Island tap hits a snag

The following article appeared in the March 31, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

The article mentions that about twenty families would be using the filling station. What's not mentioned is that several of the people who use the Hadlock filling station are hauling water for more families than just their own. Also not mentioned is the number of islanders who are obtaining their water from family members, friends, and other sources off the island.

When you have a geographically isolated location, such as an island, where 20% of the wells are unusable, either because they have gone dry or are contaminated by saltwater, you have a public health problem that needs to be solved as expeditiously as possible. We hope that this situation will finally be resolved soon, and that the people who wish to hook up to public water will be able to finally make that happen.

---

Island tap hits a snag
Resident criticizes water filler-up site

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

NORDLAND — A proposed water filling station at Fort Flagler and Fort Gate roads that would serve Marrowstone Island residents with fouled or dry wells has been delayed after issues arose with its location.

Jim Parker, Jefferson County Public Utility District general manager, said Thursday that Fort Gate Road resident Richard Rothrock expressed concerns about water trucks filling up at the location, which might block his driveway and create traffic problems by turning around on the road.

Rothrock registered his concerns with Jefferson County planning officials involved in the utility district's application for the project's conditional use permit.

Concept supported, just not the site

"I'm not against this installation," said Rothrock, one of the fortunate Marrowstone residents who still have adequate potable water flowing from their wells.

"I would just like it to be in a place that doesn't do damage in the turnaround and near my driveway."

"There are people on the island that need water, and I'd like to see them get it, but not where they have to get it in my driveway."

The utility district's intention now is to run a water line down Fort Gate near the entrance to Fort Flagler State Park, then south about a mile down Fort Flagler Road for the overall utility district water service project proposed on the island, Parker said.

A water filling station at the north end of Flagler Road would be a welcomed facility to many Marrowstone residents who now buy or long-haul thousands of gallons of water between the utility district's filling station in Port Hadlock and the island.

The existing station is adjacent to the district's offices on Chimacum Road.

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

Ultimately, the line leading to the filling station will then be extended the entire length of Flagler Road to the south end of the island, district officials said.

After the Flagler Road backbone is in place, the lines will be extended to the county roads, which are easily reached from Flagler Road — Grffith Point Road, for example, where saltwater-fouled wells are most concentrated.

Application resubmitted

Parker said he recently resubmitted the agency's county permit application to not include the filling station.

"Right now, we'll just put in a permit without" a water-filling station, Parker said.

In addition, Parker said, "We just submitted a (state Department of Transportation) permit to run down state Highway 116 about a mile."

State Highway 116, also known as Flagler Road, runs northward from Port Hadlock to the state park entrance.

Ralph Rush, Water for Marrowstone chairman and long-time island resident, said many residents will be disappointed that a water station is not immediately going in, but there is even more concern with getting utility district water to the island altogether.

"It could be very helpful to the people on the island," said Rush, whose group represents 16 Marrowstone families.

Rush estimates about 20 residents would haul water from the filling station.

Rush said a bigger concern is the April 18 public hearing before county Hearing Examiner Irv Bertig on the utility district's shoreline application to install Marrowstone water project pipelines.

The distance to the Hadlock fill station is not so much an issue as the hills and traffic that pose problems for those hauling tons of water on the streets of Hadlock en route to the island, said Rush.

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

Setting it straight

The following article correction appeared in the March 31, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

We would like to thank the Peninsula Daily News for making this correction to an article that had initially caused concern among many Marrowstone Island residents, PUD officials, and other members of the community.

---

Setting it straight

The state Department of Ecology is not requiring any additional water right or permit to provide water for a Marrowstone Island pipeline. Ecology Director Jay Manning, in appearances in Port Angeles on Wednesday, said Ecology would be monitoring the Jefferson County Public Utility District water source for impacts on the Chimacum basin that water for Marrowstone Island might cause.

A story Thursday on Page A1 of the Jefferson County edition and Page A6 on the Clallam County edition incorrectly stated that an additional permit would be required.

No stink from Ecology

The following article appeared in the March 30, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News, which does not provide complete articles on their website.

Mr. Manning apparently noted a "dead" zone off Kala Point, in the context of the Hood Canal dissolved oxygen issues. We didn't know that Kala Point was on the Hood Canal, and Kala Point residents may be somewhat surprised to learn that they live on the Canal.

More importantly, Mr. Manning talked with the Peninsula Daily News editorial board about the Marrowstone Island public water system, after having brought it up as part of his presentation to the Port Angeles Rotary Club. According to the article, "Manning said Jefferson County Public Utility District, which is developing the pipeline, must receive a water right permit from Ecology to divert water from its sources in the Chimacum basin." A check with the PUD office finds that they are not aware of a new requirement for a water right, and that they already have the water rights needed to supply the system.

We've made contact with all three members of the 24th District's legislative team, and they are working to find out what is behind the information in the article.

---

No stink from Ecology
PT Paper within emissions levels

By Rex Wilson
Peninsula Daily News

Any perception of increased odors from the Port Townsend Paper Corp. mill isn't supported by pollution monitoring results from the state Department of Ecology, the department's director said Wednesday.

Jay Manning, a longtime environmental attorney who has held the state's top Ecology job for 13 months, said his department has received increasing complaints recently about smells emanating from the Glen Cove mill.

But monitoring data show that the mill is within its permitted emissions levels, Manning told Peninsula Daily News editors during a private meeting.

Ecology's conclusion, he said, is that additional housing built in areas near the mill has brought in new residents who are not used to the odors from a paper mill and have complained.

He called Port Townsend Paper a "pretty good citizen" in complying with Ecology's permits.

Operating under 15 different permits

Port Townsend Paper operates under at least 15 different environmental permits and programs at the federal, state and local levels, according to the company's Web site.

In a wide-ranging interview with PDN following an appearance before the Port Angeles Rotary Club, Manning said one of his priorities is restoring Hood Canal, part of a broader plan to clean up all of Puget Sound.

He defined Puget Sound as waters that extend from Olympia to the ocean entrance of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, plus Hood Canal.

Noting that contaminated rainwater rolling into the Sound from roofs, pavements and contaminated soils is the biggest threat to the region's waters, Hood Canal's unusually low oxygen levels are of particular focus for Ecology.

Much of the oxygen problem is caused by septic systems leaching into the long waterway, causing abnormal amounts of nitrogen to build.

The nitrogen encourages underwater plant growth that eventually decays and absorbs the water's oxygen, thus creating "dead zones" for marine life in Hood Canal, Manning said.

Particularly "dead" areas include waters at Great Bend, Bangor and Kala Point.

Recent legislation signed by Gov. Chris Gregoire allocated $6.5 million to help 12 Puget Sound/Hood Canal counties — including Jefferson — to identify critical areas, pinpoint failing septic systems and get them repaired.

There's additional money in the state construction budget to clean up septic systems at state parks along the Hood Canal.

Using hospital terminology, Manning said Puget Sound is in "serious condition," and Hood Canal's condition is "critical."

Jefferson County issues

Other Jefferson County issues Manning commented on during his Rotary appearance and subsequent PDN interview:

• He commended the city of Port Townsend for being an "early adopter" of a shoreline master program, required in the next few years from all jurisdictions having shorelines.
  
  Port Townsend volunteered to be the first in the state to submit its shoreline program to Ecology, and the plan is a model for other communities.
  
  
• Ecology's reworking of in-stream flow rules in the Quilcene basin will take about a year, Manning said.
  
  Once completed, the revised rules, he said, will re-enter the public process in which local outcry developed last year over Ecology-proposed restrictions in Water Resource Inventory Area 17 that were designed to balance water needs with salmon restoration.
  
  Testimony in a public hearing at Fort Worden State Park last November revolved around fears that water rights would be reduced and property devalued.
  
  
• Water rights are also an issue in a proposed main water line running up Marrowstone Island to supplant private wells that have suffered saltwater intrusion.
  
  Manning said Jefferson County Public Utility District, which is developing the pipeline, must receive a water right permit from Ecology to divert water from its sources in the Chimacum basin.
  
