Ecology tackles watershed management

The following article appeared in the August 15, 2007 edition of the Port Townsend and Jefferson County Leader. 

---

Ecology tackles watershed management

By Lyndie Browning, Leader Staff Writer

The name of the game: People, Farms and Fish. The object: to involve the community as the state Department of Ecology (DOE) moves forward in developing an instream flow rule for a water management plan.

The game board, in this case, is Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 17 - an area that covers much of East Jefferson County.
Oh, and don't forget the main rule of the game. If at all possible, make sure there is enough water for everybody - people, farms and fish - while also considering future development needs.

As a key player in this game, Special Assistant to the Director for Water Policy Joe Stohr took the microphone in hand to start the July 31 community forum at Chimacum High School.

"Tonight is a sort of combination platter," Stohr said. "You're going to learn some new information and be allowed to ask questions or make comments on the material."

Thus the game began.

The basics

Over the course of his presentation, Stohr discussed a wealth of watershed-related information. He started out with basic questions: Why do we need this instream flow rule? Why do we need to manage our watershed at all?

According to Stohr, water management is necessary to protect senior rights and instream resources, to meet demand for new uses and to address reliability and flexibility of water supply. Instream resources - a term which makes most people think "salmon" - are officially defined as fish and wildlife, navigation, aesthetics, water quality and livestock watering. All of these needs must be considered as part of the new instream flow rule.
Also pressing is the issue of future development. Jefferson County has seen considerable development in the past 25 years - and expects continued growth. Since 1980, more than 1,000 building permits were issued in the Quimper sub-basin. Nearly 1,400 permits were issued in the Hadlock sub-basin. Vacant lots, ready for development, are abundant.

The instream flow rule hopes to meet the needs of future residents and industry while still respecting senior water rights.

Quimper, Chimacum

These, clearly, are high goals - but what about the nitty-gritty? Stohr recognized that Jefferson County residents are most concerned about how the instream flow rule might impact them.

WRIA 17 is divided into 10 sub-basins. Each sub-basin has a distinct set of management challenges and possibilities - a fact that Stohr emphasized repeatedly, although he did not specifically state that each basin would be managed differently. It remains to be seen whether the instream flow rule will be a nuanced, region-specific plan, or general to all of WRIA 17.

The Quimper sub-basin is an area of past rapid growth and high future growth potential. (The high future growth estimate is based on extent of vacant lots.) Because of Quimper's large amount of coastline - and concentration of development along the coast - exempt wells are especially susceptible to seawater intrusion.

The area served by municipal water in Quimper is considerable. This water is drawn from the Quilcene sub-basin - which, if Quimper continues its rapid growth patterns, might raise issues of priority in the future.

The Chimacum sub-basin faces different concerns. Chimacum Creek is a naturally low-flow system, and it appears at this point that water rights have been over-allocated. In other words, more rights have been issued than there is water to supply them.

However, since there is still water in the creek, documented water rights clearly do not reflect actual use. They are inaccurate and must be revisited. By law, if a water right is not being used, it becomes invalid. Reviewing the validity of water rights would lead to a more accurate estimate of water use and might even open up water rights for junior users.

The Ludlow sub-basin, like Quimper, has seen rapid growth. Like Quimper, it also contains a number of coastal wells that might face danger of saltwater intrusion. Because of a high vacant lot capacity, there is concern that the public system may lack sufficient water rights to meet demand. This high demand might endanger senior water rights.

The Quilcene sub-basin has experienced low population growth but high demand for water due to diversion to Quimper.
Global warming

After Stohr's presentation, audience members voiced concerns about the status and future of WRIA 17. One of the most frequently commented upon topics was global warming.

Since the DOE has not yet reviewed some of the instream flow rules put in place 20 years ago - the department is still trying to get instream flow rules in place in the 60-plus WRIAs across the state - audience members recognized that a long-term plan is vital.

Norm MacLeod later voiced this concern to the county commissioners at the Aug. 6 meeting.

"If you don't have snowpack for three to four years in a row and you don't have storage, you don't have fish," MacLeod said. "You're not going to survive in the long run."

Stohr will no longer be spearheading the development of the WRIA 17 instream flow rule. He is taking a position as deputy director, chief of operations at Fish and Wildlife. Southwest Regional Director Dick Wallace and Southwest Region Supervisor Tom Loranger will be taking Stohr's place in the WRIA 17 project.

DOE welcomes citizen comments and concerns. Stohr stated, "We're available to meet with citizen groups - or to meet one-on-one, have coffee, whatever."

There will be another public meeting in the fall.

"We want to work together to build solutions," Stohr said.
For more information, visit water.jefferson.wsu.edu.

(Contact Lyndie Browning at lynda.browning@gmail.com)

WRIA 17 instream flow rule-making process update

News releases concerning the instream flow rule will begin appearning in our local newspapers in a couple of weeks.  The WRIA 17 Planning Unit will be seeing the drafts prior to the information being published in the papers.

We should be seeing the first public meetings on the process sometime in April, and more substantive meetings will be taking place starting closer to summer.

The following information was sent to The Olympic Water Users Association by Tom Anderson, who is the lead on the Department of Ecology's WRIA 17 instream flow rule-making process.  He was providing information for the community in response to questions asked by members of the OWUA.

"I left your meeting last month with requests for answers to two questions. What follows is what I have learned and I offer it as the best information I was able to obtain with a reasonable amount of effort.

On the question about the flip charts I learned that:

“Tom: Here is what happened. The agency conducted two workshops and met with the planning commission at least once. Evidently flipcharts were used to gather comments, etc. as to concerns over draft rule ideas.  Staff took those flipcharts back to the office, modified the draft rule as they saw fit, and discarded the flip charts. So, starting with the Nov. 10 legislators meeting, documentation was developed and shared with all parties interested.  Transcripts were made available for the Nov. 10 meeting and summaries of flipchart notes were distributed for our ad hoc planning meetings to develop a flow rule RFP for contract help (you guys).”

"If there are further questions about the flip charts I would be glad to push this further if in asking the question you can give me clarity as to the value of doing so."

"The other question was about the expenditure of $750,000 for the instream flow effort. No one the I was able to track down at Ecology could recognize this exact figure. The best accounting of money spent to date that I was able to come up with is:"

“Hi Tom - First of all, I think folks are confused as to where the WRIA planning money has been spent.  Perhaps it's the current instream flow-focus that has made some people believe that's all the Planning Unit has been doing this past 7 years.  In fact only about one third of the funds we have provided to date have gone primarily to support instream flow work.

Here's my best recollection of the funding WRIA 17 has received since it began comprehensive watershed planning under RCW 90.82:

$500,000 Watershed Planning, base grant.  That went to organizing the Planning Unit, developing the required watershed status report (Level 1 Technical Assessment) and the development of the required comprehensive watershed plan.  Major expenditures included:

• $140,000 - USGS surface/groundwater study of Chimacum, Tarboo and Big and Little Quilcene.
• $75,000 - Parametrix Level 1 Technical Assessment
• $36,000 - Triangle Associates for meeting facilitation
• $145,000 - Sound Resolutions for meeting facilitation and project management
• $60,000 - Cascadia for drafting the final watershed plan

$100,000 Watershed Planning, Water Quality supplemental grant.  This went to the purchase of a state-of-the-art GPS system the county is using (among other things) to specifically identify areas of seawater intrusion.  This money also went to developing a Water Quality Monitoring Plan for the WRIA.

$60,000 Watershed Planning, Water Storage supplemental grant.  This produced a WRIA 17 Water Supply Storage Alternatives Report by Economic and Engineering Services.

