Guest opinion: Impact of Hirst decision must be addressed

In Washington state, the legislative stalemate over permitting new household wells and the state’s construction budget has not only delayed needed funding for public projects, but triggered yet another salvo in the wider conflict over future supplies of fresh water for people, fish and farms.

At immediate risk is $4.2 billion in state funding for local water and sewer projects, school construction, mental-health facilities, colleges and universities and other construction.

While there is general agreement between Democrats controlling the House and the coalition of mostly Republicans in charge of the Senate on the budget, there are substantial differences over how or whether to fix a water dispute called the “Hirst Decision.”

The stakes are too high for the legislature to ignore.

Republican Sen. Jim Honeyford of Grandview, chair of the capital budget, told the Seattle Times last July that the court decision has stopped home construction in rural areas. Holding up the capital budget is leverage to drive legislative changes.

Hirst refers to a 2016 Washington State Supreme Court decision restricting what are called “exempt wells” which are common in rural area home construction. Before the Hirst verdict, if a new well drew less than 5,000 gallons per day for domestic use, it was exempt from water right law and a building permit was issued.

However, under Hirst, the court ruled counties must protect senior water right holders and required them to independently (of state agencies) verify that water is “physically and legally available” for those with senior water rights. That assurance would be necessary before the construction permit could be issued.

Tribes, municipalities, farmers and water-dependent industrial plants are among those with senior water rights. Tribes and environmental groups are pressuring Democrats and Gov. Jay Inslee to oppose legislative efforts to overturn the court decision. They want independent hydrological studies even though county officials claim they can’t afford them.

The Building Industry Association of Washington described the Hirst decision as a major blow to residential development in Washington’s counties requiring legislative correction. The ruling effectively limits the use of new domestic wells in certain rural areas especially in high population growth areas such as Bellingham.

While the Hirst decision itself only directly applies to Whatcom County, the building association believes it sets a precedent for all counties. Association officials argue those rules were not intended to regulate permit-exempt water uses.

In the aftermath of Hirst, some counties temporarily suspended rural development, while others changed the criteria for obtaining building permits, the Seattle Times reported.

The Building Industry Association of Washington just released an economic study and pegged the loss in economic activity stemming from Hirst to be $6.9 billion a year predominantly in rural areas.

The builders added that $452.3 million in lost wages and nearly 9,300 lost jobs.

The lost property values from the court decision were estimated at $37 billion and researchers found $346 million in property taxes would be shifted to other properties in the state.

Some fear Hirst could even impact property owners with existing exempt wells and hydrologic studies could be required to prove those wells were not impeding senior water rights.

Republican Sen. Judy Warnick of Moses Lake offered legislation which she believed would protect those with senior water rights. House Democrats countered with an 18-month implementation delay accompanied by a study.

The bottom line is the economic impacts and hardship on property owners should make it impossible for lawmakers to ignore.

We are likely to see more of these conflicts arise as our state’s population climbs. It is now 7.3 million. The families and property owners impacted by Hirst, cannot be overlooked or dismissed.

Hirst sets an important precedent. Getting it right is important.

Don C. Brunell is a business analyst, writer and columnist. He retired as president of the Association of Washington Business, the state’s oldest and largest business organization, and now lives in Vancouver. He can be contacted at theBrunells@msn.com.

More in Opinion

Guest opinion: Gov. Inslee eyeing a run at the White House

Can a little known thoroughbred from the Pacific Northwest capture the 2020… Continue reading

Water Matters: Sustainability

This Monday evening there were at least two winners … the Seahawks… Continue reading

Guest opinion: On civility and power, Part II

How can we have civil conversations about complicated issues? What specific steps… Continue reading

Guest opinion: Move forward on water quality standards

In an unfortunate reversal, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has decided to… Continue reading

From the Back Nine: Unexpected pride

I’ve been thinking about Pride. Not a pride of lions, or “Pride… Continue reading

Letters to the editor — Dec. 5, 2018

Do right by our youth with new field Nathalie Torres worked hard… Continue reading

Think About It: Light, dark sides of giving

I thought I’d better write this column early in the season, lest… Continue reading

Guest opinion: Tribes release habitat recovery strategy

“As the salmon disappear, so do our cultures and treaty rights. We… Continue reading

Guest opinion: A billion here, a billion there …

Fifty billion dollars. It will soon be the subject of many conversations… Continue reading

Guest opinion: Reducing wildfire risk is imperative

While massive wildfires are historic, they are more dangerous today. As our… Continue reading

Guest opinion: Costs matter in hiring

While both sides argue over the merits of Seattle’s escalating minimum wage,… Continue reading

Think About It: Women’s work never done

In two years, the League of Women Voters will celebrate its 100th… Continue reading