  The Ecology director said water for the pipeline against groundwater issues is an example of the type of judgments his department makes daily around the state.
  
  
• Port Townsend is in the process of getting hundreds of feet of oil containment boom and equipment as well as Ecology staff training in how to use it, Manning said.
  
  He said the Port Townsend boom will be similar to that placed in Gig Harbor last August, just weeks before about 50 boats sank or were severely damaged in a marina fire.
  
  The Gig Harbor fire was less of a disaster, Manning said, because the boom was spread by Ecology-trained city crews within 10 minutes of the fire and successfully kept oil and other contaminants from spreading outside the marina area.

Executive Editor Rex Wilson can be reached at 360-417-3530 or rex.wilson@peninsuladailynews.com.

Cedar River water deal will push your rates up (King County)

The following article appeared in the March 29, 2006 edition of The King County Journal.

If you live in King County, this deal will help your water rates climb a little higher. What's worth noting for those of us living in WRIAs where instream flow rules exist or are being promulgated is the part of this where instream flows are discussed.

Also worth noting . . . the lengths that King County goes to in preventing human use of the upper Cedar River watershed in the name of protecting drinking water.

Seattle gets about 70% of its drinking water from the Cedar River watershed. It doesn't put that water back anywhere close to where it came from once its been used. If you use a well and septic system combination, you are returning almost all of the water you use to the aquifer under your feet. This makes your consumptive use of water almost nothing in comparison to your urban friend who gets water from a remote watershed, uses it, sends it to the treatment plant, and almost always from there into a river or a body of salt water.

Who's doing more to support instream flows already, even without an instream flow rule in place to tell you what you can or can't do?

---

Cedar River water deal will push your rates up

2006-03-29
by Dean A. Radford
Journal Reporter

Suburban customers who get their water from Seattle will see their rates increase to help pay for a proposed $18 million settlement of a long-standing dispute over stream flows in the Cedar River.

King County cities that buy water from Seattle include Bellevue, Bothell, Kirkland, Mercer Island, Redmond and Tukwila. Many water districts are major customers, too.

The settlement was announced Tuesday by the city of Seattle and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. It now must be approved by the Seattle City Council, the Muckleshoot Tribal Council and a federal court.

The tribe had sued in federal district court in 2003 over its concerns that a habitat plan for the Cedar River watershed didn't ensure adequate stream flows in the Cedar River for fish habitat.

``Out of this we get certainty for the region's water supply and we get certainty that the river will be mostly left available for fish and other instream uses,'' said Martin Baker, a policy adviser to Chuck Clarke, director of Seattle Public Utilities.

The agreement includes the controversial provision that members of the Muckleshoot Tribe can hunt in the Cedar River watershed, a sensitive and highly protected area that supplies about 70 percent of Seattle's water.

Seattle will continue its policy that nontribal hunters are not allowed inside the watershed. The regional director of the Washington state Department of Fish and Wildlife said that's a problem for his agency, although he applauds the provisions that protect fish habitat.

The agreement is hailed as historic because it removes a legal cloud over Seattle's ability to manage the watershed, which provides water to hundreds of thousands of suburban residents, and forever sets aside water for fish.

``The Muckleshoot Tribe is pleased to be a part of this historic agreement and looks forward to working with the city as the various elements of the agreement are implemented,'' said tribal chairman John Daniels Jr. in a prepared statement.

Just how much the rates for wholesale customers would increase in the suburbs wasn't available Tuesday.

However, residential customers in Seattle will see their rates increase by 4.1 percent annually and commercial rates will increase by 5.3 percent annually for the next three years.

Much of the increase is directly related to the settlement with the Muckleshoots, said Andy Ryan, a spokesman for Seattle Public Utilities.

Much of the $18 million goes toward paying the Muckleshoots for the historic loss of fish caused by Seattle's management of the river for more than 100 years. In those decades, the city has dammed the river and diverted its water to Lake Youngs Reservoir east of Renton.

``The debt is settled,'' said Baker, the Seattle policy adviser.

The tribe must use the money for projects that benefit fish, wildlife and the watershed, Baker said.

The city and tribe also have agreed on protocols that will protect the watershed from human impacts during hunts and trips to gather berries and herbs. The tribe will control and monitor who goes into the watershed for the hunts, a key concern of Seattle officials because of potential terrorist threats to drinking-water supply.

While the agreement lifts the cloud over Seattle's water supplies, the provision that Muckleshoot Tribe members can hunt in the watershed for ceremonial and subsistence purposes has drawn criticism from hunters and the state, which has an equal-access policy for hunting grounds.

It's a right, the tribe and Seattle argues, that's already guaranteed to the Muckleshoots by treaties signed in the mid-1800s. First, the tribe will study whether the watershed can even support a big-game hunt for elk.

Bob Everitt, the regional director for the Washington state Department of Fish and Wildlife has been briefed on the agreement but hasn't seen the details.

However, allowing tribal hunters into the Cedar River watershed, but not nontribal ones, ``is not a good approach from our view,'' Everitt said. Elsewhere in the state, the state and tribes manage the wildlife together in the hunting areas, he said.

``The city can't give that away,'' Everitt said.

However, Baker, the Seattle policy adviser, said the city can't prevent tribal members from entering the watershed. The issue of non-tribal hunting has nothing to do with the settlement, he said.

The watershed is actually in a state game unit, but there hasn't been a hunt allowed there for years, Everitt said. When limited hunting was allowed, the hunter faced a citation from Seattle for trespassing,

A good thing, said Everitt, is the assurances that Seattle will set aside plenty of water for fish habitat forever -- more than it was initially required to save.

``Having water available at the right time of year is critical to fish,'' he said.

Dean Radford covers King County. He can be reached at dean.radford@kingcountyjournal.com or 253-872-6719.

THE SETTLEMENT

Key provisions of a proposed settlement over instream flows in the Cedar River between the city of Seattle and Muckleshoot Indian Tribe include:

* Guaranteed stream flows: This was the key concern of the Muckleshoots, because Seattle had substantial claims to water from the Cedar River. Now, the city will limit that claim forever, even in the face of growing demand for water.

* $18 million debt paid: The tribe and Seattle agree that the value of the fish lost to operations on the Cedar River, including dams, is $18 million. The tribe will get paid in cash (to go toward projects in the watershed) and in land. The land includes parcels in the Green and White river watersheds and a site high in the Cedar watershed of sacred value to the tribe.

* Access for tribal hunters: Treaties grant the Muckleshoots access to the watershed, their traditional grounds, but Seattle has denied them that access in most cases. Now, tribal hunters can go into the watershed to hunt for ceremonial and subsistence purposes. The tribe and city will work together to ensure the watershed is protected during these hunts and other activities.

* Wildlife management: The city will pay the tribe $2.5 million over 10 years to do fish and wildlife research in the watershed. The tribe also can improve habitat for big game such as elk, which like open areas. The tribe can't log or do major land-clearing. The idea is to develop an old-growth forest.

* The sockeye hatchery: Seattle will continue to design, build and operate a roughly $45 million hatchery designed to increase the sockeye salmon run on the Cedar River. The agreement allows for the transfer of the hatchery to the tribe.

Lacey to pay for water rulings

The following article appeared in the March 27, 2005 edition of The Olympian.

In amongst all the issues involved in dealing with the Department of Ecology, the water rights application backlog is one that's a head-turner. A private business that has a process that gets hung up and causes delays for customers will devote additional resources to fix the problem. If the business fails to do so, the customers go elsewhere. Enough customers go elsewhere, the business fails.

Not so with Ecology. "You've been waiting fifteen years for your water right to be processed? It's going to be awhile longer. How much longer? We don't know. You're willing to pay us extra? Why, you pony up enough to pay for the technical work, and we'll run you up to the head of the line! How much is it going to cost? We don't know, and neither do you."

Such a deal!

Oh . . . by the way . . . this doesn't mean that we are necessarily going to actually grant you that water right you want . . .

