Whatcom & Skagit Water Rights Adjudication Explained: What Homeowners, Farmers, and Well Users Need to Know
TLDR Version (Long Version Below)
🔹 What’s Happening
-
The WA Dept. of Ecology has filed a massive lawsuit (called an adjudication) to legally determine who has the right to use water in the Nooksack Basin (WRIA 1).
-
It affects all water users — homeowners with wells, farmers, cities, and tribes — in Whatcom County and part of Skagit County.
-
Around 30,000 water users will be involved. Everyone must file a legal claim to keep their water use recognized.
-
Deadline to respond: May 1, 2026.
🔹 Why This is Happening
-
Decades of unresolved water conflicts: too many users, not enough water (especially in summer).
-
Tribal nations (Lummi & Nooksack) petitioned for adjudication to protect salmon and their treaty-based water rights.
-
Ecology determined WRIA 1 is a high-conflict basin that needs legal resolution.
🔹 How It Affects You
👨👩👧👦 Residential Well Owners
-
You must file a claim if you use a private well — even if it’s “permit-exempt.”
-
If your household uses less than 500 gallons/day, you’ll likely have a simple, streamlined process.
-
Not filing = you could lose your right to use your well in the future.
🚜 Farmers
-
Must document and defend all irrigation and livestock water use.
-
Junior users (newer rights) risk water cutoffs during droughts to protect senior rights (like tribal flows or older farms).
-
Farm groups are hosting workshops and providing tools to help.
🏙️ Cities & Towns
-
Cities will file on behalf of public water systems — residents on city water don’t need to file individually.
-
Cities may lose unused portions of water rights but expect little impact to current supply.
🐟 Tribes
-
Tribes aim to secure senior water rights for salmon habitat with legal priority dating to 1855 treaties.
-
Their rights could lead to mandatory streamflow protections, impacting junior water users.
🔹 What to Do (for Well Owners)
-
Watch for a certified mail packet from the state.
-
Use the Residential Water Use Calculator from Whatcom County to estimate your usage.
-
File the court claim form by May 1, 2026.
-
Use resources from Ecology and Whatcom County to get help (you likely don’t need a lawyer).
🔹 Long-Term Impacts
-
A final court decree will rank all water rights from oldest to newest.
-
Some users may face cutbacks in drought years.
-
Opens the door for water trading, mitigation projects, conservation, and long-term planning.
-
Could take 10–15 years to complete.
Introduction and Summary
In April 2024, the Washington State Department of Ecology (“Ecology”) filed a general water rights adjudication for the Nooksack River Basin (Water Resource Inventory Area 1, or WRIA 1) in Whatcom County Superior Court. This is essentially a massive lawsuit to legally determine who has valid water rights (both surface water and groundwater) in the WRIA 1 watershed. The adjudication covers virtually all of Whatcom County and a portion of northern Skagit County, including the Nooksack River and its tributaries, as well as nearby watersheds like the Sumas River, Lake Whatcom, Birch Bay, Lummi River, Point Roberts, and others.
It is a comprehensive, court-administered process in which thousands of water users must self-report and prove their water use so the court can confirm each legal water right, its priority date, and its quantity of use. The end result will be a final court decree listing all verified water rights in order of seniority (from oldest to newest), providing long-term clarity on who can use water, how much, and in what priority
WRIA 1 (Nooksack) watershed covers most of Whatcom County and parts of Skagit County in Washington. All water users in this area who rely on wells or surface water withdrawals are involved in the adjudication.
Origins of the Adjudication
The Nooksack Basin adjudication has its roots in decades-long water conflicts and unresolved rights in the region. For years, local and state leaders attempted collaborative solutions – including watershed planning under the 1998 Watershed Management Act, negotiated water supply agreements, and regulatory fixes – but no durable solution was reached.
By the late 2010s, pressures on water were growing: climate change has led to diminished snowpack and drier summers, reducing natural water availability when demand (for farms, fish, and people) is highest. At the same time, legal rulings like the 2016 Hirst decision underscored that new development using exempt wells could no longer be approved without addressing impacts on streamflows. Although the state legislature responded in 2018 with a framework to allow permit-exempt wells with mitigation planning, the WRIA 1 community failed to agree on a mitigation plan, leaving unresolved issues
Against this backdrop, the Lummi Nation and Nooksack Indian Tribe – whose treaty-reserved fishing rights imply a right to sufficient instream flows for salmon – formally petitioned Ecology in 2019 and 2020 to initiate a water adjudication in WRIA 1.
The tribes sought to quantify and enforce their senior water rights for fish habitat, after decades of declining salmon runs and unsuccessful collaborative efforts. Ecology conducted a statewide adjudication assessment in 2019, and identified the Nooksack Basin as a top priority for adjudication due to its pressing water conflicts. In response, the Washington Legislature provided funding in 2021–2022 for Ecology to proceed with a general adjudication in WRIA 1. Ecology filed the adjudication in early May 2024, making this only the second general stream adjudication in Washington’s history (the first being the Yakima Basin adjudication started in the 1970s. The adjudication is authorized under Washington’s water code (RCW 90.03.110 et seq. for surface water and RCW 90.44.220 for groundwater), which empowers Ecology to bring a superior court action to determine all water rights in a basin.
Legal Basis and Process Overview
Under Washington law, water rights adjudication is akin to a “quiet title” action for water: it is a civil lawsuit that brings in all claimants of water in the defined area so the court can confirm or deny each right. Ecology is the initiating plaintiff (on behalf of the public interest in managing water), and all water users in the basin become defendants or claimants in the case. Whatcom County Superior Court, anticipating the complexity of thousands of parties, has taken steps to manage the case efficiently – including the appointment of an additional judge (Judge David Freeman) to handle the adjudication and investment in e-filing systems and staff support. The court emphasizes that it will make the process “as seamless as possible” for both attorneys and self-represented individuals, recognizing that many everyday well owners are involved.
Current Status (as of April 2025): The adjudication is now in its initial notification and claim-filing phase. In December 2024, Judge Freeman approved Ecology’s proposed summons and claim form, allowing the adjudication to move forward formally. In March 2025, Ecology began mailing summons packets to approximately 30,000 potential water users across Whatcom and northern Skagit counties who are in WRIA 1. Each packet (sent by certified mail) contains a summons (legal notice of the lawsuit), a court claim form, and detailed instructions on how to fill out and submit the form. Recipients must sign for the certified mail, or else pick up the packet at a post office or Ecology’s Bellingham office if a delivery attempt was missed. The summons and form instruct water users how to file their water right claim with the court. All claim forms are due one year from summons issuance – the current deadline is May 1, 2026. Water users can submit claims online (through a new e-filing system) or by paper to the Whatcom County Superior Court Clerk
Filing a claim is essential for anyone asserting a water right in the basin: “If users fill out no form at all, they risk being left out entirely in the future,” warns Ecology’s adjudications manager Robin McPherson.
In other words, failing to participate means the court may exclude or subordinate that person’s water use when final rights are decreed. After the claim filing period closes in 2026, the adjudication will move into a phase where claimants may be asked to provide evidence of their water use (water right documents, historical proof of use, well records, etc.).
