If you enjoy the content you find here, please consider donating to support our continued efforts to bring you the best news and opinion articles we can. We hope you like the recent update to NWCitizen, and look forward to bringing you more insight into local politics and issues in 2017.

Support NWCitizen Not Now

Cover StoryArticles

The Human Right to Water

It is time for the state of Washington to adopt legislation acknowledging the human right to water.

The Hirst Decision has created an impenetrable roadblock for rural property owners who want to build a home in remote parts of Whatcom County and do not have access to municipal or non-municipal water systems. Since the Hirst Decision became the law of the land, Whatcom County has determined that new homes dependent on a well as the primary source of water must be evaluated by a state-approved hydro-geologist, before a building permit application can be submitted. If Whatcom County Planning and Development Services has questions about the validity of the evaluation, it can request a second evaluation from an independent hydro-geologist of its own choosing. Naturally, the permit applicant has to pay for both studies.

As a case in point, last February, the owner a piece of property on Vedder Mountain submitted an application for a building permit. The applicant’s hydro-geologist determined the proposed well was in a small basin that is considered endorheic—a topographically closed basin. This means the basin retains water but the water leaves the basin via evaporation and seepage, it does not flow out to other ground or surface water bodies. A second consultant, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., retained by the planning department to conduct an independent review of the permit applicant’s evaluation, told the county, “It is clear that the Camassia report does not provide the information necessary to evaluate if the use of the proposed well will have an impact on nearby regulated surface waters or impair other nearby senior water rights.” Mr. Lindsay, the author of the Associated Earth Science evaluation states, “…it should also be noted that the currently accepted regulatory standard with regard to impacts to a regulated surface water body is one molecule.”

Washington State Department of Ecology insists it must consider even the most “miniscule impacts of a new water right application, before approving a new water right.” This interpretation, which is defined as the “one molecule” standard, establishes that de minimis impacts constitute impairment, whether or not they are observable or significant. Adoption of this standard means Ecology must deny all applications that appear to have a negative effect on ground water, surface water and instream flows. Because of these impractical standards, Whatcom County’s new rule forcing hopeful property owners to submit a very expensive hydrogeology evaluation of a proposed well should be labeled “mission impossible.”

The county knows they don’t have the groundwater data needed to conduct a review of building permit or subdivision permit applications. Further, it is obvious to anyone who follows Whatcom County Council meetings that they are not one step closer to finding a reasonable or rational solution to this problem. Since implementing the initial Emergency Moratorium on exempt wells, they have done nothing.

In order to bring a measure of common sense to state water policy and law, our government must first acknowledge the human right to water. Unfortunately, neither state nor local government can fix this problem until the governor and state legislature admit our current piecemeal water policies are a major contributing factor to this stalemate. We have created a deadlocked public policy that disproportionally impacts hundreds of thousands of state residents who are living in poverty and/or in unincorporated areas that lack access to public water and sewer systems.

It is time for the state of Washington to adopt legislation that formally recognizes the human right to water. Yes, we love our salmon, the Salish Sea, our breathtaking wilderness and meandering rivers. It is the unique beauty of this area that brought our ancestors—and subsequently several million transplants—here to build their homes and businesses.

But to blame declining salmon populations solely on low instream flows is ignorant. As someone who has studied and worked on water issues at both the state and local level for more than two decades, I can assure readers that the decline and Ecological Society of America listing of wild Nooksack Chinook salmon and other fin fish is the result of a complex web of environmental sources, not just seasonal low-flow instream flows. In part, recovery hinges on providing adequate instream flows, including supplementation when necessary, to help ensure fish habitat. We have always had low flow periods during summer and fall, yet somehow, the fish have survived and managed to get upstream to spawn. Do we abandon ongoing efforts to restore salmon habitat? Of course not. But studies published by Lummi Nation, the Nooksack Tribe, NOAA, Whatcom County, The Pacific Salmon Commission, and others indicate that up to 90% of salmon mortality happens in Puget Sound and the Straits of Georgia.

