NEWSHOMEOPINIONLOCAL INTERESTRECENT ISSUESLETTERSCLASSIFIEDSLINKSHOW TO |
Methow Valley News August 19, 1999 Endangered Species Coverage Health District reviews water policy Residents concerned about losing domestic well exemptions by Lee Hicks The Okanogan County Health District has begun a review of its policy for domestic well standards at a time county residents fear water restrictions will affect use of their property. Hanging over the process is the tricky question of "exempt wells" that do not require permits from the state Department of Ecology, but must be approved by the health district. The district held an informational meeting Aug. 10 that was attended by well drillers, developers, county officials, farmers, cattlemen, and other landowners. Health officials have said any revision in an existing 1992 policy will focus specifically on water quantity and quality for domestic use. A determination of those criteria is needed before the county planning department can issue building permits. However, some of those attending last week’s meeting were worried the policy could be a "back door" way to limit domestic wells that under state law are allowed to pump 5,000 gallons per day without a permit from Ecology. Of particular concern to those speaking at the meeting is a 1997 state Attorney General’s opinion that concludes withdrawal from several wells on a single parcel or subdivision can total no more than 5,000 gallons—rather than that amount from each well. Later in the week, district director Susan Lybarger said she will be analyzing comments and "will probably ask some people to sit down with me and develop those issues..." She expressed surprise that some residents expected a decision on new district policy was imminent. The review has just begun with the idea that existing policy needs updating to, "give me a clear direction and what I need is that leadership from my board...that protects the quality of drinking water." Several persons argued that the attorney general’s opinion is contrary to case law and that the health district should not follow it in setting county water policy. But district officials said that the well exemption is not their "call." District officials said they are obligated under a "joint policy of operation" with the state Department of Health to follow AG guidelines in setting county policy. County planning director Rusty Bonser was one of those asking for clarification on the well issue in district policy. The present policy draft merely states that permits would be needed for, "groundwater withdrawals in excess of 5,000 gallons per day," but does not address the number of wells. "It’s too general a statement to remain in the policy as is," Bonser said. Other speakers asked that the district expand the policy to specifically stipulate the 5,000-gallon exemption for any well. Former county planner Jim King said another problem facing the district is how to determine "continuity" of ground and surface water. In the Methow basin, DOE has followed the assumption that all groundwater withdrawals affect surface water. However, hydrogeology studies for the Methow basin, and many well drillers, say the relationship varies in the seven stream reaches of the basin. In the Mazama area, some studies have shown substantial groundwater in aquifers. Groundwater withdrawals in parts of that area would have little effect on surface flows, the studies conclude. King said asked if the county knows where ground and surface water is in continuity. "We don’t," replied district board chairman Dave Hilton. The situation presents a, "potential liability for people issuing building permits," King said. A former county planner, King is now a consultant to such clients as Sun Mountain Lodge and the Wolf Creek Reclamation District. Under the present policy, an owner of a single family home would have to show "acceptable volume" of 360 gallons per day minimum. A well that produces .25 gallons (one quart) per minute would qualify for a permit. With community water systems, an applicant for a building permit must provide the health district with details of the system including number of connections already approved, verification of a water right if one is involved and ability and intent of the "purveyor" to serve the building site. The present policy requires applicants for future building permits in subdivisions with community water systems to obtain a water adequacy determination for individual lots. The provision is intended to ensure that a system will be capable of serving all lots in the project. "Unfortunately sometimes the water systems don’t operate as they were designed," according to the state Health Department’s Dave Sanders who represented the agency at last week’s meeting. The County Health District was established in 1986, for the purpose of contracting with the state Department of Health to make determinations of water adequacy and potability for domestic use. The Attorney General’s opinion on 5,000 gallon wells has stirred controversy around the state. There are some arguments that developers have taken advantage of the exemption to maximize building potential. Typical in-house domestic daily use usually is less than 500 gallons. Some water law specialists say the AG’s opinion is likely to be challenged in court, possibly by builder, real estate or agricultural interests. Apart from the issue of drilling new multiple wells, there is also the separate question of connection or "intertie" of existing exempt wells that have been put to "beneficial use" over a period of time—thereby establishing a water right. Although DOE has questioned whether wells can be tied together, some experts say that case law supports the practice. Lybarger said questions regarding the AG’s opinion... "haven’t been answered in court." In the Methow Valley, Lybarger said, the issue of community water systems is more easily decided: they can’t be done. "You can’t have public water systems in the Methow. They are junior to instream flows." State water policy establishes priority use for senior surface water rights and maintaining stream flows before rights of "junior" water users downstream. "From the public health perspective it makes no sense to me," Lybarger said. "Community water systems provide a perceived level of protection." She said systems that would provide water to serve multiple residences are, for health reasons, preferable to "hundreds" of single family wells. "I would like you (the Methow Valley) to have the ability to have public water systems. Going about it with individual wells isn’t necessarily the best way. It doesn’t really change the water usage (to have more users on a single system)," Lybarger said. The health district will have more hearings on the water policy, Lybarger said, "but I don’t see a quick response to this."
|