$26,000 Watershed Planning, Instream Flow supplemental grant.  This was used to develop exceedance curves for most major rivers and streams.

$50,000 special grant to the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe to conduct a detailed temperature study of Chimacum Creek and additional habitat and spot flow measurements in Chimacum, Leland, Tarboo and Big and Little Quilcene (to support instream flow technical information).

$3,000 to a local contractor for GIS work to support instream flow setting.

$25,000 special grant to continue facilitation services to the Planning Unit.

$6,000 special grant to Jefferson County to provide for community outreach in support of instream flow setting.

TOTAL OF THE ABOVE $770,000 — ALTHOUGH watershed planning grants total $686,000, with $84,000 coming from other agency accounts."

NOTE THESE NUMBERS DON'T INCLUDE

• HydroLogic Services current contract.
• $15,000 current Planning Unit facilitation grant
• $100,000 Phase 4 - Implementation Grant
• Current USGS study
• Yet to be signed ASR grant.

In summary, you might say the following amounts (totaling $250,000) have been spent in direct support of Instream Flow setting:

WATERSHED PLANNING FUNDS

$140,000 - USGS surface/groundwater study of Chimacum, Tarboo and Big and Little Quilcene.

$26,000 Watershed Planning, Instream Flow supplemental grant.

SPECIAL FUNDING PROVIDED BY ECOLOGY

$50,000 special grant to the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe.

$3,000 to a local contractor for GIS work to support instream flow setting.

$25,000 special grant to continue facilitation services to the Planning Unit.

$6,000 special grant to Jefferson County to provide for community outreach in support of instream flow setting.”

The HSC contract is set to top out at about $150,000. The final bill will depend on whether there are any further changes before we are finished. In addition to the above I learned that there are also discussions about funds for deep Chimacum well, WQ study per Phase 3 plan, and Phase 2 of Chimacum GW study for next biennium. It appears to me that the State has made a significant investment in moving Jefferson County forward on questions about water and is continuing to invest dollars in that process."

If more detail than this is desired or if this does not address the question asked please let me know. 

Tom Anderson
HydroLogic Services Co
360-739-1968"

So, we have some of the answers we've been looking for, and we're a long way from getting to where we will have a good indication as to the final form of the instream flow rule that will be brought forward for public review and comment.

Clallam PUD questions Ecology

The following article appeared in the August 6, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

---

Clallam PUD questions Ecology

By Brian Gawley
Peninsula Daily News

PORT ANGELES — Water rights issues have always been a contentious issue in this state.

The state Legislature has tweaked the state's water rules and regulations over the years to try to expedite the processing, granting and transferring of water rights.

But there are still going to be disputes.

The three Clallam County Public Utility District commissioners signed a letter to state Department of Ecology Director Jay Manning last week regarding one such dispute.

The three Clallam County commissioners will also be signing the letter.

The issue involves Battelle Memorial Institute's water rights application being processed before instream flows were established for Water Resources Inventory Area 18, while Clallam PUD was told to wait for those instream flows to be established before applying for water rights.

The letter states that Clallam PUD wants new water rights to serve the fast-growing Carlsborg and prevent the proliferation of exempt wells in the area as recommended by the Water Resource Area 18 plan.

Two questions

The letter asks two questions.

What criteria did Ecology use to decide to process Battelle Memorial Institute's water rights application before instream flows were set, contrary to WRIA 18?

What is the relationship between the rulemaking, processing applications for new water rights and changing existing water rights and the cost reimbursement program?

"The letter's pretty self-explanatory. Ecology is sending mixed messages, telling us one thing and Battelle another," said Clallam PUD board chairman Ted Simpson.

Battelle's large complex is on the shore of Sequim Bay.

Ecology is issuing some water rights and doing some deals, Simpson said.

But when agency officials visited recently, they said nothing was being done in the Sequim-Dungeness watershed because of the number of water rights submitted, he said.

"Why did you tell Battelle to proceed and tell us not to? I think it's a reasonable question," Simpson said.

"We have some water rights applications pending, but you wonder what their status is? How many are valid?" he said.

Looking for consistency

Clallam County Commissioner Steve Tharinger, D-Dungeness, said the county is just looking for consistency from Ecology on the processing of water rights.

County officials aren't interested in interfering with Battelle's water rights application, Tharinger said.

The county commissioners just want to know what Clallam PUD needs to do to get water rights for the Carlsborg area, he said.

"We need clarity for getting rights for water in the watershed. Clallam PUD would manage any water system.

"We want to make Ecology aware of this inconsistency and impress them that this is an issue we want to move forward on as soon as possible," Tharinger said.

Reporter Brian Gawley can be reached at 360-417-3532 or brian.gawley@peninsuladailynews.com.

Mediator joins water planning process

The following article appeared in the July 26 edition of the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader.

---

Mediator joins water planning process

By Kasia Pierzga
Leader Staff Writer

The mediator hired by state Ecology officials to get water resource planning back on track in Jefferson County comes across as knowledgeable, affable and direct.

Tom Anderson, water resources engineer for Bellingham-based Hydrologic Services Co., has just begun making visits to Jefferson County to size up the challenge of bringing local residents together to develop a plan that leaves enough water in the region's biggest watershed for both fish and people.

The watershed, known to Ecology officials as Water Resources Inventory Area 17, includes East Jefferson County from about Mount Walker north, extending to the northwestern shore of Sequim Bay in Clallam County.

Balancing the needs of farmers, homeowners, wildlife habitat and threatened species of salmon has proven to be a challange, in large part because of a strong sense of mistrust toward Ecology officials.

The process of developing an in-stream flow rule for the Quilcene-Snow watershed broke down in late 2005 after locals accused officials from Ecology of going too far with proposed restrictions on water use and failing to take the needs of people into account.

Relations between Ecology and some locals and government officials soured to the point that Olympic Peninsula legislators were called in to mediate the crisis.

Before a crowded audience in Port Townsend in November 2005, Joe Stohr, special assistant to state Ecology Director Jay Manning, admitted the agency "probably went too far, too fast," and promised to step back and come up with a way to include more voices in the watershed planning process.

Time to regroup

That's where Anderson comes in.

He and his employer have been hired by Ecology to develop a public-involvement process that ensures that Jefferson County stakeholders — everyone from farmers, property owners and developers to government agencies, Indian tribes and environmental groups — have a voice in the water resource planning process.

Anderson, a professional engineer, said he has had a lifelong interest in water rights, Western water law and how people use and value the resource.

As the manager for 16 years of the public utility district that provides water and electricity to much of Whatcom County, including Bellingham-area oil refineries and the Intalco aluminum smelter, Anderson gained a strong understanding of the legal aspects of water management and watershed planning. But it was his early experiences growing up on a small Camano Island cattle ranch that shaped his understanding of how people relate to water resources.

"I'm a farmer at heart," he said.

He said one of his biggest challenges will be overcoming common misconceptions about water rights and water law in Washington.

"Water is something that's part of the commons," he said. "People don't always know or appreciate that."

Anderson views his role as a "hired gun" who is expected to help Ecology rebuild damaged relationships with local residents.

"I've been hired to come up with a public process to help dig them out of their own hole," he said.

The current controversy over Jefferson County's critical areas ordinance could actually help make Anderson's job easier.

Because the environment and water protection laws are already on the minds of so many people, Anderson said it shouldn't be too difficult to get people interested in the rather dry process of planning for water.

Then again, "easy" might not be the right word.

"This community kind of has a reputation for facilitator-bashing," Anderson said with a wry smile.

