To stipulate that the construction of a replacement or new well at the location of the original well may be used for purposes other than municipal or domestic supply without application to the department. The construction of a replacement or a new well, used for municipal or domestic supply, at a location within two miles of the location of the original well must be allowed without application to the department. See also Companion HB 1540.   Official Text and Analysis.

By Charlie Brown, WA Potato Commission; Bill Hahn, Kitsap PUD; Darryll Olsen, Rep. Columbia-Snake River; Dave Monthie, King County; Scott Hazlegrove, Water & Sewer Districts; William D Hahn, Washington P.U.D. Association; Kathleen Collins, Washington Water Policy Alliance. They testified that the requirement that a replacement or back-up well be constructed only at the same location as the original well affects the ability of public water systems to respond to changes in land use, water quality, and aquifer productivity that make the location unavailable or unsuitable. Municipalities or domestic supply providers need additional flexibility when consolidating or joining smaller water systems together. It is a good start, but the bill needs additional language to allow additional work on a currently existing well to bring it into a water system. Regarding a change in source, it is difficult to tell what is the same source. This bill, or an improved version, would allow a shift away from high impact sources to lower impact sources, helping instream flows, water quality, etc. For instance, a well by a gas station could be moved to alleviate spill or contamination concerns. Wells close to salmon streams could be moved away, or to deeper aquifers to protect flow. This bill would allow those changes to be made without prohibitive cost.

By Josh Baldi, WEC; Denise D Smith, LWV WA; Jim Waldo, Governor's Office. They testified that having no chance to amend or review replacement wells up to two-miles from the original could lead to perfection of inchoate paper rights that impair others' rights. This may reward delayed protection of well-heads. The bill includes no mechanism to ensure that protections for other water right holders will be implemented. This problem could be addressed with notice provisions.

Prohibits an increase in annual or instantaneous quantity. The original bill required that the combined effect of R/A wells not result in an increase in the annual quantity of the original water right. The original bill allowed DOE to issue amendments to tap a different body of public ground water so long as R/A wells remain within the same WRIA as the original well. The substitute extends this to adjoining WRIAs. The original bill set municipal and domestic supply purposes apart from other purposes, allowing the construction of municipal and domestic supply R/A wells up to two miles from the old well-head without applying for an amendment. Under the substitute bill, no distinction by type of water right holder is made. The location of the original well is statutorily defined as one-quarter mile, within which no amendment is required. R/A wells more than one-quarter mile, but not more than two miles, from the original well-head require pre-construction notice, followed by a 60-day waiting period to allow for potential impairment claims, DOE advisory opinions, and a dispute resolution process.

To stipulate that the construction of a replacement or new well at the location of the original well may be used for purposes other than municipal or domestic supply without application to the department.

To no longer allow a change in the purpose of use of an existing ground water right; and require a change in the location of a well within a WRIA or to an adjoining WRIA to be consistent with any watershed plans or ground water management programs that have been approved or adopted for the area. Regarding the newly established procedure for moving the location of a well within two miles, the striking amendment: requires notice to be sent to tribes and planning units and to be posted on the DOE's website; requires impairment claims to be filed within 30 days (rather than 20 days); requires the DOE to examine any such claim within 90 days and prohibits the procedure from being used unless there is a finding of "no impairment" (rather than requiring the DOE to produce a technical advisory opinion, requiring attempts to resolve the claimed impairment, and allowing construction to begin in 60 days); states that a failure to file a claim of potential impairment in the 30 day period does not preclude a claim of actual impairment later; and no longer prohibits the new well location to be any closer to potentially impacted wells than the original well.

The bill did not pass both chambers during the 2003 regular session, so the bill automatically returned to the Senate Rules Committee when the regular 105-day session adjourned on April 27, 2003.