I grew up in unincorporated Whatcom County and was brought up to cherish our forests, beaches, tidelands and wildlands. My father built our home on property he purchased in the 1950s, complete with a well and septic tank. We were taught to use water responsibly and avoid putting anything into the septic tank that would interfere with its normal operation. Eventually, my father become a Water District Commissioner and, with the help of our neighbors, set up a water district to provide water for our rural enclave. Having grown up here, I want to protect our resources just as much as Eric Hirst, Wendy Harris, Jean Melious and David Stalheim. But I want to protect our resources without destroying our traditional rural economy or uprooting families who have called unincorporated Whatcom County home for generations.

In 2012, the state of California adopted AB 685, becoming one of the first states in America to recognize the human right to water. AB 685 guarantees California residents, regardless of color, immigration status, gender, level of income, remote rural location or state of homelessness, the right to safe, affordable water without discrimination. The new law specifically requires state agencies to consider the human right to water in all public policy, rule making, programming and budgetary activities. For more information, please see, The Human Right to Water Bill in California An Implementation Framework for State Agencies. The Implementation Framework helps state agencies with the fulfillment of the law’s requirements by requiring them to prioritize water for personal and domestic use.

California now enjoys, through these new laws, a comprehensive understanding of the water challenges facing the state. The public finally has the tools it needs to begin the hard work of finding real, sustainable solutions to the thorny issues of water quality, supply, and quantity. They no longer need to sacrifice or torment their rural or economically disadvantaged citizens in order to accomplish those goals. Since implementing this law, human rights standards define the substantive criteria agencies must consider prior to implementing new programs and rules.

Whatcom County is not California. We are blessed with an abundance of renewable water resources. Most years, we have phenomenal snow packs and beyond that, we have a community that is willing and able to work together as a diverse group of stakeholders to find viable, workable, long-term solutions to our water management problems. In order to ensure we have balanced law, the public needs tools to provide them with meaningful opportunities for public participation in local water policy decision-making. Let’s make it happen. Even if it means replacing some of our current elected officials with individuals who are truly willing to work with, instead of against, us.

Water, like religion and ideology, has the power to move millions of people. Since the very birth of human civilization, people have moved to settle close to it. People move when there is too little of it. People move when there is too much of it. People journey down it. People write, sing and dance about it. People fight over it. And all people, everywhere and every day, need it.” Tim Gopeesingh, Trin. & Tobago Minister of Educ.,

About Elisabeth Britt

Writers • Member since Mar 23, 2009

Before becoming a citizen journalist, Elisabeth Britt worked in Olympia as a legislative aide. Locally, she served on the WRIA 1 Planning Unit, the Coordinated Water System Plan and as a [...]

Comments by Readers

Larry Horowitz

Mar 15, 2017

Elisabeth, thanks for your insightful and well written article and for sharing your family’s story as it relates to water.  I have no expertise in this field, so all I can offer are questions.

Enacting a human right to water bill is certainly intriguing, but it forces the question about limits to growth.  Do such limits exist?  If so, what resources are likely to become genuine growth constraints?  Is water one of these resources?   At what point does human population growth overwhelm an area’s resources?

Is it possible that even if such a law was adopted, it might be impossible to be honor during times of extreme drought?

Read More...

Eli Mackiewicz

Mar 15, 2017

Rainwater Harvesting for Sole-Source Single-Family Residential Development.

Legal.

Ecology-Sanctioned.

Reasonably Cost-Effective.

Anyone who tells you differently either 1) doesn’t know the law or 2) doesn’t understand the technology.

Ecology funds training to teach professional engineers how to design, permit, and use rainwater to provide 100% of potable and non potable uses.  They leave the permitting decisions to “the jurisdiction having authority”, which in this case is the Whatcom County Health Department. Its been legal and permitted in the San Juan Islands for almost a decade.  

