We are actively pursuing long-term water supply solutions for property owners in the Skagit River basin affected by the adoption of Chapter 173-503 WAC and the 2013 Washington State Supreme Court ruling.
Read more about the rule and court decision:
Some of the long-term supply solutions being explored are:
- Water banks: acquiring senior water rights to use for mitigation (i.e., ending a long-standing withdrawal from the river to offset the impacts of new withdrawals.)
- Storage (storing water when it is plentiful to be used when water is scarce)
- Extending public water supply service areas
- Shallow aquifer recharge: Releasing water to replenish groundwater supplies
Water supply options for new uses
There are several ways to potentially get water for new legal water use in the Skagit River basin:
- Connect to a public water supply.
- Store water in a cistern. You can collect and store rainwater or, depending on your location, you may be able to have water delivered. Consult with the Skagit County Planning and Development Services at 360-416-1320 or Snohomish County Planning and Development Services at 425-388-3311 for more information.
- Drill a well in a location that has no impact on the river.
- A number of residences have already been approved. Contact the Skagit County Planning and Development Services staff at 360-416-1320 for more information.
- We recently informed the county about a water availability zone near Bayview where groundwater drains to saltwater and withdrawals have no effect on the river. See the water availability zone map.
- Use a well and mitigate (offset) the impact on instream flows by proposing your own mitigation plan to us.
- We have approved a mitigation plan for Sun Peak Estates in Snohomish County, which benefits 11 properties in the Fisher Creek subbasin.
Developing solutions
Storage
In response to Engrossed Senate Bill 6589, the Governor directed us to study the possibility of storing water to provide non-interruptible water supplies to permit-exempt well users in the Skagit River basin. We partnered with Washington State University’s Water Research Center to develop the feasibility study. We also worked with Department of Health, Skagit County, tribes, and non-municipally owned public water systems in Skagit County on this study.
Water banks
We have contracted with Washington Water Trust, a non-profit organization with experience developing and administering water banks, to develop regional mitigation options for the basin.
Purchase of water rights near Mt. Vernon
We have purchased three water rights from the Big Lake Water Association near Mount Vernon which total:
- 15 acre-feet of water for mitigation purposes.
- 18.56 acre-feet of water for streamflow enhancement.
We are currently developing a mitigation plan, which would determine how the mitigation process will work and the area that could be served — most likely homes below Big Lake.
Potential purchase of Skagit River mainstem water rights
We are also in discussions with public utilities that hold senior water rights on the Skagit River mainstem and assessing how many parcels could benefit from this mitigation water. These would be parcels in which withdrawals from permit-exempt wells would mainly impact the Skagit River mainstem. More information will be posted when available.
Expanding public water supply
We commissioned RH2 Engineering to complete two in-depth studies of existing municipal water systems in the lower Skagit River tributaries to determine if those systems could provide water for new uses.
The first study evaluated nine public water systems in the region and identified five potential projects that would provide water in the Carpenter-Fisher and Nookachamps subbasins. The projects identified include:
- Direct water service expansion in the upper reaches of the Nookachamps and Carpenter-Fisher sub-basins
- Indirect water service by piping municipal supplies into the upper reaches of Fisher, Carpenter, and Nookachamps creeks, offsetting the use of wells downstream
Preliminary cost estimates for these projects range from $700,000 to $12 million. The study found that it is least expensive to use public water supply as mitigation (indirect water service). Mitigation options ranged between about $700,000 to $4 million. Direct service options started at about $6 million. If carried out, these options would provide relief for some, but not all, property owners in these sub-basins. The biggest expense is the length of the water main needed.
The second study assessed the availability of municipal water rights upstream of Sedro-Woolley. The study identified:
- Five water systems that may be capable of expanding their service, although substantial infrastructure upgrades may be needed.
- Fifteen smaller water systems could serve an additional 633 connections within their existing service areas.
Cost is the major consideration for water service expansion. A rough estimate puts possible waterline extensions in the tens of millions of dollars. Where funding for these projects would come from is not known. Many areas where direct water service expansion would be needed do not have a lot of residents. This may not be a cost-effective option.
Shallow aquifer recharge
We have considered shallow aquifer recharge (SAR) projects to provide water for mitigation in the Skagit River basin. Suitable sites are a possibility in portions of the lower Skagit. The upper Skagit watershed is generally dominated by bedrock, limiting the likelihood of suitable sites.
Many elements need to come together for SAR to be a viable option. These include:
- Proper geology
- Land available for lease or purchase
- Reliable and consistent water availability. In areas where SAR would depend on high-flow events or stormwater runoff for recharge, water supply could vary considerably seasonally and from year-to-year
- Reliable operation and maintenance facility that could run indefinitely
Read more about shallow aquifer recharge.
Skagit River Basin Streamflow Enhancement/Groundwater Mitigation Program
In 2014, the Upper Skagit Tribe proposed a wetland recharge SAR project in the Fisher Creek subbasin. A technical study showed that not enough water could be captured during dry years to meet the needs of property owners. Potential sites were also not available for purchase and there was little community support. The project proponents decided not to pursue the project.