A key first step is getting opinion leaders and other high-profile stakeholders to buy into the process.

"I need to make allies out of them or I'm dead meat," Anderson said.

What's ahead

Under its contract with Ecology, Anderson and Hydrologic Services have one year to bring people together to start developing a plan.

Ecology's Joe Stohr said he's optimistic that Anderson will be able to bring local stakeholders to the table.

"We want him to develop a process that connects DOE with people in WRIA 17 and helps us understand how water is used in the basin," Stohr said. "The biggest challenge will be coming up with a process that people feel engaged in."

Stohr said he got to know Anderson during his days at Whatcom Public Utility District 1.

"He's independent, and he does not always agree with DOE," Stohr said.

Anderson agreed with Stohr's characterization.

"I don't necessarily have any great love for Ecology," Anderson said. "They've pissed me off more than once."

A reputation for being fair, even-handed and open should come in handy as Anderson begins bringing Jefferson County stakeholders together for a dialogue about water.

"We need to have some open, sometimes tough discussions," Stohr said.

Anderson and his team will spend this summer and fall researching the issue and talking to local stakeholders.

"We hope to have a locally engaged group in place by the end of the year to facilitate the process," Anderson said.

The next step will be to identify options for regulating water use in the region. By summer 2007, the first draft of an in-stream flow rule should be ready for public review.

Anderson said he's confident the people of Jefferson County will come together to develop a plan to protect water resources for both people and wildlife.

"My sense is there's a strong ethic in Jefferson County to protect quality of life," he said. "You're going to have to employ water law to protect those attributes."

Letter to the editor

The following letter to the editor appeared in the July 5, 2006 edition of the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader.

Please note that we are not responsible for the content of letters to the editor, and that we provide them to help inform you of the range of community opinion on the issues we are working with. Content of this letter is the sole responsibility of its author.

---

Water questions

Editor, Leader,

Finally! After years of bitter battle betwen the 78 households who petitioned for Marrowstone water and for the 400 who petitioned against it, the real issue has publicly surfaced.

With last month's Public Utility District application, there is no longer doubt as to the real driver for piped water. Wally Barclay, the golf course owner, will get a waterline installed from Fort Flagler to his golf course. The winners, of course, are Wally — who can finally green his greens without incurring more wrath from the Deparment of Ecology for sucking his neighbor's wells, and the PUD — which will have a sure buyer of four to five million gallons of water every summer.

The losers, of course, are the taxpayers who will fund the project and the Hadlock residents (and salmon) who are being robbed of that five million gallons. And certainly, there will be some households who will be disappointed that Marrowstone will continue to be the place they moved to, their marginal wells included. Perhaps instead of pointing their anger at neighbors who have opposed piped water, however, they will begin to see how badly they were used to manifest a millionaire's dream.

Janet Welch
Nordland

---

(M. Kelly Hays, president of the Jefferson County PUD 1 Board of Commissioners, responds: In August 2002, Marrowstone property owners petitioned PUD No. 1 to study a public water system. In May 2003, PUD Commissioners Sullivan, King and Roberts, based on documented interest and need, authorized the study of a Local Utility District, LUD No. 14, by resolution. By law, property owners can protest the decision and if over 50 percent protest, the LUD is canceled. In April 2004, after an insufficient number of property owners protested the project, the PUD unanimously approved LUD No. 14. Opponents then filed a lawsuit to stop the project. After the opponents had an opportunity to validate their claims in court, the judge ruled in favor of the PUD. PUD water will be provided to each property owner on an equal basis. The PUD promotes conservation but does not have the authority to regulate how water is used. That is the responsiblity of the Department of Ecology, whether from private wells or public water.)

Marrowstone appeal denied

The following article appeared in the July 5, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

---

Marrowstone appeal denied

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

PORT TOWNSEND — The Jefferson County Department of Community Development has denined a Marrowstone Island environmental group's appeal of the Public Utility District's shoreline permit needed for a project to pipe water to the island.

A Lawyer for Conserve Water First said the group's next legal step would be to file an appeal of the permit with the state Shoreline Hearings Board.

Conserve Water First is opposed to building a public water system its members fear would attract development and destroy the island's realaxed character.

There are also arguments over the Chimacum Valley aquifer, wetlands, soils, the shoreline, water rights and water capacity.

WIth too little water on the island, some residents have installed rain-water catchment systems at their homes to decrease their dependence onwells.

But other islanders want a public water system because their wells have become contaminated by saltwater intrusion.

In January 2005, a judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging procedures that the Public Utility DIstrict used to justify building the system, which would serve the 850 residents of the island.

Conserve Water First is now arguing aginst the determination that the project is exempt from the State Environmental Protection Act, according to assistant county planner David Johnson.

"But they don't have an adminstrative remedy other than appealing the decision to the appellate hearing examiner," said Johnson.

"Unfortunately, the hearing examiner doesn't have the authority to review the official categorical exemption, so we are denying their appeal."

Johnson said he was sending Marrowstone resident Ray Harker, Conserve Water First's representative in the appeal, notification that the group has 21 days to file an appeal in Superior Court.

Appeal to state

Gerald Steel, the group's Seattle-based attorney, on Monday said his client's next move was to appeal to the Shoreline Hearings Board.

"We actually requested that he deny the request," Steel said, adding that it would show that the group had legally exhausted all legal means.

By going to the Shoreline Hearings Board, Steel said, Conserve Water First could prove the county failed to follow SEPA.

Major hurdle cleared

Deputy Hearing Examiner Mark Hurdlebrink, a Tacoma-based lawyer, two months ago granted a substantial shoreline permit for Jefferson County Public Utility District, clearing a major hurdle in the district's efforts to construct a Marrowstone Island water system.

Hurdlebrink's decision granted PUD the shoreline permit, allowing it to build within 200 feet of the fresh-water-deficient island's shoreline.

Water for Marrowstone, the group that requested and supported the PUD project, cites about 100 wells of the estimated 500 in existence on Marrowstone Island that are either dry or contaminated by saltwater intrusion.

The shoreline permit clears the way for a conditional use permit for the Marrowstone water system project, which would allow PUD to lay eight-, six-, four- and two-inch water lines along county and state roads crisscrossing the island.

In about nine areas the waterlines would come within 200 feet of the shoreline.

Jim Parker, PUD general manager, said Monday that he was not surprised by the legal development since the SEPA issue is not a shoreline issue.

Parker said indications are that the county Department of Community Development is going to require a SEPA review of the PUD's Marrowstone water project anyway.

Meanwhile, Parker [and] the PUD commissioners are expected on July 14 to open bids on a project that would build the first 3,000 feet of Marrowstone pipeline from the Fort Flagler State Park reservoir to state Highway 116.

--------
Port Townsend/Jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew can be reached at 360-385-2335 or jeff.chew@peninsuladailynews.com.

Growing clout

The following article appeared in the June 7, 2006 edition fo the Port Townsend Leader.

---

New farm bureau chapter seeks bigger voice on regional water, land-use policy

by Kasia Pierzga
Leader Staff Writer

Concern about recent state efforts to regulate water use has prompted a group of farming and property-rights advocates to join forces with a state-wide lobbying organization that shares its views.

With its charter to be granted June 28, the North Olympic Counties Farm Bureau would be the 25th chapter of the Washington State Farm Bureau, and part of the nationwide American Farm Bureau.

Third-generation farmer Roger Short of Chimacum is serving as president fo the local chapter until formal elections are held.

Short said the decision to form a local farm bureau is a strategic one. By taking advantage of the expertise of the state-wide organization, the local farm bureau can have a bigger impact on local and state policy decisions that affect farmers and other landowners.