The court (with possible assistance from court-appointed referees or technical experts) will then review and verify each claim, and parties can contest each other’s claims. This process is expected to take many years. Ecology has indicated that because of modern technology and more streamlined procedures, the Nooksack adjudication might be completed in 10–15 years, shorter than the Yakima adjudication which took over 40 years to reach a final decree.
However, a decade or more of legal proceedings is likely, and multiple phases of the case (including potential sub-basin divisions, federal/tribal claims handled separately, and appeals) could extend the timeline
Key Stakeholders Involved
The WRIA 1 adjudication involves a broad array of stakeholders, essentially every entity or individual with a water use in the basin. Key parties include:
-
Tribal Nations: The Lummi Nation and the Nooksack Indian Tribe are central to this adjudication. They initiated the call for adjudication and claim senior water rights based on federal treaty rights (e.g. the right to adequate instream flows to support salmon, stemming from their fishing rights).
These tribes seek to have their rights quantified and enforced after years of unmet minimum flows for fish. The U.S. federal government participates on behalf of the tribes (as trustee for their rights) and for any federal lands in the basin.
Tribal involvement is significant because their claims may pre-date all state water rights (“time immemorial” priority), potentially giving them highest priority in the final water rights hierarchy.
-
Agricultural Water Users (Farmers): Agriculture is a major water user in Whatcom County – there are over 1,500 farms covering 102,000 acres, about one-third of which are irrigated.
Farmers (dairy farms, berry growers, crop irrigators, etc.) hold numerous water rights, including older surface water rights and groundwater permits, as well as unpermitted “permit-exempt” wells used for irrigation or stock water. The farming community is watching the adjudication closely. Many farmers fear that the process “threatens to upend their livelihoods if their rights are limited or rescinded.”
If water use is curtailed (for example, to satisfy senior instream rights in dry years), farmers worry about water shortages for crops and potential economic losses. Agricultural groups (like the Whatcom Family Farmers and the Ag Water Board of Whatcom County) have been actively organizing informational workshops and assisting farmers with documenting their water usage.
Some farmers have hired water-law attorneys to “lawyer up” and protect their claims.
A notable concern in the farming community is whether adjudication could lead to new costs or fees for water; for instance, one dairy farmer expressed worry that “if they limit water usage, it’ll likely be tied to some sort of fee… And will everyone’s food prices go up because of it?”
While the adjudication itself does not impose usage fees, farmers are concerned about indirect costs (such as needing to purchase water rights or invest in efficiency) that could arise from a reallocation of water. Overall, farmers are key stakeholders who will either have their existing water rights confirmed or, if a use is unvalidated (or junior and in conflict with seniors), possibly reduced. Their engagement in the process is high, given that agriculture in WRIA 1 includes economically important sectors (Whatcom is Washington’s #2 dairy-producing county)
-
Municipalities and Public Water Suppliers: Cities and towns in the basin – including Bellingham, Ferndale, Lynden, Everson, Nooksack, Sumas, Blaine, and small communities – all hold water rights that supply their residents. These typically include rights to surface waters (e.g. City of Bellingham has water rights for Lake Whatcom and possibly the Nooksack River) and municipal well fields. Municipal water rights are part of the adjudication, though people who receive water through a city or water district are not individually involved (the municipality will handle the claims)
. City governments have been preparing by reviewing their water rights portfolios with consultants and attorneys. For example, the City of Ferndale’s mayor noted they have engaged water rights experts to defend the city’s water rights for its 16,000 customers
. Generally, municipalities expect their existing rights to be upheld, but there is some risk that unused portions of rights could be reduced. Ferndale’s mayor acknowledged the city might “lose some of our water rights” (e.g. if they have more water allocated on paper than they currently use), but stated they have buffer capacity and could still meet community needs even with some reduction
. Municipalities are also mindful that if streamflows are protected for fish, those outside city limits may face restrictions; cities are considering how that might indirectly affect their future supply or growth. Public Utility Districts (like Whatcom County PUD #1, which supplies some industrial and rural water) and smaller water associations are similarly involved as stakeholders. In summary, cities, towns, and water districts will participate to ensure their drinking water supplies and future growth needs are recognized in the court decree.
-
Residential Well Owners: Thousands of households in rural Whatcom and Skagit counties rely on private wells for domestic water. These are typically “permit-exempt” wells (small household wells that by law can withdraw a limited amount without a water right permit). It’s estimated that around 20,000 exempt wells exist in WRIA 1.
– making residential well owners the single largest group by number. Every homeowner with a well in the basin is a party to the adjudication and must file a claim for their water use (unless their property is served by a city water system or a larger water association).
This group includes owners of individual domestic wells and those on small shared wells or group systems. Many of these well owners have never had to formally think about “water rights” before, so the process can be intimidating. The adjudication is designed to accommodate these non-expert participants by providing clear instructions and even a simplified claim process for small domestic uses (see “Impacts on Residential Well Owners” below for details).
Still, well owners are understandably concerned about what the adjudication means for their water access. Key issues include: ensuring their well usage is legally recognized (to secure their continued water supply for their homes), understanding if they need to hire a lawyer or can self-represent, and worrying whether a senior water call could ever shut off their well in a drought. Public agencies are making special outreach efforts to this group (through workshops, help desks, and educational materials) to guide them through filing claims. Residential well owners thus form a crucial stakeholder bloc whose interests (access to water for basic domestic needs) will need to be balanced against larger water demands and instream flows.
-
State and Federal Agencies: Beyond Ecology (which prosecutes the case), other government stakeholders include state agencies (like the Department of Fish & Wildlife, which holds instream flow water rights or claims for habitat purposes, and possibly State Parks or Department of Natural Resources if they have water uses in the basin) and the U.S. Government. The federal government is a stakeholder both as owner of federal lands (e.g. national forests in the Nooksack headwaters, which may have reserved water rights for wilderness, fisheries, etc.) and as the trustee for tribal water rights.
Federal participation is governed by the McCarran Amendment, which allows adjudication of federal and tribal rights in state court. In practice, federal attorneys (e.g. from the Department of Justice) will likely represent tribal claims and any federal claims (like perhaps water for the Nooksack National Fish Hatchery, if applicable). Their goal is to ensure federal or tribal rights are not subordinated in the decree. The State of Washington, aside from Ecology, also has an interest in upholding instream flow rules or water reservations established by state law for WRIA 1 (if any exist) and ensuring the adjudication outcome aligns with state water management plans.
-
Environmental and Community Groups: Although not formal “right holders,” various local organizations have a stake in the outcome. Environmental groups (such as RE Sources for Sustainable Communities, WWU’s Salish Sea Institute, and others) have advocated for adjudication as a path to restore streamflows for salmon and to update the water management framework.
Some of these organizations may participate in the legal process as intervenors or by assisting community members. For example, the nonprofit RE Sources has been publishing explainers on the adjudication and pushing for outcomes that benefit ecosystem flows and water conservation.
On the agricultural side, groups like Whatcom Family Farmers and the Ag Water Board (a coalition of local farming interests) are actively engaged in helping water users prepare, but may also advocate to protect agricultural water supplies. The Whatcom Watersheds Information Network and other community forums are also involved in public education. While these groups don’t have “water rights” at stake per se, they influence public opinion and may support certain stakeholders (for instance, some environmental nonprofits might support the tribes’ position on securing instream flows, whereas farming organizations rally around protecting irrigation rights)
In summary, the adjudication brings together all parties with a stake in water: from tribal nations, who seek to protect senior instream water rights for fish and their culture, to farmers, whose businesses depend on irrigation, to cities ensuring drinking water for tens of thousands, to individual well owners relying on water for their homes, and the state and federal governments with their respective legal mandates. Each stakeholder has distinct interests, and the adjudication’s challenge is to sort out these interests under the law’s priority system.
