Frequently Asked Questions

Permit-exempt wells are private wells allowed by the State of Washington for specific, restricted uses that are exempt from the requirement of obtaining a permit for groundwater withdrawals.

The Hirst Decision impacted the use of permit exempt wells for development and that resulted in the Washington State Legislature to pass ESSB 6091 in 2018. The new law does not directly impact existing permit exempt well users. Wells constructed in these basins in compliance with chapter 18.104 RCW are not subject to the new restrictions, limitations, and fees. This is regardless of whether the well was put to beneficial use prior to January 19, 2018.

The new law provides specific regulation for new permit-exempt domestic uses. Per our interpretation of the term “domestic use” (below), we interpret the new law to limit water use under the exemptions in RCW 90.44.050 for domestic water use and watering of a non-commercial lawn or garden. The other uses exempt from permitting (industrial use including irrigation and stockwatering) are not restricted beyond existing legal limitations under RCW 90.44.050, and, in some cases, restrictions identified in instream flow rules adopted under chapters 90.22 or 90.54 RCW.

1. What is domestic use? The Legislature did not define “domestic use” in the new law. The Legislature chose to specify that during a drought, only 350 gallons per day (GPD) may be used for “indoor domestic use” in selected basins. This distinction leads us to interpret that the larger quantities authorized in non-drought years (950 or 3,000 GPD, depending on which basin) include indoor and outdoor uses for a household (including watering of a lawn and noncommercial garden).
2. How much water is legally allowed for domestic use in Hirst-affected basins? Under the new law, applicants relying on a permit-exempt well for a new home may use a maximum annual average of 950 GPD or 3,000 GPD for their indoor and outdoor use, depending on which water resource inventory area (WRIA) they are located in. All new permit-exempt uses, including group domestic, are still restricted by the 5,000 GPD limit under RCW 90.44.050. For example, a new homeowner in an affected basin could withdraw 4,000 gallons on a summer day, so long as they did not do so often enough that their annual average exceeded the 950 or 3,000 gallon limit.
3. New fees. The law imposes a $500 fee, which is paid to the local government at the time of applying for a building permit. The new fee is not required to be paid at the time a well is drilled. The fee is not collected by the Covington Water District.
4. Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Committees. Under Section 203, Ecology has now convened a group of local governments, Tribes, and stakeholders to develop a Watershed Restoration and Enhancement Plan in each WRIA. If all members of the committee agree to approval of a plan, then we will proceed to adopt a plan. [1] Then, if necessary, Ecology will amend instream flow rules to incorporate provisions of the plan. The Covington Water District serves on the WRIA 9 committee as the largest special district designee.

[1] If a committee fails to adopt a plan by their prescribed timeline, they are to send the draft plan to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) for its review. The SFRB makes recommendations and sends them to us. We then we amend the draft plan and adopt it into rule.

More information can be obtained from the State Department of Ecology through https://ecology.wa.gov/Water-Shorelines/Water-supply/Water-rights/Groundwater-permit-exemption

The District only controls the conditions under which it may extend its water service in accordance with RCW Title 57.08. CWD neither permits nor restricts permit-exempt wells.

The District has established criteria under which its service is available. If a customer chooses to connect to the District’s municipal water system, all exempt wells on the property must be decommissioned. The District (per District Administrative Code 4.08.125.C) will credit half the value of connection charges applicable to the cost of the connection to District system. If an existing customer chooses to drill an exempt well, the customer must disconnect from the District’s municipal system.

The decision to require a property owner to select the property’s source of water supply resulted from an analysis of water quality, water quantity, equity, enforcement options and environmental factors. There are generally two types of exempt wells within Covington’s service area, domestic or potable water system wells and irrigation wells. The criteria for establishing the policy of water service is based on the following:

1. Environmental:  Environmental issues related to hydraulic continuity with streams and lakes are not a District issue, per se, but they are of great concern. The Green River basin is closed to any new water uses (WAC 173-509), so a permit-exempt well is withdrawing from a watershed that doesn’t have water available according to state hydrologic experts. Eventually the excess withdrawals could impact the District’s ability to meet its customers’ needs.
2. Water Quantity:  The District has a “Duty to Serve” water as outlined in the 2003 Municipal Water Law, and it plans for water service to meet the projected land use and zoning decisions made by the appropriate land use agencies (Covington, Maple Valley, Black Diamond and portions of unincorporated King County). At this time the Department of Ecology does not require exempts wells to be metered. There is no accountability for the amount of water withdrawn from an aquifer. The District owns and operates 10 municipal wells which supply approximately 37% of the District’s total water supply. The risk of taking existing water by this kind of unrestricted well poses an unacceptable risk to the District’s water supply.
3. Water Quality:  Irrigation wells have no water quality testing or monitoring requirements. While potable exempt well systems have significantly less restrictive water quality requirements than the District’s municipal wells, one presumes that homes on potable exempt wells have the same health and welfare concerns that the District does for its system’s customers. Every well shaft into the aquifer is a conduit that allows for any and all foreign materials such as lawn fertilizers, fecal matter from animals, and other contaminants, to seep into the aquifer. No one at the local, state or federal level monitors irrigation wells for water quality at any level. The potential for aquifer contamination through permit-exempt wells is an unreasonable risk for all 18,500 District customers.
4. Fair Investment:  From 1994-1997 the District experienced a water supply shortage that resulted in a water and building moratorium. As a result the District invested in the Howard Hansen Dam additional water supply project, which has cost the District customers $65 million. While the capital costs are financed over 30 years, the investment was made on behalf of customers who have connected since the year 2000 and all future customers. The District is meeting its “Duty to Serve” and customers, the investors in the water supply, have a reasonable expectation that all customers contribute to the costs of the investment.
5. Enforcement:  As mentioned above, there is not currently any oversight of permit-exempt wells, neither is there enforcement should they be operated outside of their required limitations. Permit-exempt well owners could easily extract more than the limitations listed in #2 and deplete a confined aquifer, pay no attention to the distribution of fertilizers or other chemicals near the well and contaminate the aquifer, or allow domestic animals to roam near/to the wellhead and potentially contaminate the aquifer with fecal bacteria. No one will know if the aquifer is depleted or contaminated until it is too late – the risk to municipal systems is too great. The District’s wells are monitored daily and all water quality and withdrawal exceptions are reported immediately. District customers expect and rely on this level of service, yet exempt wells with no enforcement to any standards have the potential to negatively impact the water quality and quantity of the District’s municipal wells without consequence.

Exempt wells are not “bad”, and in fact the option was created by the state at a time (1945) when municipal water was not available in many areas of the state.

Feel free to contact Tom Keown, General Manager at 253-867-0900 or Steve Lee, Engineering Manager at 253-867-0940.