Conservation district supervisor
 opposes proposed 
Clean Water District

by Steve Marble

Clallam County, WA - 5/10/01 - I am in opposition to the ordinance for a ‘Clean Water District’. Rather than expand the intent of the shellfish taxing districts by renaming, refocusing, and expanding boundaries, a shellfish district should be restricted to the area of the shellfish problem. The focus should be on identifying the sources.

An agriculture newspaper out of Oregon, The Capital Press, recently ran an article about the lower Snake River where, similarly to Dungeness Bay, water quality problems are experienced. Conventional wisdom there had farm animals as the prime culprit. A professor from the University of Washington who specializes in bacteria DNA testing, the same technology used by the forensic experts in court, determined that wild birds, specifically ducks and geese, were the largest contributor to the lower Snake River water quality problem. Humans and their pets placed second, while the maligned farm animals rated a distant third.

Non-point pollution suspects have been subjected to continual ratcheting down through regulations and a plethora of programs. Septic design, permitting, inspection, and education have undergone radical changes in the past ten years. The Conservation District has fenced miles of streams. Now they’re piping irrigation laterals. Best farm and forestry management practices undergo intense scrutiny. These efforts will continue, with or without a Clean Water District.

Ongoing activities addressing non-point pollution don’t need yet another piece of bureaucracy to compete for tax dollars. The Clallam Conservation District has curbed staff involvement with the myriad of committees purporting to protect the water. Funding is lacking for an already over burdened staff to fill committee assignments; a full time employee could be occupied just attending meetings. If the funding were available, aren’t there more productive ways to spend public money?

The proposed clean water district’s chief promoter is the Dungeness River Management Team (DRMT). The DRMT is billed as a citizens advisory committee but, in realty, is a group non-representative of the voters with members hand picked, primarily, from the grant/agency community. Without debate the DRMT was designated as the WRIA 18 Watershed committee with whatever duties, authorities, and prestige these additional responsibilities involve. One of their current projects is to expand their territory eastward to include part of WRIA 17. Now it appears the DRMT also aspires to become the Clean Water District, too.

How many water committees does one piece of geography need? What more will be accomplished? Maybe the failed natural resource management philosophy requiring yet more committees and yet more meetings should be re-thought. Science is a process whereby observation leads to a hypothesis that is tested. Status quo natural resource management is hypothesis derived through consensus committee, then treated as fact.

What the clean water ordinance is about is increasing administration, leaving less money on the ground where something might actually be accomplished. A Clean Water District is an unwelcome detraction from ongoing efforts to address non-point pollution. Hopefully, our county commissioners will consider the consequences of public policy pushing environmental initiatives based on inaccuracies and flawed assumptions. Let’s hope they say ‘no’ to the clean water ordinance.

Steve Marble, is conservation district supervisor, holds a BS in biology (oceanography) and realtor active with in state land use issues.