Many local citizens object to proposal for water management plan

By Lois Krafsky-Perry and Sue Forde
Citizen Review Online

October 13, 2004

Port Angeles, WA - Port Angeles landowners, builders, realtors, retirees, and business people packed the Clallam County courthouse October 12. Over 200 people gathered, many of whom testified against the proposed WRIA 18 (Elwha-Dungeness) Watershed Management Plan as currently written, and to witness the actions of the county commissioners, regarding the proposed Water Management Plan WRIA (Water Resource Inventory Areas) 17-18.

Approximately 340 additional residents submitted letters of disapproval to Clallam County Commissioners that same day. The Plan, if implemented, will affect Clallam County to the Elwha Watershed and a portion of Jefferson County. The small number of people who testified in favor of the Plan were mostly agency representatives, or those who had worked with watershed groups.

Three minutes of testimony time was allowed for each participant, however, Chair, Steve Tharinger and also Mike Chapman interrupted many of the speakers and created some instances of debate, which took time from citizens during their presentations.

Jerry Strawn said he was concerned about the possible cost of all of this. Housing prices are of interest to the local realtor. “The building industry contributes a great deal to the local economy,” he said. “Somewhere in the process, something’s been lost,” he said. He talked about the rising cost of housing. The GMA (Growth Management Act) incorporates growth and so does WRIA 18. “Send it back to consider all of this,” recommended Strawn.

“This [plan] is seriously flawed,” said Joe Sauve, who recommended rejecting the Plan in its entirety. His concerns are; correct hydrology data, surface water storage, community wells, and costs. He said that wording like, “reasonable time” in the Plan is not specific. “Who decides what the terms mean?” he asked. The Sequim landowner suggested that Steve Tharinger recuse himself or resign from the DRMT (Dungeness River Management Team). Sauve turned in several letters representing opposition to the Plan, as written.

Gary Gleason, a planning commission member, said he’s worked with the planning unit for four years, and a member of Streamkeepers, stated he was afraid of litigation from outside sources. He expressed a need for an ongoing public education and public process. He suggested moving on to Phase 4, the implementation section, and passing the proposed plan.

Kris Hallis, a Sequim homemaker spoke against the plan as written. “This is a seriously flawed document,” she said, and urged the commissioners not to pass it just to get grant money. “The City of Sequim has not signed on to the Plan,” she said. She asked Commissioner Tharinger whether he had checked with his attorney about her earlier suggestion that he recuse himself. Tharinger responded that he had checked, and unless there “direct personal gain”, it would not be a conflict of interest to participate in creating the plan, then voting on it. Hallis turned in 71 letters to the commissioners of citizens who are against the Plan as written.

Bob Forde passed, but said he agreed with what Hallis had stated.

Orville Campbell, Port Angeles City Council member and water team member, spoke on behalf of the water management plan. There’s been a “great manpower investment” involved with the creation of the plan, he said as his reason to pass it as written.

“We have created a document these past four years. It is not perfect, but it is the best for today,” Campbell said, as he asked for approval of the Plan. This is a water plan for water for the future, he told the commissioners, adding that we do not want governments of courts telling us what our water will be.

“This county has more than its fair share of its regulations,” said Sequim resident, Kip McKeever. He noted that this local proposed Plan is beyond what is required by the state. “Send it back and rewrite only what the state requires,” he advised.

Kaj Ahlburg urged the commissioners to remand and amend the Plan. “There are enough regulations, “ he said. He asked for balance in the Plan and does not want laws that are not mandated.

Ahlburg thanked Commissioner Chapman for responding to an earlier question he had posed about exempt wells, but added that he did not agree with Chapman on several issues after reading the plan for himself.

