HomeMy WebLinkAboutres2016-050WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL AGENDA BILL NO. 2016 309 - -8
CLEARANCES
Initial
Date
Date Received in Council Office
Agenda Date
Assigned to:
Ori inalor�
Mann
12/7/2016
12/6/2016
Council
Division Head:
Dept. Head:
Prosecutor:
PurchasinR/BudRel:
Executive:
TITLE OF DOCUMENT.
i Res. Send Letter to Legislature Request. Amend. To GMA for Water Availablility
ATTACHMENTS:
SEPA review required? ( ) Yes ( ) NO
Should Clerk schedule a hearing ? ( ) Yes ( ) NO
SEPA review completed? ( ) Yes ( ) NO
Requested Date:
SUMMARY STATEMENT OR LEGAL NOTICE LANGUAGE: (If this item is an ordinance or requires a public
hearing, you must provide the language for use in the required public notice. Be specific and cite RCW or WCC as appropriate.
Be clear in explaining the intent of the action.)
Resolution sending a letter to the state legislature requesting amendments to the Growth Manangement Act clarifying that counties can rely on
Department of Ecology guidance for determining legal water availability
COMMITTEE ACTION:
COUNCIL ACTION:
12/6/2016: Motion carried 7 -0 to approve a resolution
sending a letter to the State legislature
requesting amendments to the Growth
Management Act clarifying that counties can
rely on Department of Ecology guidance for
determining legal water availability
't
Res. 2016 -050
Related County Contract #:
Related File Numbers:
Ordinance or Resolution
Number:
Res. 2016 -050
Please Note: Once adopted and signed, ordinances and resolutions are available for viewing and printing
on the County's website at. www.co.whatcom.wa.us /council.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1.4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
PROPOSED BY: CONSENT
INTRODUCTION DATE: DECEMBER 6, 2016
RESOLUTION NO. 201+6 -050
SENDING A LETTER TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE REQUESTING
AMENDMENTS TO THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACT CLARIFYING THAT
COUNTIES CAN RELY ON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY GUIDANCE FOR
DETERMINING LEGAL WATER AVAILABILITY
WHEREAS, in 2012, a group of citizens and environmental groups, known as Hirst et
al, challenged the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan as it related to
residential development and permit- exempt wells; and
WHEREAS, in 2013, the Growth Management Hearings Board ruled in favor of Hirst
et al; and
WHEREAS, in 2013, Whatcom County appealed this ruling; and
WHEREAS, in 2013, Whatcom County contracted with Van Ness Feldman LLP, who
specialize in water rights, water law and the Growth Management Act (GMA); and
WHEREAS, the State Department of Ecology, Washington Association of Realtors, and
Washington Association of Counties, and other groups, sided with Whatcom County and filed
Amicus briefs; and
WHEREAS, in 2015, the State Appeals Court overturned the Growth Management
Hearings Board; and
WHEREAS, in 2015, Hirst et al appealed to the State Supreme Court; and
WHEREAS, Whatcom County has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees
fighting Hirst et al; and
WHEREAS, on October 6th, 2016 the Washington State Supreme Court issued its
decision, now known as the Hirst ruling; and
WHEREAS, in response to the Hirst ruling, with unanimous advice from our
legal staff, contract attorneys, and the administration, which includes people from both major
political parties, the Whatcom County Council issued an emergency moratorium on building
permits for properties relying on permit- exempt wells; and
WHEREAS, hundreds of property owners suddenly have been denied building permits
for properties they have lawfully subdivided, platted, and even begun infrastructure
improvements; and
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council believes that the Hirst decision is
profoundly flawed, both in its legal reasoning and practical implications; and
WHEREAS, with the Hirst Decision, the State Supreme Court has caused devastating
financial and emotional hardship for the people of Whatcom County; and
WHEREAS, residential water withdrawals from permit- exempt wells represents a tiny
fraction of water consumption in Whatcom County; and
WHEREAS, Washington State and the Department of Ecology have sole responsibility
for determining water availability, closing a basin, or issuing or interpreting water rights; and
WHEREAS, while the Hirst ruling impacts 29 counties planning under GMA, Whatcom
County is the only defendant in this case and is therefore uniquely vulnerable and subject to
immediate review for compliance and subsequent state sanctions, and
WHEREAS, half of Whatcom County's budget comes from state or federal grants and
programs, and
WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council recognizes the precious value of clean and
copious potable water; and
WHEREAS, The Whatcom County Council will continue to engage all stakeholders to
collaborate on issues of water quality and water quantity; and
WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council recognizes the financial and environmental
impacts created by conversion of resource lands to low- density, residential sprawl; and
WHEREAS, denying citizens their right to use permit- exempt water withdrawals to
provide for their homes and families is an inappropriate strategy for preventing sprawl; and
WHEREAS, the employees of Whatcom County are working hard to respond to Hirst
without jeopardizing the legal or financial standing of Whatcom County government; and
WHEREAS, we believe that a narrowly- focused, non - partisan amendment to the
GMA can resolve this egregious misinterpretation by the State Supreme Court; and
WHEREAS, there have been productive meetings with the State Legislature, support
from the Washington State Association of Counties and other groups, and meetings with local
state legislators of both parties and of both chambers; and
WHEREAS, the State Legislature alone has the power to remedy this grievous error
imposed by the Supreme Court.
