The state Senate has approved a bill that takes aim at a recent state Supreme Court decision involving water rights and the use of domestic wells.
The state Senate has approved a bill that seeks to reverse a recent state Supreme Court decision involving water rights and the use of domestic wells.
The legislation, billed as a fix to the recent court ruling known as the Hirst decision, would ensure so-called permit-exempt wells could be used for development.
The measure passed on a 28-21 vote Tuesday night after it was amended on the Senate floor. It now goes to the House for consideration.
Supporters say a legislative fix was needed after the Hirst decision prompted some counties to temporarily halt certain rural development and left hundreds of property owners who wanted to build homes in limbo.
Most Read Local Stories
- '50% was a mistake': Seattle City Council abandoned the idea of defunding police
- Traffic chaos forces closure of I-90 westbound from Mercer Island through Sunday
- Monday night, Jupiter to make closest approach in nearly 60 years
- Seattle in for more heat, smoke before cooldown, chance of rain
- Chinatown International District pushes back at expanded homeless shelter. Officials ask where else?
Opponents say the bill undercuts current state water law and allows development with little to no review of its impact on those with senior water rights.
“The reason I brought this bill is to take us back to some common-sense water legislation that we had before the Hirst decision,” Republican Sen. Judy Warnick, of Moses Lake, the bill’s prime sponsor, told colleagues Tuesday night.
In its 6-3 ruling, the state Supreme Court said Whatcom County had failed to protect water resources by allowing new wells to reduce flow in streams for fish and other uses. The court said counties must ensure, independently of the state, that water is physically and legally available before issuing building permits in certain areas.
Those who supported the ruling said counties should be required to ensure that water is available before zoning for development. But many landowners said it would be too expensive and nearly impossible to prove that the new wells did not affect senior water rights, including water kept in streams for fish.
Warnick cited emotional testimony from property owners who said they poured their savings into building a home in a rural area only to discover they could not get a permit after the court decision.
The bill says a person who applies for a building permit — or a local agency that grants a permit — would not need to review whether the water supply impairs senior water rights.
Democratic senators who voted against the measure said they want to address the issues surrounding the Hirst decision but said this bill wasn’t the right way to do that.
“We all, the other side and my side, want and absolutely do support development in our communities,” said Democratic state Sen. Maralyn Chase, of Shoreline. “But we do not want to do it at the expense and trying to change historic water laws.”
Democratic state Sen. John McCoy, of Tulalip, opposed the legislation, saying, “It will allow someone just buying a piece of property to take water away from someone else.”
But Republican state Sen. Randi Becker, of Eatonville, urged her colleagues to pass the measure. “Let people who purchased their land in good faith and wanted to do something with them to build a home and live their life the way they had planned,” she said.