Lois Perry of Sequim listed several national/international consulting groups who had worked on the Plan and queried why they did not use local citizens as RCW 90.82.005 clearly states. She noted Entrix, Inc, working with Jeremy Pratt and Tetra Tech, with Penny Eckert, who represents Tetra Tech. Eckert works on national and international water plans and also on designing water models representing the Olympic Peninsula and other states. Eckert worked with the local DRMT and the Plan utilizes many of her interests, as listed in the Plan’s bibliography, Penny (Jennings) Eckert 1998, “The Social Construction of a Watershed; Changing Rights and Changing Land.”

Perry challenged Tharinger to step down and recuse himself because of his involvement with the DRMT and Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB), as well as involvement with Department of Ecology (DOE) representatives. She presented 11 more letters of people objecting to the Plan as written.

Sue Forde, a Sequim resident, shared information that was written in the Dungeness/Quilcene Plan (D/Q Plan), the predecessor of the current plan, which has been incorporated into the new plan. She pointed out the direction the DOE (Washington State Department of Ecology) takes in the D/Q plan toward metering exempt private wells. “You tell us money is tight. Where will the money come from to implement all the additional requirements this plan calls for, including the possible monitoring, metering, and billing for additional wells placed in the system, should this follow its logical course,” she said.
At the close of her testimony, commissioner Chapman taunted Forde and asked, “Do you know of a single well that is metered today.” “Not yet,” said Forde. She turned in 59 letters of opposition to the proposed Plan as written.

Cindy Kelly, of Port Angeles, a former water group participant, said her personal recommendation is to send the Plan back to the planning commissions. After hearing testimony from the well drillers, she is concerned. She is concerned also about fluoride and chlorine issues.

Donald Hatler said he was an alternate member of the DRMT and sports fisherman. He asked for action---not an action plan. “Actions come later,” he said.

Lloyd Peterson, a consultant, offered his services and noted the lack of expertise in the water planning efforts. He mentioned the need for long-range service plans. He said the taxpayers will pay twice if it is not done correctly.

Judy Larson spoke in favor of the Plan. Larson thinks a Sequim metering program should be addressed if someone is a major user.

Marguerite Glover spoke eloquently against passing the plan as written. “This is not Santa Barbara,” she said. We seem to have enough “real” water for all our uses, she said. “I am very concerned that, if we do not change some of the WRIA 18 recommendations about exempt wells, "conserved water" only for new water rights, and limitation of water rights based on particular instream flow predictions, we will not see local control”, she said. “We will see DOE making regulations to carry out a flawed plan. Please remand the WRIA 18 plan to its creators.”

“I don't believe that the Department of Ecology's motives are always based on absolute science. Rather, they are tainted with the desire to be in charge; and, to continue to employ people to be in charge of us”, she said.

Hugh Haffner, PUD (Public Utility District) elected official, attorney, and landowner said he was speaking for himself. Concerned about restrictions, he sited water problems with City of Port Angeles and residents at the east end of Port Angeles. “Provide water for their growth, look at goals, inflow streams, and water rights,” he said. “Make sure with DOE, we should be able to get water rights on a more available basis. Let’s get commitments from Ecology,” suggested Haffner. He said they had created a process to service the community. “A more expedited basis, instead of waiting 20 years,” he suggested. As Haffner continued, he was then asked by Mike Chapman to submit a letter to the commissioners and was given three more days to turn in a letter from the PUD.

Robert Cummings, a Sequim businessman, said he is against the water plan. He is concerned about junk science to justify the Plan. He is also concerned about water rights, “like Haffner,” he said. He also concurred with Marguerite Glover’s comments.

Keith Winter, a Sequim well driller said he is concerned about trading exempt wells for a new and improved permit process. “Ecology can’t get a handle on it,” observed Winter. He said that Washington’s water law is clear as to who is in charge. He mentioned the problems that are taking place now for the commissioners in Jefferson County. The GMA’s , certain aspects of the law, like homeowners’ proof of potable water. Watershed planning says other things. They still can’t get it clarified,” said Winter. He referred to the Washington Groundwater White Paper.

