Thurston County planners review ‘critical aquifer recharge areas,’ discuss managed recharge and permitting changes
Loading...
Summary
Planning staff told the commission that CARA (critical aquifer recharge area) mapping shades most of Thurston County and outlined options — including allowing managed aquifer recharge with reclaimed water — while commissioners and residents raised concerns about farmland loss, incentives, and water‑rights limits.
Planning staff and commissioners on Wednesday reviewed Thurston County’s mapping and draft policy options for critical aquifer recharge areas (CARAs), emphasizing the county’s role in regulating development impacts while noting limits on water‑rights authority.
Claire, the county presenter leading the CAO (critical areas ordinance) update, summarized the WAC definition for CARAs and said the county currently classifies CARAs in three sensitivity levels — CARA 1 (most sensitive, including wellhead protection), CARA 2 and CARA 3 — to guide which land uses are allowed, restricted or prohibited. "CARAs are part of the environment where soil conditions and other factors help surface waters infiltrate into groundwater," she said, explaining the classifications and how maps show most of Thurston County shaded as some CARA level.
Why this matters: Staff told commissioners groundwater is the primary drinking‑water source for roughly 90% of county residents. Protecting recharge areas affects public health, fish habitat and long‑term water supply, the presentation said. County staff and public commenters discussed both regulatory and programmatic tools — from permitting changes to incentives — to reduce contamination and increase recharge.
During public comment, residents urged the commission to make it easier to protect, not punish, landowners. Kyle Wills Willoughby described a multi‑year permitting struggle and said, "a reasonable use should not require an exception," arguing the county should remove disincentives that prompt harmful clearing. Betsy Norton suggested the county consider managed aquifer recharge and other innovations to store storm flows and release them in dry seasons.
Staff said managed/manual aquifer recharge (including using reclaimed water) was prohibited in the 2012 CAO update and is now on the radar for code changes. "It's very much on our radar as something that we're gonna need to do some research on, connect with all the latest science that's come out, and propose some standards," staff said. They stressed that the CAO can write standards for manual recharge and streamline voluntary conservation and restoration efforts so landowners can undertake beneficial activities more easily.
Commissioners pressed staff on implementation details: where recharge water would come from, whether stormwater basins could double as recharge sites, and the risk of taking farmland out of production. Staff said the biggest current bottleneck is finding suitable sites close to sources of excess water, and that in some cases direct injection or dedicated infiltration facilities — not conversion of productive farmland — would be the appropriate approach. They also noted the CAO regulates development impacts but does not change state water‑rights law.
Staff committed to returning with GIS maps and more research. The presentation closed with staff asking the commission for direction on which issues to explore further in drafting code changes and promised to bring back proposed standards for managed aquifer recharge and potential permitting adjustments.
Next steps: staff will share the county geodata CARA maps, research managed recharge standards and report back during subsequent CAO update sessions. No formal policy vote or code adoption occurred at Wednesday’s meeting.