Does it cost a little more? Sure, but not more than deluxe granite countertops. Priorties, people.

Might you have to give up the five acre lawn, irrigated with spinklers? Probably. But, think of the time and money savedn not mowing that lawn. And, you can still grow that 5,000 sf of veggies in the summer, if you’re willing to get a slightly bigger tank and go with water-conserving indoor and outdoor fixtures.  Or, you know, you can just let that lawn turn gold in the summer - it’ll return.

Would you have to call in a water truck to fill your tank during drought years? Maybe, but its better than your well going dry.

Conversation welcomed. Its time to stop this urban vs. rural **ssing contest, seriously. We’re all on the same team, right?

 

Read More...

Larry Horowitz

Mar 15, 2017

Thanks Eli.  I see that RainWater Collection (RWC) is now being used in Skagit County as well.  Some interesting information on the RainBank site:

https://rainbank.info/skagit-county-permits-rwc-sole-source-water

“The Department of Ecology has conducted studies on rainwater collection and its effect on in stream flow rates and has concluded the practice to be BENEFICIAL to in stream flow rates.” (Emphasis added)

Read More...

John Servais

Mar 15, 2017

Eli,

No one said anything about granite counters.  This is a subject with strong feelings on both sides. And strong beliefs.  Please, let us not slip into being condescending.  

Regarding rainwater.  Should we require all city households to also depend on rainwater?  Seriously - there is not enough.  Is this not applying a double standard between city and rural?  

This site is considered liberal and our conservative and rural friends tend to not comment here because they perceive they will be talked down to, held to different standards of conduct, and insulted.   We need to all actively welcome diverse values and the thinking that comes with that.   Lets look for practical solutions that work for all and may involve a little bit of compromise by all.

Read More...

Elisabeth Britt

Mar 15, 2017

Rainwater collection is one option. However, USDA will not provide funds to build or purchase a home with a cistern. The VA stopped approving loans for homes that rely on cisterns or rainwater catchment systems in 2011.  It is also very difficult, if not down right impossible to finance a home with a cistern through FHA. These are three conventional home loan programs that many low-income and average income families depend on to build or purchase a home.  There may be private money available. Those loans are known as Hard Money loans. Although the WA State Department of Financial Institutions prohibits hard money lenders from financing primary residences in our state. And for good reason, they are considered “sub-prime” loans. Or, perhaps,  a portfolio loan through a state bank or credit union, which is more expensive and can add up to an extra $150 per month to a house payment.   By the way, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae won’t buy loans for homes that depend on cisterns. They consider them high risk, because if the owner defaults on the loan, they are very hard to sell.

Read More...

Larry Horowitz

Mar 15, 2017

John, I agree about the condescension, but I also see rainwater harvesting / RWC as an option for county residents for whom city water is not available and who may have a difficult time obtaining  a permit for a well.   I see this as a limited recommendation primarily for those who are affected by the Hirst decision, which at least for now, does not include city residents who have access to city water.  (Or at least I did before reading Elisabeth’s post which did not print until after I posted.)

 

Read More...

Eli Mackiewicz

Mar 15, 2017

Commenters and other readers,

You are fair in your assessment. Apologies for any condescension. It was not my intent, but was indeed the effect. Please allow me a chance to clarify and (perhaps) take my foot out of my mouth.

John, you operate a valuable public service with the blog. I do not wish to stifle any other commenter’s speech and certainly mean no insult to others. The word choice in my original post was bombastic and ill-considered, which I acknowledge and will edit. That said, I think you have interpreted my statements a bit unfairly. In no way do I suggest that anyone  “require” rainwater harvesting on rural properties. Instead, my view is that this should be “promoted”, “allowed”, “encouraged” or even “incentivized”. And, I would support this strategy everywhere, including and especially within cities. I don’t feel that represents a double-standard as you suggest. I also support desalination in coastal areas as another innovative solution to our water supply problems in our county, but that’s a topic for another day.

