Chehalis Basin Watershed Planning
Issue Paper
MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLY
What is this paper about?
Serving the domestic water needs of people is a significant consumptive water use in the Chehalis Basin. A major portion of this water use is provided to people by entities called water purveyors. Water purveyors may be municipalities like the City of Chehalis; water districts, such as Boistfort Valley Water District or Grays Harbor Water District #2; or community water systems that typically serve smaller residential areas. Collectively, these organizations are referred to as "municipal water purveyors." Residents who do not get their water from water purveyors usually rely on a personal well or spring to supply their domestic needs.
Water purveyors face some unique challenges in fulfilling their mission of providing safe drinking water to residents within their service areas. These challenges involve striking a balance between serving the immediate needs of the current population and planning for future populations. Working within the framework and requirements of the various regulations adds to this challenge.
What basic knowledge about municipal water system planning is needed to understand its place in the Watershed Plan?
The Washington Department of Health (DOH) regulates the development of new drinking water sources and the design, operation, and construction of water treatment, storage and transmission facilities. (See Chapter 246-290 WAC.) All water purveyors are required to prepare some sort of Water System Plan. Purveyors with 1,000 or more connections must use a minimum 20-year planning horizon and update their plan every six years. Water System Plans identify present/future water needs and how the purveyor plans to meet those needs. These needs include both physical capacity and the adequacy of water rights. Smaller water purveyors may prepare an abbreviated version of the Water System Plan, called a Small Water System Management Program. There are no regular update requirements for small water purveyors.
The planning considerations for a water purveyor include both physical and regulatory items including the following:
Physical capacity of their system versus current demand (both instantaneous and annual)
Physical capacity of their system versus projected future demand (both instantaneous and annual)
Location of their water source and distribution facilities versus location of projected future demand
Current demand versus water right authorization (instantaneous and annual)
Future demand versus water right authorization (instantaneous and annual)
Uncertainty of commercial/industrial demand (both quantity and location)
Current and future water right authorization incongruencies associated with location of water use, size of service area, number of connections, etc.
Water System Plans are reviewed and approved by DOH, but the Plans are also reviewed by the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) for adequacy of water rights issues since Ecology administers the water right program. Ecology's review of Water System Plans is the agency's main opportunity to identify potential problems with municipal water rights.
Municipal water purveyor's water rights are more complex by nature than most other water rights. Most municipal water purveyors have several water rights. These water rights often pertain to several water sources, such as several wells. Often, the more recent water rights are tied to the earlier water rights, so that the Ecology and the water purveyors essentially manage these rights as a package. In addition, some rights may be provisioned as supplemental, meaning they can only be used if the water source authorized under the other rights (considered primary) is not available. Fortunately, since water purveyors almost always meter raw water diversion as well as customer's water use for billing purposes, actual water use data are available to help assess the water needs and use of municipal water purveyors.
What issue does this paper address?
One of the major issues facing water purveyors is the interaction between those entity's water rights and planning for future growth. Water rights for water purveyors are a little different from other types of water rights. Just like everyone else, a water purveyor is subject to the state water code and, therefore, must have a water right (permit or certificate) to authorize water use. For most other water rights, a permit is issued to authorize the applicant to begin using the water; then, once the water is in full use (project is complete), a water right certificate is issued. In contrast, water purveyors have often received certificates for their water rights before they have fully put the water to beneficial use. The reasoning behind this difference is to give the water purveyor a water right to "grow into" or allow for community population and economic growth.
The portion of a municipal/domestic water right that is not yet in service is called the inchoate portion of the water right. These inchoate portions have created controversy, administrative and court rulings, and new legislation that took effect on September 9, 2003:
Because water rights are tied to a particular location for use, if a water purveyor increases its service area size, it must obtain approval from Ecology for a change to its water right before serving the new area. During that water right change process, Ecology has attempted to "downsize" municipal water rights as part of the change when it determines that the water right is larger than necessary to serve the projected needs of the water purveyor.
Ecology has also attempted to limit the number of connections, area served, and purpose of use. [There is often some commercial use (usually unquantified in the water rights) associated with municipal water rights.]
A Washington State Supreme Court case in 1998 (1 Dept. of Ecology v. Theodoratus, 135 Wn2d 582 (1998)) shed more uncertainty on municipal water rights with a ruling that a privately-owned water supplier was not entitled to receive a water right certificate until the water was actually in use in homes connected to the water system. Historically, a water right certificate may have been issued once the water supplier had constructed the basic diversion and conveyance system ("pumps and pipes"). This ruling also applies to publicly-owned systems.
Many municipal/domestic water rights may actually be much larger than needed to serve projected populations, since many of these water rights were issued before Ecology critically evaluated this.