"We feel if we have a more mature organization with known clout, we will be able to deal with some of the issues and draw on some of their resources better than we can id we have to do it ourselves," he said. "If we have our own bureau, we as a board can request help from the state bureau."

The local farm bureau is the second local lobbying group to ahve formed as a result of uproar last year among Jefferson County small-scale farmers and other property owners about the Washington Department of Ecology's attempt to set an in-stream flow rule — the amount of water that must be left in streams for salmon — in the Quilcene-Snow watershed.

The watershed, known as Water Resources Inventory Area 17 for state water resource planning purposes, is one of 62 watersheds across the state, each of which are at various stages of state-required planning.

Jefferson County is also within the boundaries of several other watersheds — the Sol Duc-Hoh and the Queets-Quinault watersheds on the West End of the county; the Skokomish-Dosewallips watershed, which extends into Mason County; and the Elwha-Dungeness watershed, which is largely in Clallam County.

After public outcry over what many saw as a ham-fisted effort on the part of Ecology to push ahead with an in-stream flow rule for East Jefferson County's Quilcene-Snow Basin, Olympic Peninsula legislators called for a public forum in November 2005 that drew a standing-room-only crowd of about 300 people to Fort Worden State Park Commons. At the meeting, Joe Stohr, special assistant to Ecology Director Jay Manning, admitted the agency had gone too far too fast, and promised to seek more public input from local residents.

Water rights controversy

The controversy last fall erupted in response to statements made by Ecology officials that it was illegal to use water from exempt wells — generally household wells — for crops that are sold commercially, no matter how small the acreage or amount of water used.

At the time, Ecology officials said farmers whose wells don't already have water rights must apply for water-right permits. They also warned that the Quilcene-Snow watershed, which serves the most populous part of Jefferson County and the greatest number of small farms, doesn't have enough water to grant new water rights.

Ecology's statements contradicted a court decision that people with exempt wells, including small-scale, sustainable agriculture producers, could use water from those wells for their crops.

Ecology later reversed itself on the issue of agrucultural use of exempt wells, saying that small-scale farmers can use existing wells for irrigation.

Some local residents, including those who are launching the new farm bureau chapter, have worried the state might say it owns all the water in Washington, and while people have a right to use the water, they'd have to install meters to keep track of what they use — and perhaps even pay the state for it.

At the November meeting, Stohr promised to open up Jefferson County watershed planning discussions to a broader variety of interest groups. The watershed planning unit now includes not only representatives from local and tribal government but also homebuilders, real-estate agents, environmental and conservation groups and the Port Townsend Paper Corp. As an organization representing agricultural interestss, the new farm bureau chapter could also join the planning unit.

In January, Stohr promised to work with Jefferson County businesses and residents to develop an in-stream flow rule that balances the need for salmon habitat and the health of the local economy.

But in May, Ecology officials said the state would require agricultural water users to install meters to track water use — a development that drew sharp criticism from Short, whose family has been farming along Chimacum Creek since 1945.

Ecology officials explained that the metering would help ensure adequate flow in streams where endangered salmon might not have enough water to survive.

A professional facilitator has been hired to help manage discussions for the WRIA planning unit. Negotiations on setting an in-stream flow rule are expected to begin this fall.

Gathering allies

Short said he was never sure whether Ecology's explanations of state water policy were accurate. He'd rather get information about the issue from an organization that represents and shares his concerns.

The state organization's expertise might also come in handy as Jefferson County planners work on an update of county development codes related to critical areas such as fish and wildlife habitat areas, wetlands, aquifer recharge areas and areas that are prone to flooding.

"It's going to draw a lot of controversy," said Short. "The state farm bureau has a lot of expertise in dealing with critical areas in agricultural areas all around the state, and we want to draw on that expertise to help us with that."

The new farm bureau chapter for Jefferson and Clallam counties already has about 250 members, most of whom have been members of a chapter that also included Grays Harbor and Pacific counties. Included are traditional farmers as well as people who maintain small-scale fruit orchards and organic farms.

Short said members of the new chapter also are gathering signatures in support of Initiative 933, the property rights measure now being promoted by the Washington Farm Bureau.

Short also has been involved in previous state-wide campaigns aimed at preventing government policies and regulations from hurting the economic value of privately owned land.

"I really think that if the government is going to make a regulation, they need to look at the alternatives and see what the impact is going to be," he said. "Especially the economic impact on property owners."

(Contact Kasia Piersga at kpierzga@ptleader.com.)

Ruling backs permit for Marrowstone water

The following article appeared in the June 4, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

---

Ruling backs permit for Marrowstone water

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

PORT TOWNSEND — A deputy hearing examiner has granted a substantial shoreline permit request for the Jefferson County Public Utility District, clearing a major hurdle in the district's efforts to construct a Marrowstone Island water system.

The decision from Tacoma attorney Mark Hurdlebrink acting as hearing examiner, which was issued Thursday to the county's Department of Community Development, grants PUD the shoreline permit, allowing it to build within 200 feet of the fresh-water-deficient island's shoreline.

A Port Townsend environmental activist, who has represented Olympic Environmental Council in Jefferson County, indicated that an appeal of the decision, required within 14 days, might be in order.

Expressing her disappointment Friday over the decision, Nancy Dorgan said Hurdlebrink was wrong to conclude that the new water system protects the aquifer since it borrows from Chimacum Valley to feed Marrowstone.

"To date, every state and local agency has rolled over to facilitate construction of the Marrowstone system," Dorgan said in a statement Friday.

"The hearings examiner ruling is just the latest, but I expected better from a non-local lawyer."

The decision comes with a long list of conditions, none of which PUD officials contest.

"There was testimony regarding possible problems during construction," Hurdlebrink said in his written decision.

"Though this is certainly a possibility, appropriate provisions are going to have to be made by the public utility district to ensure this dows not happen."

"Currently there is not a contamination problem with runoff. There will certainly be disturbance of the ditches when installing the lines."

"Appropriate steps are going to have to be taken to prevent increased contamination. Conditions of approval address this issue."

May 16 hearing

The decision comes after a May 16 public hearing in which about 50 people — mostly Marrowstone Island residents — crowded into the county commissioners chambers to raise issues such as the Chimacum Valley aquifer, wetlands, soils, the shoreline, water rights and water capacity.

The hearing came after the county Community Development Department accepted more than 50 pieces of written public comments and opinions from seven public agencies.

Hurdlebrink's ruling was applauded by the three PUD commissioners.

"It's awful good news," said PUD Commissioner Wayne King of Gardiner, who supports the project along with fellow Commissioners Kelly Hays of Marrowstone Island and Dana Roberts of Cape George.

King said he was not surprised by Hurdlebrink's decision.

"We've done more than we were required to do," King said.

Hays, who hauls water for his family and others on East Marrowstone because of saltwater contamination, also expressed his approval of the decision, saying, "It's what I expected."

"Obviously, the examiner felt everything we were doing was not detrimental to a shoreline."

The shoreline permit clears the way for a county conditional use permit for the Marrowstone water system project, which would allow PUD to lay eight-, six-, four- and two-inch water lines along county and state roads crisscrossing the island.

In about nine areas the waterlines would come within 200 feet of the shoreline.

They include an area a quarter-mile north of the causeway on state Highway 116 connecting Marrowstone with Indian Island; Mystery Bay just north of Nordland, another area north of Highway 116, the end of Madrona Road, the end of Murphy Road, along Fort Gate Road, at teh intersection of East Beach Road and East Marrowstone Road, on Jansen Road, and at the southern end of the island south of the intersection of Robbins Road and Beach Drive.