---

Lacey to pay for water rulings
Cutting check will speed state’s water-right decisions

By Christian Hill
The Olympian

LACEY — The city will use public money in its effort to secure more water to serve growth.

In a March 1 letter, the city notified the Washington state Department of Ecology that it wants to pay the agency to make a decision sooner on the city’s request for more water.

It’s a process known as cost reimbursement, and the city hopes it will speed its five applications to allow water withdrawal from new wells that would be drilled in Hawks Prairie, the city’s ­fastest-growing area.

First come, first served

Ordinarily, Ecology processes the most senior applications first. In order to ease a mounting backlog of applications, however, state lawmakers revised the rules so applicants can pay to process applications ahead of theirs as well as their own.

The city’s money will pay for Ecology to hire an outside consultant to complete the technical review, but the agency still will decide whether to approve or deny an application. The city doesn’t yet know how much that review will cost, but the money for it probably would come out of the fund that pays for maintenance and new projects for the water system.

City Manager Greg Cuoio said the city will be paying to process applications that already are next in Ecology’s stack.

“We’re not paying for anyone who has a water right application ahead of us,” he said in an interview earlier this month.

Ecology is tied up with applications for water rights in the McAllister sub-basin, where Lacey has other applications pending.

It could take years for the agency to consider the Hawks Prairie applications if the city doesn’t pay for the review, Water Resources Manager Peter Brooks said.

“We don’t want to wait that long,” he said.

Hawks Prairie is developing rapidly because it has large tracts of vacant land.

Lacey halted development in its urban growth area because it is running out of water it has the authority to pump from the ground. Its water utility serves customers in the city and its urban growth area.

The city must get approval from Ecology to withdraw more water. It has the rights to pump 8,274.8 acre-feet each year. An acre-foot is 325,851 gallons.

It has requested an additional 10,500 acre-feet in 10 applications to serve the city through full build-out. The applications date back to 1994.

Six of those applications are for water rights for new wells that will be drilled in the Hawks Prairie area. The city has said it will pay for the review of five of them, totaling 5,666 acre-feet. The five applications were submitted last year.

Next step

If Ecology approves the applications, the city will explore where it could withdraw the best quality of water among possible new well sites in Hawks Prairie.

A utility engineer would be hired do that work, Brooks said. This year’s city budget included money to create that position, and that employee will be tasked with other duties.

The money to pay for the reviews probably would come out of the portion of the water utility fund that is generated by developer fees, Brooks said.

This week, a local developer announced plans for a sprawling retail development on 800 acres of land northwest of the Interstate 5 interchange at Marvin Road.

On Thursday night, the City Council authorized applying for nearly $10 million in state grant money to help pay for infrastructure improvements for the proposed development.

The city’s willingness to pay for review of its water-rights applications isn’t being driven by the proposed development, Assistant City Manager Scott Spence said.

“It’s unrelated,” he said. “We’re trying to solve our long-term water needs for the community.”

Christian Hill covers the city of Lacey and the military for The Olympian. He can be reached at 360-754-5427 or chill@theolympian.com.

Important information left out of guest column

The letter to the editor mentioned here was published in the March 23, 2006 edition of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. As a response to the opinion piece, the note brings up an interesting point. All too often, crucial pieces of information are left out of public policy decision-making. We've seen this in the draft WRIA 17 instream flow rule, and in others.

Although we can speculate as to why the author didn't mention several of the more significant parts of the legislation that was enacted to help resolve several contentious issues in the Columbia River Basin, we don't really need to go down that path. What we do need to do is to remember that we are working for the best balance of meeting the needs of both people and wildlife species. We can't do that if we don't objectively evaluate all of the available information about a region and its resources before making natural resource policy decisions.

We all have our preferences of how things should be. That's fair. We should all go to some effort toward understanding the positions of those who aren't in agreement with our own visions. We can't work toward balanced and effective policy very well until we at least get everything onto the table where we can talk about it.

In the opinion piece, the author stated, "Scientific analysis and public debate are important predicates to major actions that significantly affect the quality of our environment. But this time the governor and Legislature foreclosed such input. Good science along with opportunities for thoughtful review and exploration of alternatives were discarded, replaced by political backroom wrangling to divvy up pieces of the river."

A little additional research finds information about the process that the author may not have been aware of.

The original version of HB 2860 was seen as unsupportable by many in the legislature. It would likely not have passed, had it come to the floor. A bipartisan group of legislators put together a stakeholder panel, composed of a broad range of environmental activist groups, agricultural interests, and others, which met for many hours over the course of several days. They eventually reached a compromise that they could all accept, one that provides a great many opportunities for solving what have been contentious problems for decades. Far from foreclosing debate and the use of science, the governor and legislators fostered public participation in a manner not often seen. The "cast of characters" selected for the negotiating were not participating in any "political backroom wrangling." They are all leaders in their respective areas of expertise and are people who represent their non-governmental organization constituencies very well. Although they had been asked by elected officials to gather together to try to work out a viable compromise, the politicians, to the best of our knowledge, did not interfere with the process.

The author had the opportunity, along with the rest of the public, to provide written comment to the group that built the compromise. I understand that she provided testimony on her organization's behalf when the bill was in committee.

I would be very interested in learning about any evidence the author has in reference to her assertion of "backroom wrangling". Such information would be important for us to learn about and understand as we move forward in our own very important negotiating efforts on the WRIA 17 instream flow rule and related activities. It would also serve us well in helping us to understand legislative processes better.

We seek to engage the legislative and rule-making processes in a positive and effective manner, seeking to help build healthy policy for Washington. We really hope that all the other participants are planning to do the same.

CELP says plan endangers Columbia River

The following guest column by CELP's Shirley Nixon appeared in the March 22, 2006 edition of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

The primary piece of legislation the author discusses is HB 2860, regarding water resource management in the Columbia River Basin. Because of information missing in the opinion piece, we submitted the following letter to the editor for consideration:

It's interesting that the author forgets to mention a few important pieces of information about the Columbia River legislation. For instance, it has broad support across the board, from the Washington Environmental Council to agricultural interests. Governor Gregoire, a former director of the Department of Ecology, is enthusiastic about the compromise. Jay Manning, current director of the Department of Ecology, welcomes the new opportunities it provides.

The legislation provides for new storage of water diverted from the river during times of high flows. Two-thirds of the water is for out-of-stream uses, one-third is reserved specifically to support instream flows during times of low flow. A significant amount of the water will eventually return to the river.

The Odessa sub-area will now be supplied with Columbia River water, allowing over-pumping of the Odessa's aquifer to be curtailed.

Yes, scientific analyses and public debate are very important in public policy initiatives. It's crucial, though, that all the information be brought to the public, so that the discussion can be fully informed and productive.

Although we don't know whether the letter will be published or not, we thought you would like to know our reaction.

---

Plan endangers Columbia River

Wednesday, March 22, 2006

SHIRLEY NIXON
GUEST COLUMNIST

The Columbia River is an international treasure. It is river as icon: once home to one of the richest salmon fisheries on Earth, a mighty river where tribes fished and lived for generations beyond memory.

Much has changed since U.S. and British explorers canoed these waters. Dams have turned "darkness to dawn" as the world's largest integrated hydropower system electrifies the Northwest. Massive pumps divert water to subsidize irrigated agriculture in the desert.

But "river as machine" is destroying river as ecosystem. Wild salmon teeter at extinction's abyss. Fishing communities and cultures are as endangered as the fish; recreational and fishing economies are faltering. Even Puget Sound orcas are harmed by the decline of the ocean-going Columbia River salmon that comprise much of the whales' winter diet.

Gov. Christine Gregoire and the Legislature last month enacted two laws that will have a major effect on the Columbia. When government shuts out key information, government risks making bad decisions -- and that is what happened when Olympia produced the new Columbia River Management Plan.

Scientific analysis and public debate are important predicates to major actions that significantly affect the quality of our environment. But this time the governor and Legislature foreclosed such input. Good science along with opportunities for thoughtful review and exploration of alternatives were discarded, replaced by political backroom wrangling to divvy up pieces of the river. Getting to political "yes" will eventually cost taxpayers billions and risks further damage to the river.

