Private sector testimony runs strongly against proposed WRIA 18 Watershed Plan at public hearing

Highlights of Public Hearing Testimony

Reported by Sue Forde, Citizen Review Online

9/29/04

Port Angeles, WA - Clallam County Commissioners held a public hearing on September 21, 2004 about the proposed passage of the Water Resource Area Inventory [WRIA] 18 Watershed Management Plan, which was developed and submitted by the Dungeness River Management Team (DRMT) and Elwha-Morse Management Team (EMMT). Grant funds from WA Dept. of Ecology paid for technical studies and preparation of the Watershed Plan.

Approximately 140 were in attendance.

Prior to the official public hearing, there was approximately 15 minutes available, so Clallam County Commissioner Steve Tharinger (D-Dungeness) said there was a time for questions and answers, so he could ‘get a sense’ of what the major concerns are to the Watershed Management Plan [Plan].

Dr. Robert Crittenden came forward to challenge Tharinger for conflict of interest. Tharinger asked what his basis was for the challenge. Crittenden responded that the law does not require that he explain the basis for the challenge.

Tharinger stated the state has been logjammed for issuing water rights – some understanding of the water needs – there DOE would allow issuance of water rights. He said the Plan contains “very little language” about “you shall” types of statements. In answer to a question from the floor, he said he “doesn’t think any [terms contained in the Plan] would be retroactive.”

When questioned by a member of the audience, Tharinger explained that he has participated in the Dungeness River Management Team (DRMT), he’s been involved “in the process”, and their council has approved the Plan.

Tharinger said the Plan is “encouraging” people to hook up to public water systems.

The question was posed to the Commissioners, particular Tharinger, whether any of them were part of the meetings or part of the process.

Tharinger responded that he had sat in on the meetings, that he is chair of the DRMT. “Staff” was the main participants, he said, and he was “careful to remove himself from any discussions.” “I did not have input,” he stated.

Commissioner Mike Chapman said that he had appointed Val Streeter to attend the meetings on his behalf, and that he did not attend any meetings, nor was he involved with the process.

Commissioner Mike Doherty said he had no input “on the substance” of the meetings.

When asked, all three commissioners stated they had not read the entire document before them. Tharinger said the document has been divided into three chapters, and that Chapter 3 has been read.

Chapman said that many governments have already approved the plan. “This isn’t something we dumped on you…” he said. “We didn’t write this,” he added.

The formal public testimony began, with members of staff and the ‘teams” which has developed the “Plan” speaking first, for 1-1/2 hours.

Anne Soule of Clallam County, who identified herself as a hydrologist, spoke first, reviewing the plan and what the Team wanted to accomplish. She said there is not enough water for “instream flows”, and other commentary. She introduced the members of the two teams, stating that they had a “diverse group on the planning teams.” (Most of the team members are government employees.)

She talked about how the consensus process was used for all decisions.

She said “Chapter 3 is what’s up for approval.” According to law, there can be no action taken on the plan for another week. If the plan is not passed by the second attempt, the plan terminates, and the state will decide what will be done in our watershed, she said. She talked about the volunteers, saying “no one was paid to sit through those meetings.”

She said there have been many requests to extend the hearing period, since the plan has only been available for review for three weeks. The plan “should be used as guidance for rules and regulations in the future,” she stated. One of the issues calls for directing new development to community wells, and lowering private, exempt wells from 5,000 gallons per day “to a more realistic level,” she pointed out. Computer modeling was used. She said “you can’t get something for nothing,” and that each member of the team “compromised in some way.”

One citizen raised the question “how are you going to determine” how many gallons are being used. Soule said they would “encourage” individuals to put meters on their wells.

Another person asked if surface water, aquifer and impoundment waters had been differentiated in the plan. Soule responded that the plan has sections talking about this. Surface water has to have a water right, she said. People are supposed to get a permit. Exempt wells apply to less than 5,000 gallons per day, and ½ acre maximum.

A questioner asked how limits would be implemented by metering if usage exceeds the allowable quantity. Soule responded that currently, the State Department of Ecology regulates water usage. Those with 10,000 gallons per day allocation are supposed to report any overage. “I don’t know what they do,” she said. On exempt wells, the State doesn’t have the resources or the interest to pursue it, she said.

Tharinger jumped in on the discussion, sand that metering and monitoring “water resource is limited”. How do we determine how much we’re using versus how much is available? he queried. At some point, the resource is going to run out, Tharinger stated. Agriculture, instream flows, domestic, a need to protect endangered species. These are recommendations, he said, with no draconian measures that say we’re going to meter the wells. “We’re trying to get tools to manage the resources,” he added.

Soule continued that the initiating governments had to approve the plan, that there has been a “lot of review at the tribal councils, city councils,” and that they all have given it their “blessing.”

