WRIA 17

Shoreline plan stirs concern in Jefferson County

2009-02-24T22:07:00.000-08:00

The following article appeared in the February 24, 2009 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Shoreline plan stirs concern in Jefferson County
By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News
PORT TOWNSEND -- Jefferson County has received 472 written and verbal comments on the proposed shoreline master program update, which have been divided into issues for Planning Commission consideration, a county planner told county commissioners Monday.
The Planning Commission will continue deliberations on the matter when it convenes at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday at WSU Learning Center, Shold Business Park, 201 W. Patison St., Port Hadlock.
An update of the shoreline master program, required under state law, must be done by Dec. 1, 2011, which includes the state Department of Ecology's approval.
"We have worked long and hard without a consultant team and for public involvement," county Associate Planner Michelle McConnell told the commissioners, focusing on "busting the myths" that she said were circulating about the proposal.
Proposed in the update are buffers of 100 feet on lakes and 150-foot setbacks on saltwater bodies and streams, with a 10-foot building setback from the buffer or setback.
The existing Shoreline Master Program requires waterfront buffers and setbacks of between 30 and 100 feet.
The proposal affects about 6,200 shoreline parcels and about 3,200 property owners, said McConnell, and could take two years to make final.
The county has more than 250 miles of marine shore, 22 miles of lake shoreline and more than 238 miles of river frontage property, mostly on the county's West End.
Myth busting
McConnell said contrary to the myths:
Homeowners whose homes are more than 75 percent damaged by fire can rebuild their homes on the same sites if they can't relocate under new buffer requirement
The new buffers will not make lots unbuildable.
Buffers are based on science, including a "massive" study that includes a shoreline inventory.
The proposal is not too broad and merely meets Washington law.
The proposal does not allow mining on Hood Canal.
Noting that the city of Port Townsend is requiring similar buffers, McConnell said, "We are not out of line with the buffers we are proposing."
County Administrator Philip Morley said it was likely that another Planning Commission public hearing would be conducted.
"The public involvement process has been intense and will continue," Morley told the commissioners Monday.
"A public dialogue is necessary, but we have to meet the state legal requirement. That's a balancing act.
"We can't keep with the existing program. Flat out legally, we don't have that option."
Jefferson County planners said the final draft from Jefferson County lawmakers would be sent to Ecology for review, and final adoption would likely take place sometime in 2010.
The new regulations will get final approval from Ecology, but not until 2011, county officials have said.
________
Port Townsend-Jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew can be reached at 360-385-2335 or at jeff.chew@peninsuladailynews.com .

