| Sequim community turns out to protest proposed land/water
restrictions By Lois Krafsky Perry and Sue Forde
Sequim, WA - Approximately 230 people attended a continued public hearing at the Guy Cole Convention Center on October 6, for the Elwha-Dungeness Watershed Plan, WRIA (water resource inventory area) 17 & 18. Most of the people who testified opposed the plan; however, representatives of the agencies also testified in favor of it. Some who had worked on the plan asked to have it remanded. Walt Schubert, the elected mayor of Sequim, reprimanded Clallam County Commissioners as well as representatives of the proposed plan. “The City has not adopted nor supports WRIA 17 or 18 [plan].” He stated that the City of Sequim has a member attending some of their meetings, “but that does not mean the City of Sequim has signed onto it. The City is the legal governing body of Sequim,” affirmed Schubert. "The City has not taken a position on this issue," he added. He reminded the commissioners, who have the ability to vote on October 12th, that he is against the plan as written. Local realtors, business people, builders, farmers, well-drillers, and families testified and stated that they were against the plan. Of grave concern is the threat to private property rights and metered/monitored wells. Ann Soule, who represents Clallam County, gave an slideshow overview of the plan and some in the audience stated that it was boring, and it made no sense to them. She explained that "modeling" was used as the basis for results. A "groundwater model" was constructed in "computer language," she said. After taking 29 minutes of public testimony time, she sat down and the people were allowed to ask questions. The meeting was facilitated by commissioner Steve Tharinger, who is also the Chair of the Dungeness River Management Team (DRMT). He demanded that the crowd not applaud the speakers but no one seemed to care what he wanted and continued to applaud many who testified. Mike McAleer, a Sequim realtor asked for land –use changes to be remanded as well as in stream flows. He recommended that well drillers be consulted. “Get best available science, get peer review,” said Jerry Strawn of Sequim, a local realtor. He urged the commissioners not to pass the plan prematurely, and said it should pass a "peer review". He added that he was very troubled about the parts of the plan he's read, that it would "restrict growth in the Sequim-Dungeness Valley." The plan is very restrictive, he continued, and wondered how the terms would be applied five or 10 years from now, subject to interpretation. There would also be increased payroll for county staff, he said. Doug Smith a Sequim builder, quizzed the facilitators of the Plan. “How much residential water is affecting the Dungeness River?” He had checked with authorities and discovered that less that four percent really affects the river from residential use. "That's very little," he said. He stated that he has an overwhelming disapproval of the plan as it is written and is also concerned about regulation. He expressed concern about what is called "reasonable" cost - who will define the terms? Earlier, he had quizzed the commissioners about what would constitute an "average" flow, to which Steve Tharinger responded that an "average" was not really the right figure. "It's significant at low flow time of the year," he said. Louise Winter raised the question about whether dissenting opinions would be represented. Commissioner Tharinger said "dissent is a kind of an odd word". Louis Rychlik, a local well driller, said the plan depends on modeling as to whether exempt private wells are worse than community wells. He questioned Ann Soule's involvement for 10 years with her being hired by grant (taxpayer) money. Commissioner Tharinger came to her defense. These are "contentious issues" as to how much water is available - the legislature wants to know how the locals feel; the whole process is guided and directed by (State Law) 2514," he said. Mary Porter Solhberg said she is with the Audubon Society, and urged the commissioners to pass the plan as written. She said they should develop a program to keep farm animals and pets out of the streams, make "adequate buffers" for stormwater management, consider climate change models, and continue monitoring streams and rivers. Kevin Estes, representing the North Olympic Peninsula Home Builders, strongly suggested remanding the plan back to the working units with suggestions for improvement. Tom Beckman said he had 35 years as a resource manager. The plan should not be passed as written, he said. The science and data is somewhat flawed, he stated, adding that he hasn't seen any discussion until now. Is this the beginning of the end of the process? he wanted to know. There is a lack of local solicitation of the local knowledge base, he observed. The planning process should develop a local support and become a conduit for local acceptance and ownership, he added. Don Alexander, local realtor, said the plan was ludicrous and recommended sending it back. He discussed the possibility of reservoirs and questioned the commissioners about the one being built on upper Hooker road area. Tharinger answered some of his questions on the proposed project. Steve Marble said that residential water use is a very small percentage of the total water used across the watershed. He said the Clallam Conservation District (of which he is an elected director), is applying for a grant which will save 1/2 of 1% of the cfs. (See "Putting the numbers in perspective.") Jerry Levesque asked whether they had read the plan and the law, and said he didn't want it to be passed as written. Lois Perry chided the commissioners for outsourcing by hiring Entrix, Inc., a national/international consulting group joined by a local water agency representative, Jeremy Pratt. “I object to this plan and I question your procedures,” she said. Listing RCW 90.82.005, she reminded the commissioners that the process is to involve local participants. Perry pointed out the involvement of many agency people rather than private citizens, who have worked on the plan. She objected to pseudo-science, use of models and some from other states, and inaccurate data. Perry told Tharinger that he should step down and recuse himself, as he showed a clear conflict of interest, in that he is chair of the DRMT, on the Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB), and is involved also with Department of Ecology (DOE). Dan Perry agreed with previous speakers such as his wife Lois, Jerry, and Steve. He