Proposed Clean Water District brings heated comments

by Peter J. Ripley

(Port Angeles, WA) Two County Commissioners were in the proverbial hot seat during a public hearing about whether or not to form a Dungeness Watershed Clean Water District at the Clallam County Commissioner's meeting and hearing held on Tuesday, May 8, 2001.

The reasoning for this proposed Dungeness Water District, according to the "facts and finding" of the proposed ordinance was as follows:

1) The Washington State Department of Health on April 25th, 2000 officially downgraded the classification of the commercial shellfish growing area within Dungeness Bay.
2) RCW Chapter 90.72, “Shellfish District” directs the county to establish a District within 180 days of such a downgrade.
3) It is important to protect shellfish, it is equally important to protect other beneficial uses of water. Recognizing this, the district will be called the Dungeness Sequim Bay Watershed Clean Water District.
4) The Washington State Department of Health has determined that degradation of Dungeness Bay water quality is primarily due to non point sources of water pollution.
5) The Clallam County Department of Community Development is responsible for providing management of on-site sewage systems and programs to remedy non-point surface pollution as it exists in unincorporated Clallam County.
6) Dungeness Bay and Sequim Bay contain commercial and recreational shellfish growing areas in Clallam County.
7) Non-point water pollution sources, including (but not limited to) agricultural surface water runoff and failing on-site septic systems, threaten the public health and safety of consuming shellfish harvested within Dungeness Bay watershed.
8. Sequim Bay is subject to many of the same non-point fecal coliform pollution.

Those were the "facts and findings"  laid out in the proposed ordinance. The district boundaries will run (if the county approves the ordinance), from Bagley Creek east to and including the Sequim Bay Watershed. This encompasses the Dungeness and Graywolf rivers, creeks of Bagley, McDonald, Matriotti, Meadowbrook, Cooper, Cassalery, Gierin, Bell, Johnson, Dean, Jimmycomelately, Chicken Coop and their tributaries.

Most of the support of the ordinance came from various environmental groups, some federal, state, and special interest. These included The Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, The Sequim Dungeness Valley Agricultural Water Users Association, Washington Dept. of Health, United States Dept. of Interior, WA State Department of Ecology,  Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, and the Dungeness River Management Team (DRMT) (which County Commissioner Steve Tharinger-D, chairs).

All these groups sent letters of support, including the DRMT which read: “The DRMT forwards their recommendations to the Clallam County Commissioners which includes the following three points:

1) That the boundaries of the Shellfish Protection district be the same as the boundaries of the DRMT’s area of geographic focus as approved in the May 2000 meeting. Note, this letter was sent to the County Commission on October of last year. The letter continues; “ this will enable work to proceed in the areas of greatest need at the present time.

2) That the district be called a Clean Water District. This will cover the full range of water quality problems being experienced in the DRMT’s geographic focus area.

3) That the Clallam County Commissioners provide stable funding for the Clean Water District as soon as practical. As an immediate step, that the Commissioners fund the following in the current budget: 1) monies for the Conservation District to assist with the reduction of pollution related to farming and other activities, 2) two Environmental health staff positions in the County to formulate and administer the needed improvements to the septic systems in this area, and 3) a special prosecutor concerned with the Department of Community Development’s need for enforcement of laws concerning environmental violations.”

During the meeting Tuesday, the issue of possible conflict of interest was brought by several citizens as they spoke, due in part that Commissioner Tharinger was still the Chair of the DRMT back in October of 2000. Commissioner Tharinger denies that he was in conflict of interest because he voted against the sending of DRMT’s letter of support back in October of 2000, because he is and was the chair, and involvement over the issue, one must note that his signature did not appear on the letter. 

One of those who were opposed to the formation of the Clean Water District Bob Forde read the following statement saying, “The proposed district area is the same boundary as the Dungeness
River Management Team. The actual size of the affected area need only be the salt water tide lands according to the RCW. Commissioner Tharinger said on Monday, the whole point of the District is commercial shellfish.” 

“But the county wants a huge area to be called a ‘Clean Water District’, not a ‘shellfish district’ as the RCW 92.72 calls for", Forde continued. "The DRMT has a tremendous influence on the county decision-making process. It’s been called ‘pro-active’ by Commissioner 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 Commissioner 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 the RCW 90.72.070,” Mr. Forde concluded.

There were other objections from those who were there about the proposed District, such as Richard Kott of Port Angeles. He read the following statement: “The proposal to established the Sequim Bay Dungeness Watershed Clean Water District as shown is flawed and needs revision and review before it is adopted. “ Mr. Kott listed in his statement three points which the county is urged to adopt:

1. That the Clallam County Commissioners unequivocally determine that necessary water protection for the Dungeness Watershed cannot be achieved within existing regulations and with existing staff without forming the proposed Clean Water District.