Jefferson PUD eyes city water

2009-02-20T21:24:00.000-08:00

The following article appeared in the February 20, 2009 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Jefferson PUD eyes city water
By Erik Hidle
Peninsula Daily News
The Jefferson County Public Utility District wants to buy some of the city of Port Townsend's water, but city officials aren't sure they want to sell.
Jefferson County PUD Commissioner Wayne King has long said that the utility, as the provider of water and sewer services to county residents, is interested in the city's seemingly abundant water supply.
The city operates its own water and sewer utility, separate from the PUD.
"Our deal is to look for water for the people," King said. "That's what we do.
"We are working to find more water by raising the levels of lakes and investigating reverse osmosis [from sea water].
"One thing we want to do is to purchase city water and test an aquifer storage and recharge in the area."
King explained that an aquifer storage and recharge meant pumping water back into the ground of a watershed in an effort to improve long-term water availability.
"What we're trying to do with the study is see if it will work and if it is feasible," King said.
"This would not just help the county. This could help the city residents as well."
King said the city's water supply is the obvious place to get the water from because of the availability.
Difficulties
Port Townsend Mayor Michelle Sandoval said that the city was willing to discuss such an idea, but that the city's water asset comes with a few twists that might make such a deal difficult.
"Our water comes from the Big Quilcene and Little Quilcene rivers," Sandoval said. "It has forever — since the town first got water."
Sandoval said the supply has been abundant in the past, but that the situation could change because withdrawals of the water are being monitored by federal agencies.
Historically, the city has operated under a special use easement from the U.S. Forest Service to run pipes across the forest land from the rivers to the city.
However, when the agreement was up for renegotiation 10 years ago, the Forest Service and National Marine Fisheries Service became concerned about summer-run chum habitat.
The fisheries service issued an opinion in 2006 recommending water withdrawals be cut off between August and October each year to help the chum.
"If this shutdown were implemented, it would lead to the closure of the Port Townsend Paper Corp. mill," Sandoval said.
The city takes approximately two million gallons of water from the system daily and the mill — Jefferson County's largest employer with about 300 workers — takes between 11 million and 15 million each day, she said.
The city and the mill pull water from different lakes, but the water is from the same source.
"The mill helped with getting the pipes in for that, and so they too get a part of that water," Sandoval said.
"The problem is if we lose the rights to the water, then we're in trouble."
Temporary solution
As a way of temporarily solving the problem, an agreement was reached between the city and the federal agencies in May 2008 that the city and the mill could continue to withdraw water from the rivers for five years while the situation was monitored.
After the five-year period, the situation would be re-evaluated.
Sandoval said that because the city's water withdrawal is being monitored so closely, any deals could potentially put the city — and the mill — in a dangerous position.
"At this point we don't have the full permit yet," Sandoval said.
"We have to continually monitor our water usage for five years to make sure there is enough water coming out of the stream for the fish.
"We want to keep the same level as we're at right now, because if they say we are creating biological issues for the chum, they might pull our permit.
"They will be looking at the data and we have to be very cautious."
Still, Sandoval said, she would like to hear the PUD's proposal for an aquifer recharge and was willing to discuss other possible partnerships with the PUD.
"This discussion will continue," she said.
"The council will continue to be briefed about the water issues."
Joint meet coming up
Water in Jefferson County — including the PUD's interest in city water — was the topic of a Jan. 29 meeting at the Olympia office of Rep. Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam, House majority leader and a representative of the 24th District, which includes Jefferson, Clallam and part of Grays Harbor counties.
Attending were Sandoval, King, Jefferson County Commissioner David Sullivan and private citizen Norm MacLeod.
King and Sandoval said they will discuss it again at a joint meeting between the City Council and the PUD commissioners some time in the next month.
"We will continue talking," Sandoval said, "but we're going to be cautious to protect the city's interests."
__________________________
Reporter Erik Hidle can be reached at 360-385-2335 or at
erik.hidle@peninsuladailynews.com

