Skamania County commissioners defer decision on Underwood water tank, direct staff to gather more information

Skamania County commissioners debated whether to accept ownership of an existing PUD water tank near Underwood as a wildfire resource and deferred a decision, directing staff to get more detail from the fire district and the PUD about costs, expectations and any transfer terms.

Commissioner 1, a Skamania County commissioner, said the county should consider taking the tank because "the community is very stressed about the effect of wildfire" and called the tank "just cheap insurance to have a resource out there to help deal with any issues that may happen." Commissioner 1 also said the PUD had agreed it would provide a source to fill the tank.

But Commissioner 3 said he was "not in favor of it," arguing the county could be taking on the responsibilities of a water system and risking long-term obligations if the tank fails. "I don't wanna become a water system owner," he said, citing uncertainty about state requirements and potential replacement or demolition liabilities.

Commissioner 4 said he supported the idea of adding water resources but questioned the specific tank's condition. "I think it's a good idea, but I'm concerned about how structurally sound that particular tank is," he said, referring to reports that the tank's interior seal and several rubber gaskets appear to be failing. He suggested pursuing funding for new tanks closer to roads or fire stations as an alternative.

Commissioners discussed technical and regulatory constraints raised in the meeting. One participant noted recent changes in state requirements for using water banks and cautioned that Department of Ecology policies and staffing changes can affect how water-right or water-bank options work. A speaker referenced WSRB audits (the rating system used for fire/insurance ratings in Washington) and said those audits focus on hydrant proximity and water supply metrics. That speaker argued a remote tank alone might not materially improve insurance ratings for nearby properties.

Participants also recited several cost and capacity figures reported during the discussion: one person said filling the tank would cost "$210," a number attributed in the transcript to a PUD estimate; commissioners mentioned tank sizes in the 2,500- to 5,000-gallon range and discussed pursuing 30,000 to 50,000-gallon tanks as alternatives. A commissioner said a demolition estimate had been mentioned as "35-ish" thousand dollars; another questioned a speculative figure mentioned in the discussion ($3,035,000) and characterized it as conjecture.

The board did not vote to accept ownership. Instead, commissioners asked staff to contact the fire district and PUD to establish why the fire district declined to assume the tank, to obtain an anticipated demolition cost and any end-of-life expectations from the PUD, and to return the information for consideration at a future meeting. Commissioner 1 said he would call Randy (a named contact in the discussion) to seek clarity and that the item would be brought forward in future meeting updates once the requested information is available.

As a procedural matter, the board scheduled payroll approval for 5:30 p.m. and recessed until then.

Why it matters: Commissioners framed the question as a trade-off between short-term wildfire preparedness and possible long-term county liability and maintenance obligations. The county would gain a colocated water resource that some residents support, but commissioners expressed concern about regulatory requirements, structural condition, ongoing filling and maintenance costs, and future demolition obligations if the tank becomes unusable.