Open Letter to Ecology disputes reasoning behind new restrictive water rules

The following is an open letter to the Department of Ecology on the critically important issue known as the “Instream Flow Rule.” The letter was written by Marguerite Glover.

Posted 2/26/09

To: Ann E Wessel, Instream Flow Rules Coordinator
WA State Department of Ecology

Dear Ann,

It is human nature to blame the loss and/or decline of anything (bees, frogs, birds, fish, habitat) on human activity. And, then, we try to fix the problem! Sometimes, we succeed. Sometimes, the results of our meddling with nature are disastrous! I recall, in the 70’s, removing all the Large Woody Debris! Then, a decade or two later, we discovered that we needed to put back the Large Woody Debris! If the reason for fewer salmon were really the results of our additional development in the Sequim-Dungeness Valley, then, why are there also fewer fish now on the Queets, the Hoh, the Sol Duc? The Queets watershed is lightly populated; there is no dam on it; and, it is protected by an Olympic National Park corridor. Does Ecology actually believe that the exempt wells in the Sequim-Dungeness Valley are the cause of the decline in the salmon–far more so than ocean conditions?

In 2000, Ecology found that rights to divert surface water in WRIA 18 (both East and West) totalled 1,659 CFS, and 70,248 acre feet/year. In the East WRIA 18 (Sequim-Dungeness), the 2002 Water Rights Applications Tracking System (WRATS) showed a total of 672.11 CFS, with 33,169 acre feet per year, in 2000, for surface water rights and certificates. The great majority of this usage was for agriculture. (Page 2.3-9, In WRIA 18 Watershed Plan.

For groundwater, the 2002 WRATS poll found 98,179 gallons per minute (1 CFS= 450 gpm) (So, if my math is correct, this is 218.18 CFS), with 65,389 acre feet/year. These are permitted rights, which will be Senior to the Instream Flow Rule. The largest ground water rights in East WRIA 18 are held by the Washington Department of Wildlife, the City of Sequim, Clallam PUD, and Sequim Prairie Ditch Company. (Page 2.3-11, WRIA 18 Watershed Plan).

In 1999, the Montgomery Water Group estimated that 1,251 acre feet/year are withdrawn by exempt wells. In 2000, it was estimated that the exempt wells used about 5% of the amount that certificated groundwater withdrawal rights used. (Pag3 2.3-15, WRIA 18 Watershed Plan) ENTRIX figured that, if “PERFECT HYDRAULIC CONTINUITY IS ASSUMED (my caps), this would represent an annual stream flow demand of 0.73 cfs spread across all the streams and rivers of East WRIA 18.” I sincerely doubt that anyone could prove 100% perfect hydraulic continuity. So, we are talking about LESS than .73 cfs. With 672 cfs being DIRECTLY withdrawn from the River, for Surface Water rights, that is the proverbial “drop in the bucket”.

So, I would like to ask Ecology why people with new or unused exempt wells are being told they will have to pay a large mitigation fee to use these wells for inside water, 90% of which Ecology says will return to the aquifer; and, they will have to go to the Water Exchange, and purchase water, for outside watering, when the impact on the River is so small–and, in some areas, non-existent?

The reserve amount of water is an arbitrary number. Once the reserve is used up, then, there can be no more wells and no more water rights–unless there is a transfer of existing rights to another place or another use–approved by Ecology (which may take months to years). Yet, the rain and the snow will still fall–even if the glaciers go away. How can Ecology justify taking away the use of someone’s property, should they be unfortunate enough to need a well after the reserve is gone? The basin will be closed; and, no new water rights will be issued.