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