In 2003-2004, Washington asked the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study of fish survival and water management in the Columbia. The resulting study noted 85 percent of the Columbia's water comes from Canada and neighboring states, and that the entire Pacific Northwest depends on the river's gifts.

In light of the river's already degraded condition, the NAS advised Washington to avoid unilateral decision-making and work closely with other jurisdictions. The NAS cautioned against allowing new water diversions that couldn't be "called back" during times of lower flows -- an insurance policy to protect the river if climate change or other variables affect water availability in the future. It recommended market-based approaches to redistribute water that already has been allocated. Sad to say, those well-grounded and thoughtful recommendations went unheeded in the rush toward political expedience.

The plan directs the state to spend $16 million for water storage and water supply enhancement projects, including miles of conveyance systems to divert billions of gallons of water to irrigate Eastern Washington. The governor and Legislature also authorized an additional $200 million to be similarly spent over the next 10 years. That sum is likely to be only a down payment on what could become billions in taxpayer subsidized water projects.

Who will actually benefit, and by how much? The state is spending millions and necessitating a whole new taxpayer-funded bureaucracy without first weighing whether such measures are even necessary -- let alone cost-effective.

Some troubling specifics of the new Columbia River Management Plan include:

Removing tools to protect river flows and senior water rights. The plan appears calculated to circumvent important legal and procedural safeguards to protect endangered species and instream flows. While the plan takes pains to protect the rights of new water users, there is no such certainty or safety net for fish and instream water values. It makes a sweeping change to Washington water law by overriding the requirement for case-by-case analysis of appropriate water-use mitigation measures, and allows new water rights under generalized blanket "voluntary regional agreements."

Inundating precious places with huge reservoirs. The plan jumps to the conclusion that dams and storage projects are needed to make "new water" for agriculture, and it treats natural places as throw-away landscapes.

The areas contemplated for inundation include many miles of beautiful valleys, streams and natural features; many are home to rare and endangered species and are prized for their wildlife, ecological distinctiveness and aesthetic importance.

Such disregard for the value of the natural world represents a failure of this generation to fulfill its responsibilities as trustee of the environment for generations to come.

The abandonment of sound decision-making principles and the breakdown of public trust responsibilities for the Columbia River have not created a proud moment in the state's history. The river and the people of Washington deserve better.

---

Shirley Nixon is staff attorney for the Center for Environmental Law and Policy, a non-profit organization working to leave a legacy of clean, flowing water for Washington.

Gregoire: Water must be shared

The following article appeared in the March 21, 2006 issue of The Olympian.

Last week we attended a WRIA meeting in Olympia, where the question of whether or not the principles included in HB 2860, regarding water resource management in the Columbia River Basin, would apply in WRIAs around the Puget Sound. A Department of Ecology official told us that 2860 only applies to the Columbia River Basin. Apparently, Governor Gregoire feels otherwise.

The governor spoke to a shared water management concept in combination with storage for release in the dryer parts of late summer. That's what we've been asking for here, and it looks increasingly as if there is support from many quarters for putting into motion.

Now, all we have to do is to get the Department of Ecology to agree . . .

---

Gregoire: Water must be shared

By ADAM WILSON
THE OLYMPIAN

The approach used this year to solve some of the water issues facing Eastern Washington, including increased storage capacity, can work for the Puget Sound area in the future, Gov. Chris Gregoire said Monday.

Growth in Lacey, Olympia and Tumwater threatens to outstrip the area’s supply of freshwater. Lacey has enacted an effective ban on development outside its city limits as it comes close to using the maximum amount of water to which it has a legal right.

Gregoire, speaking to the Olympia Rotary Club, said a shared-used concept, as well as building storage to lessen the effect of high-demand periods in the summer, could be the answer.

She recalled her days as director of the Department of Ecology, saying the factions fighting for water in the drier half of the state dug in their heels.

“We got ourselves into a mindset of either the water was for farmers or it was for fish in the stream,” she said, adding, “We got ourselves out of the ‘or’ in the legislative session.”

Columbia River Basin

Gregoire explained that a compromise approved by the Legislature this year guarantees water to the users in the Columbia River Basin, including farmers, cities and the natural environment. At the heart of the compromise was a pledge by the state to spend $200 million in building water storage capacity to lesson the demands on groundwater during peak use.

The same sort of compromise might be needed on the rainy, but more populated, side of the state, Gregoire told the civic group.

“We don’t save it for the times when we really need it. That’s the lesson we really learned,” Gregoire said.

It sounded like a reasonable idea to Jim Larson, an Olympia Rotarian. He said he had spent time in Ellensburg in Eastern Washington and was concerned that the same water shortages facing residents there and in Lacey could spread to Tumwater and Olympia.

“You can’t grow unless you have water,” he said.

An agency backlog: ‘It’s not easy to get answers’

The following article appeared in the March 20, 2006 edition of The Olympian.

When you look at the Department of Ecology's water rights application backlog, you may get a different perception about the way things are. Some applications have been on file for well over a decade. For an Ecology employee to be telling a media outlet that there is now more demand for water right changes than for new water rights is at least a slight of hand. It's more a case of Ecology simply not moving on applications for new water rights.

We're not convinced that, as the Center for Environmental Law and Policy asserts, there is a lack of water available for new uses. The policies that make the water unavailable are simply that . . . policies. From the draft instream flow rule that was being pushed through for WRIA 17, we learned that such water shortages are largely administrative, rather than actual.

The article does underline the idea that it's now easier for a municipality to enter an eminent domain action against a private landowner to obtain a parcel's water rights than it is to obtain a water right through the Department of Ecology.

We think that's just not right.

---

An agency backlog: ‘It’s not easy to get answers’

By Christian Hill
The Olympian

The state has thousands of backlogged requests for more water, and every year the backlog increases.

The reason is simple: There is too much demand for water in some areas of the state and too little supply.

In these areas, the water above ground in creeks and rivers and underground in aquifers is already fully committed — to either humans or the environment, or both.

That makes the decision about whether to grant additional water more complex both technically and legally, as time passes and population increases.

“It’s not easy to get answers without meeting the water code and the requirements under it, and the impairment test for flows and for other water rights,” said Tom Loranger, regional water resources manager for the state Department of Ecology, the agency that must make these decisions.

Under state law, water belongs to the public, and anyone has the inherent right — without a permit — to draw out up to 5,000 gallons a day to serve a home or small group of homes. Users of larger volumes, including individuals and cities, must secure a water right from Ecology.

A water right gives the holder legal authority to draw out a certain volume of water for a specific purpose.

To receive a water right, the request must pass a four-part test. Ecology must determine:

• Is there water physically available?
• If granted, would the new water right impair the holder of an existing water right? In other words, would the withdrawal of water mean less water for someone else?
• Will the water be put to a beneficial use?
• Will the water use be in the public’s interest?
  

Holders of water rights also must get state approval to change the purpose of use, or if they want to withdraw water from a different location or divert it somewhere else.

By the numbers

For Ecology’s southwest region, which serves 11 counties including Thurston, there are six employees to review applications for water-right changes, and a full-time and half-time position to process applications for new water rights, according to Loranger.

State lawmakers have assisted by easing some of the requirements and allowing outside consultants who are paid by the applicants to perform the technical analysis so Ecology can make decisions faster.

The change has helped reduce the number of outstanding applications for water-rights changes. In fiscal year 2004, the most recent for which figures are available, Ecology processed 517 applications, double the number of new applications for water-right changes submitted that fiscal year. The total number of pending applications was 1,208.

But the backlog of new water-right applications continues to grow. In fiscal year 2004, according to state records, the number was 5,296, an increase of 69 over the previous year.

In reports to state lawmakers, Ecology says the increase occurred because its staff focused on making decisions on water-right change applications rather than new water-right requests. Demand also has shifted, from requests for new water rights to applications for changes where water already is available.

Karen Allston, executive director of the Seattle-based Center for Environmental Law and Policy, said there’s another reason: The water isn’t available.