Andy Brastad was the next to speak, focusing on natural resources and environmental resources. He said there needs to be a balance of the needs of fish and the needs of humans. The process has been going on for four years, he said, with a consensus-based approach. The team has been using “best available science” and are “respecting legal rights,” he said. According to Brastad, the plan focuses on reduced water use, which means more water into the streams; emphasis on public water supply; “clean, relable water to the public,” managing better septic systems, protecting groundwater and reducing nonpoint pollution.

Just under an hour into the “public” input, team member Mike Jeldness, irrigation district (need exact title) talked about the “hundreds of meetings” with “lots of citizens involved” that had taken place. “Think of the plan as a ‘roadmap’, he suggested. There’s probably $1 million in this book – indicating the 3-1/2 inch, 500+ page plan, including inkind volunteer hours. “It must remain a living document”, he asserted.

As team members Brad Collins, representing the City of Port Angeles, then Matt Byrne, representing the Lower Elwha Tribe took their turns at the podium, an hour and a half into the hearing, people began to leave. Byrne stated that the plan is a result of a “very long and often contentious” process, with “dozens of local citizens actively involved.” It’s a consensus-driven process, he said, adding that many other communities are trying to grapple with a similar situation, adding that we need a long range plan to prevent the problems of urban communities.

Ann Seiter spoke next, saying she had been with the Tribe for 19 years, and had begun working on this process with the original D/Q Plan. [Dungeness/Quilcene Plan]. (See sidebar) “The Tribe asked me to represent them today,” she said.

She said 82% of the water was being withdrawn for irrigation. Originally, discussion with the irrigators was ‘contentious’, she said. They feared that metering would be used against them, she stated, but it instead gave accurate information for irrigation and fish. “The burden of water conservation must be shared among all,” she said.

Cynthia Nelson of the Washington State Department of Ecology spoke briefly, offering kudos to the commissioners and the team members for their work.

At 11:35, the public began offering their testimony. Marguerite Glover shared scientific facts and statistics that countered the need for the Plan as written. She stated that the basic premise in the water section of the plan is incorrect. “We are very fortunate in the Sequim-Duness Valley to benefit from the melting glaciers and snow pack in the Olympics,” she said. “We have water surging down the hard basalt of the mountains to our aquifers under the Valley.”

She said in 1999, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) described three aquifers and two aquitards, along with other hydroeologis units. “To make the recommendation that we only allow new individual wells or water rights for larger systems from the amount of water that we have ‘saved’ is ludicrous,” she said. “We have freshwater pouring out to the Strait. You would ask us to not waste water on non-native, non-drought resistant plants.” She stated that water law already tells us that we can only put the water to “beneficial” use. “We’re not to have hoses running all night on concrete,” she said. “What we should be able to do with the water which belongs to ‘all’ of us is to use it for our families, our lawns, and our gardens, to enhance and beautify the wonderful quality of life that we have here on the Olympic Peninsula.”

“You want us to limit our water consumption, ignoring the fact that our septic system puts water back into the aquifer, and then only allow new water users to have the amount of water that the rest of us have ‘saved’ for them,” she said. “Instead of good science, this sounds to me like a way to create more jobs at the County and to have more control over our lives.”

The audience applauded her presentation in agreement, to which Tharinger forcefully announced that applause would not be tolerated, and told the people to refrain from applause during the testimonies. One member of the audience said, “No!” and several times during the subsequent testimonies, the people exercised disobedience to the demand by their continued applause.

Kris Hallis called Steve Tharinger to task for his admitted input and involvement in developing the plan, and suggested he recuse himself from the vote. Tharinger responded that he would need an attorney’s advice on the matter, but the attorney was not present. It was his understanding, he said, that if he votes for something affecting his property or where he stood to gain from the vote, then he would have to recuse himself, but that he didn’t see any reason to do so in this matter.

Caroline Patrick spoke about the vagueness of the language throughout the document, and said it was a concern about how it would be interpreted. She said the time was insufficient to carefully review the document, and suggested additional hearings.

Keith Winter, local well driller, said he has been watching this matter unfold at the local, state and federal governmental levels. He said that every WRIA is after the exemption. There are no scientific studies to show that if the law were changed, how that would make a difference, he said. Where is the proof of water degradation? he queried. When you mess with the ditches, there is now a 20’ drop in the static level. There is now 85% more leakage from the Dungeness River because of piping the irrigation ditches. Calling for more community wells isn’t the answer either, he suggested, pointing at community wells that aren’t working well on Silberhorn Road and in Sequim. Withdrawal takes place at one location while recharge takes place at another that way, he pointed out. The EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] has now recognized that onsite withdrawl and recharge is the better method, which takes place with individual wells.