Potential Future Outcomes of the Adjudication
Because the Nooksack adjudication is just beginning, its future outcomes remain uncertain. However, based on the nature of water rights adjudications and experiences elsewhere, we can outline several likely results and scenarios:
-
Legal Clarity and a Final Water Rights Decree: The primary outcome will be a final court decree (or a series of decrees) that defines every valid water right in WRIA 1.
This decree will list who holds each water right, for what amount of water, with what priority date, and for what purpose and place of use. In essence, it will be an enforceable “water rights inventory” for the basin
This brings legal certainty: people will know the status of their water rights and how they relate in priority to others. For example, a farmer might emerge with an adjudicated certificate confirming they have the right to divert 2 cubic feet per second from a creek with a priority date of 1910, junior to specified upstream rights and senior to others. A homeowner might receive confirmation of a right to, say, 500 gallons per day from a well with priority dated 1995 (the year their well was first used). Having this certainty is expected to make future water management easier – for instance, it will facilitate water right transfers or water banking, since buyers and sellers can trust that rights are valid and quantified.
It will also clarify streamflow protections that are legally in place (such as tribal instream flow rights or regulatory minimum flows) by putting them in the priority system
-
Priority-Based Water Sharing (Winners and Losers): Adjudication does not create new water – it reallocates certainty of existing water use according to seniority. In a basin like Nooksack, where water demand in late summer often exceeds supply, a crucial outcome will be how water shortages are handled by priority. Under Washington’s prior appropriation doctrine (“first in time, first in right”), when water is scarce, junior (newer) rights are the first to be restricted so that senior rights (older) can be satisfied.
After the adjudication, this priority system will be formalized. Senior rights holders (for example, the tribes, whose instream flow rights date to treaties in 1855, or very early irrigation rights from the late 1800s) will have their water supply protected up to their full legal entitlement, even in droughts. Junior rights holders (perhaps newer wells or recent irrigation developments) will only get water if there is enough left after seniors are satisfied. This means some water users could face mandatory cutbacks in dry periods once rights are adjudicated, if their rights are junior and water is insufficient. One likely scenario is that the court will recognize a tribal instream flow right for salmon that is quite senior; because summer flows in the Nooksack are currently often lower than what salmon need, this could force reductions in junior consumptive uses during dry times.
In practice, the state may have to enforce water curtailment orders on junior users (like turning off certain diversions or wells) during droughts to ensure senior rights (including instream flows for fish) are met. This is a significant outcome that could impact farmers or other juniors in low-flow years. However, domestic water for basic needs is a small use and may be given special consideration (the court or legislature could seek solutions to avoid cutting off household water, even if technically those rights are junior – for example, by providing mitigation water or establishing minimum human needs as a high priority).
-
Possible Settlements or Compromises: While the adjudication is a court process, it’s possible that, along the way, stakeholders will reach negotiated settlements to streamline the outcome. In many large adjudications nationally, the case concluded when major parties (e.g., the state, tribes, major user groups) agreed on a settlement that was then approved by the court.
Local leaders in Whatcom County are already voicing that negotiation is key: “Such negotiations are the only way to spare us from a long, protracted legal battle,” wrote community commentators urging a comprehensive water settlement.
A settlement could take the form of a water management agreement outside of strict priority: for example, the tribes might agree to a certain instream flow regime and in exchange farmers/cities might get certain guarantees or access to stored water or funding for infrastructure, etc. If parties agree on how to share shortages (perhaps via conservation measures, water trading, or new projects), this could be incorporated into a consent decree, ending the adjudication sooner. One benefit of settlement is that it can balance community needs with legal rights – e.g. finding ways to meet tribal streamflow targets while also ensuring farms survive and cities grow.
Without settlement, the court’s decision will be purely law-based, which might not fully address practical needs (for instance, the court could determine rights that add up to more water than physically exists in a drought, which then requires strict enforcement of cuts).
So, a potential outcome is a hybrid approach: legal determinations for most rights, plus side agreements or mitigation plans among key parties to address gaps
-
Water Management Changes and Future Planning: Once rights are adjudicated, we can expect improvements in how water is managed: better enforcement and administration by Ecology, and new initiatives to stretch water supplies. With a clear hierarchy of rights, Ecology can more confidently regulate illegal or wasteful uses (currently, it’s hard to crack down on unauthorized use if you aren’t sure what’s authorized). Instream flows that are determined in the adjudication (e.g. a tribal water right for the river) will have the force of a senior water right, likely leading to stronger protection of stream habitat in the long run.
The adjudication may also spur the creation of water banks or water markets in WRIA 1.
Water users with excess rights could lease or sell water to those who need more, facilitating voluntary reallocation. This already happens informally, but having confirmed rights will make transactions more secure. Additionally, the region may look into new infrastructure like water storage projects or aquifer recharge programs to increase the “wet” water available during dry months, since the adjudication will highlight any shortfalls. The state and local governments might invest in conservation projects (for example, helping farmers upgrade irrigation technology to use less water) to ensure junior users can cope with any new restrictions. In essence, the adjudication outcome could be the foundation for a more sustainable water management system that supports the economy and the ecosystem.
-
Duration and Adaptation: A less tangible outcome is the sheer time and resource investment the adjudication requires. We should recognize that this is not a quick fix; the basin’s water conflicts will continue to be managed through the legal process for years. Stakeholders will need to adapt to this new reality – involving attending legal proceedings or settlement meetings, paying for technical studies or legal fees, and staying engaged. The Yakima basin adjudication (1977–2019) showed that the process can be lengthy and litigious, but it also demonstrated that, after adjudication, water users had a clearer framework for resolving disputes.
. The Nooksack adjudication’s outcome might similarly only fully materialize in the 2030s. Even after the final decree, there may be appeals (to the Washington Supreme Court, for example, as happened with Yakima’s final decree.
Thus, one “outcome” is that the community will be engaged in water rights issues for the foreseeable future – but ideally, this leads to a more informed public and a proactive approach to water stewardship
In summary, the future outcomes of the adjudication will likely include a legal reordering of water rights (with some users gaining secure rights and others potentially curtailed), new opportunities for managing water efficiently, and possibly formal settlement agreements that address tribal water needs and community growth together. By creating the first definitive list of who can use water, where, and how much in WRIA 1, the adjudication aims to reduce the current conflicts and uncertainties
However, it will not add new water to the system – difficult decisions and trade-offs are ahead to live within the basin’s means, especially under climate change. All stakeholders will have to adjust to the new legal landscape once the adjudication is complete, but the hope is that this provides a foundation for long-term water security for farms, cities, tribes, and the environment.
Impacts on Different Stakeholder Groups
Impact on Residential Well Owners (Rural Homeowners)
For residential well owners, the adjudication brings both obligations and protections. If you own a household well in the affected area, you will need to participate to secure your water use. Every well owner in WRIA 1 (outside of city water service areas) is being notified and must file a water right claim with the court.
