Thursday, November 6, 2025
A proposed facility at Olympia Regional Airport for Swire, a Coca-Cola bottler, raised concerns among members of the Tumwater City Council about their oversight over land use decisions in the city.
Swire has a 75-year lease for a 95-acre property with the Port of Olympia to develop the site for a manufacturing facility. As the property is within a critical habitat area for the Olympia pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama pugetensis), construction of the site is contingent upon the city completing its habitat conservation plan.
But it was another environmental issue about the project that prompted a discussion about land use during the council’s meeting on Tuesday, April 1.
The water resources department just completed its update regarding its 2024 accomplishments when Council member Joan Cathey asked if the department could plan a work session about the use of the city's water for industrial purpose.
Cathey was particularly concerned about the case of Swire, as community members have previously expressed concern about its facility’s impact on the city’s water supply.
“This whole deal of a 75-year lease and all that. That has not gone away, and that is an important thing. ... I'd like to hear just about that, the industrial business of water and how we make those decisions,” Cathey said.
Council member Angela Jefferson echoed Cathey’s sentiment and asked what the city could do to limit the development, considering its size and the length of its lease.
Jefferson wondered if they could shorten the lease to five years before extending to see how it would affect the city’s water supply.
City Attorney Karen Kirkpatrick said they do not have control over the lease, while City Administrator Lisa Parks referenced the city’s comprehensive plan.
“The comprehensive plan that we have in place is the overarching venue for having that conversation because we're required by Growth Management Act to ensure that we're providing all manner of land uses and all manner of available growth and development that's projected for our community,” Parks said.
In developing the city’s comprehensive plan, Parks emphasized the need to balance demands for growth, while maintaining the community’s assets.
Cathey responded that she understood the matter, but clarified that she wanted a discussion on the things allowed as a city, as it might need to update codes to address current issues.
Cathey raised the question as the council does not get informed about new developments happening in the city, to which Council member Leatta Dahlhoff agreed. Dahlhoff said she sometimes hears about major developments through the media.
“I don't feel like we get that understanding or conversation or whatever at a council level,” Cathey said.
“And I know the response that's come back time after time again when I ask this not just this year, not just last year, but 10 years ago, ‘Council doesn't have anything to do with land use.’”
Parks disagreed, saying the council does have control over land use through the city’s comprehensive plan and ordinances.
“I don't know the reference that you're making to council not having any control over land use. Council controls land use by virtue of the development of the comprehensive plan and the development regulations that implement those the comprehensive plan,” Parks said.
“If what you're referring to is individual development permits, those are required to comply with the policies that the council adopts and the rules that the council puts into place."
Parks added once those rules and policies are in place, the city is obligated to issue permits if a developer complies with those rules.
Cathey concurred and offered to continue the discussion in a work session. Dahlhoff also suggested using the council’s retreat this year to talk about the topic.
Parks supported the idea and said they have enough time to address concerns about land use, as the council is not scheduled to adopt its next comprehensive plan until early next year.
7 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
MichaelWilson
Of course, we don't want Coca-Cola bottling and selling our water. That's been a huge problem in city after city and the whole issue of single-use plastic bottles is another thing we do not want to sanction here, or anywhere else. Before approving the application, the Comprehensive Plan needs to changed to prohibit this massive siphoning off of our water at bargain basement prices.
Saturday, April 5 Report this
mhjwilson
Interesting that there are two people named Michael Wilson who are interested in this issue, but the first comment was not from me. Michael H. Wilson
Saturday, April 5 Report this
jwiley
When the Swire proposition was brought up before the Port of Olympia, the only pro testimony was from the RE broker and the company rep. Many citizens showed up and testified. Many of us outside of the public arena sent in our concerns to the POO Commissioners. Comments were 100% against Swire/Coca Cola. Multiple passionate concerns were raised at that meeting, and in particular water use rights for 75 years which were significant. Plastic waste was also mentioned as well as the ill conceived HCP that is a dirty bandaid for decimating habitat. Someone with POO mentioned that Tumwater felt that they would have more than enough water rights to guarantee 75 years and still have a reserve to fulfill residential and other business needs. However no hydrology studies were presented to back up those claims. After citizen after citizen testified "NO", the commissioners voted 100% yes, with Iyall stating that Coca Cola was a "food" and thus important. So much BS to take in from that one meeting. Now hearing that Tumwater City Council was left in the dark? Thank you Joan Cathey and Andrea Jefferson for raising your voices. Shame on the governing body of Tumwater for not questioning the concerns now being raised. Lisa Parks, your name will forever be associated with the ill conceived plans of Debbie Sullivan and as a agent against the citizens of Tumwater, functioning more as an agent for POO.
Saturday, April 5 Report this
Morrigan
Thethys Corp. tried their best to take water from the commons for a bottling plant,
in both Everett and Anacortes, several years ago
Their plans were twarted in both places and the Co. ended up in Ireland.
Water is for the commons, not corporations!
Saturday, April 5 Report this
SecondOtter
If pop AKA soda, soft drinks, etc is considered "food", why is it that the Port of Olympia REFUSED to grant a lease to Rutledge farms for an additional 30-60 acres of land (I forget which) on which to could grow real food? Like corn, vegetables, pumpkins, etc.?
Coca Cola is NOT food. These bottling companies are like gold diggers...go in, steal the water and sell it back to us for six bucks a bottle and oh, darn, too bad that your acquifer has been drained.
The acquifer is NOT for sale, not for use by some deep pocketed company who sees only money to be made by exploiting a resource that we all need.
It is time to completely defund and decommission the Port of Olympia. They don't want to hear our complaints. They want to turn Oly Regional Airport into a Regional Hub for SEattle. They want to hand over water rights to a bottling company. They want to kill a 400 year old oak tree that had the temerity to grow where they want to lengthen a runway. When do they stop exploiting us and start doing what a port is supposed to do; load ships. Oh, right. Ships dont come to Olympia. Honestly what DOES the Port do? Other than come up with yet more ideas to ruin our environment, our town, our way of life? Where do they get this God complex?
So it's time to tell the Port, you are done. Turn in your keys and put your attitudes back in the **** sack you pull it out of.
Saturday, April 5 Report this
JW
End the Port. This is truly a bipartisan cause uniting those on the left and the right.
Sunday, April 6 Report this
SecondOtter
Oh, I have come up with one good thing about the Port of Olympia...the Farmer's Market. The Market is a true gem and provides food and other things for ALL of us in Thurston county.
After a little research, I learned that bottling companies draw so much water from an acquifer that farmers, townships and cities like Tumwater as well as homeowners whose water comes from private wells find their wells are dry. Permanently.
How the Port of Olympia transitioned from one supposedly in charge of the water port, collecting marina fees, into a land owning corporation intent solely on exploitation of resources and the disruption of lives, I don't know. But again, they've over stepped their bounds and it's time to shut it down. Permanently
Tuesday, April 8 Report this