Proposed water well curbs draw fire in Sequim forum

2009-02-20T21:22:00.000-08:00

The following article appeared in the February 19, 2009 edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Proposed water well curbs draw fire in Sequim forum
SEQUIM — A plan to limit new wells in the Dungeness Valley drew a torrent of people to John Wayne Marina on Wednesday night.
The state Department of Ecology hosted "Water for People, Farms and Fish," a public workshop on how and why water from the Dungeness River must now be managed instead of allowed to flow freely into an unlimited number of households, lawns, gardens and fields.
The marina's meeting room filled up fast, until the crowd numbered nearly 150; among the most vociferous were longtime Dungeness Valley residents and real estate agents.
Cynthia Nelson, Ecology's watershed planner, sought to explain what's called the in-stream flow rule, a proposal intended to keep enough water in the Dungeness and surrounding streams for fish, other wildlife and recreational pursuits, while also allowing existing-well users to draw what they need.
To do this, the Sequim area now needs a "water exchange," a system of fees paid for water rights, said Ecology's Sarah Ferguson, lead writer of the in-stream flow rule.
And, Ferguson added, there may be periods when no new wells are permitted.
In some areas of the Dungeness Valley, these closed periods could stretch from spring into fall.
The development that has engulfed Sequim in recent years has produced the need for limits, Ferguson said, adding that in recent years, some 200 wells have been dug annually in the Dungeness watershed.
Are limits necessary?
But many in the crowd didn't believe that limits are necessary yet.
"Are you talking about shutting the Peninsula down?" asked Paul Burgess, who lives off of Palo Alto Road outside Sequim.
He also asked Nelson whether people growing their own food in small gardens, or farmers working larger parcels, will face limits on their water.
"People who are using their existing wells are not going to be affected," Nelson replied.
Future users "will have access to water. It's just that it's going to come with some strings attached to it, whereas before it has not."
Nelson didn't, however, explain how those strings will work or how much their attached price tags might be.
Instead, she and Ferguson took a long series of questions about why the strings are appearing now.
Ferguson sought to boil down the answer by saying that since many thousands of wells have been drilled in the past few decades, the flow of water in the Dungeness River now dwindles too low during summer and fall, making it an unhealthy habitat for threatened and critical species of salmon.
River 'over-appropriated'
The river is "over-appropriated," according to one of several Ecology posters displayed at the meeting.
So the state must establish a water bank, or exchange, a system that requires people to pay for new water rights.
This will ensure that there's enough water to go around, according to the poster.
Yet a long line of skeptics formed after Nelson and Ferguson spoke.
"Fundamentally I don't trust you," Bob Forde of Sequim told the Ecology officials. He also challenged their premise that the water supply is a finite resource.
Ferguson, meantime, stressed that the limits on future well drilling and activation are still under discussion, and that the proposed in-stream flow rule will appear on Ecology's Web site before any limits and fees are finalized.
She urged the audience to send feedback to her and to Nelson now and during the 180-day formal public comment period that will begin this spring, but she gave no start date.
According to an Ecology brochure, a public hearing will be held in early summer before the rule is adopted this fall.
Nelson told the crowd that Ecology has data on the demand that would result from continued development around Sequim.
If, for example, 10,000 people move into the Dungeness watershed and enjoy unlimited well and water rights, the river could dry up, Nelson said.
She then said she could "put that data together," on Ecology's Web site.
Karen Pritchard, a real estate agent who's worked in Sequim for 18 years, was among the last to address the officials.
"This is a noble effort ... to honor our earth, our fish," she said.
Then she asked whether the in-stream flow rule, with its limits on water use, would be discontinued if they don't save the salmon after all. "If we're not successful, we should quit punishing the people."
Ecology planner Brian Walsh said that the state has a far broader responsibility than only protecting fish.
"There are lots of benefits of keeping water in the river," he said, though he didn't elaborate.
Ferguson, for her part, urged Sequim area residents to send comments to her at ser461@ec.wa.gov, or to Nelson at cyne461@ec.wa.gov. Ecology's Web page outlining the in-stream flow rule, with its charges for new wells, is:
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/dngeness.html.
_________
Sequim-Dungeness Valley Editor Diane Urbani de la Paz can be reached at 360-681-2391 or at diane.urbani@peninsuladailynews.com

