Washington Business Fall 2017 | Legislative Review & Vote Record | Page 13

washington business
Lost Dreams
The 2016 state Supreme Court Hirst water rights ruling has
rural Washington residents falling to their knees and begging
lawmakers to fix it.
Bobbi Cussins
Water is the lifeblood of Washington state — it provides clean power, grows food that feeds the world
and spawns economic development. But, that’s in jeopardy in rural parts of the state thanks to the state
Supreme Court’s Hirst water rights ruling last fall. The issue is rekindling the debate over the urban-rural
divide. Rural residents, unable to develop their property, watch urban centers like Seattle and Bellevue in a
building frenzy, bringing to mind the old adage that “whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting.”
At A Glance
In October 2016, the Washington state
Supreme Court handed down a ruling
in a Growth Management Act (GMA)
case, Whatcom County vs. Hirst,
Futurewise, et al, commonly referred
to as the Hirst decision.
The decision directed counties
to make new water resource
determinations before issuing building
permits, something counties were
ill-equipped to do.
The urban-rural divide grew wider this year after the controversial Hirst water rights ruling
by the state’s high court was left unresolved during the record 193-day legislative session.
In the absence of the permanent legislative remedy in Senate Bill 5239, sponsored by Sen.
Judy Warnick, R-Moses Lake, the battle over rural water access is leaving land owners high
and dry.
And, the issue has left the state’s capital budget, and the bonds to pay for construction
projects, in limbo until an agreement is reached.
the state supreme court hirst water rights ruling
In October 2016, the Washington state Supreme Court handed down a ruling in a Growth
Management Act (GMA) case, Whatcom County vs. Hirst, Futurewise, et al, commonly
referred to as the Hirst decision.
Before the Hirst decision, counties
relied on regulations adopted by the
Department of Ecology for such water
resource decisions.
The Washington State Association
of Counties estimates the
implementation costs statewide would
be about $25 million annually.
Senate Bill 5239, sponsored by Sen.
Judy Warnick, R-Moses Lake, was the
only permanent solution to address
the fallout from the Hirst ruling during
the 2017 session.
special edition 2017
11