Winter was interrupted numerous times by Commissioner Chapman, who apparently did not understand the research from Winter’s testimony.

Mike Jeldness of the Agnew Irrigation District, and who was a planning unit team member, said that although the state is only requiring us to address water quantity, “we have endangered species in our county…we’ve lost timber…it’s difficult to say habitat is not an issue.” “We felt we needed to deal with those issues.”, he said.

Bob Hoyle spoke against the plan as written. He said he’s a former environmental officer. He talked about the Elwha Dam removal, citing various reasons why the county should work toward keeping the dam from going down, including power generation and the water source for the city. Commissioner Chapman told Hoyle the county didn’t have anything to do with the dam removal.

Dick Kott, a Port Angeles businessman, said the proposed plan makes overly restrictive recommendations that are generic to all all sub-basins, when the plan spends over 100 pages describing the differences in them. “Overly restrictive measures really are not necessary. Remand it,” he said. He said the plan should be changed to be sub-basin specific. “Remove limits on exempt wells…which is basically a property right,” he said. He added that taking water from existing right for new rights is inappropriate.

Commissioner Tharinger asked him to submit the specific section to which he was referred in writing. “What you’ve quoted is illegal,” he said.

Kott continued that they should remove references to regulation. He said when he learned who members of the DRMT were, he believes it’s so weighted to government, environmental groups, and very limited to citizen involvement, he wondered how legitimate citizen involvement could be heard and given any credence. There needs to be an “independent review of this document,” he said, somewhat like the freeholder’s committee that does the charter.

Dave LaRoux, President of Peninsula Trails Coalition, appealed for water for his 65 acre piece of land near Kitchen Dick Lane, in Sequim. LaRoux a former partner/property owner with commissioner Tharinger, said, "I need clean water." He asked for recommendations in the Plan to be relevant to his development. "I want a community well," he insisted, and stated he could do covenants to protect the water supply. "They can do meters for wasteful consumption. I can’t wait for provisions," complained LaRoux.

Cynthia Nelson, DOE representative who has been guiding the planning process over the years, said she was “happy to see the amount of interest in this plan.” She explained that the purpose is not to turn water management over to local government; DOE has to implement rules for instream flows, she said. The county would track exempt wells, she said. She added that Ecology has “no intention of metering individual wells.”

Steve Marble commented on the work session handout. He discussed the DRMT and the “process”, how they had invited the board of Realtors to send a representative to represent them; they chose Marble, and the DRMT told him they didn’t want him. “It was a hand-picked group,” he said. After that, we (Realtors) weren’t interested in being involved.

He said the DOE has been trying to get rid of the exempt wells exemption over the years, and told the story about talking to Cynthia Nelson when he was on the WAR (Washington Association of Realtors) legislative affairs committee. She told him they had no interest in eliminating the exempt status of private wells; then, only two weeks later, the DOE sent a bill to the legislature call for the elimination of the exempt status of private wells. “I’m very dubious about working with Ecology,” he said.

Bill Wallace, a real estate broker, said he appreciated the concern of the planning units, but while well-intended, there is poor use of the English language in the plan. There needs to be more citizen input, he said, asking the commissioners to remand it back to the planning units.

Warner Litchfield said he supported what Joe Saule, Kaj Ahlberg and Marguerite Glover had said.

Elizabeth Collins told the commissioners the plan should be reviewed “very carefully”. This plan will impact countywide and establish a precedent that will affect us all countywide, she said. “You are establishing a baseline that comes the standard for others to follow. A great deal is open to interpretation,” she said.

Tom Beckman said he’s a natural reserve manager, now retired. I struggled with “may, could, should, might,” he said. There is a lack of local input into the process. What is the cost in terms of dollars and other economic benefits, he wanted to know. “Return it for further review; it may be in an appeal process, if you don’t,” he said.

Commissioner Tharinger announced that written testimony would be taken until 4:30 p.m. on Friday. The hearing was closed at 12:35 p.m.