washington Water law needs to be changed; however, those changes should be executed by the legislature. Permit exempt wells recieve a large amount of attention; however, they are a very, very small percentage of the water withdrawn for beneficial use. If there truly is no water available in a basin, it should be closed. The small percentage of water saved by going from 5,000 gpd to some lesser amount is not an appropriate focus. Also, my understanding is that when Ecology considers the amount of water available, they assume that every exempt well uses 5,000 gpd. Average exempt well use is far below 5,000 gpd. Exempt well analysis should also include re-charge from exempt wells, if it does not do so already. A more logical and scientific approach to “troubled” basins would be to look at the largest water users (on a percentage basis) first, as well as the accuracy and validity of the in-stream flows that have been set. Trying to limit exempt wells in a given basin is not a scientific approach when these uses are, I believe, just 1-2% of the water use problem.
If what you say is true, that’s even more cause to not expand DoE rule making powers. If they use 5000gpd to estimate appropriation, then say (as in the local basin rule) that nobody uses more than 1250gpd, which one is accurate? In fact here (WW) I believe that the 1250gpd INCLUDED outdoor use, but the rule they drafted with these limits forbid outdoor use without purchased mitigated water rights. Additionally they never codified in the rule how much water you had to “buy.”
Seems the DoE has issues deciding what numbers to use. Or worse, simeply uses the ones that suit the situation rather than implementing a comprehensive approach.
I also agree about use. If the 1250gpd use is acrate, you’d need exempt wells every few feet to make much of an impact, especially if the law is changed to prevent a dairy from drilling an exempt well and pumping 360AF/yr. But that is a legislative fix.
Nope. Close the basin to new wells if it’s over appropriated (ecology has that authority). Allowing smaller amounts doesn’t help if there is already not enough water. Create banks/use trusts to store water for future consumptive uses. Ecology seems to have all of the needed tools to handle this issue.
In any event, if there is a change needed to the exempt well statute, then new limits should be set by the legislature and should apply to ALL new exempt wells in the state.
This is a big enough deal, and could have such wide ranging impacts, that it should not be left up to a single state agency (no new rule making powers).
Absolutely not! Laws should be made by lawmakers, not by Ecology. If the waters in a region are truly “close to exhaustion,” and not just on paper, or by surmise, then, Ecology has a duty to close that basin to new wells, unless “new,” “wet” water can be found, through mitigation or purchase. Ecology has not proven, in many areas, that individual wells are harming streams and rivers. Yet, they say that they are. Ecology already has more than enough power. People should be allowed (as in the WA Groundwater Code) to use their in-house water, and to provide stock water, and to water up to 1/2 acre of garden, lawn, or orchard, as long as that watering doesn’t harm senior water rights. We need to retain the up to 5,000 gallon/day exemption that we already have.