The hearing examiner listed 13 conditions that the PUD must meet, including obtaining appropriate county and state permits, making substantial progress in work within two years, and not interfering with eagle nesting.

PUD General Manager Jim Parker said one of the conditions is that the agency must secure a permit with the Army Corps of Engineers for the shoreline work.

He said PUD has already applied for a Joint Aquatic Resource Permits Application through the corps.

"We will work that out," said Parker, adding that there was some debate between PUD and the corps over the corps' jurisdiction.

Parker said the decision comes with other good news that the county has issued a conditional use permit to PUD to run a 3,000-foot water line from a PUD-built water tank at Fort Flagler State Park to Fort Gate Road and Reef Road.

End of the year?

Parker estimated it would still take months to get the first pipe laid for the water system.

"It would be nice to go out to bid by the end of this year," Parker said of the Fort Gate pipeline link.

Parker said he was submitting an application for a county conditional use permit for the north mile of state Highway 116 pipeline, which does not affect any shoreline or wetlands.

He said PUD was also talking again with Navy officials about buying their water system on Indian Island, which serves the naval ammunition station.

Ralph Rush, Water for Marrowstone chairman, lauded the hearing examiner's decision.

"We are delighted," Rush said, adding that he was not surprised by the decision.

"I felt like there was an overwhelming support for the system," Rush said, adding that his group's effort was well-organized and communicated the need for water service.

About 100 wells of the estimated 500 in existence on Marrowstone Island are either dry or contaminated by saltwater intrusion, a growing problem.

The water project would bring water to about 300 homes on the island.

Utility district officials reapplied for county and state permits after prevailing over a lawsuit filed by a group of residents opposing the project.

The PUD Marrowstone water project has been endorsed by Jefferson County's three state lawmakers, Rep. Lynn Kessler, Rep. Jim Buck, and Sen. Jim Hargrove.

Dorgan argued that rather than fighting the construction permits, "it's now time to go to the heart of the matter — Ecology's erroneous and illegal transfer approval in 1997 converting the Sparling wupplemental only water right into an outright grant of a new primary groundwater withdrawal, comething a water right transfer may never do under state law."

Water right required

Dorgan contends that PUD's Sparling Well water right was aquired via its Glen Cove system swap with the city of Port Townsend in 2001 "and has always been legally bogus."

She said the well's status needs to be litigated "before the PUD wastes taxpayer money laying pipe that will never hold water."

She called the hearing examiner's ruling on the shoreline construction permit "a lazy response at taxpayer expense that ignored the serious issued raised in the record regarding improper State Environmental Policy Act review of the overall project and statutory requirements that do not allow SEPA exemptions for lands under water.

"Without required decommissioning of excising (sic) wells, the hearing examiner was wrong to conclude that the new water system protects the aquifer."

"New lawns and bigger gardens are going to be watered for free from the aquifer still used by people not hooking up to the new pipes."

Port Townsend/Jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew can be reached at 360-385-2335 or jeff.chew@peninsuladailynews.com.

Who's Speaking for the Fish? . . . Our Response

We recently read an article in the Spring 2006 edition of Washington Water Watch (PDF download version available from the CELP website), the newsletter for the Center for Environmental Law and Policy (CELP), starting on page 4, titled Who’s Speaking for the Fish?, written by a member of the WRIA 17 planning unit. Noting that new stakeholders came onto the scene “. . . to block adoption of instream flows across the Olympic Peninsula,” the author outlined experiences with water policy planning over a period of more than fifteen years.

We applaud the author’s dedication to helping develop water policy, and likewise appreciate the many years of effort devoted to helping the recovery of our salmon runs. Services of this type are needed, and are much appreciated by everyone who lives in our region. We do, however, feel that the author’s perceptions of the “new stakeholders” late arrival at the table are somewhat inaccurate.

We are not so much new as we are long-time stakeholders who were under the impression that our interests were being adequately represented at the watershed planning table. Until last year, we did not understand the extraordinary impacts something called an “instream flow rule” would have on our local economy or future opportunities for newcomers to our communities. Once we began to understand the ramifications of the rule that the Department of Ecology was drafting for us, we became concerned and started asking questions. The more questions we asked, the greater our concern became. Each time Ecology officials came to Jefferson County to discuss the proposed rule, more members of the public turned out to ask questions and become better educated.

In September, 2005, a couple of hundred members of the WRIA 17 community attended an open house held at Fort Worden State Park by the Department of Ecology. A new version of the draft, completed that day with substantial revisions, was available for review . . . something of an irritant for those who had built their questions based on the previous version. More than once, the moderators suggested breaking up into smaller groups. On each occasion, the audience declined the offer, preferring to have questions and answers available to all. The open house lasted several hours longer than scheduled. After it was over, and most of the people had departed, one senior Ecology official was heard telling another that it was good that they had come, because “ . . . they needed to vent.”

It was the wrong thing to say.

For many of us, the purpose for our participation was to convince DOE officials that the rule was unworkable. Apparently they had not been prepared to be all that responsive to our concerns.

Reasonably certain that our input at the open house was not going to be effective, some community members began writing their elected officials with their concerns. There was no formal letter-writing campaign . . . it just happened.

The wheels didn’t really come off the cart, though, until the days following an article that appeared in the Capital Press on October, 21, 2005. In it, Department of Ecology officials were quoted as saying that people who were using an exempt well as a water source in the growing of produce for sale at farmers’ markets throughout the region were using water illegally. We were well aware of the findings of the 2001 Kim v. Pollution Control Hearings Board, et al. case, which dealt specifically with the use of exempt wells in support of commercial agricultural activities, including nurseries. According to that decision, our small sustainable agriculture producers were within their rights to use water from their exempt wells to help grow their crops.

More letters went out to the members of the 24^th District’s legislative team. Concern was mounting. In response, Representative Lynn Kessler and the other two members of our legislative team, Representative Jim Buck and Senator Jim Hargrove, called for a public meeting, which was held November 10, 2005 at the Fort Worden Commons.

More than 300 members of the WRIA 17 community came to the meeting and heard an apology and list of commitments from the Department of Ecology to the residents of our WRIA. Ecology also announced that they had pulled the proposed rule, and would recommence the rule-making process, this time with participation from the full range of stakeholder groups in the watershed.

Today finds us at a point where a facilitation team has been chosen to work with the community and the Department of Ecology to guide the development of an instream flow rule that does a better job of reaching the balance of needs for both human and fish populations, and helps provide a better future for both than the previously suggested rule would have. We don’t see that as blocking instream flows across the Olympic Peninsula . . . we see that as an opportunity to do the best job possible for the fish and people of WRIA 17.

We fully understand that the Department of Ecology has a statutory obligation to set instream flows by rule, and that WRIA 17 will eventually have an instream flow rule, in company with the other 61 WRIAs in Washington. We don’t object to that. What we do object to is the methodology employed in the draft instream flow rule that was put on the table in 2005. The approach outlined in that proposal would not have provided flow support for any stream, because it was limited to attempting to strictly limiting future withdrawals of water from the watershed for human use. There was no emphasis on looking forward with an eye toward building an infrastructure that would make it possible to adapt to the effects of climate change on the regional ecosystems. It carried a high probability of economic catastrophe and societal disruption as a foreseeable consequence that would not have become readily apparent until several years after its adoption.

It would probably not have been all that helpful to fish populations.

According to the article’s author, we are something called new “ruralites”. We’re not quite certain what that means, but apparently it’s something the author does not fully approve of. (Your humble correspondent learned to drive at the age of twelve, on a John Deere, in a hayfield . . . does that qualify for new ruralite status?)