1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Whatcom County Council will
2 send a letter, signed by the Council Chair on Council letterhead, to the State Legislature's Local
3 Government committee and Agriculture and Natural Resources committee requesting urgent
4 attention to this matter, and requesting a rapid, narrowly- focused, non - partisan amendment to
5 the Growth Management Act clarifying that Counties can rely on Department of Ecology
6 guidance for determining legal water availability and provide the Department of Ecology with
7 necessary resources to create legally defensible guidance, and restore the procedures in place
8 before the Hirst decision.
9
10 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the letter will be substantially similar to the letter
11 sent to the legislature on December 1, 2016, by Washington State Association of Counties,
12 Building Industry Association of Washington, Washington Association of Realtors, Washington
13 Farm Bureau, and others.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the letter will also request the legislature to
adopt legislation to enable the Seasonal Storage of Surplus Water to Mitigate Fully the Net
Consumptive Impact of Permit Exempt Domestic Wells proposal submitted by Councilmember
Browne (attached) and provide sufficient funding for the pilot program as requested.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that we believe this proposal will provide immediate
relief for our residents.
APPROVED this `'t" clay of December y 2016.
ATTEt
Dana bjrovwta -,Qa is,__Qe:r °'of tee Council
A,1PPRVE'/q►4rrt�"
Civil Deputy Prosecutor
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
TCOM O TY, ASHINGTON
14V-1 a B hanan, &uncil Chair
CLERK OF THE COUNCIL
Dana Brown- Davis, C.M.C.
COUNTY COURTHOUSE
311 Grand Avenue, Suite #105
Bellingham, WA 98225 -4038
(360) 778 -5010
December 8, 2016
�c m
I,-
om
U�l
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
RE: Washington Supreme Court Decision on GMA & Rural Water Supply
Members of the Washington Legislature:
COUNCILMEMBERS
Barbara Brenner
Rud Browne
Barry Buchanan
Todd Donovan
Ken Mann
Satpal Sidhu
Carl Weimer
Whatcom County adds its voice to Washington State Association of Counties, Building Industry
Association of Washington, Washington Association of Realtors, Washington Farm Bureau, and
others in strong and united opposition to the recent decision of the Washington Supreme Court,
Whatcom County v. Hirst et al., No. 91475 -3. In this decision, the Court concluded that the
Growth Management Act ( "GMA ") requires counties to regulate water supply for new
development to a greater extent than required by both the Department of Ecology ( "Ecology's ")
local instream flow regulations and the state's water code. The Court's conclusion that the GMA
requires local governments to exceed specific state environmental statutes and regulations is
wholly unsupported by the GMA, related statutes on water availability, and the history of the
GMA and state's water code.
Over the past decades, local governments and landowners have relied on Ecology's authority as
our state's sole water resource agency. Just five years ago, in its Kittitas County v. Eastern
Washington Growth Board decision, the Supreme Court ruled that local government regulation of
land use and Ecology's regulation of water resources should be complementary and consistent.