then gave his time to Ted Cordua, who had not been given opportunity to sign the sheet when he arrived at the meeting. Ted Cordua identified himself as a rural residential property owner. He questioned the science behind the study connecting wells and the river. Has a study been made of groundwater recharge? he asked. You cannot destroy water; it goes round and round, he affirmed. Irrigation canals leak back into the aquifer, which helps with the recharge of the aquifer, he asserted. "Another bureaucracy? No thank you!" he asserted. “Water metering private property, no warrant, no thank you,” Cordua announced. He asked the commissioners to act in the best interest of the property owners. Randy Johnson of Green Crow, stated his opposition to the plan, and said the cost to implement it would bankrupt everyone. He said he was a former member of a water planning unit. Sue Forde spoke against the plan as written. She said the state law requires only that "water quantity" be addressed by this plan; yet the "optional" areas have been included, which will create a heavy tax and fee burden on the county residents. "The Plan makes recommendations that are not 'people' friendly," she said. She pointed out that "property acquisitions," funding for purchase of "conservation easements", getting rid of dikes and bridges, and limiting water consumption by people which accounts for very little of the total water usage are high on the agenda of the plan. "This goes against the intent of the law, to 'provide for the economic well-being the the state's citizenry and communities,'" she said. The plan calls for more layers of bureaucray, more taxes and fees, and will create hardships on the people of the county, she said. "Return this proposed plan for much-needed work and changes," she said. Andrew Shogren was for the plan as written, and supported the views of Chitwood. Joe Sauvi said he hoped his testimony would be taken seriously. It seems there are pre-drawn conclusions, he said. He observed that meter and control are used. “This is about regulation use of land, through water, under the guise of good supervision,” he said. The plan should be remanded back to the planning units for further study, he urged. Sauvi asked about a reservoir he had heard mentioned. Tharinger replied
that it was a study between DOE and the Agnew Irrigation District,
and referred him to Mike Jeldness for further information. Dennis Dehmalo spoke against the plan. "Let's do it right," he said, and asked that the plan be returned for further study and work to the planning units. "I personally think your minds are made up," he added. Bob Forde asked the commissioners if they had read the RCW (Washington State Law) covering this plan. They said they had. He quoted a Sequim brochure which said that water use is 75-100 gallons per day per person. The plan is calling for a reduction in water from 5,000 gallons per day down to 500 gallons per day on private wells, he said. Modeling used as science can be in error. He used the modeling done for the number of people to be in the valley over a 10 year period, compared to the actual census. The model had indicated there would be over 75,000 residents in Clallam County, and the census showed a little over 64,000. "That's quite a huge difference," he said. He brought up the concept of developing a reservoir to "save" water for times of drought. Carolyn Dodd, a local realtor also spoke against the plan. “Send it back for further investigation, “she demanded. She also said there should be an evening meeting in Port Angeles, since so many of the people who live there work during the day, to give better input from the citizens. Kris Hallis challenged the process as not involving local citizens and reported that several people had not been allowed to participate in the planning, including two well drillers, a farmer and another citizen. She suggested that if the planners were really concerned about a water shortage, then they should look at desalinization, which has been used in many places where there is really a water shortage. She told how the tiered fees for water usage backfired where they had previously lived, causing water rates to double. She said it should be returned to the planning units for further study and work. Lyn Muench, representing the tribe, said, "I am not responsible for developing this plan..." (Muench was formerly a member of the DRMT.) She favored the plan as written. Liam Antrim favored the plan, said there is too rapid a development going on. He said there is a "need to conserve" for humans, plants and animals. Allen Thomas said he agrees with the realtors. Private property owner's safeguards is his main concern. He also expressed concern about the Department of Ecology (DOE), "an agency that finds fault with anything to help keep their jobs". Scott Chitwood of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, and a lead member of the Dungeness River Management Team (DRMT) favored the plan. "We have water problems," he said. We have growth problems; we have water quality problems, he argued. We need to clean up Dungeness Bay, he added. Keith Winter, a local well driller, said that the "You're talking about state law," he said, referring to the 5,000 gallon limit on private exempt wells. He said the state department of ecology (DOE) is after the private well exemption. Now the DOE is hoping the county commissioners will do it through an ordinance. There are layers upon layers of recommendations, he said. Hydraulic continuity is not sound science, he affirmed. There is a 20 foot drop in the static level of groundwater by encasing the irrigation ditches. Seventy percent of domestic use goes back into recharge. Places where onsite wells do the recharge is enhancing the streams. "There are too many bad ideas in this plan," he stated. "Don't be DOE's scapegoat." Dennis Yankovitch was on the Elwha planning unit team and believes that it should go back for some more work. “I want this plan remanded back to us, with very specific recommendations,” he said, adding he thought the most people affected are those in the rural part of the county. “The instream flows, and rivers section scares me to death,“ he said. He continued by saying, “DOE can close the watersheds because they don’t meet the maximums. A bad idea! Many county streams do not meet instream flows. What glossary instream flows mean....” Then Tharinger asked, “would you submit something to us this Tuesday?” Kirkby Roseveare discussed reservoirs. “Stored water could solve
the problem of water quantity.” he offered. |