“Instead of saying no, which is an unpopular political decision, they’re not saying anything,” she said. “The reality is the water is not there for new uses.”

A local case study

Residents need only look at the situation the city of Lacey is facing to understand why the process of requesting new water rights is so daunting.

Lacey serves about 60,000 water customers both inside and outside its city limits and is bumping up against the maximum volume of water it can legally draw from the ground. A de facto moratorium on new projects outside the city limits is in place because the city can’t guarantee it will have adequate water to serve additional development.

Lacey first requested new water rights to serve growth in 1994.

It wants to draw some of that water from the McAllister sub-basin, one of seven sub-basins in the Nisqually watershed. The sub-basin is “closed” as a source of new water rights because all of the available water is committed on paper for use by wildlife or humans. The city of Olympia also is interested in acquiring new water rights there.

Recently, Lacey submitted data to the Ecology Department from a computer model that shows the potential effect on local creeks and lakes if more groundwater is diverted for public use.

Ecology must now determine the extent to which the city must mitigate — or reduce — those effects to an acceptable level before it can make any decision on the applications. The city then will have to draft a plan on how it will ensure that the withdrawal of more water doesn’t hurt the environment or other water users.

“It’s a lot easier and quicker to get to a ‘no’ than it is to get to a ‘yes,’” said Tammy Hall, an Ecology hydrogeologist. “In other words, the city of Lacey and the city of Olympia have known for a long time that these applications were problematic because of what was going to be happening if they withdraw that water at those locations.”

There are numerous ways to mitigate the effects of new water withdrawals, including the use of reclaimed water or acquisition of retired water rights. In fiscal year 2004, according to an Ecology report, the agency made decisions on 120 new water-right applications. The agency approved one of every four of those applications, with the remainder denied or withdrawn.

Lacey’s situation is a case study in why the cities want to condemn property at the former Olympia brewery to acquire its substantial water rights. The method is controversial, but it could be quicker and less expensive for the cities to acquire water that way than by applying to Ecology. But even if the cities are successful in gaining access to the brewery’s water, they still will have to pursue additional water rights to keep pace with growing demand.

Not without criticism

The Center for Environmental Law and Policy and one former Ecology employee have questioned the effectiveness of the water rights system in Washington.

The employee said she was fired for raising questions about how she could make water-right decisions without knowing how many existing rights are valid or how much total water is available.

In her 2003 whistleblower complaint to the state auditor, she cited two instances in which permit writers granted water-right changes without detailing the evidence upon which the decisions were based.

She also charged that Ecology doesn’t have a way to identity water rights that have been relinquished after five consecutive years of non-use in its southwest region. Such a tracking system would provide Ecology with more water at little or no cost, according to the complaint.

In his response, State Auditor Brian Sonntag said state law doesn’t require Ecology to document such findings or identify or track relinquished water.

Allston, CELP’s executive director, said water has been over-appropriated in many parts of the state because Ecology has been unable to predict the availability of water. As a result, she charged, there is not enough water in streams during critical summer months to support fish in those areas.

The organization has “advocated all along you really need to have good information in order to make good decisions,” she said. “In the past, Ecology made decisions without really having good information.”

The agency has made progress to improve the system, she said.

An Ecology spokeswoman, Nelsa Brodie, said the agency does have an extensive tracking database for a large number of water rights, but it doesn’t have the resources to constantly monitor more than 200,000 water rights and an estimated half-million exemptions. It does investigate the status of water rights when there’s a request for a change or a complaint.

Cities’ water supplies

Olympia

Outlook: The city has water through about 2015 if residents keep conserving. It has rights to 22 million gallons a day at McAllister Springs and five wells.

Need: It will need 15.6 million more gallons of water a day by 2050.

Plan: In addition to water rights at the former brewery, officials are working on getting rights at two more wells. They’re looking for more ways to use recycled wastewater and more incentives for people to conserve. They also want to develop a new well field in the McAllister area.

Lacey

Outlook: The city is running out of water it can legally pump out of the aquifer and since June 2005 has imposed a de facto moratorium on development outside the city limits. The city has rights to pump nearly 2.7 billion gallons of water each year.

On a typical day, the city uses 7.5 million gallons of water a day. On a hot summer day, water customers in Lacey use about 13 million gallons a day with an all-time daily peak of 15.4 million gallons.

It used 86 percent of its granted water rights to serve utility customers in the 12-month period ending Feb. 28. Water usage for that period was held in check by the relatively cool summer of 2005; otherwise, the percentage could have been higher, city water resources manager Peter Brooks said. In recent years, water use has grown about 6 percent each year, primarily because of connections to new development.

Need: The city has requested rights to pump out an additional 3.4 billion gallons of water a year to serve customers when the city and its urban growth area are fully developed. The earliest request was submitted in 1994, and the state Department of Ecology still is reviewing it and the later ones.

Plan: City Manager Greg Cuoio has said he believes Ecology will grant the city additional water rights gradually to serve the city’s short-term needs. Otherwise, the city will have to examine alternatives, which could include a communitywide development moratorium.

Meanwhile, the city has various programs and policies in place to encourage water conservation. The city also is interested in water rights at the brewery site.

Tumwater

Outlook: The city is in good shape but will need more water in the future. It has rights to 11.9 million gallons of water a day.

Need: It must increase its supply by 20 percent, or 3.17 million gallons a day, by 2022.

Plan: Tumwater also is interested in water rights at the brewery. In the meantime, it’s applying to the state for water rights at a well field near North Street and a second one on 93rd Avenue.

Christian Hill covers the city of Lacey and military for The Olympian. He can be reached at 360-754-5427 or chill@theolympian.com.

All that rain ... and still at risk

The following article appeared in the March 19, 2006 edition of The Olympian.

---

All that rain ... and still at risk

By John Dodge
The Olympian

A water supply problem in South Sound? You’ve got to be kidding.

After surviving 35 straight days of rain in December and January and a typical 50-plus inches of rain a year, the water-logged residents of the area might find it difficult to believe that South Sound ever could run out of water.

But upon closer examination, the water supply budget for Thurston County is more akin to a family living on credit cards than the one that won the state Lotto.

Here’s why water for people isn’t in endless supply:

South Sound relies on rainfall to replenish the groundwater supplies, which provide most of the water for the region’s residents and businesses.

That same rainfall feeds our rivers, streams and lakes either directly or indirectly by flowing as groundwater into the surface water. In effect, groundwater and surface water are the same resource.

“A lot of folks are in denial that the two are connected,” state Department of Ecology spokeswoman Sandy Howard said.

In any given year, a volume of water equal to 88 percent of what enters the groundwater system annually — about 588,000 acre-feet of water — flows out to Puget Sound from area rivers and streams, according to a U.S. Geological Survey study of Thurston County groundwater flow patterns.

In other words, the groundwater doesn’t remain in permanent storage in the ground for humans to use as they see fit. It also feeds rivers and streams and flows out of the system.

“Water-in is equal to the water-out,” said Matt Ely, a USGS hydrologist.

“There isn’t some secret pocket of water that can be used without having an impact,” added Clark Halvorson, water resource manager for the Nisqually Tribe.

Segments of streams and rivers throughout South Sound already lack enough water for healthy fish populations and good water quality. It has been illegal to pull additional water out of the Deschutes and Nisqually rivers since 1980.

Adequate water in streams is critical for the recovery of Puget Sound chinook and other salmon species listed on the federal Endangered Species Act list.

Anyone seeking a water right for groundwater in those two watersheds must first prove the well won’t reduce stream flows, among other tests.

“You can’t use all of the groundwater recharge because it also feeds the base flow of rivers and streams,” explained Tumwater-based hydrogeologist Linton Wildrick. “We need that base flow for fish and recreation. We don’t want dry stream beds three months out of the year.”

The Department of Ecology set in-stream flow levels for the Nisqually and Deschutes rivers more than 25 years ago. But they still aren’t met in the summer months, said Tom Loranger, an Ecology water resource regional manager.

In the Deschutes watershed, the Squaxin Island Tribe has called for any new water supplies to be offset by water conservation and water reuse.