Elisabeth, you make a accurate and cogent point. I didn’t mean to gloss over the challenges associated with rainwater systems. However, I wonder if it is wise to base long-term natural resource planning decisions on short-term policies of a single industry (lending)? Banks have had similar concerns about all sorts of new and emerging features, from septic tanks to swimming pools to solar panels, and those issues have been worked out as part of a growing and evolving relationship between developers and lenders. I see an opportunity to create a win-win outcome here, wherein homes are still built in closed basins but wells are only the option of last resort. Is there not a compromise somewhere?

To both (and all) - I actually support additional building in the rural county areas, a point of view that puts me at odds with many whom you may label as “liberals”. I just feel that buisness-as-usual is not working to protect the commons, so we’ll have to work hard at finding new and acceptable solutions. When we build new homes, in new areas, we should use new strategies to lessen their impact when feasible and reasonable solutions exist. I don’t see why we take a development strategy from the 1820’s and attempt to shoehorn it into the realities of the 2020’s when other, better, options are available to us.

I suppose I’m just more interested in talking about solutions than falling into arguments about the source of the problems. Thanks for reading and this opportunity to participate in public discussion of this important and vital local issue.

-Eli-

 

Read More...

Eli Mackiewicz

Mar 16, 2017

I wasn’t able to edit my first comment, so here’s the cleaned up and more productive version.

Rainwater Harvesting for Sole-Source Single-Family Residential Development.

Legal.

Ecology-Sanctioned.

Reasonably Cost-Effective.

Anyone who tells you differently either 1) doesn’t know the law or 2) doesn’t understand the technology.

Does it cost a little more? Sure, but not more than deluxe granite countertops (edit: this was a poor example. Instead, I should have said “any other amenity or upgrade that you might include as part of a new home construction project”). Priorties, people.

Might you have to give up the five acre lawn (edit: or a lawn of any size, for city folk), irrigated with spinklers? Probably. But, think of the time and money saved not mowing that lawn. And, you can still grow that 5,000 sf of veggies in the summer, if you’re willing to get a slightly bigger tank and go with water-conserving indoor and outdoor fixtures. No matter your water source, it may be time to seriously consider if outdoor irrigation using surface or groundwater is compatilble with summer droughts and our changing weather patterns.

Would you have to call in a water truck to fill your tank during drought years? Maybe, but its better than your well going dry. Today’s home desigers and civil engineers have the tools necessary to size a system - including inflow/outflow metering components - that may make this a moot point anyway.

These questions (cost, outdoor irrigation needs, adequacy of supply) ae  common sources of hesitancy to adopting rainwater harvesting, so I have attempted to phrase them in ways that relate directly to our issues in Whatcom County. Conversation welcomed. Its time to stop this urban vs. rural bickering, seriously. We’re all on the same team, right?

 

Read More...

Eric Hirst

Mar 16, 2017

I agree with Elisabeth Britt that we can’t “blame declining salmon populations solely on low instream flows.” However, low flows and the associated high water temperatures and low levels of dissolved oxygen are definitely harmful to salmon and other fish. Therefore, protecting instream flows is a key component of salmon-recovery efforts and is also supportive of tribal treaty rights.

 I also agree that “our current piecemeal water policies” interfere with the design and implementation of long-term solutions to our water-quantity problems. Many people argue that rural residential wells account for only small portion of total water use. However, nobody knows how much water these households actually use because we have virtually no data on that subject. State law allows rural households to withdraw up to 5,000 gallons/pay, which when multiplied by the thousands of such homes in Whatcom County adds up to a meaningful amount. Even if such homes use only a little water, they contribute to lower stream flows and merit attention.

