| Abstract: | The exemption for groundwater wells for residential uses from the prior appropriations system, common in the western United States, has eroded in Washington State since about 2000 due to a series of legal cases. Water markets can allow the transfer of an existing water right, typically from an agricultural use, to compensate for the effect of a new residential well. But water must be legally and physically available in a way suitable to satisfy mitigation requirements. A recent court case in the Skagit basin in Northwestern Washington State has effectively halted residential development in rural areas of the basin because no suitable water rights are available to purchase for mitigation. This paper presents and examines the cost‐effectiveness of various water supply mitigation strategies. We find a small‐scale, distributed stream‐side storage system for augmenting instream flow purchased from downstream sources is relatively cost‐effective to mitigate against the effects of domestic groundwater use compared to more common alternatives. We consider transporting water to storage sites by both small‐gauge pipe and by truck. Overall, trucking water to stream‐side storage and release points tends to be more cost‐effective to mitigate against indoor‐use only given current subbasin housing densities, whereas piping for direct streamflow augmentation is more cost‐effective for higher mitigation needs associated with indoor and outdoor use and higher housing densities. |
