|
Proposed Clean Water District Brief Backgrounder: When the presentation began, Andy Brastad, Clallam County "staff" (and member of the DRMT), warned that the listeners shouldn't be "too judgmental" about the information given. Steve Tharinger stated that this is the "single most cataclysmic event" on the Peninsula. We also learned that this is a brainchild of the Dungeness River Management Team (DRMT). Not too long into the presentation by various agency people (some of whom are also members of the DRMT), we heard it said that this is really about a "long term commitment to environmental stewardship" (Brastad), and "someone could bring a lawsuit against the county for not creating a district" (fear tactics) (Brastad). Nitrates are "bad for small children" when they eat shellfish that's undercooked. (Valerie Wilson, Clallam County "staff" and member of the DRMT). Duh! (Fear tactics). Show me one child who has gotten sick from eating cooked shellfish in our area! "We're talking about changing landscape." (Wilson again). There are "...more rooftops, more driveways...we 'hardening' our landscape. We're changing the way our water moves.." The problem is an "increasing population." Ahh, there it is! It's us PEOPLE who are causing the problem. Bill Thomas (mayor of Sequim and member of the DRMT) wants the Clean Water District promoted. He offered a look at the "global picture," assuming that we're running out of "clean" water. Following are ideas for a response to the proposed Clean Water District ordinance. Click here to read the ordinance. The ordinance is missing Exhibit "B", which we have not had opportunity to see as yet. Following are some of the statements made at the Commissioner's Hearing held at 10 a.m. on May 8, 2001: Facts are Flawed The "facts" that are stated as reasoning behind passing this ordinance are flawed. Statement #4 says "The Washington State Department of Health has determined that degradation of Dungeness Bay water quality is 'primarily due to nonpoint sources of water pollution.'" This is stated as a fact; yet when questioned at the Wednesday night meeting, there were no facts or hard data presented to back this statement up. Instead, there were statements "maybe's", "perhaps", and "don't know's", though about supposed nonpoint source pollution. Further, when questioned by a member of the "audience", they admitted that no research had been done on the bivalves, which by their nature, eat bacteria. No research had been done on the huge numbers of ducks and sea lions near the Bay, either. The use of "modeling" was given as one of the main methods of determining where fecal coliform is "possibly" coming from, but "modeling" begins with a conceptual model, and as it goes along, they must "refine assumptions and recognize limitations" to the modeling process, according to Dr. Jack Rensel, one of the presenters on Wednesday night. We suggest that before such a draconian measure is taken, where such a huge area of land - and the people on that land - are encumbered by more rules and more regulations - that these studies first be completed to determine if perhaps the real reason for the so-called pollution may be caused by the more obvious sources. Nonpoint Source Pollution The whole idea of "nonpoint source pollution" is based on supposed high levels of "fecal coliform", which can INDICATE the POSSIBLE presence of water-borne pathogens. Further, according to a study being done at Duke Marine Lab, Dr. William W. Kirby-Smith stated that fecal coliform die off before they can travel long distances, so the sources responsible for contamination of a specific shellfish area are LOCAL. He is developing a strategy for reopening shellfish areas small site by small site, focusing on local site-specific factors. What a concept! Unelected planners given too much power - again! Item #5 gives the Clallam County Department of Community Development (an unelected bureaucracy) FULL POWERS for "providing programs to remedy nonpoint surface pollution as it exists in unincorporated Clallam County," in addition to "providing management of on-site sewage systems." There are already sufficient regulations in place for sewage systems that fail; there is no reason for "planners" to "provide management" for people that can manage their own systems. There have been VERY FEW cases of failed sewage systems, and with education, people will usually rise to the occasion of taking care of their systems properly. Area to be covered "unincorporated Clallam County"? The main concern to us, however, is the "providing program to remedy nonpoint surface pollution as it exists in unincorporated Clallam County." Unincorporated Clallam County goes far beyond even the proposed Clean Water District boundaries - it covers the same area as the Critical Areas Code. This is an expansion that is uncalled for. We grow suspicious that the intent of this ordinance is really to encumber a far broader area that is even designated under the proposed map. Further, how can they "provide programs to remedy nonpoint surface pollution", when no one knows what nonpoint surface pollution" is! Steve Tharinger stated Wednesday night that "no-point pollution is not knowing what the problem is" that is causing "high fecal coliform". Are they going to 'guess', and create programs that further degrade the rights of the people to use their property as they wish? Apparently so, when they offer the "fact" (NOT!) that it comes mainly from human activities. What is the REAL purpose behind this type of legislation?? These nonpoint source pollution 'programs' are going on all over our nation - just go on the internet and type "nonpoint source pollution" into your search engine and see what comes up! It's page after page - all across the country. The better solution, in my opinion, would be to create the minimum required Shellfish Protection District, which was suggested by the State biologist, then wait for results to come in where they are testing elsewhere. An unconstitutional ordinance? The ordinance contains two subjects, which is in violation of our Home Rule Charter. The ordinance reads, "It is