Committee hears gaps in oversight, funding for Washington’s small water systems

On the final day of the Environment & Energy Committee’s hearings, state and local officials briefed legislators on regulatory responsibilities, financing and technical barriers affecting Washington’s smallest drinking‑water systems.

The discussion centered on the difference between large “Group A” systems (regulated by the state and federal government) and smaller “Group B” systems (generally overseen by local health jurisdictions), the role of satellite management agencies (SMAs), and how the Utilities and Transportation Commission (UTC) and local health departments interact with privately owned companies and very small systems.

“We have talked about PFAS chemicals in water,” said Lauren Jenks, Assistant Secretary for Environmental Public Health at the Washington State Department of Health. “Everybody drinks water.” Jenks summarized how federal standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act and state action through the State Board of Health shape testing and limits, and noted the state has adopted more protective PFAS recommendations in some cases ahead of EPA action.

Jenks told the committee Washington has a mixed regulatory landscape: about 4,000 Group A systems serve roughly 80% of the state’s population, while more than 13,000 Group B systems serve about 5% of residents; about 15% of Washingtonians use private wells. She and other witnesses described the practical problems that arise when many water systems are small, aging, and managed by part‑time operators without engineering, financial or managerial capacity.

Mike Means (Department of Health staff) described satellite management agencies as organizations that must be approved by the Department and that "have to be a certified operator or have a certified operator on your staff." Means said SMAs can be municipalities, public utility districts, or private companies; they may operate systems under either ownership or management contracts, and those distinctions affect who controls finances and long‑range decisions.

Jason Lewis, legislative director at the UTC, explained the commission’s role for investor‑owned water companies. "The UTC is a three member commission appointed by the governor and confirmed by the senate," Lewis said, and the UTC regulates investor‑owned utilities serving more than 100 customers or billing customers more than $557 per year. He said the UTC currently supervises about 51 private water companies that serve approximately 55,000 customers and generate roughly $26 million in annual revenue statewide (under 2% of Washington’s market).

Lewis described the UTC rate‑case process: companies submit financial information and a proposed tariff; UTC staff review a 12‑month test year, rate base and revenue requirements; proposed changes may take effect in 30 days unless the commission suspends the filing for further review or hearing. He also said the UTC conducts informal reviews most of the time and fully litigated water rate cases are rare.

Local health officials described program differences across counties. "We have about 820 Group B water systems in our county serving about 10,000 persons," said John Keese, environmental health director for Kitsap Public Health District. Keese described Kitsap’s local ordinance, a $75 annual operating permit for Group B systems, a time‑of‑sale reporting program and an active reminder system that helps push sampling compliance to about 82% for systems that Kitsap oversees.

By contrast, Rick Dawson, environmental health division manager at Walla Walla County Department of Community Health, said his county has 140 approved Group B systems, with 119 predating the county’s 2014 program assumption. He said Walla Walla requires sampling for bacteria and nitrates and follows up on maximum contaminant level exceedances, but without annual operating permits or steady local funding he estimates sampling compliance near 40% and said many older systems have high nitrate levels and limited funding to fix problems.

Legislators pressed witnesses on consolidation and targeted cleanup. Representative Tai and others warned against a one‑size‑fits‑all legislative fix; Jenks and witnesses replied that targeted cleanup of contamination (work typically led by the Department of Ecology) is necessary but that local systems also need capacity to treat water that residents must use now. "The advantage to consolidation is it's easier for a larger system to provide that clean water than it is for many smaller systems that may not have the infrastructure to do that work," Jenks said.

Witnesses identified recurring obstacles: a patchwork of local programs across counties, limited local funding and staffing, barriers to SMA uptake (some owners resist consolidation for perceived cost or privacy reasons), and emerging contaminants and climate impacts that increase treatment complexity. Several witnesses and legislators recommended interim work between sessions to explore legislative changes, incentives for consolidation or SMAs, grant funding for treatment (nitrate, PFAS and others), and technical assistance to build local capacity.

No formal legislative action or votes were taken during the hearing; witnesses asked the committee to consider policy and budget options during the interim.

Votes at a glance: none (no motions or formal votes were recorded during this session).