2. The Dungeness Watershed be defined by the natural surface drainage to the Dungeness River and Sequim Bay and specifically exclude lands lying outside of this area whose surface drainage is to other bodies of water.

3. That if the Dungeness Watershed Clean Watershed Clean Water District that no taxes will be levied on the residents of the District in support of the activities of the District. 

Mr. Kott offered the suggested alternative resolution for the Commission to consider: That if the Dungeness Watershed Clean Water District is formed is formed that no taxes will be levied on the residents of the District without a vote of the residents of the District and that such vote in favor of taxes will be approved by a 60% majority of these residents. (Presently taxes may be levied by the Commissioners to cover the cost of the new District without input from citizens.) Mr. Kott, closed with, “Furthermore, if the District is formed I specifically request that its western boundary be adjusted to the east to exclude Bagley and Siebert's Creeks drainages.”

Still another member of the large audience voiced his opposition of the Water District. Steve Marble, elected commissioner for the Clallam Conservation District,  read the following to the Commission, “I speak in opposition to the ordinance for a ‘clean water district.’ Rather than expand the intent of the shellfish taxing districts by renaming, refocusing, expanding boundaries, and hypothesizing sources of problems, a shellfish district should be established in the area the shellfish. The focus should be on identifying the sources. 

"Suspected sources of non-point pollution have already been subjected to continual ratcheting down through regulations and a plethora of programs," Marble continued. "Septic design, permitting, inspection, and education have undergone radical changes in the past ten years. The conservation district has fenced miles of now piping streams. Best farm and forestry practices undergo intense scrutiny. The ongoing activities addressing non-point solutions don’t need yet another piece of bureaucracy to compete for tax dollars. What this ordinance is about is increasing administration, leaving less money on the ground where something might actually be accomplished. The proposed ‘clean water district’ was thought up by the DRMT, which is billed as citizens group but, in reality, is a group non-representative of the voters, hand picked to move agency agendas. Without debate, the DRMT was designated as the WRIA 18 Watershed committee with whatever duties, authorities, and prestige these additional responsibilities involve.

"It now appears the DRMT aspires to become the Clean Water District committee. How many water committees do we need different for the same piece of ground? Please consider the consequences of public policy pushing environmental initiatives based on inaccuracies and flawed assumptions. Please say no to this clean water district,” Mr. Marble concluded.

The second Commissioner who was on the hot seat with some was the freshman County Commissioner Mike Chapman-R. Apparently, there were some wanting the "Clean Water Strategy", which was referred to in the original proposed ordinance two-page document as Exhibit "B", but was not attached to it for review. The following letter, which was e-mailed by Susan Forde, best explains the issue. She wrote,” Bob went to the courthouse today and requested a copy of Exhibit "B" to the ordinance.  He got the run-around; they told him that the ordinance "was" Exhibit B!  Quite impossible, of course. I finally got hold of Mike Chapman (he was in meetings all day and didn't return my call until quarter til 5).  He told me he'd just received a copy of the "Strategy" (Exhibit "B") over the weekend, and hadn't had time to read it yet! I asked if he would fax it to me, but he said he couldn't as it is approximately 50 pages - and he had to leave for the evening.  Apparently the document itself has a date of November 21, 2000, according to Commissioner Chapman.

"What is IN this document that they don't want us to see before we speak to the proposed ordinance??!!??" the email questioned.  

"I believe the hearing should be postponed until citizens have an opportunity to review and ask questions about this proposed ordinance which will encompass such a huge area, and about which there are many unanswered questions in the first place.  Commissioner Chapman assured me that the hearing would NOT be postponed. They may not vote on the issue tomorrow, he said." the email stated.

"Is this the "new, collaborative effort by federal, state, tribal, and local governments; the public; and the private sector" that is supposed to take place under the "watershed approach?"  Looks to me like the "public" is being left out of the equation!!" the email concluded.

There were others who were upset getting the run- around from the Commissioner’s office regarding obtaining the information they wanted: some were even accusing Commissioner Chapman and the staff as being less then honest with them. 

During the meeting however, Commissioner Chapman-R said, “I take full blame for this misunderstanding, and I apologize for causing this, and to make amends, I suggest that the public have more time to study and given the chance to comment further.” The Commissioners agreed to allow written comments be sent until the following Monday at 5 p.m., The Commissioners will then  hold a work session within a week, paving the way for a possible adoption of the proposed ordinance in two weeks.

Peter Ripley publishes The Port Angeles Journal.  Excerpts from the above article appear in the P.A. Journal  for the week ending 5/13/01. Reprinted with permission.