“There’s already too much water missing from the Deschutes River,” said tribal policy analyst Jeff Dickison. “The basin is closed to new withdrawals.”

In the Nisqually watershed, home to the endangered Puget Sound chinook salmon, the tribe is also keeping a close eye on any plans by Olympia and Lacey to drill new municipal wells, unless they can do it in a way that doesn’t reduce stream flows, Halvorson said.

With the concerns over in-stream flows, the likelihood of developing major new water supplies in the Nisqually and Deschutes watersheds, with the possible exception of the McAllister Springs area, is iffy at best, said Bob Wubbena, vice president of HDR Engineering Inc., in Olympia, a firm specializing in water management.

Rainfall and demand

Another reason the water budget of South Sound is tight has to do with when it rains.

The region receives most of its rainfall in the winter months, when demand for water is lowest. It gets very little rainfall in the summer months, when demand by people and fish is the greatest, and groundwater is needed to maintain stream flows.

“And when it rains a lot, a lot of the water just runs off as stormwater runoff,” Ecology hydrogeologist Tammy Hall said.

With population growth and development come more hard, impervious surfaces that don’t allow the water to soak into the ground naturally.

State and local ordinances require stormwater to be corralled and infiltrated back into the ground through stormwater retention ponds, but there is plenty of room for improvement to keep stormwater runoff in the groundwater budget and out of Puget Sound, said Andy Haub.

Another limiting factor for groundwater use is toxic waste pollution.

Thurston County has been home to several hazardous waste sites where solvents, petroleum products or pesticides have traveled through the soil and into the drinking water supplies of several thousand people.

The most notable case occurred in the early 1990s in Tumwater, when industrial solvents were detected in wells serving the city’s water customers, triggering a Superfund cleanup and construction of a water treatment plant at the vulnerable Tumwater Valley wells.

But the threat of groundwater pollution remains, especially as the population continues to grow, with an estimated 150,000 more people by 2030.

“The more population we have, the harder it will be to protect the groundwater from pollution,” said Olympia resident Leslie Romer.

PUD joins brewery water fray

The following article appeared in the March 15, 2006 edition of The Olympian.

One of the very important things that the municipalities, and now the PUD, are not really saying out loud is that if they win, they are going to have to submit a change application to the Department of Ecology. An Ecology official has already noted that if the department does approve the change, they are not under any obligation to allow the full current water right to transfer with the change. They could significantly reduce the amount of water available to the municipalities and PUD with the changed water right.

Having spend bundles of money on lawyers, where are the cities and the PUD going to be if Ecology takes the current 12 million gallon per day water right and change it to . . . oh, say . . . two million gallons per day?

Instead of going after a water right through the eminent domain process, why aren't the municipalities and PUDs working with the legislature to change the Department of Ecology's water right administration powers so that the public entities can obtain the water rights they need for meeting their growth limits under GMA?

---

PUD joins brewery water fray

By Christian Hill
The Olympian

The Thurston Public Utility District will make good on its threat to sue to acquire water from the former Miller brewery site.

The district’s three commissioners authorized its attorney Tuesday to file a condemnation petition in Thurston County Superior Court. It will be separate from the one the city of Olympia filed last month.

The cities of Lacey and Tumwater have since agreed to join Olympia’s petition. The district would join the combined petition if the cities allow it.

The PUD commissioners have been unhappy the district was left out of negotiations that led to the agreement in which the three cities will split equally any water rights secured through their court action. The district says it needs more water to serve a growing number of customers in the Tanglewilde and Thompson Place areas outside Lacey.

Elected leaders from the cities have said nice things about wanting to help the district, but that talk hasn’t translated into action, Commissioner Paul Pickett said.

“I feel like we’ve been pushed in a corner, and I feel like this is something we have to do,” he said before the unanimous vote.

The district contracts to buy water from the city of Olympia to serve about 1,200 households.

It also owns and operates smaller water systems in rural Thurston County.

The city of Olympia must provide the district at least 125 million gallons of water a year.

The district’s demand for water is projected to be 225 million gallons from June 2005 to May 2006, and is estimated to increase to 327 million gallons by 2050, according to the district.

The 20-year purchase agreement with the city states the district should make all efforts to find an alternative water source before its expiration.

Commissioners did raise concerns about the cost to the utility to argue its case but concluded it was necessary to serve their current and future customers.

“At this point, I think we have to act,” Commissioner Alan Corwin said.

Commission President Gary Cooper said he doesn’t understand why the cities oppose the district’s participation. They either have miscalculated the strength of the district’s legal position or its resolve, he added.

“In either event, there’s been a miscalculation,” he said.

Olympia City Councilman Joe Hyer, who last week said Olympia did not intend to marginalize the PUD, said Tuesday night, “I’m trying to figure out how we marginalized them. How many ways can you split 11.8 million gallons a day? If we bring the PUD in, do we bring in Yelm, the tribes? How much do they need? I haven’t seen a plan on their water needs yet.”

On Feb. 13, the Olympia City Council authorized its city attorney to begin a condemnation proceeding on the property in neighboring Tumwater. Olympia officials said they took the preemptive action to ensure the cities don’t lose rights to the water.

The former brewery closed in 2003. Miller sold it to All American Bottled Water Corp. the following year with plans to convert it into a water bottling plant. Those plans haven’t materialized in part because the corporate president, L. Eric Whetstone, hasn’t been able to secure financing for the project.

The state can force the property owner to relinquish rights to the water if it isn’t used for five years.

All American’s lawyer told the Olympia City Council last week that the company had a commitment letter for $125 million from a lender. The company will file for bankruptcy if Olympia doesn’t abandon its lawsuit, the lawyer added. As of Tuesday, All American has filed no such action, according to the federal courts online database.

On paper, the former brewery has the right to 7,420 acre-feet a year for industrial purposes, but the actual volume could be less. A one acre-foot is 325,851 gallons of water. The public utility district will ask the court for rights for 327 million gallons a year, or 1,036 acre-feet.

In the condemnation proceedings, the court will determine who would use the water “for the greatest public benefit,” according to the law.

The cities or district would be responsible for paying fair value for the water rights and any associated property they successfully condemn.

Olympia takes a tiny step toward trust

The following opinion piece appeared in the March 10, 2006 edition of The Olympian.

There was an online poll on the headline page of the online edition of The Olympian on March 9, which asked whether the brewery property owner should be allowed to keep some of the parcel's water rights. It was pulled before noon. At last viewing, the response was running nearly 60% in favor of the landowner retaining water rights.

The poll question was somewhat misleading, in that the assumption was being made that the cities should still get water rights through this condemnation. Would the poll results have been different if the question asked whether or not the cities should be proceeding with the condemnation action?

---

Olympia takes a tiny step toward trust

Olympia officials have begun to mend fences with their counterparts in Lacey and Tumwater with an equitable sharing of water resources from the defunct Olympia Brewery.

Olympia’s midnight raid — filing a lawsuit to condemn brewery property and secure water rights in Tumwater — was an unprecedented breach of trust. Once Olympia discovered the legal means to seize unused water rights at the brewery, the Olympia City Council should have stepped back and allowed the city of Tumwater to file the condemnation suit. After all, the brewery property is in Tumwater, not Olympia.

Members of the community were outraged by Olympia’s bold maneuver, and council members in Tumwater and Lacey were furious. Rightfully so.

Olympia officials knew they were stepping on toes, but they asked that the community judge them not on their hasty condemnation, but on the city’s willingness to share the new water resource with Tumwater and Lacey.

When attorneys and city managers from the three jurisdictions sat down to discuss the allocation of water resources, Olympia was recalcitrant. Those involved in the closed-door meetings say the negotiations were intense. Olympia eventually saw the light, and — thank goodness — the county’s three largest cities were able to come to an agreement last week for sharing the water resource.