 Finally, I agree that the county has refused to address the long-term water supply/demand issues facing Whatcom County for years. Although the so-called Hirst case has been underway for six years, the county cannot tell us how many rural residential wells are now operating and where they are. It cannot tell us how many more wells might be drilled over the next 20 years. And, as far as I can tell, the county has done no work on mitigation. I firmly believe that it is possible to protect senior water rights, restore instream flows and allow rural residential construction. The key is mitigation: creating water markets, requiring use of high-efficiency water fixtures, limiting (or banning) outdoor water use during the summer, and limiting impervious surfaces are some of the options the county should be examining. Doing so would address what Britt calls “impractical standards” and point the way forward to a sustainable water future that addresses human and environmental water needs.

Read More...

Tip Johnson

Mar 16, 2017

Indeed, the County has some work to do.  It may be revisions to state statutes, but it will also require changes to local land use code.  Jurisdictions have the responsibility to regulate land use in the public’s interest and enjoy the police power of zoning to designate such uses.

Despite the Hirst Decision, property owners have a constitutional right to a reasonable use of their property. Zoning determines what is reasonable.  Permissible land use applications maybe reasonably conditioned, but should not be denied.  If the  zoning permits residential use, and the jurisdiction does not provide a public water supply, a well is the only practical alternative and therefore logically ancillary to the land use designation.

Should owners prevail in asserting this right, and the Hirst principal remain in force, the cumulative difference between property values developable and not could amount to a huge liability against the County.  Appraisals can easily produce these numbers and are much cheaper than hydrology studies.  Courts are generally protective of basic property rights.

Passing the burden of determining hydrology to private property owners is not a reasonable condition on development and won’t produce the results needed to provide a comprehensive framework for rational land use management.

The County should rezone any lands lacking adequate hydrological assurance to eliminate housing and other uses requiring water as permitted uses.  Though unpopular, it is not a takings to change zoning to comply with public need.  It is a taking to designate a use and then deny it.

A rezone would give the County time to develop the necessary comprehensive hydrology, consider where they will provide public water supply to support housing, and promulgate standards for alternatives such as catchment or delivery systems to support the permitting of designated uses.

It’s called planning.

As for the salmon, we will probably need to get the five Exxon Valdezes worth of  leaked oil off of our roads and out of our streams if they are going to survive.  And better agricultural practices.  But that’s a different elephant in the room.

Read More...

David Camp

Mar 16, 2017

In Skagit County there was a massive down-assessment of all properties without water rights. As all these were rural, the net effect was to increase the tax burden on other taxpayers, urban and rural, but mostly urban. I wonder how much the Whatcom COunty Assessor down-valued properties without a water right? Because whatever the amount, all other property owners have to make it up.

As Elizabeth expounds elequently, a particularly troublesome aspect of the water issue is the absolutism and lack of practical can-do intelligence being demonstrated in the power structure. Why, for example, is the only type of household well being considered a huge 5,000 gpd volume? Practical housing designs and practices can reduce water use to one-tenth of that - particularly with a grey-water system separate to the septic system. Or outhouse - the original composting toilet with zero water use.

Here’s a free idea - rising sea levels will require rebuilding and fortifying dikes in Whatcom and Skagit COunties on a massive scale. Why not quarry the rock for the dikes strategically to create tanks and reservoirs to store water in the wet season and release in the dry?

At least Doug Ericksen tried to get some legislative fix to this problem - how on earth are we to deal with the increasing climate chaos in a practical and effective manner when as a society we can;t even begin to figure out how to deal with water issues without playing politics and abdicating all judgement in favor of absolutism?

Read More...

Tip Johnson

Mar 16, 2017

 Servais may be right about the urban/rural double standard.  Hydrology management should be comprehensive.  He’s also right about catchment not being enough.  However, it’s not far off.  My roof produces probably 36,000 gallons of run-off annually (1500 ft2 projected area x 3 ft of rain = 4500ft3).  Assuming 3 occupants  and 40 GPD/occupant, my annual household use would be 43,800 GPA (40 x 3 x 365).  The difference is only 7,800 gallons.

