These changes would affect Thurston Co. watershed. Here’s why some are upset
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- DERT projects 2,606 new exempt wells; critics say new rules could greenlight them
- Tribes and residents say rules lack mitigation, monitoring and streamflow safeguards.
- Local officials warn $150 fee falls short to fund offsets and implementation.
Multiple people spoke during a Department of Ecology public hearing on Jan. 6 against new water resource rules proposed for the Deschutes watershed, which lies almost entirely in Thurston County.
The Deschutes Estuary Restoration Team said in a newsletter ahead of the meeting that the new rules would allow drilling of new permit-exempt wells in the watershed without mitigation, metering or monitoring of water usage. They said the proposed rules also don’t consider the impacts of streamflows or other habitat in the watershed.
DERT is a nonprofit conservation group that’s been partnering with state agencies to help host community engagement events and get information out about the restoration project.
Ecology spokesperson Jimmy Norris told The Olympian that the department has been working with local governments since 2018 to improve streamflows while still allowing construction and domestic wells to be installed where they’re needed.
Norris said the department recognizes more needs to be done to build resiliency and protect water for people and fish, and they continue to welcome further discussion on the topic.
“In 10 of the 15 watersheds affected by the 2018 Streamflow Restoration Act, local planning groups came up with strategies to offset the impacts of growth and new wells,” he said. “We were required to finalize the five remaining plans and conduct rulemaking to incorporate plan recommendations.”
According to state law, permit-exempt wells are an allowed use of groundwater for specific purposes without the need to obtain a water rights permit. If you have a permit-exempt well, you have to file a court claim to secure a legal right to use that water.
DERT president Dave Monthie said during the public hearing that he was a part of the committee that spent more than two years coming up with a watershed restoration plan. He said the plan identified and projected another 2,606 exempt wells that would be constructed in the Deschutes watershed by the year 2038. The restoration plan included a set of policy recommendations for Ecology to consider, such as additional water conservation, which he said the department deleted from the plan.
He said as a consequence, they were left with a plan that was not developed by the committee, but one developed by the Department of Ecology. He said their proposal “simply green lights another 2,606 exempt wells with documented impacts to stream flows.”
Monthie said allowing additional exempt wells will exacerbate existing temperature and dissolved oxygen problems in the Deschutes River and its tributaries.
He said the department has been unresponsive to requests for meetings and further discussions around the proposed rules. He suggested that the department pause and use the two years allowed for rulemaking to have continued discussions with stakeholders before making any decisions.
Bryan Benjamin, the Natural Resources Program manager for Thurston County, said during the hearing that Ecology should have engaged directly with the Deschutes Watershed and Restoration Committee’s planning units and local governments to draft rules, rather than only allowing comments on rules written by the department.
He said the department’s proposed $150 fee the county can collect for new permit-exempt wells is not enough to operate an implementation program. He said it’s only enough to cover the cost of administering permit intake and transfer of the $350 portion of the fee to Ecology.
“The proposed rules do not address the authority of WRACs (water resources advisory committees), watershed planning units or implementing governments to increase the fees collected to match the expense of offsetting impacts of new, permanent exempt well installations, as suggested in the Streamflow Restoration Act,” Benjamin said.
He said the proposed rules should be amended to give these groups explicit authority to raise fees as needed.
Claire Newman, attorney for the Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe, raised similar concerns during the public hearing about their watershed. She said the tribe was a member of the water resources advisory committee for the Kitsap Watershed, and they offered multiple comments at different stages of the planning process.
She said the tribe’s comments repeatedly expressed concerns that the streamflow restoration plan would be “ineffective at offsetting impacts to instream flows for permanent exempt wells,” and that threatens the tribe’s reserve water rights and treaty fishing rights in an area with already-shallow aquifers and small streams vulnerable to high temperatures.
Newman said Ecology did not consult with the tribe prior to drafting these new rule changes, and that the department is attempting to “wash its hands” of implementation and subsequent mitigation measures.
“We want to emphasize that this statement that Ecology makes annually to the legislature really falls far short of Ecology’s obligation to protecting stream flows as water rights, and it acknowledges that it’s not for lack of authorization, but for lack of creativity and effort to find new ways of protecting instream flows, and that the stream flow restoration plans have tools built into them that could be realized, but that Ecology really seems uninterested in actually supporting local jurisdictions,” Newman said.
Norris, the Ecology spokesperson, told The Olympian that population growth and development is spreading into once-rural areas in many parts of Western Washington, which is putting more pressure on water supplies and “potentially impacting the water needed by fish in nearby streams.”
He said this rulemaking is the result of six years of work to develop watershed restoration plans. Those plans identify projects that help offset the effects new wells and construction have on groundwater. He said because of the limited, two-year timeframe, the department isn’t able to “fully explore amending instream flows or basin closure limits in this rulemaking.”
Comments on the proposed rule changes are being accepted until 11:59 p.m. on Jan. 18. Residents can leave written comments online or by mail, or contact danielle.gallatin@ecy.wa.gov to provide testimony.
The next step is to review the comments received and make a determination whether to adopt the rule. Ecology Director Casey Sixkiller will consider the rule documentation and staff recommendations and will make a decision about adopting the proposal on March 12. If the proposed rule changes are adopted, they will go into effect 31 days later.
This story was originally published January 15, 2026 at 5:00 AM.
.jpg)