Ground, surface water are linked -- knowing that, move forward

Perceived natural rights versus stipulated legal rights underlie the most recent water wars in Central Washington and much of the arid West.

Last month, the Yakima Herald-Republic published a three-day series that detailed the changing reality of water use in the Yakima River Basin. An introduction to those stories spelled out how the West's tradition and ethic viewed pumping water from a well as being a basic and fundamental right. Problem is, that right can bump up against someone else's legal right for somebody who got to the water long before you did.

Now, after decades of debate, both state and federal entities have determined that pumping groundwater can amount to taking surface water. How it plays out from here is to be determined, but the future does bring the certainty that the two, physically and legally, are connected.

The Herald-Republic stories detailed the sea change on land. The U.S. Geological Survey studied the issue for 11 years and found that pumping for wells draws water from surface water and from those with claims to it. For many, this isn't new: The state of Washington recognized in 1945 that groundwater use can affect surface flows.

In late July, the state Supreme Court ruled that Kittitas County's approval of side-by-side subdivision requests failed to protect groundwater resources. The decision means that showing the existence of groundwater isn't good enough; from here on, before approving new subdivisions, all Washington counties must decide whether water is legally available. To be available, it must not infringe on existing rights.

This gets tricky in Central Washington, where the Yakima River Basin is fully appropriated, and treaties protect the Yakama Nation's fishing rights as well as holders of senior rights, which were established in 1905. These include the Yakima Valley Canal along with other private companies that supply agriculture and municipalities. Complicating this are occasional and sometimes frequent droughts that lead to water cutbacks for those holding junior rights, such as the Roza Irrigation District.

Upper Kittitas County became the nexus of these issues in the past decade as newcomers flocked to the scenic mountain region, abetted by a county government that agreed to thousands of rezones and housing developments, some of which are in the large Suncadia development near Cle Elum.

Prodded by a citizens group concerned about the impact on water supplies, the state Ecology Department started talks with Kittitas County officials in 2007; they went nowhere, and in 2009 the state imposed an unprecedented moratorium on new wells in the upper part of the county. Critics warn such a moratorium could spread south into the Yakima Valley, though the state maintains it has no plans to do so.

Absent any new storage capacity, much discussed but years in the future if it comes at all, the parties need to get creative. And there are some promising approaches out there: water banks, sales of senior water rights for new uses and more efficient irrigation are among them. Other ideas include allowing prospective homeowners to pay into a fund that finances fish-habitat improvements, or using irrigation canals to deliver state-owned trust water or Bureau of Reclamation water to creeks that flow into the Yakima River.

This is a new reality that requires new solutions. All parties involved -- federal, state, tribal, local, agricultural, commercial/residential and environmental -- need to keep open minds and be willing to bend in order to find a solution.

* Members of the Yakima Herald-Republic editorial board are Sharon J. Prill, Bob Crider, Frank Purdy and Karen Troianello.