This includes those using wells under the groundwater permit exemption (typically up to 5,000 gallons per day for domestic use, including lawn/garden irrigation up to 1/2 acre).
Historically, exempt well users did not require a formal water right permit, but in adjudication, they do need to claim their right so that it can be recognized as a legal right going forward.
What Well Owners Need to Do: If you have a domestic well, you should fill out the court claim form that comes with your adjudication summons and submit it by the deadline (May 2026). This form asks for details about your water use. You’ll need to provide information such as: the location of your well (point of withdrawal) and your property (place of water use), the type of use (e.g. household domestic use, irrigation of lawn/garden, etc.), the date when you first started using the well, and your estimates of water amounts used (current use and the maximum you’ve used in the past).
. For many homeowners, determining gallons per day can seem daunting, but both Ecology and Whatcom County are providing tools to help. For example, the county has an online “Residential Water Use Calculator” where you can input the number of household members (or detailed usage patterns) to estimate your daily water use.
The calculator shows that typical indoor domestic use is about 60 gallons per person per day – so a family of 4 might use around 240 gallons per day, well under the 5,000 gallon limit.
Ecology is also offering workshops and webinars guiding well owners on how to fill out the forms and measure things like irrigated area
One important feature for homeowners is that Ecology has proposed a streamlined process for small domestic well users. If your household uses 500 gallons per day or less and irrigates less than 0.5 acre (which likely covers most single-family homes), you will only need to fill out a shorter section of the claim form.
In these cases, Ecology plans to ask the court to accept the claim without requiring additional documentation beyond the form itself.
In other words, if you attest that your usage is modest (under 500 gpd), you likely won’t have to present extensive evidence; your claim can be processed more simply as long as it’s unchallenged. Why 500 gallons? That figure is roughly the consumptive portion of a typical household’s use (most homes use a few hundred gallons per day, and some of that returns to groundwater via septic). Ecology has signaled that these low-volume domestic rights should be recognized with minimal fuss, since individually they have minor impact.
Indeed, “households that estimate they are using 500 gallons a day or less… will be able to fill out a shorter section of the form” and likely won’t need extra proof beyond their own claim.
This is a relief for many well owners – it means you probably do not need to hire an attorney or undertake complex research if your water use is just normal household needs. You should still fill the form accurately; as Ecology’s manager warns, an inaccurate form might prompt follow-up inquiries.
But a simple, truthful claim of your domestic water use should suffice to secure a right for that use.
For well owners who use more than 500 gpd or irrigate a larger area, the process will ask for a bit more information. For example, if you operate a small orchard or farm from your home and irrigate 1 acre, or if you have a big household or multiple dwellings on one well, you will have to provide additional details on the form.
This may include describing your purpose of use (e.g. small commercial nursery), the history of that use, the maximum area you’ve watered, etc. You might also eventually need to show some evidence, like a well log, an irrigation equipment receipt, or an affidavit of when you first started using that water, during the evidence phase. But again, initially, you just need to file the claim form with as much detail as you can. The state and court will let you know if more is required later.
How Will Adjudication Protect or Affect Well Owners’ Water? If you participate and file your claim, you are essentially locking in your place in line in the water rights priority system. Adjudication will likely confirm that most domestic well users have a legal water right (under the exemption) for their home use, with a priority date being the date the well was first put to use (often the year the house was built or the well was drilled).
For example, if your well was first used in 1990, your water right priority date becomes 1990, and it will be junior to all water rights from before 1990 and senior to those after 1990. The 5,000 gallons per day exemption limit remains in effect – the adjudication “doesn’t change the 5,000 gallons per day permit exemption”, as Ecology’s Robin McPherson confirms.
So, you will not suddenly be required to get a permit for your exempt well or be forced under a lower usage limit through adjudication. The process will simply recognize how much you have historically been using (which for most homes is far below 5,000 gallons) and give you a right to continue that use, up to the amount proven. In fact, McPherson noted that a typical household using under 500 gpd “may have – pending court approval – water rights to that amount dating back to first use”
That means even if the legal exemption allows up to 5,000 gpd, your actual right will likely be defined by what you actually need and use (e.g. 500 gpd) and anchored to when you started. This provides a baseline consistency among domestic users and prevents a patchwork where every home has a wildly different claim.
For existing well owners, once you’ve filed your claim, the adjudication should ultimately confirm your right to use water for domestic purposes, as long as you’ve been following the law (using under the exempt limits, etc.). You might receive an adjudicated certificate affirming something like “X parcel has the right to withdraw Y gallons per day for domestic supply, priority date Z.” This gives you legal security – your well water use becomes a recognized right. However, it will be a junior right in many cases. Most domestic wells in Whatcom County were developed in the last few decades, making them junior to older agricultural or tribal rights. In practical terms, this means if in the future there is extreme drought or low streamflows, and senior rights (like the tribes’ instream flow or older irrigation rights) are not being met, state regulators could call on junior groundwater users to curtail pumping to protect senior rights. Will my well actually get shut off? For essential residential use, this worst-case outcome is unlikely except in truly dire conditions – shutting off people’s drinking water is a last resort. More likely, if curtailment is needed, big irrigation or industrial uses would be targeted first. But as a junior water right holder, you should be aware that your right is not guaranteed during shortages; you could be asked to limit lawn watering or non-essential use in droughts to ensure senior needs (like minimum streamflow for salmon) are met. The adjudication decree will formalize that hierarchy.
Another impact is that, after adjudication, future new wells will face a very clear situation: if all water is spoken for by existing rights, new wells (even small exempt ones) might be very limited unless they purchase or mitigate water. Currently, under the 2018 Streamflow Restoration law, new wells in WRIA 1 are allowed with certain conditions, but after adjudication, any new water use will be junior to all adjudicated rights. So, the adjudication helps existing well owners by grandfathering their rights in the priority system relative to future uses.
Bottom line for well owners: Participate by filing your claim – this will protect your ability to continue using your well. There is significant help available (see the “Resources” section below) to guide you through the paperwork. If you do so, you will most likely end up with a court-sanctioned water right for your domestic use. For 99% of the time, you won’t notice any change – you’ll keep using water as before. Only in rare extreme shortages might the priority system come into play, potentially requiring some conservation. And if you’re in an area where your well draws from the same source as a struggling salmon stream, you might see more pressure to be mindful of water use in late summer. But adjudication also opens the door to creative solutions (like community water banks or rural supply projects) that could ensure even junior users get water through mitigation. Crucially, if you ignore the adjudication, you risk losing legal recognition of your water usage.
, which could be disastrous – you could be treated as having no right to use water. So, while it may be a bit of a hassle now, engaging with the process is the best way to secure your home’s water for the future.
Impact on Agricultural Water Users
Farmers and agricultural irrigators in WRIA 1 will experience some of the most direct and potentially significant impacts from the adjudication. Agriculture is water-intensive, and farms often hold multiple types of water rights: some have old certificated surface water rights (issued under the state Water Code, perhaps dating back to early-mid 1900s or earlier if claimed from pioneer days), some have groundwater permits for high-capacity irrigation wells, and many also use small exempt wells (for stock water, or watering a farmhouse, etc.). Additionally, some farmers might be using water without formal rights – for example, irrigating beyond what their water right allows or drawing from a creek based on a historic claim that wasn’t adjudicated before. The adjudication will scrutinize all these uses.
