Hirst decision good idea, wrong approach

Welcome to the future. I’m referring to the recent Hirst court decision on rural groundwater wells. The days of being able to take public water from the natural landscape without regulation are over. The time is well past due (no pun intended) for establishing water use rules that don’t take more than the landscape can sustain.

There are cities in the American southwest that are sucking groundwater from aquifers that were filled by the last ice age at a rate many, many times faster than the current climate replenishes them. These cities will disappear in the future as their aquifers go dry just like the old mining ghost towns of the late 1800s did when the mineral veins ran out.

This same fate will eventual befall any large human population that does not manage its use of water, let alone what harm will come to the natural world. Clean freshwater is not in endless supply, and landscape limits need to be defined so people can live in perpetuity within a healthy natural environment.

That said, the Hirst ruling is a bit like using a chainsaw to open up someone’s chest for life-saving heart surgery. Sure, it will work, but things will tend to get a little messy. Stabbing thousands of rural landowners in the heart by stopping them from building their homes is cruel and unnecessary. There are good, smart people in the state Department of Ecology who can figure out an equitable way to resolve matters. It’s fighting politicians that foul things up.

This story was originally published August 29, 2017 at 2:14 PM with the headline "Hirst decision good idea, wrong approach."