If you live in Whatcom County or rely on the Nooksack River for water, you’ve likely heard about the ongoing water adjudication process. For farmers like us, this lawsuit—served by the Washington State Department of Ecology—has sparked major concerns about water access and long-term sustainability. With thousands of water users now required to prove their water rights, it’s crucial to understand what’s happening, how it affects you, and where to turn for information and support.

What Is Water Adjudication?

Water adjudication is a legal process that determines and confirms all water rights in a specific watershed. The court examines historical water use and assigns a priority to each right under the doctrine of “first in time, first in right.” This means that during water shortages, senior rights holders (those with older claims) receive their full allocation first, while junior rights holders (newer claims) may face restrictions or even be cut off from water use.

Why Is Adjudication Happening in the Nooksack River Basin?

The Department of Ecology initiated this process due to increasing conflicts over water use. Several factors are at play:

• Unquantified Tribal Water Rights – The Lummi Nation and Nooksack Tribe have senior water rights that have not been officially quantified. This process will define those rights and their priority. Learn more
• Instream Flow Rules – Established in 1985, these rules set minimum water levels to protect fish and aquatic ecosystems. Ecology has struggled to enforce them due to unclear water rights. More details
• Growing Demand and Climate Challenges – With increasing population, farming, and climate-related water shortages, Ecology claims adjudication is necessary to resolve disputes and ensure a fair distribution of water. Read more
• When Collaboration Failed: How We Got Here
• Before the lawsuit was filed, many of the region’s major water stakeholders—including the Public Utility District (PUD), Agricultural Water Board, the City of Bellingham, and both the Lummi Nation and Nooksack Tribe—spent years trying to resolve water issues outside the courtroom.
• Unfortunately, those negotiations collapsed.
• Despite decades of effort, the parties couldn’t agree on a shared path forward. The Lummi Nation and Nooksack Tribe grew increasingly frustrated by what they viewed as stalled progress on protecting instream flows and salmon habitat. Meanwhile, farmers—represented by the Agricultural Water Board—proposed collaborative conservation efforts and updated solutions that would keep food production viable. The City of Bellingham, once opposed to adjudication, eventually shifted its stance in support.
• With the parties at an impasse, the Department of Ecology stepped in—filing a basin-wide general adjudication in May 2024.
• This breakdown in collaboration is important to understand. It wasn’t just that people couldn’t get along; it’s that we now have a courtroom deciding issues that should have been resolved with shared science, transparent data, and mutual respect.
• And now, more than 30,000 water users are being forced into a lawsuit, all because a better path forward couldn’t be agreed on.

A Flawed Foundation and the Need for Balance

While the Department of Ecology claims adjudication is necessary to protect senior water rights and support environmental goals, many farmers, water users, and municipalities are questioning the foundation this lawsuit is built on.

The primary study being used to justify adjudication dates back to the late 1990s and early 2000s. That’s more than two decades old—long before our current population levels, farming practices, or climate realities. Despite this, the state is using it to decide the future of water use in Whatcom County.

Even more troubling, multiple stakeholders—including cities, farmers, and other water right holders—have pointed out discrepancies and outdated or faulty assumptions within the original study. Yet Ecology continues to lean on it as the basis for involving over 30,000 water users. Source

Why does this matter? Because the outcome of adjudication depends on how water is quantified, prioritized, and enforced. If the foundation is flawed, so is the process.

And while adjudication is often framed as a means to protect salmon and tribal treaty rights—which we fully respect and believe in—it feels like farmers are being asked to shoulder the cost alone.

We understand and support the tribes’ efforts to preserve cultural heritage and restore Chinook salmon populations. These are critically important goals, rooted in deep connection to this land and water.

But protecting salmon by eliminating food production isn’t a balanced solution.

Farms can’t operate without water. And in a time when food security and local sourcing matter more than ever, removing agriculture from the equation threatens the very communities adjudication is meant to serve.

