Letter to the Editor: Dream Up Rule

(The following letter was submitted to the Peninsula Daily News in response to the article they printed - Proposed well curbs draw fire; 2/19/09. This letter was run in the March 1, 2009 edition of the PDN - along with a detailed response beneath it from Cynthia Nelson, Department of Ecology. Apparently the PDN showed the letter to Ms. Nelson prior to running the letter, so that she could make a response.)

Once again the PDN failed to capture the essence of a story. (Proposed well curbs draw fire; 2/19/09)

The article reported on the Department of Ecology presentation which declared DOE’s intention to set limits on private wells to protect river flows and which encountered “vociferous” opposition from affected landowners and, of course, those pesky real estate agents.

However, the article failed to convey that the “vociferousness” and, yes, irritation stemmed from the fact that DOE could not provide scientific evidence to substantiate the proposed limitations.

For instance, they had no convincing data to support their theory of hydraulic connectivity between aquifers and river flow.  They admitted the imprecision of their flow measurement techniques seriously undermined the validity of the collected data.  And they were not able to project a level of flow improvement even if these limits were enacted. 

Technical aspects aside, they could not accurately estimate the dollar value of “mitigation fees” that they seek to impose, or whose treasury would benefit from them, or, even more basically, how fees will actually increase the river flow level. 

DOE dutifully took note of our comments but, when asked, they quietly admitted that our comments would not materially change the proposed rule.  Apparently, this meeting is merely a “step” in a process which is: (1) Dream up rule, (2) Seek public comment, (3) Ignore public comment, (4) Impose rule.

Yes… they are from the government and they are here to help us…  No matter how much it hurts…

Dick Pilling, Port Angeles, WA

___________________

Right beneath the above letter, the Peninsula Daily News printed the following:

Peninsula Voices     Peninsula Daily News     Sunday, March 1, 2009

    Cynthia Nelson, a state Department of Ecology watershed planner, responds to the letter writer’s accusations.

    The complaint regarding lack of scientific evidence is not new, and we prepared for this by including a presentation by a hydrogeologist with extensive history on Dungeness groundwater issues.
    We also indicated our presentations would be accessible online afterward, and that we’d respond to questions.
    Regarding hydraulic continuity, some audience members commented on levels in the shallow aquifer dropping due to the piping of irrigation ditches.
    This is a pretty good illustration of the relationship between surface water and ground water.
    However, looking at if from the point of view that wells can capture water from the aquifer that otherwise would have fed streams may not be as intuitive.
    As far as measuring flows, I believe we acknowledged that it’s an imprecise process, not that the margin of error in flow data undermines its validity.
    Our scientists can provide more on that question, if needed.
    Regarding outreach, we’ve run a number of short articles, in the Sequim Gazette on water resource management and policy issues, held meetings with special interest groups, hosted two prior workshops and made presentations at Dungeness River Management Team [DRMT] meetings.
    We are taking comments from the other night into consideration as we continue working on the draft rule.
    We’ll continue working with the public in meetings and via e-mail until a final draft proposed rule has been refined.
After filing the proposed rule, comments will be accepted either verbally in testimony or in writing during the comment period.
    Ecology will prepare a “response to comments” document, speaking to each comment submitted in writing or at the public hearing.
    If deemed necessary, changes can be made to the draft rule, although there are limitations on how broad these can be.
    We made it clear that for those in the Sequim Dungeness Valley currently using water from their own wells, a small water system or a large water purveyor are using established water rights.
    And to protect existing water rights and streams as new development occurs, we’re considering having potential summer and fall impacts offset through a mitigation program.
    The effect of mitigation would be to minimize future effects of development and to provide a small buffer.
    Because the difference between current late-season flows in the river and those needed to help salmon recover is several 10s of cubic feet per second, the funding for flow improvements on that level will need to come from other sources.
    A number of issues related to mitigation are still being worked out, including the expected costs.
    Water issues in the Dungeness are similar to those elsewhere in Washington state, with a number of needs competing for limited supplies, commercial and residential irrigation occur at the same time as critical salmon needs for upstream migration and adequate spawning flows, and most of the water is legally spoken for by senior water rights.
    Even with those challenges, we think development and fish recovery can coexist along with senior water rights.