This decision tracked state GMA regulations providing that "if the department of ecology has
adopted rules . . . , local regulations should be consistent with those rules. Such rules
may include instream flow rules . . . " WAC 365 - 196- 825(3). (emphasis added). Further, the
state's Water Resources Act, which provides the governing principles for Ecology's instream flow
rules, states plainly that county governments "shall, whenever possible, carry out powers vested
in them in manners which are consistent with the provisions of this chapter." RCW
90.54.090. (emphasis added)
Now, the Supreme Court has elevated the general planning language of the GMA above the more
specific provisions of state laws and regulations implemented by Ecology on water resources. The
Supreme Court failed to note, let alone analyze, the various legal authorities that support
consistency between local government land use permitting and Ecology's water resource
authority. Further, the Court badly confused the difference in the state's water code between
reviewing "impairment" of water rights (which only Ecology has the statutory authority and
funding to do), to the review of "water adequacy" for building permits, which local governments
do in reliance on Ecology's permits and regulations. The impacts of this decision will be
devastating to rural landowners and counties throughout Washington State, many of which have
adopted or are considering residential building permit moratoria solely because of the Supreme
Court's decision. The economic losses to rural landowners could easily run into the hundreds of
millions of dollars.
Whatcom County requests a solution that is not very novel: that the Legislature establish that
local government land use plans and permit decisions can rely on Ecology's regulation of water
resources. We appreciate the candid comments of Ecology at the recent work session of the
Senate Agriculture, Water, and Rural Economic Development Committee meeting that only ".. .
1% of the cumulative use of water in Washington State" is from domestic exempt wells. In
Whatcom County, total domestic exempt well use accounted for only .7% of total water use in
that county during the growing season. In Skagit County, where Ecology's ill- conceived 2001
Skagit Instream Flow Rule is being interpreted to establish a groundwater moratorium (though
nothing of the sort was ever mentioned by Ecology upon adoption), domestic exempt well use
also accounts for only .7% of total water use. In Central Puget Sound counties like King, Pierce,
and Snohomish, areas that could be implicated by the Hirst decision, total domestic exempt well
use accounts for 1 %, 3.6 %, and 6.3% of total growing season water use. See Ecology
Publication No. 15 -11 -2016, Permit - Exempt Domestic Well Use in Washington State, Table 3,
February 2015.
Further, the Legislature should recognize that the instream flow levels adopted by Ecology will,
by design, rarely be met by actual flows, regardless of the amount of water use from domestic
wells. Ecology's adopted minimum instream flow for Nooksack River in late summer is 1,900
cubic feet per second (cfs). WAC 173 - 501 -030. This adopted flow level has not been met in any
of the past five years, as actual flows in late August have ranged between 973 cfs and 1,570 cfs.
All domestic exempt wells in Whatcom County (including those with delayed or no impacts to the
Nooksack River) use 600,000 gallons of water per day. Ecology Publication No. 15 -11 -2016,
Permit - Exempt Domestic Well Use in Washington State, Table 3, February 2015. Thus, total
domestic well use in Whatcom County is only .93 cfs - compared to an Ecology minimum
instream flow level of 1,900 cfs during the late summer season.
The small amount of water used by domestic exempt wells and the immeasurable impacts of a
single domestic well on instream flows does not mean that Ecology should not, or has not,
addressed the issue where unique local circumstances exist. In recent years, the Legislature has
spent millions of state dollars for water right acquisitions around the state to support Ecology
instream flow rules that protect groundwater and instream flows. Recent Ecology rules in
Spokane, Walla Walla, Clallam, Kittitas, and Jefferson Counties demonstrate a willingness by
Ecology to seek to develop regulations that reflect local conditions. Beyond the rural domestic
well issue, state, local, and ratepayer efforts have also achieved significant water use reductions
through agricultural irrigation efficiencies and the state's municipal water use efficiency rule.
Regulation of water resources by Ecology reflects the agency's statutory authority and expertise.
The current level of chaos and uncertainty wrought by the Supreme Court's Hirst decision is
simply untenable.
Ultimately, the question is simple: Should counties and citizens be able to rely on the permits
and regulations adopted by Ecology - our state's sole water resource agency? The answer is
clearly yes, and anything short of that is a disservice to our state's counties and rural
landowners.
Sincerely,
tBar y uchanan, Chair
Wh com County Council
Cc: Whatcom County Councilmembers
Whatcom County Executive
Governor Jay Inslee
Growth Management Hearings Board
Department of Ecology
AB2016 -309B
Seasonal storage of surplus water
to mitigate fully the net consumptive
impact of permit- exempt domestic wells
Rud Browne
Whatcom County Councilmember — At -Large
RBrowne@co.whatcom.wa.us
DRAFT 2016 -12 -02
Background
A recent Washington State Supreme Court ruling has changed how counties review permit- exempt domestic
wells for building permits under the Growth Management Act (GMA).
