The state Department of Health is considering updating small farms’ exemptions from certain drinking water regulations.

The ministry says it is a simple solution to outdated and inaccurate wording in the so-called Same Farm Exemption. But farmers say the changes could be costly and burdensome – particularly for farms with on-site accommodation for employees.

Under a 1995 state law, water systems with four or fewer connections that serve households on the same farm and provide water to fewer than 25 people per day are exempt from some of the legal requirements that apply to larger public water systems.

The updated language would require these exempt establishments to reapply for the exemption every five years. If at any point the establishments were no longer eligible, the Department of Health would have the authority to revoke the exemption.

Jay Gordon of the Washington State Dairy Federation said having to prove each year that they meet the requirements could be expensive and unnecessary and goes against the intent of lawmakers when they created the exemption in state law.

“We don’t actually know what’s required because every well is a little different,” Gordon said. “But you’re asking a lot of people to prove they’re exempt from something that the legislature already says they’re exempt from.”

Gordon said the changes could have far-reaching financial implications for small farms that are already struggling. Water testing and re-treatment could cost thousands of dollars, he said.

If a farmer owns multiple rental properties on his property that he uses to temporarily house workers, he must go through the new application process, Gordon said.

“Either the farmer has to pay the money himself or he passes it on to his employees or tenants,” said Gordon.

Roberto Bonaccorso, spokesman for the Ministry of Health, The only change to current policy is the need for a five-year permit for the exemption that allows the state to provide safe and reliable drinking water to farm employees.

The five-year application would be comparable to what companies would do in a Form for the inventory of water systemswhich requires them to disclose the source and treatment of their water system and the number of connections used, Bonaccorso wrote in an email.

The department proposed the change after being asked by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to investigate unregulated public water systems in the lower Yakima Valley, Bonaccorso said.

Some of these establishments claimed an exemption for the same establishment even though they were larger facilities than the exemption allows. This was in part due to the 1995 law, which the agency said was unclear and needed to be updated. “Due to this misunderstanding, the DOH reviewed and updated the policy to clarify its implementation,” he added.

In a June letter to the health department, Lisa Freund, Yakima County’s public service director, wrote that the department should consider local authorities and their regulations when developing the rule. Counties are responsible for implementing the rule, Freund wrote, and water monitoring standards vary from county to county.

There is a public comment phase open until August 26. Ben Tindall, executive director of Save Family Farming, said the department has responded to some of their concerns so far.

However, there are still questions about the cost of this change, how many people it might affect and why the change is being made, Tindall said.

“This is a step in the wrong direction and will hurt farms across the state,” Tindall said.

Gordon said another concern is that the department does not have the authority to change this policy in the way it does. He said the department should either go through a formal rulemaking process or let the Legislature change the exception process since it is the one that passed the law in the first place.

“They’re proposing pretty sweeping changes, and we don’t believe they have the legal authority to do that,” Gordon said. “At the highest level, that’s really bad governance.”

Bonaccorso wrote that there has been discussion about calling for legislation, but that the guidelines could be updated in a shorter timeframe and implemented precisely to address concerns about unregulated public water systems.

“It is common practice to update internal policies,” he said.

After the public comment period, the department will review feedback and consider changes to the draft policy, which will then be updated on its website. There is no timeline for implementation yet.