Municipalities are faced with conflicting requirements: Growth Management Act, zoning, and critical areas and stormwater regulations may require them to cluster residential areas more closely together or in areas not anticipated under their water rights.
Many entities are keenly interested in the inchoate portion of these water rights. This appropriated but unused water provides water for population growth, but it could instead, or in the interim, be used to provide protection for instream flows. It could potentially also be sold to another entity, such as another water purveyor or a commercial/industrial enterprise, for an out-of-stream use. Any new use of the inchoate portion of a municipal water right would likely be a new drain on the instream flows in the river or stream associated with the water right.
The Washington State legislature passed legislation in June, 2003 (HB 1338, HB 1336) that seeks to clarify and provide more certainty around municipal water rights. This controversial legislation went into effect on September 9, 2003.
What is known about the future water supply needs of Chehalis Basin water purveyors?
Water system information was compiled from Water System Plans for all major purveyors in the Chehalis Basin. A population threshold of 1,000 or more was selected for this compilation, which corresponds to approximately 400 service connections. This threshold was selected because it represents a logical breakout of purveyors and facilitates a targeted assessment. Table 1 summarizes what is known from compiled information about the current and projected future annual demand versus water rights and the current and future surplus/deficit related to authorized water rights. All communities have adequate water rights to cover current annual demand. In the future however, Water System Plans show that four communities (Centralia, Elma, Westport, and Napavine) will not have adequate water rights to accommodate projected future annual demand. It should be noted that there are approximately 450 water purveyors in the Chehalis Basin, 18 of which were included in this assessment. The remaining water purveyors are small community systems that may have no further capacity or intention to expand water service. In the Deschutes Watershed, the water rights held by these small purveyors have been found to be significantly larger than believed necessary based on their service connections and geographic limitations on expansion. This "unused" and "unperfected" portion of community water system water rights has been determined to be a significant water right allocation in the Deschutes Watershed. A similar evaluation of smaller community water system water rights has not been done for the Chehalis.
| - | - | |
- | - |
| |
||||
| - | - | |||
| Water Purveyor | Current Annual Demand1 | Current Water Rights | Current Surplus | Estimated
20-Year2
Surplus/Deficit |
| - | (ac-ft) | (ac-ft) | (ac-ft) | (ac-ft) |
| Aberdeen | n/a3 | n/a3 | n/a3 | n/a3 |
| Bucoda | 54.9 | 157.0 | 102.1 | 98.8 |
| Centralia | 2,710.4 | 3,808.0 | 1,097.6 | (1,971.2 |
| Chehalis | 2,195.2 | 10,371.0 | 8,175.8 | 7,425.4 |
| Cosmopolis | 280.0 | 4 | n/a3 | 4 |
| Elma | 571.2 | 672.0 | 100.8 | (448.0) |
| Hoquiam | 1,456.0 | 12,452.0 | 10,996.0 | 10,660.0 |
| McCleary | 250.0 | 1,633.0 | 1,383.0 | 1,258.0 |
| Montesano | n/a3 | n/a3 | n/a3 | 0.0 |
| Napavine | 143.4 | 168.0 | 24.6 | (131.0) |
| Tenino | 211.7 | 270.0 | 58.3 | 25.8 |
| Ocean Shores | 851.2 | 4,355.0 | 3,503.8 | 2,910.2 |
| Westport | 828.8 | 1,120.0 | 291.2 | (380.0) |
| Boistfort V. | 295.7 | 662.0 | 366.3 | 301.4 |
| Grays Hbr.WD #1 | n/a3 | 745.0 | n/a3 | n/a3 |
| Rochester | n/a3 | n/a3 | n/a3 | n/a3 |
| Scott Lake | 212.0 | 247.0 | 35.0 | 0.0 |
| Central Park | 427.1 | 1,098.0 | 670.9 | 1,098.0 |
| - | - | - | - | - |
| Totals | 10,487.5 | 37,758.0 | 26,805.5 | 20,847.3 |
| 1These values are the annual withdrawal demand for each water purveyor, as reported in their Water System Plan. These values do no represent actual water use or consumption. That value would be a lesser amount for each purveyor, depending on the inefficiencies (water losses) within their diversion, treatment, and distribution system.
2These values were taken/calculated based on each water purveyor's WSP, using their 20-year planning horizon. Therefore the 20-year period is benchmarked off the date of the WSP, and that date varies between 2015 to 2023 3Water System Plan currently being updated. 4Cosmopolis receives its water supply from the City of Aberdeen. |
Is there a problem for communities facing a predicted deficit?
