Moses Lake city staff told the City Council they are seeking a long‑term path to water security that would reduce the city’s reliance on the deep basalt aquifer and add new, sustainable supplies.

Assistant Public Works Director Lee Ramsey presented a white paper and a set of milestone targets from staff’s planning work. The paper proposes acquiring 12,700 acre‑feet of water rights from sources other than the deep basalt aquifer by 2056 and stepping down use of the deep basalt resource across three planning milestones. Staff described short‑term conservation goals and multiple long‑term supply options, and recommended continuing regional and state advocacy while pursuing technical and legal analysis.

The proposal matters because Moses Lake must serve population and industrial growth while managing an aquifer that staff said is stressed and increasingly costly to treat. “Our main goal is ensuring a resilient and sustainable water future for the city,” Lee Ramsey said during the presentation. Council members said they wanted clearer cost, feasibility and legal information before committing to any single route.

Key elements presented

- Targets and milestones: staff cited a planning target of 12,700 acre‑feet of new non‑basalt water rights to be in production by 2056. The white paper breaks that total into interim steps, including adding roughly 5,200 acre‑feet by 2036 and further increments by 2046 and 2056 (staff provided the detailed schedule in the white paper). Staff also described an objective to reduce reliance on an identified portion of the city’s deep basalt rights as replacements come online.

- Short‑term actions: continue conservation and leak‑reduction programs and pursue more accurate metering; pursue limited additional deep basalt well drilling only after an analysis of costs and longevity; and seek modest, immediate actions where feasible.

- Long‑term options: pursue shallow aquifer development (including water‑right changes or purchases), seek canal access or a direct pipeline to Columbia River/Bureau of Reclamation supplies, or negotiate municipal/industrial contracts for surface water. Staff outlined hybrid variants — for example, using existing canal corridors to carry treated surface water — and noted that any surface‑water option would require complex approvals and likely legislative or regional coordination.

- Advocacy and partnerships: staff recommended expanding regional advocacy (Council of Governments and other local partners), keeping a state‑level lobbying presence, and reengaging federal lobbying to pursue grant or policy solutions. Staff said they are already meeting with regional entities, including the Columbia River Policy Advisory Group.

Council response and direction to staff

Council members discussed three themes in detail: whether to pursue additional deep basalt wells (as a bridge), whether to press Department of Ecology (DOE) and state officials to remedy water‑right decisions that staff and several council members said have constrained local options, and whether to prioritize surface‑water solutions that would require major infrastructure.

- Drilling and costs: several council members asked staff to return with cost estimates and feasibility for additional deep basalt wells and with the consultant locations that have already been identified. Ramsey said staff’s water‑rights consultant has flagged potential locations and that staff would bring dollar figures and risk assessments back for council review.

- Legal and political approach: council members asked the city attorney and management to explore legal and political avenues. Council asked staff to develop options for outside counsel to evaluate whether the state’s issuance of junior rights to the same aquifer could be remedied and what remedies might be sought. City staff said initial, non‑litigation conversations with DOE are already underway; council directed staff to obtain outside counsel options so the council could consider legal remedies and parallel political advocacy.

- Data and accountability: council asked staff to provide a concise “starting‑place” data packet showing current production, consumption, meter and leak statistics, ERU (equivalent residential unit) projections, and the consultant work to date. Staff said the city will provide quarterly updates and an annual progress report tied to the milestone goals; Ramsey proposed bringing the paper back for council adoption at a future meeting (staff suggested early November as a next formal adoption step).

What was not decided

Council did not adopt a single preferred supply project at the meeting. Members voiced different priorities — some urged aggressive pursuit of a legal remedy and state action, others favored buying rights or building diversion/treatment infrastructure, and some favored drilling additional deep wells as a temporary bridge. Staff will return with the requested cost estimates, legal‑counsel options and the data packet before the council settles on a formal, funded pathway.

Context and next steps

Ramsey said the city is already pursuing better metering and leak detection and will continue conservation programs. Staff also flagged ongoing state funding uncertainty for related infrastructure projects and the need for regional collaboration. The council asked staff to return with the drilling cost estimates, water‑rights feasibility memos from the city’s consultant, outside counsel options on water‑rights remedies and an updated white paper for formal adoption at a later meeting.