The difference this approach could make may even be far greater in urban than rural applications, but needs to be thought through.  Reducing draws from the reservoir makes more water available for stream flow in the Nooksack.  Most of my roof’s production disappears down approved stormwater conveyances that do nothing to enhance stream flows, instead substantially contributing to destructive peak events that notoriously destroy salmon nests.

Fisheries enhancement relies first on clean water, then on reducing peak events and increasing seasonal low flows.  Low flows occur when it doesn’t rain and are cause by poor watershed management.  Studies indicate that watersheds become compromised  after 15% impervious surface.  We are well beyond that in urban areas.  Those who work for better water management also generally promote urban infill, so are we making the problem worse in town when we try to improve it in the country?

We could probably greatly reduce urban impacts by allowing urban catchment and gray water diversion for landscape and garden, and promoting slower releases and more groundwater infiltration.

(Note to self: 4,500ft3 tank = 15’ x 15’ x 20’.  Whoa!  Probably not practical to grab it all, just sayin’)

Read More...

Elisabeth Britt

Mar 16, 2017

Great discussion. I’d like to thank each of you for taking the time to stop by NW Citizen to discuss an array of potential alternative drinking water sources for both rural and urban residents. One of the challenges we face as a community and state is the complexity of existing regulations.  In June of 2013, the Washington State Department of Health, (Office of Drinking Water, ODW) published a paper titled “Alernative Water Supplies Draft Discussion Paper” for the Drinking Water Advisory Group. The paper discusses the current ODW approaches, restrictions and the ODW’s opinions regarding the use of alternative sources of drinking water including: rainfall catchment, trucked and hauled water, desalination of sea water using reverse osmosis, temporary water rights, interruptible water rights, purchased water rights and bottled water.  Here’s the link to the handout.

Yes, the Department of Ecology has approved the use of rainwater catchment systems for individual rural homes in certain circumstances. And, while the ODW is in theory,  supportive of rainwater catchment systems, they also have serious concerns regarding the contamination that takes place when rain water is collected from the surface of a roof.  In fact, they require the owners of rainwater catchment systems to hire a certified water operator to operate the catchment system. ODW also requires property or water system owners to demonstrate that they have a reliable, steady supply of water; and, the managerial, financial and the technical capacity required to operate the roof top catchment treatment facility. 

Yes, salt water dsalination plants are being used in the San Juan Islands to provide a reliable, uninteruptable source of drinking water for some Island communities. Unfortunately, these systems are not available to everyone. Waterborne marine contaminants, bacteria and pollution will prevent a number of communities from building or using Reverse Osmosis systems. But every day, we stumble upon articles about new technology that is being developed to help people gain access to affordable, clean, drinking water. There is an engineer at the University of Arizona at Thunderbird, who recently developed solar panels that draw moisture from the air and convert it in to pristine drinking water. If it can work in arrid, desert environments, perhaps it can work in humid, moist climates like the Pacific NW.  

Once again, it is essential for members of the community to come together to discuss potential solutions for our current water stalemate. Each rural property and drainage basin is unique. So, it is up to us to ensure that planning and development services, state regulatory agencies and rural landowners have the ability to design custumized systems that can provide a stable, uninterruptible source of clean drinking water for each proposed home or business. Systems that protect the things we have come to treasure, like salmon, wildlife, wild spaces and our beautiful rivers and streams. But it may be easier said than done. Especially if local, state and federal home loan lenders can not (or will not) provide funding for these homes, due to overly restrictive or outdated underwriting guidelines and regulations.  Perhaps we can form a community bank or a crowd funding source to assist people who do not have the financial strength to pay 100% of the cost of building their homes. 

 

 

Read More...

