Following are a number of reasons that the proposed so-called "Clean Water District" aka "Shellfish Protection District" #C.C.C.27.16 should not be passed as it is written:

1.  Violation of full disclosure - Exhibit "B" not available to the public for review prior to date of hearing.  Exhibit "B" refers to the "Clean Water Strategy for Addressing Fecal Coliform in the Dungeness Bay Watershed", and is comprised of approximately 50 pages, although at this writing, it has not been made available for review by citizens, even when asked for at staff, and staff responded by saying that the "draft (2 pages) WAS Exhibit "B". (Later the Exhibit was handed out at the public hearing, and consisted of 33 pages, with page 18 missing.  

2.  Dungeness River Management Team, (Steve Tharinger, Chair) dictates policy to the county commission, and wants the Clean Water District to match their boundaries when the RCW calls for the saltwater shellfish area to be protected, and nonpoint source pollution sources to be discovered. The DRMT is funded by public money, and therefore required to comply with the Public Disclosure Act.

3.  County Commissioner Tharinger should recuse himself from this vote due to an apparent conflict of interest, as he also holds the chair of the Dungeness River Management Team, whose idea it is for the formation of a "Clean Water District" encompassing the territory already covered by the DRMT watershed boundaries.  Mr. Tharinger cannot possibly represent the people in this matter, since he is already representing the DRMT and promoting its agenda. Further, the "watchdog" agency will be the a subcommittee of the DRMT, per Mr. Tharinger.

4.  Two subject violation.  The Clallam County Home Rule Charter and the State Constitution limits an ordinance to "one subject".  This ordinance obviously contains TWO subjects.  The title calls the ordinance a "Shellfish Protection District," and addresses the need as required by RCW 90.72.  IN ADDITION, the proposed ordinance call for the "protection of other beneficial uses of water" - a totally different subject - then calls for the creation of a Clean Water District to encompass the two subjects.

5.  Of the so-called "facts" that are stated in the proposed ordinance, only three are actually "fact" - the balance is "theory" - admitted as theory and supposition on the part of the "experts" who presented the pro-Clean Water District presentation on May 3 at the Carrie Blake Center.

6.  This proposed ordinance has not been properly presented and heard by the citizens of Clallam County, including the citizen's representatives on the Planning Commission. It was presented to the people from one point of view only, totally disregarding the opposing point of view. How can a fair and honest decision be made about the ordinance when only one side of the issue is offered?