Proposal sparks fears for Chimacum farms

2009-02-20T21:21:00.000-08:00

The following article appeared in the February 16, 2009 edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Proposal sparks fears for Chimacum farms
By Paul Gottlieb
Peninsula Daily News
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the second of a two-part series on a new water rule proposed by the state Department of Ecology that would affect new wells. Today's story looks more closely at the response to the proposal in the Quilcene River-Snow Creek watershed in East Jefferson County.
It's hard to believe that water would be an issue in the rainy Pacific Northwest.
But it is.
The state Department of Ecology is proposing a rule, called an instream flow rule, that restricts new well use in the Dungeness River watershed in the east end of Clallam County and in the Quilcene River-Snow Creek watershed in East Jefferson County.
This concerns property owners, real estate agents and those interested in development in both counties.
In both watersheds, the proposed new water-use regulations would both limit daily use of a new, permitted well to 500 gallons -- while owners of existing wells could continue to draw up to 5,000 gallons daily -- and place meters on new wells, with possible fines for exceeding the daily limit.
Additional restrictions are proposed for the Chimacum Valley.
"The demand for water in the Chimacum has been so high in recent years that what we're actually proposing is an even more restrictive standard for the sub-basin," said Dan Partridge, communications manager with Ecology's Water Resources Program.
"We're proposing that future water use be limited to indoor use only, until an alternative water supply is available for the sub-basin.
"Once another water source is available, the indoor-only restriction should be lifted."
The additional restriction for the Chimacum Valley would limit the water-reserve to 1,940 gallons per day for 109 new homes, which would be allowed only indoor water use.
At meetings on the proposal, hundreds have worried about the future of small farms in the Chimacum Valley.
"The impacts for new farmers are really huge," Kate Dean, who leads the Washington State University LandWorks Collaborative Outreach at the Port Hadlock Extension office, has said.
"Obviously, nothing can be grown on 500 gallons per day."
Ecology officials have been revising an original instream flow rule since 2005, when Jefferson County residents came out en masse against the proposal, saying they were not given notice or adequate time to comment.
The proposed rule is for the watershed that Ecology calls Water Resource Inventory Area 17, or WRIA 17.
The WRIA planning unit could not meet the state's deadline to write a locally composed rule, so Ecology took over the reins.
Late last year, Ecology returned to Port Townsend, revision in hand.
Streams in the watershed have chronic low flows in late summer and early fall, Ecology said.
Increases in water use can reduce water needed by already threatened salmon and other fish and wildlife that depend on adequate flow, officials say.
Driven by fish
The new rule proposals were sparked by federal regulators, Ecology watershed planner Cynthia Nelson said.
The process is being driven by the federal government's listing of chinook, chum, steelhead and bull trout as endangered, though the paucity of chinook is a major factor, she said.
"The feds drew a line around the Puget Sound and said, 'This is the area where the population of chinook are bad enough to be threatened, an area where we think we need to manage the fish to restore it," Nelson said.
Chinook, for example, spawn in August and September, when stream flows are at their worst, rainfall is at its lowest and water for agricultural and domestic use is in highest demand, she said.
"If we keep issuing water rights and people keep drilling 5,000-gallon wells close to a stream, [the wells] will go dry.
"This is all about trying to balance things a bit more. When people make water-allocation decisions, they will have to consider fish in the equation.
"People are going to get water, but the process is going to be a bit different than how it used to be.
"As a rule, people don't like [the restrictions], because it's a change in the status quo," said Nelson.
Public comment ended Friday for the instream flow rule for the Quilcene-Snow watershed.
The rule could be in its final draft form -- and ready to be considered for adoption -- by summer 2009, Ecology officials said.
The next meeting of the steering committee for the watershed will be from 10 a.m. to noon Feb. 24 at the Jefferson County Library, 620 Cedar Ave., Port Hadlock.
The next meeting of the planning unit for WRIA 17 will be from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. March 10 at the Tri-Area Community Center. 10 West Valley Road, Chimacum.
For more information on WRIA 17, check http://www.wria17.org/.
The Elwha-Dungeness rivers watershed is WRIA 18. The proposed rule affects only the part of the area that is fed by the Dungeness River.
The next meeting on the proposed new rule will be from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. Wednesday at John Wayne Marina, 2577 W. Sequim Bay Road.
The public can comment on the rule by writing to Ann E. Wessel, instream flow rules coordinator, Department of Ecology, Water Resources Program, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600 or by e-mail to awes461@ecy.wa.gov.
Information about the rule, and about Water Resource Inventory Area 18, can be found at www.ecy.wa.gov/apps/watersheds/planning/18.html.
________
Staff writer Paul Gottlieb can be reached at 360-417-3536 and
paul.gottlieb@peninsuladailynews.com.
Port Townsend/Jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew contributed to this report.

Water limits raise fears about development; rule puts 500-gallon curb on new wells

