Mr. Verbree makes a good point.  Whatcom County is resplendent in its supply of water through precipitation.  (I remember it falling on my head when I picked berries in the rain in the 50s. There was no artificial irrigation then.) However, we don't know the impact of growth in water use demand of residential single family wells, municipal or irrigation for agriculture.  We don't know whether the list of water uses permitted or certificated by Department of Ecology is complete, incomplete or accurate.  We don't know the future of climate change impact.  We do not know the water-volume demand implication of the "share water in common, 50/50" and provide habitat for fish to make that meaningful implication of the 4th generation of the Boldt decision.  We do have some threshold statistics from a 1960 report about the Nooksack (but that is, of course, limited in not covering the rest of Whatcom (WRIA 1) that Ecology has implicated in its adjudication case).  We don't know with much precision where groundwater interacts with surface water.  We do know that the Nooksack floods intermittently.  And we do know that population growth and I-5 population expansion won't stop at Skagit.  But especially what we do know is that the Nineteenth Century water management approach of prior appropriation is an inelastic, arbitrary, outdated, useless way to give folks like Mr. Verbree the choice to live a free and active life in the resplendent environment which is Whatcom.  And we know that the salmon and the Orca who eat them weren't consulted when the Gilded advocates of the prior appropriation doctrine adopted the notion (originally in California to benefit the mining interests) in the 1850s.  Fortunately, the Washington State Legislature adopted the "Maximum Net Benefit" concept in the 1970s.  The only legal question is whether a judge will find that it applies retroactively to the water rights that were created between 1917 when the Water Code was passed and the 70's (including those statutorily exempt from permitting).  This MNB concept would allow for finding a way, likely through negotiation, to enable all of the several newly listed "beneficial uses" of water to be served, so as to find benefit for all of them.  Not easy.  A Court-appointed Referee would help.  Such a complex task is most difficult with an Us v. Them approach.  It takes conversation, deference and compromise to find Maximum Net Benefit.  I wish Whatcom well in finding it.

A much better way to be addressing this problem is through a growth management approach, looking at water supply, demand and usage as a necessary component of growth.    Looking at the socio-economic, ethnic  attributes, desires and environmental aspiration of the county's population.  It's better approached from a county planning approach than a state list of senior rights approach.  And it is better approached without judicial formalities.  But we must now work within the judicial structure initiated by Ecology.  As a prior assistant attorney general myself, in two states, I can't imagine an equivalent lawyer abandoning full representation of  a client objective endorsed by the State Legislature.  Thanks, Mr. Verbree for speaking your mind.  James Davenport