Jay Markarian

Mar 17, 2017

Ms Britt - I was at the recent County Coucil meeting and saw first hand how the Council has recognized that they may have jumped to fast into the moritorium and supported a motion allowing the 250 people caught mid project to continue in getting water rights.  I also read the Vedder Mtn documents and noted how the Council had great difficulty in understanding how a liciensed proffessional in the State of Washington can be challenged by another and that the applicant has to pay for it, highly irregular.   I am a geologist and have had to do hydrogeologic investigations with the US EPA and found the rebuttal report by Camassia lacking in so many ways and was left wondering if there is a conflict of interest problem. The panel of experts invited to the meeting by the County Council were also looking at the science used in the Hirst decision and this to is being challenged as to it appropriateness/validity.  In addition one gentlemen discussed breifly how water rights was being weaponized.  I see that ever so clearly in the Small Water System that I am part of as we struggle to craft the various Service Area Policies.  In short, the Hirst decision basis is crumbling but the discussion is still good, we do need to plan our regions water reseources.  At this point the real issues and the hard work to address the need for a water resources plan should be the rallying point and the Council seems to be reaching this same conculsion.   Two thumbs up to you for articulate and well written discussions.

Consider the collision of two lines of thought, the Sanctuary City amendment and the Moritorium on Drilling. Stop the ability to grow but invite undocumented aliens to seek sanctuary here.  The sadest thing you can do for undocumented aliens is give them false hope that the Bellingham area is a place to live in and thrive in.  It is a ecomonically robust community that is best suited as a sanctuary city not one of no growth.

Read More...

Elisabeth Britt

Mar 18, 2017

Jay, thank you for sharing your observations about the County Council’s response to the Hirst decision with us. I was also deeply concerned after reading the rebuttal report that was submitted to the county regarding the Camassia hydrogeologic evaluation submitted on behalf of the Vedder Mountain permit.  And, I’ll admit it, my head hurt after listening to county staff and the county’s new water attorney, refer back to Hirst, in answer to every query by some of the council members.

The Vedder hydrogeologic evaluation snaffu will have a chilling effect on all future building permit applicants.  I don’t know any property owners who can afford to spend thousands of dollars on a hydrogeologic evaluation, (and, then a second hydrogeologic evaluation ordered by the county that is designed to derail the first evaluation). Just  to have their permit application  returned to them by PDS with a note attached that says: in our opinion, your request to drill an exempt well violates the Department of Ecology’s One Molecule Standard. Therefore your building permit application is denied.  It is impossible for a permit applicant (any permit applicant) to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their proposed exempt well (or, even a proposed alternative water supply system) won’t displace one molecule of water that would otherwise be in transit at some point during the next thousand years to ground or surface water. Even if it’s in Canada.  It’s mission impossible. Nor can the county conduct an independent, scientifcally-based hydrogeological evaluation to determine if a proposed well will potentially impact surface water or instream flows. They don’t have the data they need to conduct detailed studies or make informed decisions.  I have never seen a more dysfunctional land use ordinance adopted anywhere in the state.

The United Nations tells us that everyone has a human right to water and sanitation services that are immediately accessible within a short distance from; or, in the immediate vacinity of their home. They also have the right to a water supply that is continuous and sufficient for personal and domestic uses.  One of those domestic uses includes fireflow. A rural home located in a remote part of the county that depends on an exempt well must have an adequate supply of water to extinguish a fire, should a fire occur.  That’s state law.

Yes, the right to water has become weaponized. Without water, people can not live in remote rural areas. Regrettably, it’s low-income families and rural businesses, the elderly, the young, the disabled and in Whatcom County’s case, newly arrived immigrants who suffer the most under the Hirst decision.  Asking rural citizens to move into town, just to satisfy the whims of a minority, prevents residents from living in an established neighborhood close to other members of their community, their place of worship, school or employment.  I do hope the state legislature provides a fix. Otherwise, our tradtional rural economy and established rural lifestyle, which is also protected under the GMA, will be extinct.

Read More...
Facebook Google LinkedIn Print Reddit Twitter