Friday, May 19, 2006

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 24th 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.

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

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.

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

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.

Sunday, May 14, 2006

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.

Thursday, May 11, 2006

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.

Wednesday, May 10, 2006

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 with the requirements of the revised water measuring rule.

This will affect about 1,000 water-rights holders statewide, the majority of which are already metering their water.

The Quilcene-Snow Basin is one of the state's 62 designated watersheds. It stretches from Sequim Bay in Clallam County east through the Quimper Peninsula of Jefferson County and south into the Hood Canal area past Quilcene.

Concerned with salmon habitat, watershed quality and water access, state officials want to introduce a formula that would determine how much water could be accessed through wells in the watershed rural areas.

Ecology officials last year proposed to allow access to 3.87 million gallons of water a day, and possibly limiting daily water use to 350 gallons per well.

That sparked a major outcry among farmers and property owners around Jefferson County, and the county's state lawmakers stepped in, urging Ecology leaders to work more closely and carefully with county WRIA representatives on the planning to establish an in-stream flow rule.

New facilitator

David Sale, with ECO Resource, was introduced Tuesday night as the planning unit's new facilitator. The facilitator was hired through a state grant, according to previous agreements struck between the unit and Ecology.

Sale immediately began to kick off the design of the unit's proposed scope of work, taking suggestions from planning unit representatives.

Stohr also introduced new contractors with Hydrologic Services to help develop an in-stream flow rule.

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