At a June 9 board meeting, Skagit PUD General Manager George Sidhu addressed statements in recent coverage of Skagit County’s data center moratorium, suggesting that Skagit farmers struggle to get the water they need in summer — a characterization Sidhu said does not accurately reflect the PUD's water supply situation.
“Water supply is not an issue for Skagit PUD,” Sidhu said. “We have an ample water supply available for all current and new customers.”
The constraint farmers face is a legal one, not a supply problem. Many agricultural water users in Skagit Valley hold interruptible water rights. They are required to stop pumping from the Skagit River when it drops below the minimum instream flow established by the Washington State Department of Ecology. Skagit PUD holds senior water rights. The PUD's seasonal water rights transfer program provides a state-regulated mechanism for temporarily making a portion of those rights available to agricultural users during the low-flow season, allowing them to pump when otherwise they could not legally.
Sidhu also addressed the relationship between the county’s moratorium and the PUD's water service evaluation process, which applies equally to all applicants regardless of industry.
“The county’s moratorium is a land use decision, within the county’s planning and zoning authority,” Sidhu said. “Skagit PUD’s water service evaluation is a utility capacity decision. They are parallel but independent.”
Also at the meeting, the board heard from Dan Haller, a senior principal water resources engineer with Geosyntec Consultants, on the regulatory framework and future options for the district’s Water Rights Lease Program. Haller, who has more than 25 years of water rights experience and has worked with Skagit PUD on its water rights portfolio, reviewed transfer options ranging from continued annual seasonal transfers to multi-year agreements and formal water banking.
Haller noted that 50 to 80 active water banks or water markets currently operate across Washington State, providing the PUD with a broad base of comparable experience to draw on as it develops its own approach.
“Almost every utility that has started down this path has wrestled with the decision of whether they’re going to be a buffet and be everything to everyone, or whether they’re going to offer a defined menu,” Haller said. “Clear goal setting has been a critical part of every utility’s creation of these programs.”
Commissioners asked about reducing annual regulatory interactions, structuring multi-year agreements, and how other utilities have defined participant eligibility.
No decisions were made. The board’s next steps include reviewing examples from comparable utility programs and continuing stakeholder engagement. A public stakeholder forum is planned for later this summer.
