Our gentle editor invites us to “be the judge .” He suggests Mr. Hirst and Ms. Britt are both right. Now that would be an unusual conclusion for a judge.  One is pro environment, the other pro growth.

Ms. Britt takes umbrage with county officials who she characterizes as making an “end run” around a new law from the states legislative branch that is an end run around  the decisions of that branch of state government that is the last word on state law.

The so called “Hirst Fix” will not stand when it reaches the state Supreme Court.  The court has ruled at least twice. In Hirst of course, but earlier in a case brought by the Swinomish tribe against Ecology to protect the Skagit.  (The latter decision forced the legislature to exempt Skagit county from the “fix”) 

I think the Whatcom council would do those they represent a service by looking past this futile effort by the legislature  to circumvent the law.  With so many rulings for the environment already hanging over Washington citizens’ heads (have you read the Culvert Case ?) does it make sense to keep kicking this can down the road ?

Though the “fix” may be in for now, it’s much more difficult to buy the court than a bunch of legislators   

The long-term solution requires reservoir water storage during wet season and releases during the dry. Homeowners could “buy” releases from the reservoir to counteract their own net water “usage” in the summer. Here’s how it could work -  Require for all new wells: 1) wellhead water meters and 2) a contract with a reservoir owner to offset net metered water usage with water releases. 

How many gravel pits are there in the County? Line one or two of them and fill them up in the winter - and release water in the dry season accordng to client metered net water “usage”. It could be a private thing - or a water district-type setup. 

I have a friend who has a solar-powered well that pumps into a 1500 gallon reservoir which gravity-feeds his house- which he claims holds at least a week’s water requirements for a family of three. That’s just over 200 gallons a day. All that but a small evaporated amount is put right back into the groundwater via his septic system. So what’s his net use? Say 10% or 20 gallons a day? Even if he used 2000 gallons a day bathing every hour his net use would be say 200 gallons a day. Assuming this would result in an offsetable draw half the time means a total of 36,500 gallons of water storage would be required to offset this usage. This is a trivial amount to be made up from a release from a reservoir of two acres averaging ten ft deep - holding  20 acre-feet which is over 6.5 million gallons. This would hold enough water to offset  the net water usage of  178 homes. 

It could even be a proftable method of remediating a gravel pit and turning it onto an income asset as water storage. 

Greg,

In a nutshell, the Washington Supreme Court does not write laws. It interprets them.

FYI: the Washington State Legislature does have the legal authority to “fix” a Supreme Court Decision by drafting and adopting legislation to specifically address issues raised by the court in a particular decision. That is what the legislature has done in ESSB 6091. 

You can read more about the division of duties of the state legislature and the court in the Washington State Constitution. 

Thank you for your addtional accusations regarding my motives regarding the articles I write about water.  I see no reason to respond to what is obviously just another Ad Hominem  attack.  

Thank you for the link, but please understand, I’m conversant with most of the issues regarding the separations of power .

Though the legislature is empowered to create legislation, the Law is  the result of the whole process of government; particularly the judicial. 

I fear you have persolized my criticism of our present political culture.  Not my intent.  I appreciate your advocacy, even where I disagree.  

Please, can’t we have an exchange non hominem? 

The legislature adopted ESSB 6091 to counter the Hirst Decision.  I’m not a member of the legislature. So, I didn’t get to cast a vote. I’m just reporting on the steps the legislature took to counter the Supreme Court Hirst decision. 

I ocasionally write articles that  reflect our current political and social economic culture.  I’m a citizen journalist. 

I suppose someone could come along and file yet another legal challenge to stop rural property owners from drilling a permit-exempt well. However, I would prefer that the state and county spend our hard-earned tax dollars on completing groundwater studies that will enable the county to make informed decisions about future water allocation in WRIA 1.  We have already thrown hundreds of thousands of dollars away defending the county against legal challenges. 

Spending too much time focused on a single component of watershed management leads to imbalance throughout the system. We need an integrated holistic water resources management plan that ensures that all users (including fish) have access to the water they need to thrive. There is nothing radical or “wise use” about my personal position. Nor am I a supporter of the “wise use” movement. If you want to have a non ad hominem exchange - you need to stop labeling me “this or that.”  Especially labels that imply that I have ties  to movements that I have never been involved with.   

If you want a copy of my resume - which includes all the government, quasi-government and non-profit boards I’ve been involved with over the last 30 years. Please let me know.  You might be surprised by what you read. 

David, I like the idea regarding the gravel pits. Many of them are filling up with water as we speak. I know when they started digging them deeper, many people complained that it affected the water table and had to drill their wells deeper to stay in water. With many of the pits now having reached their yardage limits and having been shut down, this is certainly viable, and the opportunities go beyond just supplying water. There is opportinities for WDFW to plant fish, using the “ramps” for boat launches (electric or paddle only of course),  and offering additional recreation for those wanting to fish, rowboat, or kayak. 

@Ryan - yup. It could be a win-win-win-win - more winter water storage for release during the dry season, rehabilitation of gravel pits, potential recreational uses, even aquaculture. Too many lawyers involved in this - they make money by continuing the unresolved “issues” rather than developing solutions. We need more engineers, hydrologists, and, dare I make an ethnic comment, more Dutch and Fries people with generational water knowledge to work on this issue. Shouldn;t we consult a  culture that farms primarily below sea level and which has this as a saying: “If you don’t want to build dikes, you can go away”.  (this is a rough translation from the Fries which I think has a bit stronger version of “you can go away”!)

Correcting a technical error.

The Whatcom County Council passed Emergency Ordinance 2018-001 (not 2018-057) at the January 30, 2018 meeting. That vote repealed Ordinance 2017-057 (not an emergency ordinance) passed at the October 10, 2017 meeting.

Thanks, Bill.