In the Whatcom County vs. Hirst, Futurewise, et al. decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the county failed to
comply with the GMA's requirements to protect water resources. The ruling requires the county to make an
independent decision about legal water availability. The Court also said the county must ensure that new
permit- exempt uses do not impair instream flows and senior wafter rights when making water availability
determinations prior to granting new building permits. (for more detail see
r ;v.:uCy. wa. ga�lprpgra mslwrinwrar'hi rst. htmi)
Under the new rules a large number of rural parcels have been affected which is creating significant financial
hardship for many county residents who had purchased property to live on or for other purposes such as
funding their kids' college tuition or their retirement. Contrary to some opinions few if any, of those affected are
experienced land speculators that could have been expected to anticipate the risk of loss caused by this
situation.
In response to the Supreme Court decision Whatcom County has been forced to enact an emergency
moratorium prohibiting the filing, acceptance and processing of new applications for uses that rely on permit -
exempt groundwater withdrawals for water supply in most of the county. The exception is applications that
provide documentation that there is an adequate and legal water supply to serve the proposed use in the form
of:
1. A water right from Ecology, or
2. A letter stating the ability to provide water from a municipal or public water purveyor not dependent on a
permit- exempt well, with adequate water rights issued by Ecology, or
3. A rainwater catchment system approved by the Whatcom County Health Department.
This document is presented as exploration of a fourth possible option, the seasonal storage of surplus water
that is later used to fully mitigate the potential impact of domestic well use in a way that does not affect more
senior water rights or instream flows. This water would come from one or more sources including: (a) winter
withdrawal of ground water from an aquifer that is expected to be fully recharged before springtime, (b)
stormwater runoff from driveways and other impervious surfaces, and (c) rainwater collection from roofs.
Concept
Whatcom County has an abundance of water, unfortunately while we have more than we need in winter we
don't have enough in summer. The average gross daily domestic ground water consumption for residents is
estimated to be 65 gallons per day or less. The best available science suggests that between 80% and 90% of
rural ground water consumed for indoor domestic use is actually returned to the soil through the homes septic
system. The recent ruling requires that any and all consumptive uses must be completely mitigated (drop for
drop) and that the mitigation must occur at the time of use.
Exhibit A provides an estimated average Gross consumption for a family of four of 260 gallons per day, Net
consumption at 208 gallons per day which calculates that a Deficit of 52 gallons per day needs to be mitigated.
This proposal demonstrates how homeowners could store surplus water during the winter and use it to fully
mitigate their net consumptive use at other times of the year in a way that would comply with both the new
court ruling and the physical constraints imposed by a physically finite water supply.
The components of the solution (see Exhibit B):
Permit- exempt well
In areas where a public water supply is unavailable a permit- exempt well (A) would continue to be used to
provide the primary potable water source for the home. Well water can normally be used as potable water
source provided it meets bacteria and other containment standards. Whereas State health laws require that
rainwater must be treated for bacteria in order to be a potable water source and trucked water may not be used
at all as a primary potable water source.
The first difference between this proposal and current practice is that unlike existing unmetered permit - exempt
wells previously used to provide water in support of building permits new wells would have meters that
measure consumption on a daily basis throughout the year. The second difference is that while normal net
daily indoor domestic water consumption is quite small due to the majority of the water being returned to the
ground through the septic system, this proposal acknowledges recognizes it is not zero and provide for full
mitigation as required by recent court rulings by reducing the net consumptive use to zero.
2
Distribution from wel
Water from the well would travel through two distribution lines:
• The first line would provide potable water to the residence. This line would have a meter (B) that would
collect data on the Gross amount of water being used for domestic use.
• The second line would provide metered (C) water to the mitigation tank (D) and the optional outdoor
garden tank (E). However water would only be allowed to pass to the storage tanks when the computer
(F) determines that seasonally surplus water is available and it opens valve #1 (G)
Re- infiltration of used water
After water is used in the house most of it would pass into the septic tank as normal and ultimately the septic
drain field (S). A third meter (H) would be placed on the pipe from the septic tank to the drain field to determine
the Net amount of water being returned to the ground. The water "Deficit' amount (Gross — Net) that needs to
be mitigated would then be calculated by the computer every 24 hours. (As water from the septic tank may
have a small amount of residual solids the meter may need to be different than the other three, alternatively it
may be possible to use a positive displacement pump to provide metering data.)
