Watershed plan draws community concern

by Leif Nesheim
Sequim Gazette staff writer
Published 9.22.04

Port Angeles, WA - Sequim real estate broker Jerry Strawn waved a contract for a piece of property and offered to sell it, filling in details like price later during his testimony at a hearing about a lengthy proposed watershed plan.

If the county were to adopt the plan as written it would be a mistake akin to buying land with critical details missing from the contract, he said.

"I wouldn't sign it," Strawn said. "It contains far too many unknowns for it to be ready for prime time."

Strawn, like many of those who testified Sept. 21, said he was concerned the current plan has too great a possibility of transforming from a slate of recommendations to onerous regulation and urged commissioners to remand the plan back for further reworking.

The 500-plus page document was created over the past four years by a pair of planning teams within the watershed area, which stretches from Sequim Bay to the far side of the Elwha River. The teams were comprised of representatives from the initiating governments: Clallam County, Port Angeles, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, and the Agnew Irrigation District.
State law dictates which governments must participate in the watershed planning process and the county has ultimate authority for approving or denying the plan. The other governments have already granted their approval for the current proposed plan. If the county does not grant approval, it may remand the plan to the planning teams for revision and hold a second hearing on the revised plan.

However, if the county does not approve a plan - county officials may only approve or deny a watershed plan and cannot revise it - the state then may step in to create a plan.
Cynthia Nelson, the state Department of Ecology liaison who worked with the planning teams, said the public hearing was a milestone in a multi-year process.

"This plan has some real substantive recommendations," she said.
The plan describes the history of water use and planning in the area, details studies on water quantity and quality, and provides recommendations for future water use policy.

"There's no draconian measures in here (to control water use)," said commissioner Steve Tharinger, D-Dungeness.

Tharinger was a member of the Dungeness River Management Team, one of the two planning teams, and was the board member most involved in the process. Some audience members suggested he should recuse himself from the process because of his involvement and potential bias. However, Tharinger replied he had not yet endorsed the plan and felt his participation at this stage was proper.

Although commissioners and county staff said the proposed watershed plan merely contains guidelines for future policy, many of the more than 130 people in attendance were not convinced the plan would not transform into restrictive law later.
Marguerite Glover, a member of the Sequim Realtors Association who participated in early watershed planning, said during each successive phase of water planning the focus shifted from educating the public to be good stewards to more regulation.
"I really believe that," Glover said, to a rousing chorus of audience applause and whistles.

Keith Winter of Sequim said he, as a well driller with Oasis Well Drilling, had been excluded from the process to create the watershed plan. Important information and points of view relevant to water use issues were ignored by that exclusion, he said. That in turn led to the unnecessary emphasis on regulation, he said.
"The whole plan is so ominous with regulations," Winter said.

There'd be no way you could get through the permit process."
Mike McAleer, government liaison for the Sequim Realtors Association, said he doesn't understand where the watershed plan fits into the greater scheme of things in relation to other ongoing planning efforts, such as the update of the county comprehensive plan to meet state Growth Management Act requirements.
For example, if the county were to adopt the watershed plan - a plan to be a "guideline only" document - into the comprehensive plan, as suggested by the county planning commission, it would have regulatory power, he said.

He added that the 21 days the final draft of the plan was available to the public was insufficient time for adequate review. He urged commissioners to hold additional hearings to garner more and better input.

After hearing those who wished to testify, commissioners extended the hearing indefinitely and will determine what dates the hearing will be at a work session Sept. 27.

Tharinger said there is a good chance of a evening meeting in Sequim in addition to a morning Port Angeles hearing.