On October 8, 2005, the Washington Supreme Court reversed a water right permit issued by the Department of Ecology (Ecology) to the City of Yelm.1 The decision dramatically impacted the State’s water rights permitting program by denying authority to Ecology to allow any type of mitigation for potential impacts to adopted minimum instream flows (MIFs) other than 100% in-kind, in-time,…
Tag: Postema
UNDERSTANDING THE HIRST AND FOSTER DECISIONS – WHY DO THEY NEED TO BE FIXED?
The Supreme Court’s Hirst decision, the subject of legislative reform efforts and an impasse over the capital budget, is a very controversial barrier to water availability in rural areas. The Court’s 2015 decision in Foster v. Yelm is another controversial ruling that eliminated water right flexibility for mitigation banking and water availability for growing urban areas. Both of the Court’s…
Is the Fox v. Skagit County case heading to Supreme Court?
One fallout from the Swinomish v. Ecology decision in 2013 was the Department of Ecology’s instruction to Skagit County that it could no longer accept permit-exempt wells in the Skagit basin as proof of an adequate water supply for building permits. RIchard and Marnie Fox purchased and subdivided a property in Skagit County near the Town of Lyman before 2000,…
Potential Legislative and Regulatory Solutions to the Water Availability Train Wreck*
Preservation of the quality and quantity of water in natural rivers, streams and lakes is vital to the long-term health of our environment. The physical and legal availability of water is also essential to the economic health of our state and its diverse urban, suburban and rural communities. The lack of availability of water leads inevitably to building permit moratoriums,…
Supreme Court Bruises Department of Ecology in Foster Opinion
On October 8, 2015, the Washington Supreme Court reversed a water right permit issued by the Department of Ecology (Ecology) to the City of Yelm. Two months later, the consequences of this decision are still being sorted out by Ecology, the Attorney General’s Office, and stakeholders. In the meantime, the State’s water rights permitting program has gone off the rails…
Potential Solutions to Washington State’s Post-Swinomish Instream Flow/Rural Water Supply Dilemma
Introduction Department of Ecology officials and stakeholders have been meeting publicly for the last year to discuss post-Swinomish water allocation solutions for rural areas, but their efforts have been stymied by the lack of consensus on legislative or other solutions.[2] New ideas need to be explored and vetted to move beyond common misconceptions and a dysfunctional status quo. The state’s…
Potential Solutions to Washington State’s Post-Swinomish Instream Flow Regulation/Rural Water Supply Dilemma
Department of Ecology officials and stakeholders have been meeting publicly for the last year to discuss post-Swinomish water allocation solutions for rural areas, but their efforts have been stymied by the lack of consensus on legislative or other solutions. New ideas need to be explored and vetted to move beyond common misconceptions and a dysfunctional status quo. The state’s minimum…
Appeals Court Reverses GMHB Ruling re Whatcom County in Hirst Case: Permit-Exempt Wells Not Governed by Nooksack Instream Flow Rule
Whatcom County has won its appeal in a closely watched case at the intersection of water rights and land use law. Division One of the Washington Court of Appeals held that the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board erroneously interpreted the Nooksack Basin Instream Flow Rule, Chapter 173-501 WAC, and reversed the Board’s rulings that Whatcom County was out of…