SB 5640
In CommitteeSenate
Energy facilities/water
Requiring proof of adequate water supply before permitting new energy facilities.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill requires energy facility developers to demonstrate adequate water supply and submit detailed water use plans before receiving state certification for new or significantly expanded facilities. It strengthens water-related review requirements and clarifies which types of energy projects fall under the state’s siting process.
- Requires energy facility applicants to prove they have legal access to sufficient water before receiving state certification.
- Mandates detailed water use planning, including descriptions of water sources, conservation methods, air cooling alternatives, and mitigation plans.
- Requires applicants to submit water right applications to the Department of Ecology before or with their certification request if proposing new surface or groundwater withdrawals.
- Adds water-related documentation requirements to certification applications, such as reports on water rights under review and comments from the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
- Expands the types of facilities covered by the state’s energy facility siting law to include clean energy manufacturing, biofuel facilities (under 25,000 barrels/day), transmission lines, and storage facilities.
Who is affected
- Energy facility developers and project proponents — Must submit detailed water use plans and obtain water rights or authorizations before receiving state certification for new or expanded energy projects.
- Washington State Department of Ecology — Must review water right applications, provide comments on impacts to fish and wildlife, and approve or deny water use authorizations for proposed facilities.
- Federally recognized tribal governments in Washington — Must be notified of applications and provide input on how projects may affect tribal cultural, historical, and treaty-reserved resources.
- Local governments (counties and cities) where facilities are proposed — Must participate in review and consultation processes and may be required to adjust local land use plans to accommodate new energy infrastructure with water considerations.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Requires developers to evaluate and disclose water conservation methods, air cooling alternatives, and mitigation plans — this reduces consumptive water use and protects aquatic ecosystems, especially important in drought-stressed watersheds where energy development competes with agricultural, tribal, and ecological water needs.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(c), (d), (e); Sec. 1(7)(a)Mandates that water right applications be submitted to Ecology *before* certification, ensuring water availability is verified and preventing over-allocation of scarce resources — this strengthens the prior appropriation system and protects existing water users (e.g., farmers, tribes, fish) from downstream impacts of unvetted energy projects.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(7)(b)(i)-(iii)Improves transparency and accountability by requiring detailed water use documentation and reports from Ecology and Fish & Wildlife — this helps prevent future conflicts over water rights and supports long-term resource planning, benefiting public trust in infrastructure decisions.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(d), (f); Sec. 1(7)(b)(ii)Strengthens government-to-government consultation with federally recognized tribes, supporting tribal sovereignty and treaty-reserved rights (e.g., fishing, cultural resources) — this corrects historical exclusion from siting decisions and promotes more equitable, culturally informed planning.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1(10)Expands siting review to include clean energy manufacturing, biofuel, transmission, and storage facilities — this ensures water impacts are evaluated across the *full* clean energy supply chain, preventing leakage of environmental burdens to unregulated sectors.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(b)(i)-(v)
Potential Concerns (5)
Increases compliance costs and delays for energy facility developers, especially for new or expanded facilities requiring water rights applications; developers must now conduct detailed water supply analyses, consider air cooling alternatives (often more expensive), and submit water right applications before certification — all of which add time and expense to project planning and permitting.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(6)(b), (d), (e), (f); Sec. 1(7)(a), (b)(iii)Imposes new procedural and legal burdens on developers to obtain water rights or contracts before certification, potentially blocking or delaying projects if water rights are contested, unavailable, or subject to senior rights curtailment — especially problematic in drought-prone basins like the Columbia or Yakima.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(7)(b)(i)-(iii)Expands consultation requirements with federally recognized tribes, increasing administrative burden on local governments and potentially creating uncertainty if tribal concerns lead to project redesign or delay; while this strengthens tribal sovereignty, it adds complexity to local permitting timelines.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(10)Requires coordination with tribes and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation to assess impacts on cultural and archaeological sites — this improves protection of heritage resources but adds procedural steps that could slow development without clear evidence of widespread adverse public safety impacts.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1(11)Expands the scope of facilities covered by the siting process to include clean energy product manufacturing and storage facilities — while this promotes clean energy, it also adds regulatory oversight to new sectors (e.g., battery or solar panel factories), potentially increasing compliance costs for developers in those industries.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1(1)(b)(v)
Who Is Most Affected
Developers face higher upfront costs, longer permitting timelines, and potential project delays or redesigns if water is scarce or rights are contested — especially impactful for smaller or less-resourced firms.
Ecology gains clearer authority to review water use before certification, enabling more consistent enforcement of water rights laws and better protection of instream flows — though workload increases, its statutory role is strengthened.
Tribes gain formal consultation rights and a stronger voice in decisions affecting treaty-reserved resources, improving protection of cultural, spiritual, and subsistence interests — though consultation is not veto power, it significantly elevates tribal influence.
Local governments gain structured consultation with tribes and state agencies, improving coordination but also adding procedural complexity and potential delays in land use planning and permitting.