Requirements for Farmers: Like other users, farmers must file claims for each water use they assert. If a farmer has a state-issued water right certificate or permit, they will claim that and reference the document. If they have an old “water claim” (registered in the 1970s claims registry for uses pre-dating the code), they will need to claim that. And if they’ve been using an exempt well for irrigation beyond the domestic allowance (e.g. irrigating a few acres of crops with a well, which is actually not allowed under the standard exemption of 1/2 acre irrigation for domestic wells), they might attempt to claim a right for that use – though it could be challenged, since permit-exempt wells legally can’t irrigate more than 1/2 acre for non-commercial purposes (commercial agriculture would generally need a permitted right).
Many farms are preparing extensive documentation: well logs, irrigation records, power bills (to show pumping over years), aerial photos (to show fields under irrigation historically), etc., to prove their water usage and its continuity. They understand that any portion of a water right not historically used could be subject to relinquishment (forfeiture under the “use it or lose it” law) in the adjudication.
As a result, we can expect farmers to claim all the water they believe they’re entitled to, in some cases potentially inflating claims to avoid losing anything. The court, with Ecology’s input, will then determine the valid amount based on evidence (often the “highest beneficial use in the five years prior to the suit” or similar standard is used to quantify each right).
Short-Term Impacts: In the near term, the adjudication creates a significant workload for farmers. It can be costly – hiring water rights attorneys or consultants is common. One local farmer remarked that many “have seen this coming for years” and are already working on it.
Agricultural organizations have been active in educating farmers on how to respond. The Ag Water Board of Whatcom County has tools like an irrigation water use estimator and preparation worksheets on its website and groups have held presentations (e.g. “Protecting Your Water: Understanding the Water Rights Lawsuit”) to walk farmers through the process . So, one impact is better awareness among farmers of their own water rights and usage – the community is rallying to not leave anyone behind. It’s been noted that over 33% of Whatcom’s farmland is irrigated, so a huge portion of the ag sector is directly involved.
Water Security vs. Curtailment: In the long run, adjudication is a double-edged sword for farmers. On one hand, it offers the promise of water right security – once a farmer’s rights are confirmed, they can be more confident in their legal ability to use water (and even potentially market any excess). This can help in business planning and obtaining loans (banks like to know water rights are clear property rights). On the other hand, if the basin is over-allocated (which it likely is in late summer), some irrigators with junior rights will face water shortages when water is limited. The most senior irrigation rights (perhaps some dating back to early 1900s ditches or to state water permits from mid-century) will likely be fine; those users will continue as before, but with formal certificates. However, any irrigation development that happened more recently without a firm legal basis might be curtailed. For example, if someone drilled a well in 2000 and started watering 50 acres without a permit, assuming it was okay, that use might be shut down or sharply reduced because it has no “paper” right and likely interferes with others. Adjudication will lay this bare.
Even farmers with valid rights could be impacted by the “first in time, first in right” principle. Suppose a farmer has a water right junior to the tribes’ instream flow right – in a drought year, if the river drops, the tribes (once their right is established) could call for water, and that farmer might get shut off until flows recover. This is a major concern for the ag community, as water curtailment could damage crops and livestock. Some farmers fear that the adjudication “odds are stacked against” them, perceiving that regulators and courts might favor environmental flows over irrigation, or that cities (providing human drinking water) will be prioritized while farms take cuts.
There is also talk among farmers that Ecology might impose metering or fees on agricultural water use after adjudication. While Ecology doesn’t automatically impose fees for existing rights, it’s true that once rights are adjudicated, the state can more rigorously enforce metering requirements (indeed, large water right holders are often required to install meters to report usage). The mention of fees likely refers to potential costs of mitigation – e.g. if a farmer with a junior right gets shut off, they might only regain water by leasing from a senior right holder or paying into a mitigation program, effectively a cost. Additionally, as one farmer speculated, if water for farming becomes scarcer, it could drive up food prices or production costs regionally.
Opportunities: Not all impacts on farmers are negative. Adjudication could also spur solutions that benefit farmers. For instance, if the final decree clearly identifies that certain farmland with junior rights can’t get water in late summer, that creates impetus for the community to develop water storage projects (like off-channel reservoirs filled in winter) to supply those farms during droughts. The state or federal government might fund irrigation efficiency grants or water storage to offset adjudication impacts on agriculture. Also, once rights are settled, farmers with senior rights will have very valuable assets – they could potentially lease water to others in dry times at a profit, or sell part of their water rights if they choose to retire some acreage. Water right trading could thus become an additional revenue stream or adjustment mechanism in the agricultural economy.
Furthermore, adjudication will sort out valid rights from paper claims. Some farmers might discover that neighbors who have been using water have no valid right, which could reduce illegal competition for water and improve supply for lawful users. Over time, clearer water rights may encourage collaboration between farms: e.g. forming irrigation districts or collective management to rotate water usage in droughts so that priority cutoffs hurt less (sharing the pain).
Summary for Agriculture: Farmers should prepare for a future where water use is more tightly governed by priority dates. Senior water-right holders among the farming community will solidify their status; junior users may need contingency plans (like planting lower-water crops on part of their land, investing in irrigation upgrades, or securing backup sources). The adjudication’s outcome might drive some less-water-secure farming operations to change – for example, if a farmer’s right is very junior and unreliable, they might shift from a water-intensive crop (like corn or alfalfa) to something like raspberries which need less peak season water, or invest in sprinkler/drip systems instead of flood irrigation. We may also see economic impacts: land with senior water rights will increase in value, while land without reliable water could drop in value. The farm community, aware of these stakes, is likely to stay heavily engaged in the adjudication and possibly in settlement talks to ensure agriculture’s needs are considered. They will also look to the state for support – and, indeed, the Legislature has so far funded local assistance to help farmers and others through this process, acknowledging the burden on individual water users.
Overall, while the adjudication poses challenges for agriculture in WRIA 1, it also offers a path to long-term stability: once everyone knows what water they can count on, farmers can plan their operations more confidently and invest accordingly (or adjust if necessary). It brings the shadow of uncertainty into the open, where it can hopefully be addressed by policy, innovation, and negotiation rather than by continued conflict or clandestine water use.
Impact on Tribal Water Rights
From the tribal perspective – particularly for the Lummi Nation and Nooksack Indian Tribe – the adjudication is a critical step toward securing their senior water rights and protecting salmon habitat. The tribes are unique water users in that their rights are not created by state law but by federal treaty (the Treaty of Point Elliott of 1855), which guaranteed fishing rights. Courts have interpreted these fishing rights to include an implied instream flow water right sufficient to support fish populations in usual and accustomed fishing places. These are often referred to as “time immemorial” or “aboriginal” water rights for instream flows, making them the oldest (most senior) rights in the basin.
However, until adjudicated, they remain unquantified – meaning we know the tribes have such rights, but not how much water those rights entitle them to.