The agreement, ratified by all three city councils in separate meetings earlier this week, calls for each city to get an equal share of the water rights if condemnation proceedings against the former brewery property are successful. That’s equitable but not a certainty. Olympia’s quest to secure the water rights will be decided by a Thurston County Superior Court judge using a law that is 100 years old and has not been tested recently. There is also the possibility that the owners of the brewery property will get their bottled water plant up and operational, clouding Olympia’s claim to the water.

Local officials believe an equal sharing of brewery water resources would amount to a maximum of 2.2 million more gallons of water a day for each city. That’s a precious commodity, given the fact that all three jurisdictions are in desperate need of additional water supplies. Lacey has a moratorium in place that in essence has halted new development in the growth area outside the city limits. Lifting that moratorium and allowing new homes and businesses to be built is dependent upon the city of Lacey gaining new rights to water resources.

The Thurston Public Utility District has asked to join in, but the cities are opposed to that. The PUD has tried, in recent years, to expand its reach and influence. Until then, the utility primarily provided water to the Tanglewilde area outside Lacey and must, according to its agreement with Olympia, search for other water resources to serve its customers. The cities should take the PUD’s predicament into consideration as they divide brewery resources.

Given the way Olympia mishandled the water rights condemnation, it’s encouraging to see the three city councils — finally — working in concert. It’s a tiny step for Olympia in a long road to regaining the trust and respect of folks in Tumwater and Lacey.

Attorney pleads bottler’s case

The following article appeared in the March 8, 2006 edition of The Olympian.

This keeps twisting forward, with Thurston PUD still being held at arm's length. There's little recognition here that a successful eminent domain condemnation of the brewery will open a Pandora's box of litigation in the qwest for water to support within-the-UGA growth in accordance with county and municipal comprehensive plans all over Washington.

There's also little public awareness of this case in Washington outside the region around Olympia because our media outlets aren't publishing much about it, even with the high levels of interest in eminent domain actions.

---

Attorney pleads bottler’s case
All American threatens bankruptcy in dispute; Olympia, Lacey and Tumwater sign agreement to share site’s water

By Katherine Tam and Christian Hill
The Olympian

All American Bottled Water Corp. threatened to file for bankruptcy if Olympia doesn’t abandon its legal pursuit of the former brewery property’s water, the company’s attorney told the Olympia City Council Tuesday night.

But the 11th-hour plea didn’t deter Olympia officials.

The City Council reaffirmed its plans Tuesday and signed a deal with Lacey and Tumwater to equally share any water it secures from condemning the brewery land for water. Tumwater signed the same deal Tuesday night and Lacey a day earlier. The decision came after Tom Lemly, attorney representing All American, held up a letter that he said was a commitment to loan the company $125 million to help pay for the brewery conversion, which he said arrived three days before Olympia took action.

Operations would have begun soon were it not for Olympia’s decision, he said. He proposed that All American transfer the water rights to the cities, then lease the 2.5 million gallons of water a day that it needs for its water bottling operation.

The lease price should be nominal since the company has already paid to own the water rights. The parties would then settle on a purchase price for the rest of the water.

Council members argued that All American hadn’t been willing to sell water rights before. Lemly confirmed the company hadn’t been interested then, but Olympia’s decision to condemn the brewery land for water changes the situation. All American might be forced to file for bankruptcy Monday if Olympia proceeds, he said. A bankruptcy judge is likely to rule in All American’s favor, he said, because its creditors would have to be repaid.

But the offer came too late, and the council refused to rescind its court action.

“We understand bankruptcy law very well,” Mayor Pro Tem Laura Ware said.

Added Councilman Jeff Kingsbury: “We’ve had a difficult time communicating with All American. For the 400 workers who lost jobs and for the jurisdictions who could benefit from the tax base, I’m looking forward to having a more open line of communication in this matter.”

City Attorney Bob Sterbank said after the meeting that All American’s statement that it would win in bankruptcy court is “overly optimistic. ...

The bankruptcy court would have to choose between real money from the city as opposed to a speculative business plan.”

The legal pursuit for brewery water began Feb. 13 when the Olympia council decided to condemn the brewery land for up to 11.8 million gallons a day in water rights. Officials feared the water would be lost or that another private party would claim it. State law gives a water holder five years to resume use of the water or it reverts to the state.

Tumwater and Lacey will likely join Olympia’s eminent domain petition as co-petitioners. Neither the petition nor the water-sharing agreement precludes the cities from negotiating with All American, Sterbank said.But the water-sharing agreement has frustrated commissioners in the smaller Thurston Public Utility District, who were excluded from talks despite their request to be at the table. The district commission has said it might go to court if the cities keep it out of water talks.

Olympia Councilman Joe Hyer said it was never the city’s intent to “marginalize” the PUD, but Olympia had to move quickly to prevent another private party from beating them to the courthouse. There will be time for further regional discussions later, he said.

Meanwhile, two business representatives asked the city to leave some of the water with the brewery so All American can launch the water bottling operation it promised.

“Please do not take any action that would slam the door shut,” said Gary Johnston, head of the teamsters union that represented the 400 workers who lost their jobs when the brewery closed.

All American bought the Miller Brewing Co. property in 2004. It announced plans to bottle water and employ up to 200 people. The company has had trouble acquiring the financing needed to complete the conversion, but the attorney for All American told the Olympia and Tumwater city councils Tuesday night that the money was coming together. L. Eric Whetstone, president of All American, has invested
$7 million of his own money in the venture and obtained another $40 million from lenders, Lemly said.

It would have started employing 40 to 50 people this fall and more jobs would be on the way, he said after the council meetings.

The Tumwater City Council was more receptive to the All American offer. Mayor Pro Tem Pete Kmet said he hopes the jurisdictions will work together to consider the interests of the brewery during negotiations.

Lemly did not tell the Tumwater council that All American intends to file for bankruptcy if the condemnation proceedings go forward.

Water is fast becoming a growing concern for this region. Lacey is reaching its limit on how much water it can pump because of growth and officials are withholding certificates of water availability from developers in the urban growth area because they can’t guarantee there will be enough. Olympia has enough water to serve its population through 2015. Tumwater expects to need more water by 2022.

Clallam urges implementation of water rules

The following article appeared in the March 7, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

It's worth noting that Joe Stohr feels that the Department of Ecology is getting a lot more understanding about why they're doing what they're doing in WRIA 17. After months of learning, we certainly have a much greater appreciation of what they've done in other watersheds, and what they attempted to do in WRIA 17 with the original form of instream flow rule for the watershed.

The past few months have also modified the playing field considerably. We now have the recently passed substitute HB 2860, instructing Ecology to use stored water to actively manage instream flows in the Columbia River Basin, and we have the recent phenomenon of eminent domain condemnation for the purpose of obtaining water rights, a creative reaction to instream flow rule-imposed water access restrictions. We also have reports of municipalities that cannot issue new building permits because they cannot obtain new water rights as a result of restrictions imposed by the previous generation of instream flows.

Now our neighboring WRIA's elected officials are asking the Department of Ecology to get on with their instream flow rule-making process, exepecting to be able to obtain new water rights once the rule is adopted. We hope that they will soon be more cautious about what they ask for, particularly in light of Ecology's demonstrated unwillingness to approve new water rights.

We'd like to encourage people living in WRIA 18 to contact their officials to tell them that there needs to be full participation in any rule-making process by all affected stakeholders, particularly well owners, from Day One. We'd also like to encourage them to energize their neighbors to become involved in the process, either at the table, or as observers at every step of the way . . . observers prepared to comment whenver there's an opportunity during the meetings.

---

Clallam urges implementation of water rules
PUD project needs in-stream flows decided

By Jim Casey
Peninsula Daily News

PORT ANGELES — Nine months after they adopted controversial plans to share water between salmon and humans, Clallam County commissioners want to get on with implementing the new regulations.

In a work session with state Department of Ecology officials Monday, commissioners asked the agency to establish so-called in-stream flows — minimum amounts of water in streams and rivers to sustain endangered fish.

Commissioners had adopted plans for the Elwha-Dungeness watersheds — also known as Water Resource Inventory Area 18 or WRIA 18 — last June after months of dispute between environmentalists and developers.