The author is under the impression that we “. . . claim dahlia and kiwi crops are the heart of an imperiled farm economy.” We don’t. We do, however, understand them as desirable components of the new sustainable agriculture that we have learned is one of the most important aspects of the sustainability movement, working in harmony with healthy ecosystems. The imposition of the previously considered form of instream flow rule, coupled with the Department of Ecology’s reluctance to issue new water rights, would have pretty much killed the opportunity to bring to maturity the infant sustainable agriculture community in WRIA 17. (Those miniature kiwis, by the way, are wonderful eating . . . and we are delighted they do so well in our climate!)

Those of us living in rural areas, not served by public water or sewer systems, are characterized as demanding “. . . rights to extract a public resource from the commons.” We don’t feel that to be an accurate assessment of our expectations. What we want to see continue is the right to bring an exempt well into service to provide for our water needs as allowed under RCW 90.44.050. We are not doing anything illegal or immoral by simply using our resources as allowed by Washington’s statutes. Not being served by a public sewer system, we put most of the water we withdraw directly back into the upper aquifer, at a higher level than we took it from. Being repeatedly used within the water cycle, the water we withdraw always moves back into the commons, in one way or another.

We are coming to the table to partner in developing an improved form of instream flow rule that assures humans reasonable access to the water resources necessary to support our living circumstances and the development of regionally appropriate commercial activities as allowed under the constraints of Washington’s Growth Management Act and our county’s comprehensive plan. We wish to balance this access with the needs of the fish and other wildlife species of concern, so that all will have the quantities of water needed for thriving populations. We also wish to seek out and adopt a wider variety of technologies and approaches aimed toward the sustainable recovery of our threatened fish species in the region. We do not find these goals to be incompatible with one another.

We are bringing our common sense to the table. Our appreciation of the commons may contrast somewhat with the sense of the commons held by others, but that’s the kind of contrast that keeps life interesting, and is not intended to be used as a point of contention. We plan to be participants in the development of a sensible and legally defensible rule.

Although the article’s author points to a belief that the fish can’t survive our modern industrial footprint, it’s equally clear that they don’t have much option. We can, however, work to modify how our industrial footprint is molded to fit the landscape that we live in, while supporting the needs of the species of concern. In that respect, we are very fortunate in our location on the western side of the Puget Sound, where that footprint isn’t heavily entrenched. The task on the other side is complicated by the fact that their industrial base is already deeply established and quite inflexible. We have much greater opportunity to accommodate to the needs of our fish populations. We also have the benefit of the Department of Ecology’s commitments to working with us toward that end.

While “community heart” may provide great insight into the instream flow rule decision-making process, we are under the statutory obligation to build those decisions on the foundation of the best available science. Through our contacts and partnerships, we will be able to bring more science to the table than was previously available. We fully expect that all the science used in developing the rule should and will be peer reviewed, as required by county policy.

Our power structures, both governmental and business, serve to provide us the resources we need to develop the science, and to provide the funding to bring everything and everyone to the table to build the solutions that meet the needs of people and the ecosystems around us. There are very few nations in the world with the economic wherewithal and the political will to allow its citizens the scope of action we are being offered. We are fortunate to have their support in this work and appreciate every bit of independence they give us. We will request even greater autonomy as the rule-making process proceeds.

We agree that we all need healthy watersheds, with clean, clear, cold water in our streams. We are at the table to help design the balance that will serve the needs of our community and the wildlife species our watershed supports. We welcome the challenge, and hope to work with everyone else at the table to rapidly bring solutions into action to expand on the excellent work that is already being done to recover our salmon runs.

The 'huge issue' of water

The following article appeared in the May17, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

---

The 'huge issue' of water
Marrowstone Island pipeline friends and foes have final chance to plead case

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

PORT TOWNSEND — A Jefferson County deputy hearing examiner took final public testimony Tuesday for and against a long-debated water system proposed for Marrowstone Island.

Some of about 50 people crowding the county courthouse commissioners chambers — mostly Marrowstone residents — touched on issues such as the Chimacum Valley aquifer, wetlands, soils, the shoreline, water rights and water capacity.

That came after the county Department of Community Development accepted more than 50 pieces of written public comments and opinions from seven public agencies in the county's Development Review Division overseeing the Jefferson County Public Utility District project.

The PUD is proposing the pipeline system in the wake of wells either dried up or fouled by salt water on Marrowstone.

Mark Hurdelbrink, a deputy hearing examiner for the county hired from the Tacoma law firm of McCarthy, Causseaux, Rourke Inc., told those who sat and stood through more than an hour of testimony that he will issue a written decision in two weeks.

"Obviously, this is a huge issue," Hurdelbrink said, closing the hearing in the crowded room in which many complained about the lack of a sound system to hear testimony.

The state Department of Ecology has the final say in the PUD's application, but a high-ranking Ecology official last week voiced the department's general support for a Marrowstone water system.

Jefferson County commissioners are not part of the decision-making process.

At the heart of the hearing was a county shoreline substantial development permit that would allow Jefferson County PUD to lay eight-, six-, four- and two-inch waterlines along county and state roads criss-crossing the island and coming within 250 feet of the shoreline.

The roadway would act as a protective barrier between the road and shoreline, said Johnson.

In about nine areas the waterlines would come within 250 feet of the shoreline.

They include an area a quarter-mile north of the causeway on state Highway 116 connecting Marrowstone Island with Indian Island, Mystery Bay just north of Nordland, another area north of Highway 116, the end of Madrona Road, the end of Murphy Road, along Fort Gate Road, at the intersection of East Beach Road and East Marrowstone Road, on Jansen Road, and at the sourthern end of the island short of the intersection of Robbins Road and Beach Drive.

10 conditions

Based on its findings, the county planning staff recommends project approval under 10 conditions: PUD obtains an administrative conditional use permit, a county public works permit for the water lines in county right of way, a permit to place lines in state Department of Transportation rights of way, substantial project progress within two years, and the PUD must consult with a state Fish and Wildlife biologist to avoid disturbing nesting eagles.

Other conditions recommended: Water lines at least 10 feet from all septic systems, waterlines only on the landward side of the road when within 200 feet of the shore, implementation of pollution and erosion controls, and immediate restoration of installation sites to pre-project condition.

Basic needs

Several of 10 testified before Hurdelbrink in favor of a water system to meet basic needs.

"We have a health issue and we have a fire issue," said Joe Lovato, a Marrowstone resident of 18 years and a Port Hadlock businessman.

Comparing life on Marrowstone to "living in a Third World county" for those who truck in water from Port Hadlock, Lovato said:

"You have to be in the postition like that for 18 years to know what I am talking about."

Ralph Rush, a Water for Marrowstone group leader and shellfish farm operator for 30 years, said if he felt the PUD project would hurt water quality needed for shellfish, he would not support it.

"The runoff has not affected the shellfish," Rush said.

"If there was contamination from runoff from (road) ditches, we would consider closure."

Port Townsend environmental activist Nancy Dorgan, a longtime voice against the project, told Hurdelbrink:

"When you get down to it, the maintenance of ditches is what this is really about."

Saying Jefferson was a "critical water supply county," Dorgan contended that the Jefferson County Coordinated Water System Plan needed to be amended before PUD could commence construction.

She claimed that PUD made "some very serious water process errors" along with others, and that a State Environmental Policy Act review was required.

"People complaining about fouling the nest of Marrowstone Island are not concerned about fouling the nest of Chimacum Valley," said Dorgan, arguing that there was no study of the impact of taking water from the valley for consumption on Marrowstone.