Goals for Tribes: The primary goal of the Lummi and Nooksack tribes in pushing for this adjudication is to quantify and legally establish instream flow rights for the Nooksack River and connected streams.In practical terms, that might mean the tribes will claim a certain flow level (in cubic feet per second) for specific river reaches and seasons that must remain in the river for fish. For example, they might claim that, say, 800 cfs must flow at a certain point in the Nooksack during July to support salmon migration – whatever the scientific evidence shows is needed for healthy fish populations. These numbers will be subject to negotiation or court determination. Once quantified and decreed, a tribal instream flow right becomes a legally enforceable water. In times of water shortage, that right (with an 1855 priority date) would supersede virtually all other uses – i.e., junior users (everyone else, since non-Indian settlement began around the 1860s in that area) could be curtailed to maintain the instream flow. This is a powerful tool for the tribes to protect fish habitat, especially given the dramatic decline in salmon runs in recent decades. The adjudication provides a forum to establish this formally.
Additionally, the tribes may also assert other federal reserved water rights. For instance, the Nooksack Tribe has a reservation near Deming, and Lummi Nation has the Lummi Reservation at the river’s mouth – each reservation may have reserved water rights (from the creation of the reservation) for on-reservation uses like domestic supply, irrigation, etc., which could also be very senior (though likely not as senior as time-immemorial instream rights). Those, too can be addressed in adjudication. The federal government, through the Department of Justice, will represent these claims (the U.S. is a mandatory party, as trustee for tribes).
Likely Outcomes for Tribes: The adjudication is expected to confirm the tribes’ instream flow rights as senior. This is in line with prior Washington adjudications; for example, in the Yakima adjudication, the court recognized the Yakama Nation’s treaty-based instream flow rights. We can anticipate a similar outcome where the Lummi and Nooksack each get a portion of the flows (or they might claim jointly) reserved for fish. It’s possible the court could also incorporate state-instated minimum flows (if any exist from Ecology regulations) into such a right or decree them alongside. Once quantified, these rights will give the tribes significant leverage to ensure water is left in the river. For non-tribal users, this might feel like a threat (water that cannot be diverted for other uses during shortages), but for the ecosystem, it’s a benefit – it could mean more consistent flows for salmon spawning and migration, cooler water temperatures, and overall healthier streams.
Another outcome is that the tribes would then have a formal seat at the table in all water management discussions going forward, backed by a decree. They could, for instance, demand enforcement from Ecology in dry years to turn off junior users when needed (Ecology would essentially be compelled by the court decree to do so). This could address the longstanding issue that “without knowing who is using water legally and who isn’t, agencies can’t enforce the rules”
– after adjudication, enforcement to protect tribal rights becomes much more straightforward.
Tribal-Federal Relationship: The Lummi and Nooksack may also coordinate with the federal government on habitat restoration as part of the process. Often, settlements (if reached) involve the U.S. providing funding for water projects for tribes or habitat work. If a negotiated settlement were to occur, the tribes might agree to target flows slightly lower than their full claim in exchange for habitat investments or other benefits that help salmon. But absent settlement, they will pursue the full extent of their rights. The tribes have made clear through public statements that after decades of trying other avenues (state watershed planning, etc.), adjudication is the path to finally get their water rights respected.
Impact on Other Users and Tribal Relations: When the tribes succeed in getting their rights affirmed, it will certainly affect other stakeholders – but it’s important to note this is by design: treaty rights are part of the supreme law of the land, and other users have always been subject to them, even if it hasn’t been enforced historically. Adjudication could bring some tension as water that was informally used by others might be formally allocated to “instream use” for the tribes. However, it also opens opportunities for co-management. The tribes have deep knowledge of the watershed and have been investing in salmon recovery; with clear water rights, they might collaborate with farmers or cities on creative solutions (for example, timing water releases from a storage project to both benefit fish and allow some irrigation – if trust and cooperative frameworks can be built).
For the tribes themselves, achieving water rights through adjudication will be a major victory in terms of sovereignty and resource protection. It will legally equip them to continue practicing their culture (fishing) and to hold others accountable to not destroy that resource. It’s often said that “water is life” for the tribes, and in legal terms water is now an asset they can defend. One could foresee the tribes possibly using a secured water right as a basis for habitat agreements – for example, they might agree not to enforce a curtailment on some minor uses if farmers implement certain fish-friendly practices, etc. Before, such agreements were hard to make because their rights weren’t adjudicated; after, they have firm ground to negotiate from.
On-Reservation Water: A brief note – on their reservations, Lummi and Nooksack run community water systems and fisheries projects. These uses will be part of the adjudication too (as federal reserved rights from the reservation creation date). Those rights are also senior to most state users (likely reservation establishment in late 1800s). Thus, the tribes should emerge with confirmed rights for, say, domestic supply on the reservation, which will ensure their communities have water for growth as well.
In summary, the adjudication is poised to secure tribal water rights that have long existed but never been enforced. This has a transformative potential for natural resource management: fish populations could be better protected by guaranteed flows, and tribes will wield legal authority in water allocation discussions. Non-tribal water users will have to adjust to the reality that certain volumes of water are essentially untouchable to honor treaty obligations. This may be challenging for some at first, but in the bigger picture it leads to a more equitable and lawful sharing of water. The tribes have indicated they are not out to deprive others of water unfairly, but rather to ensure “enough water for fish in streams where they have fished since time immemorial”, as required to uphold their rights.
Everyone in the basin shares an interest in recovering salmon runs (healthier salmon runs benefit the whole ecosystem and even farmers and landowners indirectly by improving environmental quality). Thus, while tribal water rights may impose limits on human consumptive use, they aim to restore balance and sustainability to the watershed, which in the long term is beneficial for all communities.
Impact on Municipalities and Public Water Systems
Cities and towns in the Nooksack basin rely on both surface and groundwater to supply residents and businesses. The adjudication will involve all municipal water rights, but as noted earlier, municipal users (residents on city water) are not individually summoned – the city or utility holding the water rights will handle the claims.
For cities, the key concerns are protecting their existing water rights, ensuring they can meet current demand, and retaining enough water for the future growth of their communities.
Municipal water rights often come with specific legal advantages. Under Washington law, certain large municipal water rights are defined under the Municipal Water Law (MWL) of 2003, which gives them some flexibility in place of use and considers beneficial use in the context of service area (meaning cities can claim water for future population growth within their service area without risking relinquishment, as long as they are on track with planning). It’s likely that municipalities like Bellingham, Ferndale, Lynden, etc., will assert rights that include both their current usage and some “inchoate” (not yet fully used) portion for future needs. Adjudication may test the extent of those future portions – other parties could argue that unused water should not be fully kept if others are short, whereas cities will argue they invested in infrastructure, counting on those water rights for expected growth.
Short Term (During Adjudication): Cities are preparing by inventorying all their water rights documentation. For example, Ferndale’s mayor mentioned they had consultants and an attorney already working on water rights for a new source in 2020, and have simply re-tasked them to focus on the adjudication.
This implies that most cities have hired legal counsel. City councils and utility managers are also likely engaging in the process via organizations like the Washington Association of Municipal Attorneys or similar networks, sharing strategies. The cost to cities will include legal fees and staff time, but given the importance of water, it’s a justified expense to them.
Water Supply for City Residents: In general, city water users should not notice any change in their day-to-day water service as a result of adjudication. The cities are confident they have sufficient rights for their needs. For instance, Ferndale’s mayor expressed confidence that “not much will change in terms of [the] city’s municipal water operations” as a result of adjudication.
This is because most municipalities have long-established water sources – Bellingham has Lake Whatcom (a large natural lake that provides a reliable supply) and an associated water right; Lynden diverts from the Nooksack River under a water right; smaller cities often have wells or spring sources with old rights. These rights will likely be validated.