Dick Wallace, director of the southwest region of Ecology, said the agency wants to finish making rules by July 2007.

That won't be fast enough for Clallam County Public Utility District Commissioner Hugh Haffner.

In-stream flows

Until Ecology sets in-stream flows, it will grant no rights to pump water from the Elwha or Dungeness basins, except for individual wells that are exempt from the agency's control.

That stymies the PUD's hopes to develop public water systems — especially in the rain-shadowed East End of Clallam County — the better to provide year-round water flows for salmon.

"We've got to do something and we've got to do it quick," Haffner told Wallace and Joe Stohr, special assistant to Ecology Director Jay Manning.

"What's happening is people are just drilling exempt wells."

A public water system in Carlsborg, Haffner said, could treat the area's nitrate-heavy water and use it to recharge the underground water table.

"We're willing to be the agency that works with the county," Haffner said, "but we need water rights."

Discouraging drilling?

However, discouraging landowners from drilling wells could be a tough sell, said County Commissioner Steve Tharinger, D-Dungeness.

"I don't think that anyone is going to come out against God, guns and exempt wells," he said.

Nonetheless, public water systems could complement "pocket" sewer systems in places like Carlsborg. They would recharge clean water into the Dungeness aquifer, Haffner said.

Masters said he'd convey the county/PUD message to Manning.

"I'll take that message back," he said. "It's where my boss wants to go."

Jefferson County process

In the meantime, Ecology has delayed its rule-making process in Jefferson County, which comprises WRIA 17, mostly the Quilcene watershed.

The deparment didn't give citizens sufficient warning of what it wanted to do — such as banning water withdrawals from certain streams — when it started setting rules last summer, Stohr said.

The result was a public backlash.

A "time-out" allowed the agency to hold workshops on the issues, Stohr said. Ecology now hopes to adopt the regulations in summer 2007.

"I think we are getting a lot more understanding about why we are doing what we're doing," Stohr said.

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

---

Lacey agrees to split costs, benefits of water pursuit with Olympia, Tumwater

This article appeared in the March 6, 2006 edition of The Olympian. While it may be possible to understand the explanation that an eminent domain condemnation is sometimes the only way to go when there's no other option, we see a situation where several other options exist. They tend to involve the issuing of additional water rights for the municipalities. That's something well within the control of the Department of Ecology.

The more we learn about water and water rights in western Washington, the more we find reason to question the Department of Ecology's policies. We've got some experience with this in WRIA 17, and there are many Washingtonians who have had less than favorable experiences with the Department's water rights policies over the past several years.

We're in the right place at the right time. We are involved in the development of a wiser form of instream flow rule, and we are seeing the development of the consequences of poorly conceived instream flow rules and the institutional unwillingness to make water available for people that comes from the Department of Ecology tying its own hands.

---

Lacey agrees to split costs, benefits of water pursuit with Olympia, Tumwater

BY CHRISTIAN HILL
THE OLYMPIAN

LACEY — During a seven-minute special meeting today, the City Council approved joining Olympia and Tumwater in the cities’ pursuit for water from the former Miller Brewery.

Council members voted to authorize City Attorney Ken Ahlf to file court documents and join the condemnation proceeding initiated by the city of Olympia three weeks ago. They also approved an agreement under which the three cities will share equally any water they gain from the former brewery.

Olympia and Tumwater are scheduled to approve the agreement Tuesday night.

The council made its decisions with virtually no discussion, but the action follows two weeks of negotiations between staff and elected leaders for the cities. A final draft of the agreement was available to council members for review Friday.

“It looks good to me,” Deputy Mayor Nancy Peterson said.

Under the agreement, the cities will receive one-third of the water they obtain through the condemnation proceeding.

Each city will pay one-third of the costs for attorney fees, testing and appraisal, any water or property they secure through the lawsuit and the process to transfer the water to public use.

Any city can withdrawal from the agreement after giving advance notice. The withdrawing city must pay all attorney fees it is responsible for, and water it would receive would be split between the two remaining partners.

Last month, the city of Olympia initiated the condemnation proceeding out of concern the larger community would lose right to the former brewery’s water.

All American Bottled Water Corp. has owned the former brewery nearly two years and has yet to convert it into a water bottling plant. The company owners owes millions to contractors and for back property taxes.

Under state law, a water holder gives up its rights to water after five years of non-use.

Tumwater responded by filing a motion to intervene to protect the city’s interests.

The court will determine whether the cities or the current owner are best positioned to use the water “for the greatest public benefit,” according to the law. The cities would be responsible for paying the property owner “just compensation” for the water rights and associated property.

---

Cities agree to split water

This article appeared in the March 3 edition of The Olympian. The three cities involved in the eminent domain condemnation of the former Miller brewery in Tumwater have agreed not to allow the Thurston Public Utillity District to take part in this action.

---

Cities agree to split water
Councils will vote on brewery rights

BY CHRISTIAN HILL
THE OLYMPIAN

LACEY — The county's three biggest cities are set to become partners next week in the bid to secure the former Miller brewery's water rights.

The city attorneys for Lacey, Olympia and Tumwater emerged with a tentative agreement after a lengthy meeting Thursday.

“The attorneys are pretty well convinced that this is a go for all three parties,” Lacey City Attorney Ken Ahlf said in announcing the deal to the Lacey City Council during its Thursday night work session.

The Lacey City Council will consider approval of the agreement during a special meeting Monday. Olympia and Tumwater will do the same at regularly scheduled meetings Tuesday, Ahlf said. All three cities need to approve the agreement.

The deal calls for each city to get an equal share of the water rights if condemnation proceedings against the former brewery property are successful.

A copy of the draft agreement wasn't available for public review Thursday night.

Equal sharing could amount to a maximum of 2.2 million more gallons of water a day for each city at a time when each is hunting for more water to serve growth. It's likely the actual volumes would be lower.

Lacey has the most immediate need. A projected water shortfall there halted new development outside the city limits before the county imposed a development moratorium driven by a different issue.

Water in Washington belongs to the public and cannot be owned by any one individual or group. Instead, they may be granted rights by the state Department of Ecology to use a specific volume for a specific purpose.

Last month, the Olympia City Council voted to begin the condemnation process in neighboring Tumwater out of concern that the larger community might lose the water.

The former brewery is in limbo because its current owner, All American Bottled Water Corp., hasn't secured financing to convert it into a water bottling plant. Under state law, the water rights are relinquished after five years of inactivity.

The city of Tumwater has filed a motion with Thurston County Superior Court to intervene in the case to protect its interests.

On Tuesday night, the Olympia City Council agreed to split equally any water rights the court action might free up.

On Wednesday, several members of the Lacey City Council said they were uncomfortable signing any agreement without also filing a motion to intervene to ensure it has legal recourse if the agreement goes awry.

Under the agreement that emerged Thursday, Tumwater will rescind its motion to intervene, and Lacey and Tumwater will join as partners in the condemnation proceeding filed by Olympia.

“Nobody has the ability to go off on their own,” Ahlf said.

In the court proceedings, the court will determine whether the cities or the current owner are best positioned to use the water “for the greatest public benefit,” according to the law. The cities would be responsible for paying the property owner “just compensation” for the water rights and associated property.

The cities would oppose any action by the Thurston Public Utility District to join in, Ahlf said.

The utility provides water to 1,200 households in the Tanglewilde area outside Lacey. It has bought its water from Olympia for three decades. Under a 2005 agreement, the district must find another water source within the next 20 years because Olympia doesn't want to sell water to the PUD indefinitely.

The PUD won't be easily rebuffed.

In a letter the district sent to the cities Thursday, district President Gary Cooper wrote that the utility will not be “content with the current approach of (Olympia) to keep the PUD at an arm's length.”

Commissioner Paul Pickett said this week the utility is discussing its options, which might include a condemnation proceeding of its own.

“We believe we have a stake in this and a pretty strong authority,” Pickett said Thursday night.

Christian Hill covers the city of Lacey and military for The Olympian. He can be reached at 360-754-5427 or chill@theolympian.com.

---