2009-02-20T17:23:00.000-08:00

The following article appeared in the February 15 edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Water limits raise fears about development; rule puts 500-gallon curb on new wells
By Paul Gottlieb
Peninsula Daily News
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the first of a two-part series on proposed state water conservation rules and their effect on wells and water rights in the Dungeness and Chimacum basins.
A new limit on land development is coming our way: State water conservation rules that limit the amount of water that can be drawn from new wells.
Fish will be part of the equation, as the state Department of Ecology proposes restrictions to conserve water in rivers and streams that constitute salmon habitat, as well as underground water in aquifers.
The regulations would not affect owners of existing, permitted wells, but only those with undeveloped property who want to drill a well, including those who already have applied for one.
New water-use regulations proposed for both the Dungeness Valley in the east end of Clallam County and the Quilcene and Chimacum areas in Jefferson County would:
Limit daily use of a new well to 500 gallons. It's estimated a family of four uses about 300 gallons a day for personal use such as bathing, drinking and doing laundry, Ecology watershed planner Cynthia Nelson said.
Owners of existing wells could continue to draw down up to 5,000 gallons daily.
Place meters on new wells to monitor usage -- with possible fines for exceeding the daily limit.
In the Chimacum Valley, water demand has been so high that Ecology is proposing that only indoor water use for new wells be permitted until an additional water supply is found.
In the Dungeness River watershed, the regulations could lead to new permit fees that Nelson said could exceed $2,000 per new well.
The far-reaching measure would affect any undeveloped property in the areas covered by the restrictions, including parcels inside the Sequim city limit where wells can be dug, Mayor Laura Dubois said last week.
Purpose, questions
Ecology says that wells in the Chimacum and Dungeness areas are sucking water out of aquifers at dangerous rates.
Regulations are necessary to protect salmon and safely manage development for future population growth, Nelson said.
Ecology has proposed instream flow rules -- regulations intended to guarantee enough water to support fish and wildlife and human use -- for both watershed areas, with some variation between them.
The public comment period for the rule in the Quilcene River and Snow Creek watershed ended Friday.
No end-date has been set for public comment on the Dungeness version of the rule.
The new rules are the result of an ongoing water management process, Nelson said, that began in 2005 with two goals in mind:
Protect endangered salmon that find it difficult to survive and spawn in low-water-flow streams and rivers.
Better manage land development that is drawing down water from aquifers.
But the proposal has the North Olympic Peninsula real estate industry and property owners up in arms.
Dungeness
The rules pose an onerous prospect for landowners not on current water systems, those in the real estate industry say.
"There's a sense that this is a taxation process that our government is going through, that there really isn't science behind this," said Dan Erickson of Coldwell Town & Country, which has offices in Sequim, Port Townsend and Port Ludlow.
"That doesn't mean we don't have any concern for the environment."
Doug Hale, one of Erickson's real estate agents, estimated hundreds of property owners could be affected by the regulations.
"There is a lot of undeveloped land out there that people have been sitting on for years," Hale said, adding that the state "already threw us a double whammy" about 18 months ago by prohibiting development on 1-acre parcels in rural areas, limiting such development to minimum 5-acre parcels.
It's important that the public participate now in meetings having to do with the instream flow rule, said Marguerite Glover, who serves on the Water Working Group for the Dungeness Instream Flow Rule process, and who is also the co-chairman of the government affairs committee of the Sequim Association of Realtors.
In an e-mail urging attendance at a workshop on the proposed rule for the Dungeness Valley, which will be from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. at John Wayne Marina, 2577 W. Sequim Bay Road, Sequim, she said, "The instream flow rule will affect all new water well users, including those who have a well that has not been used yet, on a piece of property.
"Ecology plans on publishing the draft rule late in March, or early in April, with an adoption date of May (hopefully).
"Once the rule is published, there can be no substantive changes. That is why it is very important to give Ecology input now."
Frank Roach, 80, intends to preserve his 101 acres outside of Sequim for wildlife, but believes the pain should be spread around more.
"This loss of water in the Dungeness River, the solution to that should involve everybody, not just the people who own houses," he said. "The solution should be far-reaching."
The Sequim area is being singled out because that's where most of the growth is, he said.
He has "deep concerns," he said, that fresh water is used by gas stations for industrial-type uses and by car-wash businesses and school districts for washing vehicles. Roach said Class A, non-drinkable water or rain water would be just as effective for such purposes.
"Go green," he said.
_______
Staff writer Paul Gottlieb can be reached at 360-417-3536 and paul.gottlieb@peninsuladailynews.com.
Jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew contributed to this report.

THE NEXT MEETING about a new instream flow rule to provide adequate water for salmon habitat and human use in the Dungeness Valley will be Wednesday.

The workshop will be from 4 p.m. to 7 p.m. at John Wayne Marina, 2577 W. Sequim Bay Road.

Ecology wants at least the water draw-down rules for new, unpermitted wells ready for 180-day public review by May, so that they can be in force by November, said Cynthia Nelson, Ecology watershed planner.

No time limit has been set for public comment for the Dungeness proposal.

The public can comment on the rule by writing to Ann E. Wessel, instream flow rules coordinator, Department of Ecology, Water Resources Program, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600 or by e-mail to awes461@ecy.wa.gov.

Information about the rule, and about Water Resource Inventory Area 18, can be found at http://olysteward.org/cgi-bin/cblog/www.ecy.wa.gov/apps/watersheds/planning/18.html.

NMFS wants to set WRIA 17 reserves to ZERO nearly everywhere

2009-02-20T17:21:00.000-08:00

Sunday, February 01, 2009

NMFS wants to set WRIA 17 reserves to ZERO nearly everywhere

We now have a preliminary draft rule for WRIA 17's instream flows and other water management considerations. While far from perfect, we have something to work with, and we are developing new ways of working that will actually be capable of providing additional water for farms, fish, and people.

