Balancing Health and Land Use Regulations with the Need for In-Home Child Care

by Aaron Cohen, AICP

Abstract
Childcare deserts—communities where the demand for licensed childcare far exceeds supply—are a growing issue across Washington State, affecting both rural and urban families. As of 2020, 63% of Washington's children live in childcare deserts, according to the Center for American Progress (1). In-home childcare providers are a key part of the solution, particularly in underserved areas. However, these providers often face regulatory barriers when their properties rely on nonconforming private water systems. This paper examines a specific case in Yakima County where well water regulations prevented a family from opening an in-home daycare, analyzes the policy conflict between public health protections and land use flexibility, and offers recommendations for regulatory reform that balances both needs.

Introduction

A routine morning at the Yakima County Planning Division front counter can quickly shift from simple zoning guidance to complex regulatory challenges. One such challenge arises when a resident asks, “Can I run a child day care business out of my home?” While zoning for this use is often straightforward, health and safety regulations—especially those related to water systems—frequently stall or block such applications.

In this essay, I highlight the regulatory challenges associated with establishing in-home daycares on properties with private wells in unincorporated Yakima County. I begin with a brief overview of in-home day care definitions under state and local law. I then provide a case study of a failed daycare application in the City of Wapato's Urban Growth Area, analyze the implications of current water system standards, and conclude with policy considerations and recommendations.

The Childcare Gap

Washington State’s childcare shortage is significant. A 2019 report by the Washington State Department of Commerce found that 27% of parents quit a job or left school due to a lack of childcare access—costing employers $2.08 billion. Half of surveyed parents couldn’t find day care near home or work, with no consistent definition of “near.” Based on census data from California, the average daycare commute is about 14 minutes, underscoring the value of local, neighborhood-based care. In-home daycares can help reduce this burden—particularly for families without access to reliable transportation.

What Is an In-Home Daycare?

In the State of Washington, in-home childcare providers are defined as individuals who “regularly provide early childhood education and early learning services for not more than 12 children at any given time in the provider’s home in the family living quarters” (RCW 43.216.010(1)(c)). Yakima County uses a nearly identical definition: “a licensed child day care facility in the family residence of a state licensee providing regularly scheduled child day care for not more than twelve children in the family living quarters, including children who reside at the home (2, 3).”

It is important to distinguish between a family residence offering day care services during the day, and a residence that is purchased and converted into a full-scale commercial daycare center. This paper addresses the former—a supplemental home-based activity—not a commercial conversion that alters the primary use of the dwelling.

Health Codes and Water System Barriers

For in-home daycares, state and local health codes require compliance with public water system standards, even when care is limited to 12 children (4).  In Yakima County, acceptable public water systems include the municipal and regional systems but also include wells approved to have two or more connections (5). Therefore, when an applicant proposes to use their well as their water supply for the in-home day care, that well must now meet state or local health requirements for public drinking water systems as opposed to the requirements for private residences (6). While many urban properties are connected to municipal systems, some rely on private wells that were drilled decades ago and do not conform to current public system requirements (see Figures 1 and 2). These requirements, such as the need for a 100-foot well control zone and well construction documentation (8), were not in place when many of these wells were drilled.

For example, in subdivision built in 1966 within the Urban Growth Area (UGA) of Wapato, an applicant sought to open an in-home daycare (7). The Yakima Health District (YHD) informed the applicant that their private well would need to be upgraded to meet public water system standards or replaced by a connection to the City of Wapato’s water system. Due to cost, neither option was financially feasible.

Two specific issues made compliance impossible. First, due to the 14,000-square foot average lot size, adjacent homes were built within the required 100-foot control zone, leaving no space to establish an approved zone. Second, the well itself was located under the home, rendering upgrades difficult or impossible. The lack of documentation about the well’s construction meant no reduced setback or regulatory flexibility could be granted.

The Policy Tension: Health Standards vs. Childcare Needs

From a public health perspective, the requirement for a public water system in facilities open to the public is grounded in sound principles. Children are a vulnerable population, and safeguarding their water supply is a legitimate regulatory priority.

However, the current approach lacks flexibility. Existing health codes offer no path for exemptions or variances when constraints are not self-imposed by property owners. In older developments—particularly those with small lots and outdated infrastructure—meeting modern standards can be practically or financially impossible. Over time, nonconforming developments are expected to come into compliance, but these expectations often don’t account for the layered needs of evolving community uses like in-home childcare.

Importantly, allowing new uses on properties with substandard water systems may have unintended consequences. If a well is already a concern for household use, adding additional demand through a public-facing operation increases risk, particularly in cases where water quality cannot be reliably verified or maintained.

Possible Paths Forward

Policymakers could consider limited, conditional exemptions or the creation of a variance process that includes rigorous safeguards. For example:

• Requiring additional water testing or filtration systems as a condition for exemption.

• Limiting exemptions to applicants where the constraints are clearly historic and not self-imposed.

• Restricting the number of children served or requiring informed consent from parents regarding water source conditions.

To better inform such policies, future research should include direct interviews with local health officials, planners, and in-home providers to understand both sides of the issue and ensure a balanced policy response.

Conclusion

The current regulatory framework around water systems unintentionally excludes in-home childcare providers in many older subdivisions throughout Yakima County and elsewhere. While public health concerns must remain paramount, policy must also account for past development patterns and the urgent, well-documented need for neighborhood-based childcare solutions.

As public servants, planners and health officials must proactively seek policy mechanisms that protect health and safety while enabling community-serving uses. The stakes are high for working families—and for the children who need care close to home. Collaboration across agencies and levels of government is essential to find practical, context-sensitive solutions.

CITATIONS

(1) https://www.childcaredeserts.org/ and https://childcaredeserts.org/2018/index.html

(2) YCC 19.01.070(6)

(3) A large difference between the two definitions is the reference RCW 43.216.692, which enables the Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families (WDCYF) to allow providers to exceed the 12 children capacity limit if they meet DCYF’s standards for doing such (also see Engrossed Second Substitute Senate Bill 5237 of 2021, Section 313).

(4)  WAC 110-300-0005 – Definition of “Drinking Water” and WAC 246-291-010(62)(f)

(5) YCC 19.01.070(16 and 23), YCC 19.25.030(2), and Table 19.25-1 within YCC 19.25.080

(6) WAC 246-291-010(62)(f)

(7) The City of Wapato has a population of 4,625 based on the April 1, 2024 population estimates issued by the Washington Office of Financial Management.

(8) WAC 246-291-125(5)

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Aaron Cohen, AICP is currently a Planner IV with the Long Range Planning Section for Yakima County, Washington. He received a Masters in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Michigan.