This presentation given at the Northwest Business Club by Ed Kilduff gives a lot of information and perspective on how difficult this issue is…with the results of the past state and local election the likelihood of a positive outcome became dimmer.
This presentation was “Hirst vs W. Washington Growth Management Hearings Board – Is It Really About Water?” Kilduff explained how the State Supreme Court in Hirst has less to do with water availability than the Growth Management Act. After reviewing important case history (the Postema case (the “one molecule” rule), and Foster (replacing stream withdrawals “in-kind”, “in time” and “in place”)), Ed explained how “instream flow rules” have been established by WA Ecology – how they fail to relate to the reality of water availability using real hydrology. The steady expansion of the administrative state into rule-making – no matter what the legislature intends – drives water policy. In Hirst, this Supreme Court’s “agency deference” and growth management interests are what really rule. YouTube Video of Presentation.