It seems to me that most of the individuals who testified at the hearing on Monday, May 8, 2001 in favor of the proposed ordinance C.C.C. 27.16 Shellfish Protection District (aka Clean Water District) were related, directly or indirectly, to organizations which would stand to benefit by the passage of the ordinance, both monetarily, and in power.  It was stated numerous times that "grants" would fund the new district, at least until they run out.

On the other hand, the majority of those individuals who spoke against the proposed ordinance as written were taxpayers/landowners and people who work in the private sector rather than being paid by government in some way or another.  In other words, the people who would "foot the bill" for the proposed ordinance.  (Government grants are tax dollars, too, you know.)

There are sufficient laws, ordinances, codes, rules and regulations now without adding another layer of bureaucracy - with the monitoring and enforcement to go with it.  The public hearing was also set at a time and date that most working people couldn't come to it - and there have been many people I've talked to that would have liked to speak.  If it weren't for the fact that I took notes during the meeting and was able to relate to them an accurate picture, they would have relied on the daily newspaper's account, and not thought much of the whole thing.

I object to the fact that the Exhibit "B" -Clean Water Strategy For Addressing Fecal Coliform In Dungeness Bay and Watershed -was not readily available to citizens until the day of the hearing, and even now, is missing page number 18.  Wonder what's on that page?

I object to Commissioner Tharinger voting on this issue, inasmuch as there appears to be a conflict of interest (even he said there is a "perceived" conflict of interest, and that's why he didn't vote at the Dungeness River Management Team meeting.  He should also abstain from voting as a county commissioner.  He was the apparent facilitator of the public information meeting from what I gather from the Gazette's article on Wednesday (although I was not present at that one).  It was obvious to me from that report that the Clean Water District is a "done deal", and the meeting was just to fill people in on the details.  The article stated nowhere that the proposed District far exceeds the geographical boundaries set by the RCW.

I object to going ahead with such a broad area of land, with a supposition that the cause of shellfish problems is "nonpoint source pollution."  In looking over Exhibit "B" - the "Strategy", it appears to incorporate far more than the requirement by the state law which addresses "commercial shellfish".  The proposed ordinance blames everything from "humans" to "hobby farms" to "runoff from pavement" (all sounds like "humans" to me!).

I object to the suppositions being made about "nonpoint source pollution" when there is no clear consensus on what it is or what causes it.  It seems to me that the person Mr. Marble referred to with a database about such things should be called on, to obtain more information before proceeding.

I object to a "special interest group" overseeing, monitoring and implementing this "watershed approach".  The members of the Dungeness River Management Team have not been elected by the people who will be bearing the brunt of this proposed ordinance, except for Mr. Tharinger, who has stated that he has not involved himself in this particular instance.  I wonder about this so-called "watershed approach".  From what I've read, it sounds like socialism to me.

I understand that you must pass an ordinance in order to comply with the state's mandate.  I believe there was a major oversight in not addressing this issue when it first came to light, months ago - when it could have been brought to the voters.  It makes me wonder about the reason this happened - perhaps the voters/taxpayers are not important enough or smart enough to make a decision on this matter at the polls?  I certainly heard a lot of well-qualified citizens speak on Monday.

I therefore recommend that you amend to the proposed ordinance to comply with the state's mandate with the least amount of area covered, the least amount of funding required, and use that funding to further study the issue at the source of the pollution problem (if there really is one!).  That means doing away with C.C.C.27.16.02, paragraphs 4 through 8; doing away with C.C.C.27.16.03 changing the name to the Clean Water District (and immensely broadening the scope of the whole ordinance); change C.C.C.27.16.04 (district boundaries) to describe only the boundaries of the Dungeness Bay and Sequim Bay as necessary based on the actual closures; do away with C.C.C.27.16.05 in its entirety; and do away with C.C.C.27.16.06 - the "strategy" with its broad statements and onerous rules.

Keep it simple - and keep the best interests of your constituents in mind in this endeavor, instead of bowing to the higher powers' desires for more control of the people.

Thank you.

Very truly yours,