important to PROTECT SHELLFISH (1), it is equally important to PROTECT OTHER BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER (2). In the use of the English language, an "AND" would be understood where the comma is placed, since there are two distinct "protects" in the sentence - creating a compound sentence with TWO SUBJECTS. The RCW quoted, Chapter 90.72, states: "Shellfish District" directs the County to establish a [Shellfish] District within 180 days of such a downgrade and establish a program to address the reason(s) for the downgrade. This ordinance goes WAY BEYOND the requirement by law Establishing a "Clean Water District" is NOT establishing a "Shellfish District"; it goes way beyond dealing with Shellfish problems. A program to address the reason(s) for the downgrade has been discussed earlier, with the ducks, etc. There is no reason to go so far beyond the requirement of the law. If the county wishes to establish a separate Clean Water District to address water quality issues, it should do so under a separate ordinance, with plenty of opportunity for individuals to research this highly disputed measure and come forward with their own evidence. Proposed ordinance in its entirety unavailable until day of public hearing May 7, 2001 - The proposed ordinance calls for the adoption of "the Clean Water Strategy for Addressing Fecal Coliform in the Dungeness Bay Watershed" - Exhibit "B". Where is this document? I haven't seen it - and neither has the public. Who wrote it and where does it come from? Why are the people - who will eventually PAY for this "Clean Water Strategy" - left in the dark about its contents? What kind of representative government IS this? ---------------------------------- May 8, 2001 - On several occasions prior to the hearing, the Exhibit "B" which was described on the proposed ordinance was not available for public review. Despite efforts to get it beforehand, the document was finally made available at the hearing. No time was allowed for the review of this lengthy, 25+ page document. It is unconscionable that a hearing is even held until citizens have been given proper notice and have a copy of the complete proposed ordinance to review PRIOR TO the public hearing. How can a citizen come to a hearing prepared to make statements when they don't even know what the proposed ordinance contains!!?? This is WRONG! Conflicting Statements At the Wednesday "presentation," Commissioner /DRMT Chair Tharinger stated that the basic issue here is "clean water for the Dungeness Valley." At the following Monday workshop, he stated "The whole point is COMMERCIAL SHELLFISH; this is not a public health issue." Which is it Mr. Tharinger? Questioning the role of the DRMT As it stands now, it appears that the Dungeness River Management Team (DRMT) is the only entity coming forth with these ideas for changing the title of the ordinance, and expanding its borders. The DMRT is supposed to be an "advisory" group only. It would appear that they are much more than that, when they are obviously setting policy for our county. "The DRMT says we should be 'pro-active' in our Clean Water District" (Brastad, who is Clallam County "staff" and also a member of the DRMT). The propaganda that was foisted on the public in the name of "education" Wednesday night was presently primarily by the agency representatives that sit on that "Team". The public at large is not represented at all - and are in fact, called "audience" when they appear at the regular DRMT meetings, and given a total of 3 minutes at the END of their meeting to comment. Equal time and funding for opposition to present their case Clear, accurate and timely information has not been given to the citizens in this matter, which is the foundation of a sound and accountable water quality program, according to the Action Plan of the federal Clean Water Initiative, an offspring of the Clean Water Act. "Informed citizens and officials make better decisions about their watersheds," I quote from former President Clinton's Action Plan, which was put into place in 1995 and has not been revoked. I would submit that the citizens who are opposed to the Clean Water District be given equal time and equal funding to present their case as those who were proponents received in their Wednesday night presentation. We would be interested to know just how much of our tax dollars was spent in that presentation, along with all the various brochures and literature that was around the tables. It would behoove the county commissioners to get BOTH sides of the issue before passing another ordinance that will encumber the people of this county even more than they already are! Call for constitutional form of government to be adhered to We object to this form of "government by consensus and by unelected agencies and special interest groups, including the tribes" without proper representation of the constituents. That's the job of the county commissioners, who are elected for this purpose. We would call for the disbanding of the DRMT, and the creation of true citizen advisory boards, made up of citizens, not bureaucrats who want to rule our lives, and who don't even live here! We object to Commissioner Steve Tharinger's voting in regard to this issue, inasmuch as he also holds the chair of the DRMT . I submit that it is conflict of interest, since this whole "Clean Water District" is the brainchild of the DRMT and Mr. Tharinger. How could he possibly vote in a fair manner to his constituents, when he obviously has already made his choice in participating in the creation of it in the first place?! Mr. Tharinger stated, and we quote: "We need to have some sort of district; we're leaning toward a Clean Water District." Did he say this wearing his hat as county commissioner or as chair of the DRMT? Oversight and enforcement by unelected "planners" and NGO's Further, the "overseers" of this "Strategy" include the DCD - already known to wreak havoc through the oversight and enforcement of the Critical Areas Code, based on their "interpretation" - are joined by multiple other agencies and the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, which