There may be a problem for communities predicting a deficit, but each situation is unique. The City of Napavine is seeking to purchase additional water rights to cover its needs. The City of Elma plans to address its deficit by reducing water losses within its distribution system. For the City of Westport, the projected deficit is for annual demand only, not instantaneous. A deficit in instantaneous demand may occur if planned additional service areas come on line. The City of Centralia intends to address its deficit by gaining water right approvals from Ecology for three pending groundwater water rights applications.
What about water purveyors that project a surplus?
In many cases, the current and projected surplus is the inchoate portion of the water purveyor's water rights. Because of the complexities described above, each water purveyor's situation would need to be studied individually to determine the precise quantity of inchoate rights. In general terms, however, Table 1 indicates that there are currently inchoate water rights in the Chehalis Basin totaling approximately 26,800 acre-feet per year. If communities continue to grow and access the inchoate portion of their water rights, this inchoate portion will be approximately 20,800 acre-feet per year by around 2015.
How will the new water legislation affect municipal water supply in the Chehalis?
Legislation passed during the 2003 legislative session that affects municipal water purveyors is contained primarily in HB 1338 and, to a lesser extent, HB 1336. HB 1338 amends several existing statutes and rules, including the Surface Water Code (90.03 RCW), the Watershed Planning Act (90.82 RCW), and the Water Resources Act of 1971 (90.54 RCW).
This legislation has three major focal points that will affect water purveyors:
Revises the definition of municipal water supply purposes to mean service to 15 or more residential service connections and to include nonresidential uses served by a municipal water purveyor (such as commercial/industrial or fish/wildlife/water quality/instream flow uses).
Attempts to clarify the relationship between the Water System Plans developed by water purveyors and water rights. The bill places more clout on the Water System Plan, stating that when discrepancies occur between a Water System Plan and water rights (in terms of area served, etc.) that the Water System Plan will take precedence. It also attempts to limit Ecology's authority to examine municipal water rights except during the course of a Water System Plan review and/or a water right change requested by the water purveyor.
Sets forth specific requirements for municipal water supply conservation programs, including the nature of required activities, schedule, and accountability requirements. It also states that water purveyors may not access the inchoate portion of their water rights unless and until they have shown that it is not possible to meet new demand through conservation efforts.
HB 1336 requires that a Detailed Implementation Plan be developed for each Watershed Plan. HB 1338 outlines the requirements related to municipal water supply for the Detailed Implementation Plan as follows:
" The timelines and interim milestones in a detailed implementation plan . . . must address the planned future use of existing water rights for municipal water supply purposes . . . that are inchoate, including how these rights will be used to meet the projected future needs identified in the watershed plan, and how the use of these rights will be addressed when implementing instream flow strategies identified in the watershed plan.
The watershed planning unit . . . shall ensure that holders of water rights for municipal water supply purposes not currently in use are asked to participate in defining the timelines and interim milestones to be included in the detailed implementation plan.
The department of health shall annually compile a list of water system plans and plan updates to be reviewed by the department during the coming year and shall consult with the departments of community, trade, and economic development, ecology, and fish and wildlife to : (a) Identify watersheds where further coordination is needed between water system planning and local watershed planning under this chapter; and (b) develop a work plan for conducting the necessary coordination."
As this new legislation goes into effect, recommendations contained in the 2514 Watershed Plan, as well as actions of individual communities and the regulatory agencies responsible for municipal water supply regulation will determine the real effect on the Chehalis Basin.
What are some alternative actions to address the municipal water supply issue?
Adjudication/streamlined adjudication. (See the Water Quantity Core Issues Paper.) An adjudication could be a forum to examine all water rights, including municipal water supply water rights, to determine the extent of their validity. If unneeded water rights exist, such as for built-out community water systems, these water rights could be compelled to be relinquished through an adjudication process.
Transfer of surface water rights to ground water rights. ˙˙(See the Water Quantity Core Issues Paper.) This alternative could be utilized to lessen the impact of water withdrawals on instream flows. The North Fork Newaukum River is an example, where both the Cities of Chehalis and Centralia hold surface water rights for large withdrawals.
Implementation of a water master program. (See the Water Quantity Core Issues Paper.) ˙˙This local program could help facilitate daily water needs between water users, including municipal suppliers.
Use of interruptible water rights for a portion of water supply. Under this alternative, municipal suppliers could be requested to discontinue use of the interruptible portion of a water right during drought years or low flow periods. This would result in customers needing to cut back on water use for ornamental landscaping and other discretionary uses.
Water conservation programs. (See the Water Conservation and the Water Quantity Core Issues Papers.) ˙˙The requirements for municipal water conservation programs will become more stringent under HB 1338. This includes both conservation on the part of the users, and fixing water losses within the withdrawal and distribution system.