Mitigation
Once the computer (F) has calculated the daily water Deficit that needs to be mitigated it will open valve #2 (1)
on the Mitigation tank (D) and will allow mitigation water to enter the septic drain field until the fourth meter (J)
confirms that the Deficit amount has been sent to infiltrate back into the aquifer as mitigation. Alternatively if is
determined that it would be preferable not to allow the mitigation water to mix with the normal septic drain field
water supply a separate, smaller mitigation water infiltration field could be used somewhere else on the
property. This preserves instream flows and avoids conflict with other senior water rights.
The end result will be a net indoor domestic groundwater consumption of ZERO
Mitigation water suoply
Each home would have one or more Mitigation water tanks (D) with a collective capacity great enough to store
enough water to mitigate their entire years estimated water Deficit (current estimates suggests this would be
about 20% of their average daily Deficit for a nine month period however actual usage data from the pilot
program may prove this to average 10% or less).
The Mitigation water does not need to meet potable water standards therefore the Mitigation tank can be filled
from one or more sources:
1. Stormwater collected from driveways and other impervious surfaces (M). An added benefit is that this
water and the contaminates would be directed into the septic drainfield during the drier months rather
than enter streams during the wetter months as it currently does (this may need to be limited to perhaps
1,000 sq. ft. per occupant to avoid creating a perverse incentive to increase impervious surface areas).
2. Rainwater from roofs (K)
3. Surplus winter ground water from the permit- exempt well (G)
4. Finally trucked water (in the unlikely event that the other three sources are inadequate)
Garden water tank
At the homeowners option each home could also have one or more Garden water tanks (L). The capacity
would be determined by the homeowner. This water would normally be used to provide water for garden use.
While the Garden tank could be connected via a one way valve to the Mitigation tank to allow the Garden water
3
to be used as a backup Mitigation water supply the Mitigation water would not be allowed to flow into the
Garden tank to prevent the Mitigation tank being drained accidently.
Homeowners Computer
The Computer (F) would likely be a modified smart phone running a mobile application. The reasons for this
are as follows:
• Smartphones are robust low cost self- contained hardware platforms with inbuilt displays, keyboards,
battery backup power and radios (Cellular, Wi -Fi and GPS). Even obsolete models could be used
effectively.
• Provides easy connectivity to a central computer via the homeowners Wi -Fi or the Cell carriers data
network (low use cellular data connections typically cost $10 a month or less)
• Intuitive, familiar user interface (everyone knows how to use a phone)
• Application software can be updated easily by downloading it from the phone's "App Store"
• Common, easy to understand programming environment will reduce development costs
• Serial interface can be used to connect to the data bus /ports to read the meters and control the valves
Computer software would be written to:
• Receive information from the central computer as to what dates each season Storage water may be
pumped to the Mitigation and Garden tanks
• Send daily information on Gross Water usage, Net Water Usage and Mitigation Water used.
• Provide the above information on the phones display for the phone owner to see
• Email reports to the user as to consumption levels to help them in their personal conservation efforts.
Central computer
A central computer that is managed by either the Department of Ecology or the County would:
• Tell the homeowners computer when water can be pumped for storage
• Collect daily information from each device
• Verify that the consumption and mitigation numbers make sense
• Initiate alerts for improper events such as:
• Homeowners system has gone offline
• Out of authorization storage water line usage
• Actual Mitigation water consumed is below calculated minimum amount (e.g. tank is dry)
• Provide researchers with actual water use data such as:
• Anonymously by user
• By named basin
• By aggregate
System summa
The total system as outlined above would require:
• 1 Cell phone and charger
• Interface box between Cell Phone, meters and valves
3 "clean" water meters (B, C & J)
• 1 "dirty" water meter (H)
• 2 valves
4
• 1 or more water tanks
Piping
Costs
Initial rough estimates place the costs, in quantity as follows (these are still a work in progress):
Description
Qty
Each
Total
Simple smartphone and charger
1
300
300
Interface box between Cell Phone, meters and valves
1
500
500
3 "clean" water meters (B, C & J)
3
110
330
1 "dirty" water meter (H)
1
150
150
2 valves
2
50
100
Control system Subtotal 1,380
5,000 Gallon Water tanks (installed) 2 7,500 15,000
Possible expansion /enhancement of drainfield if required (not costed but would be moderate)
Prelimina estimate for a 4 person household $16,380
It needs to be acknowledged that this proposal would add extra expense above and beyond the cost of a
installing just a well, however the cost of the well and mitigation system would likely still be less than the
combined cost (water share, extension of service line to property and connection charges) for a homeowner to
hook up to an existing private water system if available.