However, a few outcomes could affect municipalities:
-
A city might lose a portion of an unused water right. For example, Ferndale acknowledges it has “more water rights than we actually use” – a buffer or “flush fund” of water.
If a portion of that hasn’t been put to use for many years, the court could determine that part of the right was relinquished or should be trimmed. Ferndale believes even if that happens, they could still supply their whole community with what remains.
This scenario could apply to other municipalities: Bellingham may have more water permitted than current use, and some of that could be considered future supply. Adjudication might formally recognize only what’s currently needed plus maybe a reasonable growth factor. If a city does lose some rights, it might need to pursue new rights or conservation to serve long-term growth, or negotiate with whoever ends up holding the water (perhaps the instream flow) to get more via mitigation.
-
Interruption due to senior calls: If a city’s source is junior to, say, the tribal instream flow, theoretically, the city could be asked to curtail in extreme low-flow conditions. But public water supply is usually considered a high-priority use (for health and safety) even if junior, so it’s more probable that other uses (like irrigation) would be cut before a city is ever affected. Additionally, many municipal sources are somewhat buffered – e.g., if a city pumps from a deep aquifer, that may not be directly regulated by short-term surface flow calls. Cities like Bellingham with reservoir storage (Lake Whatcom) have more resilience, whereas a city like Lynden, which draws directly from the river, might need backup (Lynden built a water treatment plant to use Nooksack water; they might have to watch flows but presumably have a fairly senior right or an agreement for low-flow times). If needed, cities may negotiate municipal water supply arrangements – for example, in some basins, cities pay into funds to offset their impact or have agreements with tribes to ensure continuous supply in exchange for habitat investments. That could happen here in the future.
-
Quality and Infrastructure: While not directly the adjudication’s focus, if certain sources are curtailed, municipalities might invest in alternative sources or storage. For example, if climate change reduces summer river flows, a city might build an ASR (aquifer storage and recovery) system to store water in winter for use in summer. These kinds of projects could be facilitated by the knowledge gained in adjudication about where water is available.
-
Regional Cooperation: The process might actually foster more cooperation among municipal and other users. Knowing everyone’s rights could allow cities and farmers to make mutual aid arrangements. For instance, if a city has extra water and a farmer is cut off, perhaps the city could supply (sell) some treated water or leased water to the farmer, or vice versa if the city needed more. This could be part of a larger water bank scheme post-adjudication.
In the adjudication, municipalities will also be interested in fire flow and emergency use rights – ensuring that rights account for water needed in emergencies (firefighting draws, etc.). These are usually covered under existing rights but they might clarify them.
Finally, small Group A and Group B water systems (private water companies or homeowner associations) are also part of this discussion. The adjudication guidance suggests that Group A systems (15+ connections) will have an authorized representative file on behalf of the system.
Group B systems (2–14 connections), like a small community well, might have to decide whether the system owner or each homeowner files; guidance is being developed, with the county noting it may be “organization-dependent.”
If municipalities or counties operate any of these small systems, they’ll ensure those claims are filed. The outcome will secure water for those communities similarly to city rights.
Summary for Municipalities: City water suppliers will solidify their legal rights to provide water to their populations. Residents of cities should feel assured that their water isn’t at risk of disappearing from this process:
– the cities are actively defending those rights. The most likely effect on a city might be some minor reduction in paper water rights that the city can live without for now or a need to plan for using water more efficiently if they can’t keep as much unused allocation. Politically, city leaders are also involved in broader negotiations to ensure that while protecting fish and farms, municipal needs (drinking water) remain a top priority. This could influence any settlements – for instance, cities might support tribes on instream flows if there are guarantees for municipal supply projects in return. One can expect municipalities to become champions of integrated solutions (since they sit somewhat in the middle – they want a healthy environment like tribes do, and also economic vitality like farmers do). For example, the City of Bellingham might play a convening role in regional water planning once rights are settled, using its position to help broker deals that benefit everyone.
In essence, municipalities will generally fare well in adjudication because they planned with their water rights. They just have to ensure those rights are formally recognized and any legal technicalities (like service area expansions or changes in use) are addressed in the decree. Post-adjudication, cities will likely continue providing reliable water to their customers, with added legal clarity and will adapt to any new constraints by leveraging the tools that come out of this process (like water banks or conserved water made available from others). City residents, therefore, should see the adjudication as a behind-the-scenes legal housekeeping that their water utility is handling – important, but not something that will interrupt their tap water.
Resources and Support for Residential Well Owners
The adjudication process can feel overwhelming, especially for individual homeowners who are not water law experts. Fortunately, there are numerous resources available – from official guidance documents to local assistance programs – to help residential well owners understand their rights and navigate the legal requirements. Below is a compilation of key resources and tips for homeowners with wells:
-
Washington Dept. of Ecology – Adjudication Information Hub: Ecology’s website has a dedicated section for the WRIA 1 Nooksack adjudication, with pages specifically tailored “for Homeowners”, “for Group systems and shared wells”, FAQs, and more
. This is a great starting point. The site explains in plain language “What is adjudication?”
, what is expected of well owners, and it provides tools. Notably, Ecology has posted video tutorials such as “How to file a court claim form”
, which walks through each part of the form, and an interactive WRIA 1 map tool to help users locate water rights associated with their property
. The FAQ section answers common questions (e.g., “Do I need an attorney?”, “What if I have a shared well?”). According to these resources, most homeowners can fill out the forms on their own by following the instructions and may not need a lawyer unless their situation is unusually complex
. Ecology’s site also has a subscription e-mail list you can join for updates
and an index of past issues of the “Let’s Talk About Adjudication” newsletter
, which contains informative articles.
-
Whatcom County Public Works – Adjudication Assistance: Whatcom County received state funding to provide outreach and filing assistance to water users during the adjudication
. The County’s Public Works department has set up a Water Adjudication Assistance program. You can contact them directly for help: Email – [email protected]; Phone – 360-778-6314
. The County has been hosting public meetings and workshops targeted at different groups. For example, in Fall 2024 they held a presentation called “Water Adjudication Overview & Resources for Residential Well Users”
, and they continue to host Q&A sessions. They also offer practical tools: the aforementioned Residential Water Use Calculator (to estimate your well usage) is available on the County’s website
, and there’s a Well Report search tool via Ecology that the County links to, which can help you find your well’s drilling report (useful for pinpointing first use date or depth)
. In addition, the County’s online Nooksack Adjudication Map allows you to look up known water rights tied to your parcel (like old claims or certificates)
. If you’re not sure where to start, the County’s staff can guide you – they can help determine if your property is within WRIA 1, whether you need to file, and how to find records
. They’ve even surveyed the community to identify what kind of help people need, to tailor their services
. Don’t hesitate to use these free county resources – they are there to make the process easier for you.
-
Guidance Documents (Handouts): Ecology has prepared some very useful handouts and reference materials, available online or through workshops. Examples include the “Focus on: The Groundwater Permit Exemption” pamphlet (which explains the rights and limits of exempt wells)
, a handout on “WRIA 1 Nooksack Watershed Water Availability”
, and one on “Water Right Relinquishment” (useful to understand the use-it-or-lose-it principle)
. These can be downloaded and read at your own pace. They clarify that an exempt well, if used legally, is recognized as a valid right – and they outline scenarios that might jeopardize a claim (for instance, if a well wasn’t used at all for many years, part of its right might be considered relinquished). Knowing these details can help you fill the claim form more confidently and avoid pitfalls.