Water rights trust program. (See the Water Quantity Core Issues Paper.) A statewide water rights trust program exists but has not been used very much, largely because of a lack of perceived benefit. A water rights trust program could be used to dedicate an unneeded portion of municipal water rights to instream flows or as a water rights banking system to facilitate water rights marketing between entities.
Integration of the use of reclaimed water . (See the Water Quantity Core Issues Ppaper.) Reclaimed water (treated wastewater of high enough quality to be used for many non-human-contact purposes) plays a small, but increasing role in water resources in Washington State. Most communities, like the City of Chehalis, have constructed water reclamation facilities as a means to dispose of wastewater. A few have also found opportunities to use the reclaimed water as part of their municipal supply. Use of reclaimed water could be an opportunity to serve additional water needs without withdrawing additional water. However, there are also concerns that this use could actually increase consumptive water use because the treated wastewater would have otherwise been returned to the river or stream system. Currently, communities are not given any sort of credit on their water rights for using reclaimed water. Clearly this is an area of policy and infrastructure development that is very dynamic.
Relinquishment of unused, unneeded water rights. Water rights analysis would likely reveal many water rights, and portions of water rights, that could be relinquished. Relinquishment of these water rights would help reconcile the quantity of water used versus the higher quantity of water appropriated through water rights. However relinquishment is almost always viewed as a taking of property to the entity who holds the right.
Addressing requirements of Phase 4 watershed planning related to municipal water rights. New legislation in 2003 (HB 1338) identifies specific requirements that must be addressed during Phase 4 Detailed Implementation Plan development related to municipal water rights:
" The timelines and interim milestones in a detailed implementation plan . . . must address the planned future use of existing water rights for municipal water supply purposes . . . that are inchoate, including how these rights will be used to meet the projected future needs identified in the watershed plan, and how the use of these rights will be addressed when implementing instream flow strategies identified in the watershed plan. (HB 1338)
Encouraging a return of water to the rivers and streams. (See also the Instream Flow Issue Paper.) Encouraging the return of water to the rivers and streams to benefit instream flow needs should be pursued whenever possible. This could be done initially through small dedications of unneeded water rights to instream flows, hopefully leading to larger dedications. These dedications could be promoted as mitigation for approval of new water rights or water right changes.
Implementation of water storage projects to serve municipal water supply needs without impacting instream flows. The Multipurpose Water Storage Assessment, conducted as part of this Watershed Plan, identified several viable options for further evaluation. These include incorporating water supply needs into the design for the proposed modification of Skookumchuck Dam and aquifer storage and recovery in the Newaukum area.
˙˙Watershed mitigation. (See the Water Quantity Core Issues Paper.) Watershed mitigation, or doing a project to create environmental benefit elsewhere in the watershed, could be part of resolving the municipal water supply situation.
Regional water supply or coordinated water system planning. It could be very beneficial for the communities, particularly in the Centralia/Chehalis and Aberdeen/Hoquiam areas, to convene a regional planning group to facilitate regional water supply planning.
Connecting water supply planning to growth management or comprehensive planning. Any area designated for urban or suburban development should have the ability to be served by some sort of municipal water system. There is currently no mechanism to ensure that this occurs, since water rights are administered by Ecology, Water System Plans are approved by the DOH, and land use planning is adopted at the local (county or city) level. Changes to regulatory procedures should be implemented to connect these three functions. The new legislation (HB 1338) takes a first step by designating DOH and Water System Plans as the prevailing agency and document in designating/approving water system service areas, number of connections, etc. This does not entirely solve the problem, however, because there is still no strong link to ensure the presence and validity of water rights for lands designated for urban/suburban development at the local level.
What actions are recommended?
The following actions are recommended as an outcome of this paper:
Address Requirements of Phase 4 Watershed Planning Related to Municipal Water Rights (#9 above)
Develop a toolbox for municipal water purveyors to assist them in meeting their water supply responsibilities while also contributing to protection of instream baseflows. Municipal water purveyors have traditionally attempted to obtain new water rights to meet increased water supply demand that exceeds their current water rights. New water right approvals have become increasingly difficult to obtain, a situation that is not likely to change in the future. This recommendation provides a toolbox for municipal water suppliers to help them meet their responsibilities through numerous, varied approaches. Implementing this recommendation will require increased flexibility from Ecology, and other regulatory agencies such as DOH, in evaluating proposed water use practices. This toolbox could include the following alternative actions:
Transfer of surface water rights to ground water rights
Implementation of a water master program
Use of interruptible water rights for a portion of water supply
Water conservation programs
Water rights trust program
Integration of the use of reclaimed water
Encouraging a return of water to the rivers and streams
Implementation of water storage projects to serve municipal water supply needs without impacting instream flows
Watershed mitigation
Regional water supply or coordinated water system planning
Connecting water supply planning to growth management or comprehensive planning
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council