5
Legislative requirements
The development and piloting of this proposal will likely take three or more seasons of active data collection in
order to prove the concept and refine the computer models necessary to calculate exactly the annual start and
end dates that surplus water is available. The best way to generate the data needed to build the models is
through the active participation of landowners who are affected by the new rules.
Therefore it is suggested that the Washington State Legislature amend the current statues to accept that
landowners who agree to cooperate and participate in this pilot project will be deemed to have fully mitigated
their net consumptive water use and may rely on a permit- exempt well as their primary domestic water source.
If the pilot program results in effective solutions being developed the landowner would be expected to adopt
them. If for some reason the solutions prove to be ineffective participating landowners would be grandfathered
in under the rules in place prior to the moratorium.
Initial Funding
The impact created by the recent Supreme Court rulings is not limited to Whatcom County; it affects most
undeveloped rural property across the state. Therefore logically the cost to develop and pilot this concept
should be funded from state rather than county funds.
As the residents of Whatcom County are the ones most immediately impacted it would seem reasonable that
they should be the ones to be offered the first opportunity to participate in the pilot as a means to achieve
compliance with the recent rulings.
While further determination needs to be made as to the ideal size and length of the pilot program, given the
urgent need to find a solution we should start by offering anyone building a house in Whatcom county over the
next three years the opportunity to participate. The state would reimburse reasonably incurred costs for the
necessary infrastructure to be incorporated within their building plans in exchange for the landowner agreeing
to: (a) providing the data necessary to properly evaluate and refine the concept, and (b) to continue to use the
final working system in perpetuity unless the state later determines the solution is unnecessary or ineffective.
Conclusion
While this proposal may be more complex than some others under consideration it respects and responds to
the reality than we have finite water resources throughout the state which require that we mitigate seasonal
overconsumption of water with actual water from other sources.
A
Exhibit A DRAFT Rud Browne - 2016 -11 -18
SEASONAL USE OF EXEMPT WELLS WATER BUDGET - Indoor use only. Outdoor use would be-additional
GREEN BOXES ARE VARIABLES
Step 1 Number of users (minimum 2): 4 Persons
Gallons per day /person:
(50g /person /day min, recommend 65)' (range 42 to 65 US Gallons) 65 US Gallons
Gallons per day used: (users x gpd) 260 US Gallons
Step 2 Estimated net percentage of water consumed (range 10% to 20 %) 20%
Step 3 Days per year Exempt wells impacted by Senior Rights or In- Stream Flow rules
Start date I -May End Date [ -Nov 184 Days
Step 4 Calculate Net impact in Gallons per season
Gross water use during restricted period in Gallons (average gallons per day consumed x days impacted) 47,840 US Gallons
Net water use during restricted period in Gallons (gallons used x net percentage consumed) 9,568 US Gallons
Size of seasonal storage tank required 9,568 US Gallons
Step 5 Use of Exempt well
Allow metered domestic use of exempt well year round an average daily rate not to exceed the storage systems capacity to mitigate
In this example as the average daily usage rate would 260 US Gallons therefore the seasonal storage required would be 10,000 US Gallons
The well, stormwater and rainwater can be used to fill the storage tank in mid winter when there is excess surface water (Rounded up)
Approximate price per US Gallon to store water in a tank(s), (includes installation) S 1.50 USD
Cost of sufficient tank capacity to store water (total storage x cost per Gallon) $ 15,000 USD
Step 6 Metering proposal
DEDUCT The gross amount of metered water pumped from the well per day to provide Potable water is: 260 US Gallons
ADD back the amount of metered water leaving septic system for introduction to drain field each day is: 208 US Gallons
ADD back the net water consumed is automatically calculated and released from storage into the drain field to mitigate: 52 US Gallons
Total net impact on senior water rights such as seasonal irrigation rights (adjusted daily):
Total negative impact on minimum instream flow levels (adjusted daily) _
W
H
m
_I
t
W
u
w °
A W
� a�n W
E N W W
Q w w
�V
C �f5a
tf y.7
Oi w
Q Cs�
4 .}
a4� trS� m
a
1�
u �
N
V
I m
G
cc
9qLyU
h N
M
N
N t
r
C
LL
C
r 4D
u
w Y
W N N
u � C
v � a
c c.
16 N
O ul Q1
m
n �
m o a E
H m c®r w
Z
m
r
C�
G
461 N
� N
•N
a �
C
Q 3
w
z
O
m
0
N
UJ
C
0
m
a
z
r
d
0