[WSBARP] Hirst v Whatcom County - DOE and new domestic wells?

[Paul]

“What say you?.....”

I’d say that three acre rural parcel without water next to my house just dropped in value by 80% (maybe 95%).  Time to enlarge the estate.  For the owners of rural parcels without water, I’d say its time to march into their tax assessors offices and damand a reduction in assessed values and property taxes.

All joking aside, this could be a disastrous decision for all owners of rural parcels that are not close enough for municipal water or in a large subdivision that has its own wells.

Currently, my area is deemed by Island County to be “high risk” for salt water intrusion.  What this means is that if a neighbor wants to put in a new well, the County rquires the owner to dig the well and then require (I think) a 24 hour pump test while at the same time, monitoring all of the other wells in the vacinity.  If the 24 hour pump test has ANY impact on a surrounding existing well, the new well owner is not allowed to hook up to the new proposed well.  So in other words, the gamble is that the owner may incur $10k to $15k in costs for the new well, hit water, and still not be able to use the well if it drops the level of water in a neighboring well.  Consequently, some of the lots in my area are not being developed and the properties are being passed down from generation to generation because no one wants to deal with the problems.  This decision may make it even more difficult to obtain water.

From: wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com [mailto:wsbarp-bounces at lists.wsbarppt.com] On Behalf Of Rob Rowley
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:33 AM
To: WSBA RPPT <wsbarp at lists.wsbarppt.com>
Subject: [WSBARP] Hirst v Whatcom County - DOE and new domestic wells?

What say you?.....

I just had a client of mine contact me regarding this decision.  He had intended to proceed with a rural cluster development and of course needs water for the development.

Thanks.

++++++++++++++++++++

“The Washington Supreme Court ruled Thursday that counties must verify that new domestic wells won’t harm existing water uses, even in rural areas where the Department of Ecology already has determined that the wells won’t impair senior water rights.”

….



In the dissenting opinion, Justice Debra Stephens said the majority opinion “imposes impossible burdens on homeowners.”

She cited a recent case that suggested proving that a new well won’t impair existing water rights would take two years and cost $300,000. She also said county building departments will have to evaluate hydrogeological studies. “The practical result of this holding is to stop counties from granting building permits that rely on permit-exempt wells,” Stephens wrote.

Justice Madsen concurred with the majority, but issued a separate opinion, urging the state, local governments and tribes to work together to make water available. “This is not a burden to be shifted onto individual permit applicants,” she wrote.
http://www.capitalpress.com/Oregon/20161007/washington-supreme-court-casts-doubt-on-new-wells



[cid:image002.jpg at 01D22940.05293C80]Robert R. Rowley | Attorney at Law
7 S. Howard St, Suite 218
Spokane, WA  99201
Telephone: (509) 252-5074
Mobile: (509) 994-1143
Facsimile: (509) 928-3084
Email: rob at rowleylegal.com<mailto:rob at rowleylegal.com>
Web Site: www.rowleylegal.com<http://www.rowleylegal.com/>

Practice concentrated on business, real estate and general legal matters in Washington and Idaho.

[cid:image006.png at 01D22940.05293C80]<https://www.facebook.com/rowleylegal>[cid:image008.png at 01D22940.05293C80]<https://www.linkedin.com/pub/rob-rowley/11/172/b20>[cid:image011.png at 01D22940.05293C80]<https://twitter.com/ROBERTRROWLEY>[cid:image013.jpg at 01D22940.05293C80]<http://www.yelp.com/biz/robert-r-rowley-spokane>

NOTICE: The contents of this message and any attachments may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine or other applicable protections.  If you are not the intended recipient or have received this message in error, please notify the sender and promptly delete the message.  Thank you for your assistance.
DISCLAIMER: You should recognize that responses provided by e-mail means are akin to ordinary telephone or face-to-face conversations and do not reflect the level of factual or legal inquiry or analysis which would be applied in the case of a formal legal opinion. A formal opinion may very well reach a different conclusion.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161018/9b9ab824/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2556 bytes
Desc: image001.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161018/9b9ab824/image001.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3880 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161018/9b9ab824/image002.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3127 bytes
Desc: image006.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161018/9b9ab824/image006.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image008.png
Type: image/png
Size: 2888 bytes
Desc: image008.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161018/9b9ab824/image008.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image011.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3124 bytes
Desc: image011.png
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161018/9b9ab824/image011.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image013.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1176 bytes
Desc: image013.jpg
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/wsbarp/attachments/20161018/9b9ab824/image013.jpg>