Judge’s ruling maintains Sumas as part of Whatcom County water-rights suit
A Whatcom County judge has rejected an effort to remove the Sumas area from a lawsuit that seeks to determine who owns water rights in the Nooksack River system and its aquifer, which is known as state Water Resource Inventory Area 1.
The Nooksack River watershed — aka WRIA 1 — encompasses all of Whatcom County and part of northern Skagit County, including surface water and groundwater. The state Department of Ecology, at the urging of the Nooksack Tribe and Lummi Nation, has filed suit in an effort to determine who owns the historical rights to water in the Nooksack River basin, how much water they can use, and how much water must be reserved for environmental protections that include salmon.
Claimants and participants in the lawsuit include the city of Bellingham, the city of Ferndale, the Washington State Dairy Federation, large farms such as berry producer Maberry Properties, L.L.C., local water providers such as Public Utility District No. 1 of Whatcom Country, Mt. Baker Ski Area, a few large private landowners, and potentially thousands of homeowners with their own small wells.
As many as 30,000 claims are possible, according to previous Bellingham Herald reporting. Claimants are asked to declare how much water they use, how they use it and when they obtained their water rights. Claim forms are due May 1.
In a petition filed May 1, 2024, the city of Sumas and a coalition of farmers calling themselves Sumas Out sought to be removed from the water-rights lawsuit, saying that Sumas is outside the Nooksack River basin and instead is part of the separate Fraser River watershed of southern British Columbia.
Whatcom County Superior Court Judge David Freeman denied that petition in a Jan. 16 ruling. Freeman is the judge assigned to the WRIA 1 lawsuit, which is often referred to as an adjudication.
“Granting leave to pursue such relief at this stage would require the court to determine fundamental questions regarding adjudication necessity and scope before the filing period has closed and before the court has a complete understanding of the asserted rights and interests within the WRIA, including the Sumas Basin,” Freeman said in his ruling, according to court documents.
In a statement emailed Wednesday, members of a group called Whatcom Family Farmers expressed frustration over the court’s assertion that all water users must file claims before underlying issues can be considered.
“It appears the court is far more concerned with the bureaucratic process of an adjudication than the well-being of farms and rural residents bearing huge costs as a result of being required to prepare for this court case,” said Fred Likkel, executive director of Whatcom Family Farmers.
Sumas Out lawyer Tom Pors also criticized last month’s ruling.
“Judge Freeman’s denial of these motions is a frustrating development for the city of Sumas and many farmers who believe there are grounds for changing the boundary of the adjudication so they don’t have to file claims. Essentially, this requires everyone to go through the expensive and time-consuming process of filing claims, even when it’s quite possible the area they live in may later be excluded from the case,” Pors said in the statement.
