Washingtons Water Challenges Mike Gallagher Water Resources Program - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Washington’s Water Challenges

Mike Gallagher

Water Resources Program July 17, 2019

Presented to: Western States Water Council Summer Meeting – Leavenworth, WA

Water Availability driven by

2

• Precipitation

ecipitation – varies widely across the state

• Sub

ubsur surface ace ge geologi

• gical

cal condi nditions tions – varies widely

• Sta

tate e laws ws and d rul ules es – prior appropriation doctrine

• Cour

urt t cases ses – “water for water” mitigation often needed

• Tribal

ibal tr trea eati ties es – water rights from time immemorial

Annual Precipitation in Washington

3

4

Water Rights in Washington

5

Wat atershe sheds: ds: 62 Wat ater r Rights: hts: 53,000 3,000

50,000 Certificates issued 3,000 Permits in development 4,800 pending applications

Cla laims: ms: 170,000 70,000

Claims to use surface water and groundwater pre-date modern water law (1917 and 1945) and are called cl claim ims – not water rights.

Permit mit exempt pt individual ividual wells: lls: 400 00,000 ,000 +

5,000 gallons/day limit unless otherwise specified in statute

Instream Flow Regulations

6

27 st state 3 federal ederal

Case law has made hydraulic continuity more complex

7

Hydraulically connected ground and surface water cannot be considered independently. A withdra thdrawal al fr from m one e will ll have e some ef effec ect t on the e othe her.

Confined aquifer Centuries Millennia Confining Bed

RECHARGE AREA SUB-BASIN B

Water table

Stream

Confining Bed

PUMPED WELL

Confined aquifer Unconfined aquifer Days Years

SUB-BASIN A

Same body of public groundwater

Basi sin n Divide e unde der natur ural al recha harge e cond ndition

• ns

Recent State Supreme Court decisions drastically impacted water management

8

1) 1) Postema ma v. PCHB Oct ctobe

• ber

r 2000 000

No “de-mini minimu mus” impairment of existing water rights.

2) 2) Swin inomish ish Trib ibe v. Ecology

• logy

October

• ber 2013

Overrid rriding ing Consid siderati eration

• n of the Publi

lic Inter erest est (OCPI CPI) cannot t be used d to just stify ify wa water er use that t imp mpai airs existin isting g inst stream ream flows. s.

3) 3) Foster r v. Cit ity of Yelm and d Departm tment t of Ecolog

• logy

y Octobe

• ber

r 2015

Ecology cannot use “out-of

• f-kind” mitigation to offset impairment of instream

flows s or use OCPI PI to just stify ify perma manent ent allocat

• cations

ions of wa water er.

4) Whatc tcom

• m County

y v. Hir irst and d Future rewi wise Octobe

• ber

r 2016

A county ty has an indep epen ende dent nt obligati igation

• n to ensure

ure that t new privat ate e wells ls do not imp mpai air r flows ws and closures. ures.

Working with tribal governments

9

185 855 T 5 Tre reaties aties be between tween Un Unit ited ed Stat States es & & Pug uget t So Sound und are area a Trib ribes es

10

“…The right of taking fish, at all usual and accustomed grounds and stations, is further secured to said Indians in common with all citizens of the Territory…” Upheld by US Supreme Court Tribal water rights—priority date is time immemorial

5 ESA-listed species of salmon

11 Chinook Salmon Chum Salmon Bull Trout Steelhead Sockeye Salmon

2019 Drought

12

Less than 75 Percent of Normal Water Supply

Hardship

Drought

RCW 43.83B.400

Washington State’s Drought Trigger

Olympic Peninsula

14

Welcome to water in Washington!

15

statutes and court decisions surficial water supply

complex hydrogeological conditions

wide variation in precipitation/recharge