Domestic wells realistically use 300-500 gallons a day. The DRMT mentioned throughout that groundwater individuals were not invited to participate in the Team. With low consensus, the team can move forward, he said. It neutered a lot of dissent; it was an illegal process. Realtors were shut out too, he said. This took place after the D/Q group, when the DRMT developed. No dissenting viewpoint is allowed, he added. (Click here for related stories about the DRMT.)

He pointed out that water banks have not worked in Chelan Valley; landowners couldn’t dig a well until they bought all their neighbors low impact toilets, and then were allocated the ‘saved’ water, he said. “Methow Valley is a total mess” with the irrigation ditches piped.

Charles Weller of Sequim said “the devil is in the details”. How will the plan be implemented? He wanted to know.

Realtor Mike McAleer talked about how this watershed plan would become law if and when it was incorporated by reference into the revised comprehensive plan, which is now working its way through the planning commission. He said the planning commission had already discussed incorporating it. Once done, the plan would no longer be just “recommendations,” but would have the force of law.

He raised questions about the scientific methods used, and stated that the plan did not recognize goals like the GMA did, which included the needs of the people.

Larry Leonard wanted to know who appointed the people for the watershed teams. Soule responded that there was a request for public involvement.

Bob Tillia, another local well driller, said he has been going to DRMT meetings for years. No one wanted to hear what the well drillers wanted to say, he stated.

Lorraine Ross, a longtime Port Angeles resident, said she hadn’t heard about the Plan until the night before. It looks to me like a “lawyer’s welfare act”, she said. She asked for a continuance to further study the proposed plan.

Lloyd Peterson of Sequim, said he was a design engineer of water. He said it’s a “never-ending process” of improvement. “We need professional help,” he added, to which Tharinger said “And God knows we need it.”

Jerry Strawn, a Sequim real estate broker, made his case by holding up a contract with blank spaces, including the price. “I have in hand a parcel of land – sign it now, and I’ll fill in the price later,” he said. “That is what you are doing to us.” He said the plan doesn’t qualify for cost effectiveness, that there are “too many unknowns.”

Doug Smith of Sequim said he had just learned about the Plan this morning. He said he called a state hydrologist, who told him that residents remove very little water from the ground, and that fish aren’t affected. He also said he’d prefer a night meeting so he would have to leave, as he is having to pay his workers salaries while he is here testifying. He added that the tribes are only benefiting themselves in the Plan.

Bob Forde said Ann Soule said “why are we doing this?” Not enough water for fish and people, is the stock answer. He said Cynthia Nelson of DOE had raised this issue five years ago, saying there’s not enough water for fish and people. There is a simple solution: build a dam. But you’re busy tearing down dams, he asserted, and that’s not what you want. The Plan, according to Cynthia Nelson, is not law, and therefore your rights are protected. But if the plan protects your rights, and the plan is enforceable, then how is that not law? he wanted to know.

How many governments am I under? He queried. The tribes are part of the government I’m under? Seems to me that the county is doing what the tribes want them to do. The tribe was supposed to

Robert Crittenden challenged Steve Tharinger on the record for a conflict of interest. He gave his credentials, and then spoke of all the erroneous methods of testing water flow throughout the streams in eastern Clallam County.

Robbie Mantooth spoke as a citizen participant on the Watershed proposal. She sat at the beginning that the committee couldn’t even agree on a sentence, but they learned to respect and listen to each other. She thinks that the Plan is a “good starting point.”

Joe Melton came to the microphone representing both the Port Angeles Business Association (PABA) and himself. As a representative of the PABA, he asked to delay the decision on the WRIA 18 plan for 30 days to allow for review of the Plan.

Speaking on behalf of himself, he said he would like a 60-day delay to make it possible for more public hearings in Sequim and Port Angeles, and possibly Forks, and requested that the meetings be held in the evenings. This would allow for more participation, he said. The science needs to be looked into, and “good science” needs to be used, he stated. The planning must be done under controlled criteria, he added.

Steve Marble stated that exempt wells account for less than 1% of water consumption – that agriculture and industry take the most water. Salmon runs used to be huge when flood irrigation was the method in use. There have been no water rights issued through the State Department of Ecology (DOE), and he talked about the time and money it took them to get a community well (6-pack) put in: thousands of dollars and over two years, he said. He says the Plan needs work, and to look at the 99% users of the water, not the one percent. The 5,000 gallon per day goal is misplaced, he said. The implementation of this Plan would make this area less business friendly, and indeed would become a de facto building moratorium.

The hearing lasted approximately 3 hours.

Due to the turnout and number of statements that insufficient time was allowed for review of the proposed plan, the commissioners added two more public hearings: one for October 6, 2004 to be held at Carrie Blake Park in Sequim starting at 6 p.m., and the final one to be held at the county commissioners' meeting on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 at 10 a.m. at the Clallam County Courthouse. All verbal and written testimony must be submitted by that date. It is likely that the commissioners will make a decision on the matter the same day.