Can Whatcom farmers and enviros agree on water rights? Common ground exists

Can farmers and environmentalists agree? Many would find this surprising, perhaps even shocking. Far too often our polarized world focuses on our disagreements. But what if we start where we agree?

Recently, the two of us looked at some issues surrounding water resources and learned that we agree on several important topics:

Farming, salmon and food: Whatcom County is a popular place to live, with more and more people moving here. This has created land-use problems for salmon and our farms. The losses of both salmon habitat and farmland are indisputable. We must work to preserve both through responsible growth and land-use planning and to prevent rural sprawl.

Climate change: Regardless of its causes, climate change is definitely real. Summers are hotter and drier. Higher temperatures cause increasing glacier loss and earlier springtime snowmelt. This leads to higher stream flows and flooding in the winter and less water in the summer, right when we need it most. Lower flows bring with them higher water temperatures and less habitat — all bad for salmon and other fish.

Likewise, irrigation needs for crops, lawns, gardens and golf courses are increasing as temperatures climb and summer rainfall declines. All signs point to these adverse summer conditions getting worse over the next few decades. Unlike other Puget Sound basins, the Nooksack Basin lacks storage and other water-resource infrastructure that could help improve water-resource management in a changing climate.

Responses to climate change: We must deal promptly with our declining supply of and growing demand for summer water. We need a robust mix of supply, storage and efficiency projects to fill the growing gap between water needs and supply, and we also need urgency in finding solutions.

Many studies have been conducted in Whatcom County over the past few decades, but very little work has been done to implement proposed solutions. The local Watershed Management Board is the entity responsible for coordination of water-resource issues. From our perspective, the board appears to lack the motivation to promptly and effectively address our water supply/demand imbalance.

Statutory barriers: Washington water law dates back to 1917 and is based on long-outdated assumptions. It is vital that we recognize the many deficiencies in our current system. Whether the issue is clarification of Native American Treaty rights, ground and surface water connections, climate change, or a growing population, our water law is woefully inadequate, creating more problems than it solves.

One glaring example of counterproductive law is relinquishment. If a farmer does not use their full water right for five years, the Department of Ecology is required to take away that right. Many farms can and do use more efficient irrigation methods and would happily consider more. Yet, because of relinquishment, they’re dissuaded from making valuable efficiency gains. The farmer loses, and so does society. Why has this ridiculous law remained on the books for decades?

Role of water-use efficiency: If we could fix the relinquishment issue, a next key step would be using water more efficiently (i.e. reducing waste). Although we have conducted many studies of potential supply and storage options, we have never studied the potential benefits and costs of improving water-use efficiency. Local water utilities run such programs, but they do not focus on outdoor use, which is where the greatest benefit could occur. We may debate how much savings could be achieved, but we definitely should be investigating the possibilities further. At a minimum, we need a serious study of the potential for saving water in all sectors of society.

Collaboration: While we may not agree on the value of the upcoming water rights adjudication, we do agree that adjudication alone will not be nearly enough. We need settlement discussions today that include all Whatcom water users. Whatcom County sponsored work to develop a collaborative process called a Solutions Table, but some parties are not willing to participate. The local Watershed Management Board provides a platform for structured settlement discussions, but we need leadership from all sectors to participate and find solutions. We hope such discussions begin soon, as they have worked well in other areas of Washington.

Our summertime water resources are finite and diminishing because of climate change. And a growing population will continue to put pressure on these precious resources. We need prompt action, and the current glacial pace of discussions concerns us both. Discussing complex issues like water law, climate change and finite resources can be challenging, but finding places to agree is a crucial starting point.

By doing so, perhaps we can begin to make a difference in respecting the traditions and treaty rights of our local tribes, the vitality and heritage of our family farms, and the community values of responsible growth.

Fred Likkel is executive director of Whatcom Family Farmers, a farming advocacy group based in Whatcom County. Eric Hirst was an engineer and energy-policy analyst, and a lifelong environmentalist working on local water issues.

Want to submit your own guest commentary of 500-800 words? Contact Executive Editor Ron Judd, ronjudd@cascadiadaily.com, or send to guestcolumns@cascadiadaily.com.