Thurston County planning commission advances draft CAO chapters, asks for more clarity on aquifer recharge and battery storage rules

The Thurston County Planning Commission reviewed proposed updates to the county's Critical Areas Ordinance on March 18, focusing on critical aquifer recharge areas and how the code should treat managed aquifer recharge projects and battery energy storage systems.

Public commenters asked for clearer language, stronger climate and water‑quality protections and predictable process steps. “Make sure the best available science ... is included in the chapter,” said Christy White, who provided a 10‑item checklist she urged the commission to use when reviewing each CAO chapter. Betsy Norton and other residents urged larger buffers, clearer notice and multimodal street design alignment where road standards overlap with critical areas protections.

County planners said the CAO rewrite aims to put designations and standards in one place, tie map designations to publicly accessible data and avoid tables that would become inconsistent with updated GIS datasets. Staff told the commission the revision does not remove responsibilities to classify recharge areas; instead, it points to susceptibility as shown in the county’s geodata.

A significant policy change discussed was explicitly allowing aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) and managed aquifer recharge projects in suitable locations, subject to state Department of Ecology permitting and any applicable federal rules. “Ecology has a full permitting process for these projects,” staff said, and the draft code directs applicants to Ecology’s requirements while allowing local implementation standards where appropriate.

Commissioners and members of the public also discussed whether to address battery energy storage systems (BESS) now in the CAO or wait for the county’s broader development‑code update (the “best code”). Staff said BESS pose particular CAO concerns (materials, chemicals and fire risk) and that the primary operational and reclamation standards likely belong in the development code; however, the CAO can and should reference whether those uses are permitted, permitted with conditions, or excluded in the most sensitive recharge zones.

Commissioners asked staff to provide greater clarity on procedures when staff propose to override use tables for groundwater protection, including written justification and an appeal path (staff suggested an appeal to a hearing examiner). Planning staff agreed to return with revised language and to incorporate public and commission feedback in subsequent drafts.

Next steps: the CAO chapters will be returned for a second review; staff indicated geologic hazards will be revisited in April, wetlands and habitat topics will follow, and a broader public‑hearing package is scheduled later in the outreach timeline.