She also voiced issues with digging ditches for lines with road sediment dredged up that was accumulated from vehicles dropping heavy metals on the roadways over the years.

Such heavy metals as lead, copper, cadmium and chromium typically come off cars.

She also complained that a state Joint Aquatic Resource Permits Application, or JARPA review, was missing from the record.

"This is really a serious shoreline that we are talking about here," Dorgan said.

Marrowstone Island resident Rita Kepner called for sustainable water for the island and the entire county.

Nala Walla, a Marrowstone resident for 10 years, also called for water sustainability on the island, voicing support for water catchment systems.

"We're all here talking about ditches," she said. "Is there any water to put in the pipeline?"

She said she was also concerned about drawing down water in Chimacum Valley to serve Marrowstone at the expense of fish-bearing streams such as Snow and Chimacum creeks.

Norm MacLeod, who helped form Olympic Water Users Association to help shepherd through a state Ecology instream flow rule to ensure future water for humans and fish, told the hearing examiner that he saw no negative environmental effects from waterline ditches.

He said more pollution comes from boats moored in Killisut Harbor between Marrowstone and Indian Islands.

PUD support

The PUD"s administrator also defended the project.

"I think the PUD is really concerned with water and planning to meet future needs," said PUD General Manager Jim Parker, citing PUD's recent aquisition of the natural Peterson Lake to help meet water needs in growing Chimacum Valley, the planned aquifer source of water for Marrowstone.

Parker was joined by Paul Anderson, PUD's Marrowstone project consultant with Bellevue-based Parametrix.

About 100 wells of the estimated 500 on Marrowstone Island are either dry or contaminated by saltwater intrusion, a growing problem.

PUD officials have had Parametrix delineate wetlands on the island where the pipeline will run.

PUD built a water reservoir to also provide water to the Fort Flagler State Park for firefighting, and as a back up to Marrowstone residents in case of a water shortage.

Water to 300 homes

The water project would bing water to about 300 homes on the island.

PUD officials reapplied for county and state permits after prevailing over a lawsuit filed by a group of residents opposing the project.

The PUD Marrowstone water project has been endorsed by Jefferson County's three state lawmakers, Rep. Lynn Kessler, Rep. Jim Buck, and Sen. Jim Hargorve.

Port Townsend/Jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew can be reached at 360-385-2335 or jeff.chew@peninsuladailynews.com.

Clallam plans groundwater storage study

The following article appeared in the May 16, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

---

Clallam plans groundwater study
State funds search for farm, salmon balance

By Jim Casey
Peninsula Daily News

PORT ANGELES — Clallam County will spend $140,000 to try to solve the enigma of time and the river.

A two-year study, funded by the state Department of Ecology, will determine if the county can store ground water in the Dungeness watershed when the river is high and recover it when salmon require it.

The problem is that the river runs lowest when Sequim-area irrigators need it most.

And "tight-lining" the irrigation ditches — enclosing them in pipes to eliminate exaporation and pollution — has produced a secondary dilema:

Much of the water in the old irrigation ditches seeped back into the ground, recharging the aquifer. Tight-lining prevents the process.

Part of the study will determine if perforated pipes lets them replenish the groundwater, but they can be used only during times of peak flows when the snow in the Olympic Mountains begins to melt.

Carlsborg area

A tight-lining project in the Carlsoborg area will start this summer and continue through next winter.

A half-mile pilot stretch will feature perforated pipes, and nearby wells will be monitored for water level and quality.

Aquifer stroage and recovery, as it's called, could follow three strategies:

• Augmenting late-season flows in the lower Dungeness River and its tributaries.
• Enancing flows in adjacent small streams.
• Recharging groundwater directly in areas near wells that serve public water systems.

County Commissioner Steve Tharinger D-Dungeness, called storage and recovery a matter of "getting the water to the right place at the right time."

Commissioners received a briefing on the study Monday from county hydrologist Ann Soule. They expect to approve the request for proposals for the study at their formal meeting today.

Deadline for proposals is June 30.

The county's partners in the project will include the Clallam Conservation District, Clallam County Public Utility District, Jamestown S'Klallam tribe, Dungeness River Management Team and irrigation districts and companies.

Water users

Gary Smith of the Sequim-Dungeness Water Users Association said the tight-lining process had forced some homeowners near irrigation ditches to deepen their waer wells.

"We would like to see a demonstration project in place as soon as possible," he said, referring to the perforated pipe study.

Aquifer storage and recovery are also key components of the water-management plan for Water Resource Inventory Area 18.

Completion of the study could dovetail with Ecology's rule-setting process in WRIA 18 that the state expects to start in July 2007.

In a related action, commissioners learned of a $15,000 grant to implement the WRIA 18 plan that commissioners adopted nearly a year ago.

The money likely will go to an enlarged version of the Dungeness River Management Team that will include parties located in the Elwha River.

The funds will pay for clerical and information technology work.

Commissioners also reviewed a $14,000 grant from the state Women, Infants and Children program in which volunteers will monitor water quality at six recreational beaches in Clallam County.

Most of the work will be done by the volunteer Beach Watchers program with assistance from the Jamestown S'Klallam tribe.

The beaches are Port Williams, Jamestown, Cline Spit, the mouth of the Elwha River, Freshwater Bay and Salt Creek. The grant will fund sampling through October 2007.

The BEACH program — Beach Environmental Assessment, Communication and Health — is separate from a health department testing that samples shellfish tissue for toxins.

Reporter Jim Casey can be reached at 360-417-3538 or at jim.casey@peninsuladailynews.com.

Buck backs Marrowstone water line

The following article appeared in the May 14, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

---

Buck backs Marrowstone water line
Lawmaker on record backing PUD effort

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

PORT TOWNSEND — Republican state Rep. Jim Buck has joined his Deocratic 24th District colleagues in support of Jefferson County Public Utility District's public water project to Marrowstone Island.

Citing issues of dry wells and saltwater intrusion, whch has affected hundreds on the island, Buck said: "Many of Marrowstone Island's residents have been in need of potable water for much longer than necessary."

"There are substantial public health concerns resulting from the lack of access to a public water system, ranging from stress to exacerbation of medical conditions, that are very worrisome to me."

Buck's correspondence to Jefferson County came Friday, before a 1 p.m. Tuesday shoreline substantial permit hearing before Hearing Examiner Irv Berteig.

"I strongly support the PUD's application for a shoreline substantial development permit as required for those portions of the pipeline that would be located close to the island's shores," Buck said.

Courthouse hearing

The hearing is set to take place in the county commissioners chambers on the ground floor of the Jefferson County Courthouse, 1820 Jefferson St.

The PUD Marrowstone water project was also recently endorsed by the other two of Jerfferson County's three state lawmakers, Rep. Lynn Kessler and Sen. Jim Hargorove, both Hoquiam Democrats.

All three PUD Commissioners — Dana Roberts, Wayne King and Kelly Hays, himself a Marrowstone resident who has to sell water — have long backed the project, as have top officials with the state Department of Ecology.

Buck, in his correspondence to the hearing examiner, also says that the State Parks Department "has recognized the seriousness of the issue by posting a warning sign on its water tap at Mystery Bay State Park."

Buck said the values of affected homes are so severely reduced that retired homeowners — depending on the investment value of their property cannot afford to relocate, "even if they develop health problems so serious that they should be much closer to health-care resources."

'One small step'

"Granting the necessary shoreline permit to allow construction of the water system to proceed is one small step toward granting the affected homeowners reasonable access to potable water, one of the most basic of human needs." Buck wrote to Berteig.

