Only 'egregious' violations

This article appeared in the October 26 edition of the Peninsula Daily News Jefferson County edition.

I think that one of the more telling moments from the meeting was when Phil Wiatrak said, "I've heard a lot of talk about small agriculture, and it's wonderful. Is there water? No."

To bring the quantities up again ... we use 4% of the available annual groundwater recharge for all of our many allowable uses. The Department of Ecology and its predecessor water right administration bodies have appropriated 28% of that recharge for use. The 4% we use is only 14% of the amount of water that has been granted to us as our right. We think our water stewardship stacks up rather well in consideration of the quantities available in the watershed.

When it comes to the amount of water running into salt water from surface sources? According to the WRIA 17 watershed plan, they simply don't know. Only three of the watershed's streams have been officially monitored for the amount of water they discharge at their mouths. They've had five years to figure out how much is coming down all the rest of the streams, but haven't done so. How can there be a rule when the basic homework hasn't been done?

When the DOE says that there's no water available, and that they have to close almost everything to future withdrawals, some of us think that there's a bit of a problem with the conclusions they've arrived at.

On to the article...

---

State Ecology says it is not water police

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

PORT TOWNSEND —— Responding to recent criticism that the state Department of Ecology is out to police water use in Jefferson County, a state official said Tuesday that the agency is not out to become a petty water czar.

"We have never busted somebody for a rain barrel and we never will," said Phil Wiatrak, an environmental planner for Ecology who represents the state on the Watershed Resource Inventory Area 17 Quilcene-Snow planning unit.

By state law, rain barrels are considered illegal diversions of natural water flow.

The planning unit met Tuesday in a crowded county commissioners chambers in the Jefferson County Courthouse.

Instead, Wiatrak said any Ecology enforcement official would track and go after "clear" and "significant" violations of state law, such as illegal "egregious" water diversions.

Wiatrak said that the state Legislature has mandated that Ecology set an in-stream flow rule for the state's 62 inventory areas.

"The fact of the matter is there will be an in-stream flow rule," Wiatrak said to a standing-room-only audience spilling out into the courthouse hallway.

The separate in-stream flow rule for the Washington Administrative Code would establish a water right based on seniority under state law.

The rule would be established to protect a minimally acceptable level of water for fish habitat.

Wiatrak said a rule is currently on "indefinite pause."

"We are carefully considering all we've heard," he said, adding that two of the agency's rule writers recently left the agency, compounding the inability to move forward.

Separate from the in-stream flow rule, county commissioners adopted a watershed plan in January that includes 43 recommendations to improve water resource management and protect and restore fish and wildlife habitat in WRIA 17, which includes all of eastern Jefferson County.

Currently, residents can use up to 5,000 gallons per day per home.

Under the proposed instream flow rule, the limit would be reduced to 350 gallons per day.

The proposal also calls for closure of the Big Quilcene River from March 1 to Nov. 15 and Chimacum Creek from March 1 to Nov. 30 to new water appropriations. It closes other water bodies in the area year-round to future water rights.

Existing water rights would not be affected under the proposal, but new applications would.

Closed to withdrawals

Islands such as Marrowstone would be closed to any groundwater withdrawals under the new rule unless approved by the state.

Wiatrak, who has admitted that Ecology failed to communicate effectively to residents on the in-stream flow rule, said no rule will be established without first going through the planning unit.

"If there is an issue in this community, I think it's important that the community wrestle with it," said Wiatrak.

"I've heard a lot of talk about small agriculture, and it's wonderful."

"Is there water? No."

Wiatrak urged more representation on the WRIA 17 planning unit.

On Tuesday, those asking to serve on the planning unit included Jim Hagen, Jefferson County Planning Commission chairman.

"I think it's really imperative that the Planning Commission have representation," Hagen said.

"There's no question at all that these water issues are going to impact matters that are before the Planning Commission."

Others asking for planning unit representation were real estate agents, well drillers and small-scale agriculture.

Wayne King, Jefferson County publicUtilityy District chairman, asked that planning unity meetings be scheduled in the early evening so working people could attend.

---

If the Department of Ecology is not playing the part of "water police", why are they using their participation in the Capital Press article (scroll down a bit from here, or click on the link to it from the right margin of this page) to make our small agriculture producers feel threatened by telling them that they are using water "illegally"? If they are not going down the enforcement path outlined in RCW 90.03.605, why are they coming up with $110,000 to educate and seek compliance?

And if they are going to go to all of this effort to "bring people into compliance" when those people are, in fact, using water in a manner granted by RCW 90.44.050, as clarified in 2003 by the decision in the Kim v. PCHB case, what else are they doing that exceeds their authority?

For that matter, if they can pull that kind of money out of a hat so quickly to bring a hammer to the table, how come there hasn't been a professional facilitator at the table for the WRIA 17 meetings in the months following the completion of the previous facilitation contract several months ago?

Is an agency that is misfiring on so many fronts really more capable of managing Jefferson County's water resources than Jefferson County's own agencies?