-
Shared Wells and Group Systems: If you are on a shared well with neighbors or part of a small water association, the process can be a bit different. Generally, only one claim form needs to be filed per water system, not per household, if multiple homes share a single well/right. For “Group A” systems (15+ connections, often regulated like a water utility), the system’s authorized operator will file the claim
. For “Group B” systems (3–14 connections), it may vary: perhaps the homeowners’ association or a designated representative will file on behalf of all, or in some cases each homeowner might file their portion. Jill Van Hulle of Aspect Consulting (working with the County) explained that for small shared wells it will depend on how the system is organized
. Tip: Coordinate with your well sharers. If you’re on a shared well, talk to the other households and decide who will take lead. You can also reach out to the County or Ecology for guidance specific to your situation – they’ve dealt with many scenarios and can advise on the best approach so that every user on the shared well is protected.
-
Legal Aid and Representation: Many homeowners ask, “Do I need a lawyer for this?” The official guidance suggests that the forms are designed for laypeople and court hearings will be accessible without requiring every person to appear (you only need to attend if your claim is contested or for certain phases)
. That said, water law can be complex. If you feel uncomfortable or have a high-stakes situation (say, a small business relying on a well, or a dispute with a neighbor over a shared water source), you might consider consulting an attorney. Legal aid organizations such as Northwest Justice Project typically focus on pressing civil needs (housing, etc.) and may not have specific programs for water rights, but it’s worth checking if they can refer you to someone. Another route is the WSU Extension or local volunteer lawyer programs; sometimes they host free clinics on landowner issues. As of now, no widespread free legal representation program for adjudication participants exists, but the combination of Ecology’s and the County’s assistance is intended to fill that gap. If you do hire a private water law attorney, make sure they are experienced in Washington water rights. Given that thousands of people are involved, some law firms have offered group seminars or reduced rates for simple claim filings. Bottom line: You are not required to have an attorney – most well owners will file on their own with success
. But if you have specific legal questions, you can seek advice. Even one-time consultation might help clarify your strategy (for example, confirming the priority date you should claim, or whether to claim a certain use).
-
Compliance and Next Steps: After you file your claim form, keep an eye on communications from the court or Ecology. You will get a confirmation of your filing. Then it may be quiet for some time – remember, the whole basin has a year to file claims, and then the sorting and evidence phase begins. You should use that time (2025–2027 likely) to gather any evidence for your claim just in case. For a well owner, evidence might simply be your well report, proof of home construction date, some utility bills or photographs showing you’ve lived there and used water continuously, etc. The County and Ecology have advised well owners to document their water use history – e.g., note when you moved in, if previous owners have info about the well, list out any periods the property might have been vacant (so you can explain non-use if needed)
. One resource, the “What’s in a Well Report?” presentation (June 20, 2024), available via Whatcom County, guides you on using the state well log database
. Also, check if your well has ever been metered or if you have pumping data; most won’t, but a few modern homes or those in mitigation programs might have some records. Keep these in a file. You may never need to submit them if your claim is accepted without contest
, but it’s wise to be prepared.
-
Contact Points: Both Ecology and Whatcom County have staff ready to answer questions. Ecology’s Adjudication Customer Support line (360-255-4406) and email (WRAdjudications@ecy.wa.gov) are available for any adjudication-related queries
. Don’t hesitate to call them – for example, if you’re unsure how to answer a question on the form or you don’t know if you need to file (perhaps you have city water now but also an unused well on your property – ask them in such cases!). The County’s contact (given above) is also very approachable for local, on-the-ground questions. Additionally, Ecology and the County have been holding drop-in sessions – as noted on Ecology’s blog, there are open house events in April and May 2025 where landowners can bring their claim form and ask questions in person
. Consider attending one if you prefer face-to-face help.
-
Nonprofit and Community Organizations: While official sources are best for technical info, local nonprofits can be helpful for general understanding. The joint Lummi/Nooksack website SalmonNeedWater.org provides the tribes’ perspective and background on why adjudication is happening, which can give context
. RE Sources (re-sources.org) has published a two-part blog explaining the adjudication in lay terms and what’s at stake for the community
– reading those could improve your overall understanding. Community news outlets like Cascadia Daily News and My Bellingham Now (KGMI) have run explainer articles (e.g., “What to know as a residential well owner”
and the “Adjudi-What?!” series
) which you might find insightful. Just remember, for actually filing your claim, rely on the official guidance, not just media summaries.
-
Keep Informed: This process will unfold over many years. Staying informed is your best defense. Subscribe to Ecology’s adjudication newsletter
, check the County’s adjudication web page periodically for updates or new FAQs, and if you move or sell your property, make sure to pass this information to the new owner (water rights run with the land, so the new owner would step into the process). If you ever feel lost, reach out – the agencies involved would rather answer your questions than have you sit out and potentially lose your rights.
In conclusion, while the Nooksack adjudication is a large and complex legal undertaking, numerous resources are in place to help individual well owners comply and protect themselves. By taking advantage of the guidance provided by Ecology and Whatcom County – through websites, calculators, workshops, and direct support – homeowners can successfully navigate the process. Remember that the adjudication is ultimately about making sure “everyone is getting the water they’re legally entitled to”
. By participating and using these resources, you are ensuring that your household’s water use is accounted for and secured under the law, alongside all your neighbors in the watershed.
References and Further Resources
-
WA Dept. of Ecology – WRIA 1 Adjudication Page: Official hub with FAQs, instructions, maps, and updates on the Nooksack Basin adjudication
.
-
Whatcom County – Adjudication Assistance: County’s resource site for WRIA 1 adjudication, including contact info for help, event recordings, and tools like the water use calculator
.
-
“Let’s Talk About Adjudication” Newsletter (Ecology): Periodic e-newsletter with news, deadlines, and explanations – [Index of past issues]
(useful for staying updated).
-
Cascadia Daily News – Water Rights Coverage: Local news articles explaining the adjudication and offering perspectives from different stakeholders (e.g. “What to know about water rights as a residential well owner”
).
-
My Bellingham Now (KGMI) – Adjudi-What?! Series: Radio news series covering the adjudication basics and stakeholder reactions (Part 1 explains the lawsuit; Part 2 shares views of city leaders and farmers)
.
-
SalmonNeedWater.org: Educational site by Lummi Nation and Nooksack Tribe on the importance of adjudication for salmon and treaty rights (includes history timeline and FAQs from a tribal perspective)
.
-
Ag Water Board of Whatcom County – Adjudication Resources: Website providing guidance tailored for agricultural water users (irrigation calculators, worksheets, and links to informational workshops)
.
-
Washington Courts – Adjudication Info: The WA Courts have a page explaining general water right adjudication process in superior court
, useful for understanding the legal procedure and your role as a participant.
By consulting these resources and remaining engaged, water users in Whatcom and Skagit counties can successfully navigate the adjudication and contribute to a fair and sustainable allocation of water for the future.
Categories
Recent Posts
Managing Broker | License ID: 26476
+1(360) 920-1218 | briddick@agentsinbellingham.com