has its own agenda about reducing "human land uses" by controlling them. Their 2000 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan states that "watershed plan elements that...control...local land-use programs." (p56) Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team - the next step up from the DRMT - also states that "watershed management committees" will "select regulatory, voluntary and/or educational approaches for addressing nonpoint pollution in the watershed. If regulatory programs are chosen, adequate enforcement must be provided..." The way this ordinance is worded, the choices and decisions will be left in the hands of bureaucrats over whom the citizens HAVE NO CONTROL. They will have full control - as do the "code enforcement officers" for the Critical Areas Code do now - over what people can and can't do on their property. As we have already experienced under the CAC, draconian measures can be and have been taken by these unelected planners. You've already read stories in the newspapers about several of this individuals who have been hurt by all this; for every one story in the paper, we've heard dozens more! The County Commissioners are the elected officials to whom we as citizens are supposed to be able to turn - yet, as with the CAC - we are unable to under the "rules". Constitution stands for individual rights - not for "common good" Our nation was founded upon the idea of a "constitutional republican" form of government. In fact, this is what our constitution sets out - and it gives citizens certain rights under it - which rights are being trampled in favor of the "common good" - another term for socialism. We must object. Should you decide to go against wishes of constituents and vote on this anyway... In closing, We suggest that the name of the area under investigation keep its original name as designated by the RCW that commands that it be created: The Dungeness Bay Shellfish Protection District. In the event you choose to disregard the best interest of the voters of this county (and believe me, we will remember the actions you take against us today), I would submit that you pass an ordinance where the area covered by the District be confined to the immediate area where shellfish pollution is a problem, with a 1 year sunset clause. That would be "in compliance" with the State's "mandate", which seems to be the express reason that this ordinance is being pushed through so quickly, with only one hearing at a time of day when most people are working and can't attend, instead of having hearings in the evening when more voices of the people who will be encumbered by this ordinance can be heard by their elected officials. Conversation with Don
Melvin, Biologist May 3, 2001 Once against, a "crisis has arisen" The fecal coliform e-coli levels are too high! How much is too high? What actually are the numbers? No one at the Wednesday presentation said exactly what they were. If, since 1997, the Sequim Bay and Dungeness Bay have had an ongoing intermittent problem with fecal coliform e-coli, then the county is remiss for not bringing this to the voters as per RCW 90.72.040, which calls for the option of legislation or voter creation. That same portion of the chapter describes in detail how to abolish the same district. Obviously, the legislature realized in 1992 the need to remove the newly crated district when it was no longer needed. Following is a telephone conversion between Bob Forde, citizen with Don Melvin, biologist for the Washington State Department of Health. Bob: Don, just what are the actual FDA standards? Don: 30 sample results over 3-4 year period using two methods: lst: the geometric mean. IE 6 newest samples replace the 6 oldest samples. 2nd: We then take the 90 percentile to determine actual levels. Bob: So they vary from time to time? Don: Yes. Bob: So just what is the FDA number you must hit. Don: 14 ppm per 100 mililiters of water. Bob: Isn't that a very tight standard? Don: Yes, very, but that's what it is. Bob: How long does the bacteria live in salt water? Don: Depending on water temperature and light, from 24 to 72 hours. Bob: If I were way up in the mountains and were to drink water from a stream, what levels of fecal coliform e-coli might I find, or what would be acceptable? Don: I don't think you should drink from such a stream because you might get giardia. It would be hard to say what other bacteria levels you might find. Bob: Well, give me some reasonable level. Much of what I hear from Lynn Muench, Valerie Wilson and other officials from the county and tribe that it's human disturbance and people, rooftops, road surfaces, failed septic systems. Mostly humans. So what levels would be reasonable? Don: Let me tell you an experience I had. Do you know where Lilliput is? (Yes.) We found high levels of fecal coliform e-coli in the bay. We checked water samples all the way up to a high alpine meadow that had water on it. That area has no human development anywhere near it; yet the fecal coliform e coli counts were 200-300 ppm. The proposed district area is the same boundary as the Dungeness River Management Team (DRMT). The actual size of the affected area need only be the salt water tide lands per RCW 90.72.030. But the county wants a huge area to be called a "Clean Water District", not a "shellfish district" as 90.72 calls for. The DRMT has a tremendous influence on the county decision-making process. It's been called "pro active" by Mr. Tharinger. I submit that Mr. Tharinger, being chair of the DRMT, and the DRMT has gone from an advisory committee to a shadow government, dictating policy to the Board. I further request that Mr. Tharinger disqualify himself from voting on this proposed District because he is in conflict with dual roles as chair of the DRMT and County Commissioner. Modify this proposed District to the two Bay areas, Dungeness and Sequim Bay, and put a sunset for this District of 36 months. Re-visit this in 36 months. You have said you have grant money now, but that will run out someday, and you will tax property owner as required by 90.72.070. |