Hirst, household wells and the capital budget

Issue critical for entire state,but challenge is getting urban lawmakers to notice

F

or years, lawmakers resisted efforts by environmental groups to restrict small household wells. These wells are critical to development in areas city water does not reach – without water, nothing can be built. But environmental groups equate rural development with “urban sprawl,” and see water as a way to block projects and establish central government control over private development.

In 2016, environmental groups went around the Legislature and took their arguments to the Supreme Court. Based on technical reasoning, the court’s ruling in the Hirst case imposes new permit requirements that are immense, costly and unworkable.

Already development in some areas has stopped, banks have stopped lending money, land values are plummeting, rural families are victimized and economic disaster looms ahead. Yet urban lawmakers resist an adequate fix, because of pressure from green groups – and because the problem doesn’t affect them.

There is no shortage of water. Small wells are responsible for less than 1 percent of water consumption statewide. In areas where supply is short, the state has been able to regulate.

Senior water rights are not an issue.In practice, these small wells draw too little water to impact large water users. Groups representing large water users support a proper fix.

Repeal is the answer. Urban lawmakers have offered a temporary delay in implementation, which does not preserve property values because it does not provide certainty to lenders. Other proposals involve new bureaucratic permit-approval processes, both cumbersome and costly.

The price of inaction is enormous:

$6.9 billion annually in lost economic activity, predominantly in rural communities.

$4.5 billion in annual losses to the construction industry.

9,300 jobs lost annually, most in rural communities.

$452 million annually in lost employee wages.

$37 billion in lost property values in areas impacted by Hirst.

$346 million in property taxes shifted to other properties in Washington – rural areas will receive the brunt of higher property taxes.[i]

Hirst and the capital budget:While the majority party is elected almost entirely from the Central Puget Sound area, the Legislature’s Republican caucuses must take a broader view because they represent a far more diverse population across the state. To force attention to the issue, Republicans last session temporarily held up approval of the state’s capital budget. This $4 billion budget pays for public works projects statewide, while a 60 percent “yes” vote requirement for bonds ensures both parties have a voice.

Passing a capital budget is critical. So is fixing Hirst. In 2018, Republicans insist on a solution that works for all of Washington.

[i] Source: HR2 Research and Analytics, “Economic Impact Research of Exempt Wells,” BIAW, 2017.