We believe it’s possible to support salmon recovery and keep farmers growing food—but it requires updated science, transparency, and meaningful collaboration. Right now, those are the things we’re not seeing.

What Precedents Were Set in Eastern Washington?

The Yakima River Basin went through a similar adjudication process, taking over 40 years to complete. Key lessons from that case include:

• Water rights were strictly prioritized – Older (senior) rights were upheld, while newer (junior) rights faced restrictions.
• Farmers faced cutbacks – Many agricultural operations with junior rights had to reduce water use or invest in conservation methods.
• Municipalities and tribes often had priority over farms – City water needs and tribal water rights were given precedence in some cases, leaving less for agriculture. Details

How Will Landowners with Well Permits But No Water Rights Be Affected?

For many years, Whatcom County has issued well permits on land without formal water rights. Now, under the adjudication process, these landowners must take action:

• Mandatory Participation in Adjudication – All groundwater users, including those with permit-exempt wells, are required to file a court claim to secure their right to use water. Failure to file could mean losing access. More info
• Risk of Losing Water Rights – If a well is not registered in the adjudication process, its use may be deemed unauthorized, leading to potential enforcement actions.
• Establishing Priority Dates – Water rights will be assigned a priority date based on when the water was first used, which will determine access during shortages.
• Impact on Permit-Exempt Wells – Even small residential wells must participate in the adjudication process. Homeowners should document their water usage and submit claims to retain their legal right to water. Guidance

Will Residential Wells Take Priority Over Farms?

Many residential wells operate under a permit exemption, allowing for small-scale water use without a formal water right. However, even exempt wells are subject to seniority rules. This means that if a farm has an older water right than a residential well, the farm takes priority. The reverse is also true—if a residential well was established first, it will have a more secure claim during water shortages. Explanation

Will Water Usage Be Monitored and Enforced?

Yes, metering and monitoring are likely outcomes of the adjudication process. The Washington State Department of Ecology has the authority to enforce water restrictions, especially on junior rights holders, during times of scarcity.

Farmers, well owners, and other users may be required to:

• Install meters on wells or surface water systems
• Submit regular usage reports
• Adhere to curtailments or shutdowns during drought or low-flow conditions

Failure to comply could result in penalties or loss of water access. This is why it’s so critical for every water user to understand where they stand in this process and make sure they are properly represented.
Learn more about enforcement policies here

---

Where Can You Get Reliable Information?

For two years, we and other local farmers have sought clarity from the Department of Ecology—and unfortunately, we’ve often been met with vague or incomplete responses. If you want honest, farmer-focused information, we highly recommend checking out:

• Whatcom Family Farmers – a grassroots group at the forefront of this issue
• Washington State Department of Ecology Adjudication Page – the official (though often dense) resource

---

The Impact of Urban Expansion on Farmers

One of the biggest concerns in this process is how water will be allocated as urban expansion continues unchecked. Many municipalities hold senior water rights, allowing them to prioritize water for new developments—even as farmers are being told to scale back.

This creates a frustrating imbalance. Generational farms growing food for our local communities may be restricted, while new housing developments and manicured lawns go untouched.

Water adjudication should not come at the cost of food production. We must push for policies that ensure long-term access to water for agriculture, not just cities.

---

Final Thoughts

Water adjudication is a complex, high-stakes legal process that will shape the future of Whatcom County’s food, farms, and families.

We believe there’s a better way—one rooted in updated science, community input, and respect for all who depend on this watershed.

But there’s one more truth we can’t ignore:
When farms go, they don’t come back.

If we lose access to water, local farms won’t just shrink—they’ll disappear. And what replaces them?
Development. Asphalt. Concrete.

And no matter how many rain gardens or retention ponds are built, concrete doesn’t grow food—and it doesn’t bring back salmon.

Farmland provides open space, groundwater recharge, wildlife habitat, and food. When it’s gone, we don’t just lose a business—we lose a part of our ecosystem.

Now is the time to speak up, stay informed, and support those working the land to feed your community. If you have questions or want to share your story, we’re here—because we’re in this together.