Marrowstone Island resident Scott Cassill, who along with his wife, Joyce, helped found Water for Marrowstone and first circulated petitions to residents to get the PUD project rolling three years ago, said he was grateful for Buck's support.

"I think it's a good thing that he was finally heard from," Cassill said Friday.

"He's been active in so many other major concerns, but I am glad that he is active in this issue, which is a big one."

'We are losing our water'

"It is a terrible thing that we are losing our water."

Cassill said he expects a large turnout of Marrowstone residents in favor of the project at Tuesday's hearing.

Jefferson County PUD leaders were heartened Wednesday by one high-ranking Department of Ecology official who voiced support for the PUD's effort to extend service to water-needy Marrowstone Island.

In correspondence Wednesday with PUD Commissioner King, Joe Stohr, special assistant to state Department of Ecology Director Jay Manning, reiterated the DOE's support of the project to install about 5 miles of pipeline.

"We have been on the public record before in terms of getting water out to Marrowstone." said Stohr.

About 100 wells of the estimated 500 in existence on Marrowstone Island are either dry or contaminated by saltwater intrusion.

As proposed, PUD's Marrowstone water line would branch out from a Flagler Road backbone. The lines will be extended to the county roads, which are easily reached from Flagler Road — Griffith Point Road, for example.

The project would be complete after lines are installed on all county roads not already constructed and on private roads that involve easements.

PUD also built a water reservoir to provide water to the Fort Flagler State park during fires and as a backup to Marrowstone residents in case of a water shortage.

The water project would bring water to about 300 homes on the island.

PUD officials reapplied for county and state permits after prevailing over a lawsuit filed by a group of residents opposing the project.

Port Townsend/Jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew can be reached at 360-385-2335 or jeff.chew@peninsuladailynews.com.

Water line gets a friend

The following article appeared in the March 11, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

---

Water line gets a friend
Marrowstone Isle project endorsed by Ecology official

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

NORDLAND — Jefferson County Public Utillity District leaders were heartened Wednesday by one high-ranking Department of Ecology official who voiced support for the PUD's effort to extend service to water-needy Marrowstone Island.

In correspondence Wednesday with PUD Commissioner Wayne King of Gardiner, Joe Stohr, special assistant to state Ecology Director Jay Manning, reiterated Ecology's support of the project to install about 5 miles of pipeline to connect PUD's water system to the island.

"We have been on the public record before in terms of getting water out to Marrowstone," said Stohr, who was in Port Hadlock on Tuesday for a meeting of the Quilcene-Snow Watershed Resource Inventory Area 17 planning unit.

That is good news to two of the three PUD commissioners facing a final legal hurdle: a Jefferson hearing examiner shoreline permit hearing Tuesday at 1 p.m. at the county commissioners chambers in the Jefferson County Courthouse, 1820 Jefferson St.

The hearing will address construction within 200 feet of the shore, along state Highway 116 and near Mystery Bay State Park.

King said Stohr's remark shows "there's nothing at Ecology to hold up this project."

King added: "It just makes us feel a little more comfortable that we're on track here. I am sure we're going to put pipes in the ground this year."

Backhoes will be used to dig small trenches, which will be immediately filled back in," said King.

Reassurance of support means a lot to PUD Commissioner Kelly Hays, a Marrowstone Island resident who hauls thousands of gallons a month from PUD's filling station in Port Hadlock on a slow, 14-mile round trip.

Water pipes damaged

He hauls water for several households, including one family of three that uses 100 gallons a day.

For that family, Hays said, it is not a matter of quantity, it's a matter of quality.

Salt from saltwater intrusion has eaten through their home's water pipes.

About 100 wells of the estimated 500 on Marrowstone Island are either dry or contaminated by saltwater intrusion.

As proposed, PUD'sd Marrowstone water line would branch out from a Flagler Road backbone. The lines will be extended to the county roads, which are easily reached from Flagler Road — Griffith Point Road, for example.

The project would be complete after lines are installed on all county roads not already constructed and on private roads that involve easements.

PUD officials have had wetlands delineated on the island where the pipeline will run.

PUD built a water reservoir to also provide water to Fort Flagler State Park during fire and as a back up to Marrowstone residents in case of a water shortage.

The project would bring water to about 300 homes on the island.

PUD officials reapplied for county and state permits after prevailing over a lawsuit filed by a group of residents opposing the project.

The Marrowstone Island water project was recently endorsed by two of Jefferson County's three state lawmakers, Rep. Lynn Kessler and Sen. Jim Hargrove, both Hoquiam Democrats.

Port Townsend/Jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew can be reached at 360-385-2335 or jeff.chew@peninsuladailynews.com.

Water area planning talks turn to metering

This article appeared in the May 10, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

---

Water area planning talks turn to metering

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

PORT HADLOCK — New state-required water-well metering tapped a nerve for at least one farmer attending Tuesday night's Water Resource Inventory Area planning unit meeting.

Longtime Chimacum Valley dairy farmer Roger Short confronted state Department of Ecology officials, questioning why he had to pay as much as $4,000 to meter two wells he uses — metering intended to benefit Ecology in establishing a state-mandated in-stream flow rule.

Others attending the WRIA 17 planning unit meeting also questioned why Short should pay the state.

"The expense is my expense," an angry Short told Ecology officials.

"I'm broke anyway, so it doesn't matter."

Short explained that an Ecology official told him if he did not meter his water use, the state was "probably going to take my water away from me. If I do then I can probably pay later," he said he was told.

Norm MacLeod, representing the Olympic Water Users Association, said he believed the state should shoulder the cost, especially since fuel costs are up and milk prices are down.

While saying he was sympathetic to Short's plight, Joe Stohr, speical assistant to Ecology Director Jay Manning, said Ecology has a clear mandate from the state Legislature to set in-stream flow rule.

The controversial rule's basic intent is to ensure enough water for humans and stream levels that save salmon.

Tom Loranger, a manager in Ecology's water resources program, explained that through the state's metering law in 1993, any business diverting water must measure the diversion.

The rule applies in areas such as the Chimacum Basin, where salmon stocks are "critical and depressed because of low stream flows" as designated by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Loranger identified 2,400 water rights and claims for the entire Chimacum Basin. He said that comes down to about 80 water rights or claim holders who are required to meter water use.

List corrected

He said after mailing out metering notices to many of the wrong people, the state now has a correct list and has contacted everybody in the past 10 weeks.

Of the 78 water rights holders, the state has secured meter and measuring data from 15 in the Quilcene-Snow watershed, which includes the Chimacum Basin.

Loranger said Ecology has made contact with 34 others, and 20 more have just been contacted for metering.

Planning unit member Paula Mackrow, North Olympic Salmon Coalition chairwoman, said metering was necessary because "you've got to know your water budget."

Of metering, Stohr said, "I hope the planning unit would welcome this kind of information."

He said it was Ecology's responsibility to enforce metering.

"We have a pretty clear judge's order that we have to implement." Stohr said.

In March 1999, American Rivers, the Center for Environmental Law and Policy, Washington Environmental Council, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, and the Institute of Fisheries Resources filed a suit against Ecology for not complying with the 1993 state water measurement law.

In December 2000, Thurston County Superior Court issued a final ruling and ordered Ecology to submit a compliance plan to the court that was done in March 2001.

It describes how Ecology will begin to bring its water compliance program into line with the state water measuring law by Dec. 1, 2002.

Compliance Plan

The compliance plan calls for those water users totaling 80 percent of water use in each of 16 "fish critical" watersheds to perform their measuring and reporting practices