Muni News
VOLUME 90, ISSUE 3  - MARCH 2000

Water Supply Policy Developments
By Gary McLean, Trustee

In jest or fact, our region is known for its ample number of days with rainfall. Thus, most of us never give a second thought to the water that flows from the faucets in our homes. However, given the growth experienced by our region and the critical situation faced by salmon and other water-dependant aspects of the environment, there may be no more important time than today for the Municipal League to begin a serious focus on regional water issues.

Without question, drinking water is one of the fundamental needs shared by all residents of King County and the greater Puget Sound area. Fish and other wildlife also have water needs that span across artificial lines drawn by numerous governmental jurisdictions. The League can play an important role in shining light on regional water issues. The need for such involvement is apparent when one considers the fact that although the number of governmental bodies with some degree of power and authority over complex water issues may appear to be numerous, the ultimate authority over water supply issues actually rests in the hands of a few. Consider the following facts.

King County has almost 1.7 million residents. Of these, approximately 1.3 million receive their potable water through the City of Seattle - either through direct service or the sale of water to more than 25 other water utilities. Thus, Seattle controls the lion’s share of King County’s water supply. Fortunately, over the past one hundred years, the City of Seattle has worked to earn a reputation as one of the finest water suppliers and environmental stewards in the nation. However, heightened awareness regarding water supply and endangered species issues has sparked some controversy between various county officials, municipal officials, the City of Seattle, suburban cities and water districts.

For instance, in the last month, local newspapers devoted some attention to King County Executive Ron Sims’ proposal to commission a regional water supply study. Although Sims’ idea won support from the cities of Bellevue and Renton, as well as the Tulalip Tribes, Seattle officials argued that another study would duplicate the expensive yet voluntary efforts already initiated by Seattle and other water suppliers from Everett to Tacoma, known as the “Central Puget Sound Water Suppliers Forum.” Seattle’s position is that The Forum has already profiled all the major water suppliers in King County serving over 95 percent of the county’s population. The Director of Seattle Public Utilities, Diana Gale, states that, “between local and regional water supply efforts, virtually all planning is covered.” As these reports and studies become available, the League will try to provide meaningful updates and summaries to our members.

Over the last few years, another group, made up of Cities and water districts in suburban King County, was formed in order to explore options available to solve the water supply issues. This group, known as the Cascade Water Alliance (“CWA”), formed shortly after the City of Seattle informed the 27 water purveyors in King County that their current water supply contracts with Seattle, which are set to expire in 2011, would not be continued as they currently exist. The new contracts promise to be very costly. Some members of the CWA assert that while Seattle's supplies meet our current water needs, the supply is not infinite, and the region is projected to reach capacity in 2014. While fourteen years may sound like a long time, complex permitting requirements and construction periods to make any new source of water available could take at least that long to complete. Finally, it is understandable that the CWA or any other group of water purveyors may wish to have some ownership interest or substantial input in future, and very expensive, water supply infrastructure improvements that they will be asked to help pay for.

As for now, Sims’ proposal has been delayed, and the Cascade Water Alliance has not achieved its goal to represent 75% of Seattle’s current water supply customers. Several large water districts in the County are trying to negotiate their own contracts with Seattle for their future water supply. These situations demonstrate the need for a non-partisan “watch dog”, such as the League, to serve as a source of current information and developments concerning our regional water supply. Effective and accountable government requires involvement and participation by the citizens being served. And, just as the lack of adequate voter representation in the old Metro organization led to its eventual merger with King County, adequate voter participation at some level to address regional water supply issues must be addressed. After all, while there may be one or a few major suppliers, we are all - all 1.7 million of us, the residents of King County - water customers. Responsible government policy dictates that all the players, suppliers and purveyors, work now to address the situation. Watch for more news on water issues over the upcoming months.