Farmers say proposed drinking water requirements would drive up costs

A combine at work in wheat fields in the Walla Walla region, during 2018. (Washington State Department of Agriculture)

The state Department of Health is considering an update to how it exempts small farms from some drinking water requirements.

The department says it’s a simple fix to outdated and inaccurate language to what’s known as the “same farm exemption,” but farmers say the changes could be costly and burdensome – especially for farms with onsite housing for employees.

Under a 1995 state law, water systems with four or fewer connections, serving residences on the same farm and providing water to fewer than 25 people a day are excluded from some regulatory requirements that larger public water systems face.

The updated language would require those exempt farms to reapply every five years for the exemption. If at any point, the farms didn’t qualify, the Department of Health would have the authority to take away the exemption.

Jay Gordon, at the Washington State Dairy Federation, said proving that they fit the requirements every year could be expensive, unnecessary and go against what the Legislature intended when setting up the exemption in state law.

“We don’t actually know what’s going to be required as every well is somewhat different,” Gordon said. “But you’re asking a lot of people to prove they’re exempt from something that the Legislature already says they’re exempt from.”

Gordon said the changes could have broad financial implications on small farms that are already struggling. Testing water and reapplying could cost thousands of dollars, he said.

If a farmer owns multiple rentals on their property that they use to house workers temporarily, they’ll have to follow the new application process, Gordon said.

“Either the farmer eats that money or passes it off to employees or tenants,” Gordon said.

Roberto Bonaccorso, spokesman for the Department of Health, said the only change to current policy is requiring the five-year approval for the exemption, which allows the state to maintain safe and reliable drinking water for the employees of agricultural entities.

The five-year application would be similar to what businesses complete in a water facilities inventory form , which requires them to state their water system’s source and treatment as well as the number of connections it uses, Bonaccorso wrote in an email.

The department is proposing the change following a request from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to study unregulated public water systems in the lower Yakima Valley, Bonaccorso said.

Some of those farms were claiming a same-farm exemption, despite being a larger facility than what the exemption allows, in part because of the 1995 law, which the department said was unclear and needed to be updated. “This misunderstanding caused DOH to review the policy and update to clarify its implementation,” he added.

In a June letter to the Department of Health, Yakima County’s public services director Lisa Freund wrote that the department should keep local governments and their regulations in mind when finalizing the rule. Counties are the ones who have to implement the rules, Freund wrote, and the water monitoring standards vary across them.

There is a public comment period open through Aug. 26. Ben Tindall, executive director at Save Family Farming, said the department has been responsive to some of their concerns so far.

But there are still questions surrounding the cost of this change, how many people it could affect and why the change is being made, Tindall said.

“This is very much a step in the wrong direction, and it’s going to damage farms throughout the state,” Tindall said.

Gordon said another concern is that the department does not have the authority to change this policy in the way that they are doing it. He said the department should either go through a formal rulemaking process or leave it up to the Legislature to change the exemptions process as they are the ones who made the law in the first place.

“They’re proposing pretty broad changes, and we certainly don’t think they have the legal authority to do this,” Gordon said. “At a high level, this is really bad governance.”

Bonaccorso wrote that there has been a discussion about requesting legislation but that a policy update can be done in a shorter time frame and implemented accurately to address the concerns regarding unregulated public water systems.

“It is common to update internal policies,” he said.

Following the public comment period, the department will review the feedback and consider making changes to the draft policy, which will then be updated on its website. There is no timeline for implementation yet.