(Before we go any further, we need to understand that "farms, fish, and people" is phrased in alphabetical order. So long as these three primary user group classifications are discussed on an even keel, we can have a productive conversation. As soon as one of the groups is elevated above the other two, though, the conversation has a rather nasty tendency to dissolve into a confrontational mess.)

So . . . into the discussion steps the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Habitat Conservation Division with their "informal early comments" on the Department of Ecology's on the preliminary draft of Chapter 173-517 WAC, Water Resources Management Program, Quilcene-Snow Water Resources Inventory Area (WRIA 17), otherwise known as the WRIA 17 instream flow rule. (The preliminary draft is open for public comment until February 13, 2009, so please go to this page, download a copy for yourself, and make as many constructive comments as you can, so that you can help Ecology make edits that will be helpful to those of us who live in WRIA 17.)

What does NMFS ask Ecology to do? Hold onto your seat . . .

In an email sent to the Department of Ecology, and obtained by the Peninsula Daily News and others at a public meeting we see:

"NMFS has identified several of the streams described in the Preliminary Draft Rule as important for conservation of summer-chum (listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act). Specifically, Big Quilcene, Little Quilcene, Chimacum, Salmon, and Snow creeks are key for recovery of the summer-chum, and are each flow limited. Therefore, NMFS recommends the Preliminary Draft Rule be revised to Not allow any additional water withdrawals from these streams."
. . .
"NMFS recommends that proposals for additional, capped allocations of water from the Big Quilcene (15 cfs) and Chimacum (3 cfs) be revised to 0. In addition, NMFS recommends that additional water proposed for withdrawal, termed "reserves," be revised to 0 for Chimacum, Little Quilcene, Salmon, and Snow creeks. We note that Big Quilcene has a larger watershed and different hydrology from the other streams and may be able to accommodate a small amount additional water withdrawal, but much less than the proposed reserve of 200,400 gpd or 0.31 cfs. A reserve amount close to 20,000 gpd (0.03 cfs) would be an acceptable withdrawal for summer-chum salmon conservation in the Big Quilcene."

So, there you have it . . . NMFS has most certainly elevated the fish primary user group way, way above the farms and people groups. (We understand that, while NMFS generally responds to Ecology's requests for review and comment, this level of detail is unprecedented.) This makes discussion toward an improved way of managing our local water resources a more difficult task, even though we are going to need to have that discussion.

What we are trying to accomplish is the development of a local water resource management program that will make more water available for all uses. The folks in the Walla Walla Basin are having remarkable success with this approach, to the level of being able to provide water to streams that used to go dry every year. Salmon are now returning to those streams. With broad local support from the full range of water using interests, we can do the same here, and have already been asked to give it a try. We are not going to be able to go far enough down that road if NMFS digs in its heels and insists on their recommendation becoming law in WRIA 17.

Have you noticed that things have changed a tad since last summer, when the global, national, and regional economy was still ticking along more or less as usual? Would you say that the time for "business as usual" is well and truly over? With our national leaders and a growing number of leading economists accepting that we are in a recession that isn't going to be over any time soon . . . and that may, indeed, come to resemble a replay of the 1930s, we really need to take a reality check and plan for and prepare ourselves and our local region for some pretty tough times. If it doesn't happen, at least we will be further down the road toward meeting the demand for locally grown produce. If it does, then we will be better able to feed ourselves and our neighbors.

How did people around here make it through the Great Depression? Well, several long-time residents say there were few, if any lawns in Port Townsend, because everyone had vegetable gardens. The following decade those gardens gained the moniker of "Victory Gardens". Many families moved out of cities and towns and onto farms. Those who did managed to get through the hard times better than many of those who didn't have a farm to go to.

We need to increase agricultural production on existing farms and other suitable parcels. We should also make greater use of greenhouses. The use of higher efficiency watering practices will need to be a given. While we're at it, we need to make sure there's additional water in our streams when it's needed, because until we satisfy that basic condition, we're not going to be able to have additional water for growing food.

We can accomplish this and more, providing we have reasonable access to our water resources. With water banking, the ability to actually put additional water into our streams when they need it, and a locally-driven water management program, we can do it. If NMFS persists in insisting that the water in WRIA 17 is going to be a "no touch" resource in terms of supporting those needs, then it's going to be a much harder task than what we are already looking at.

What we need now is for NMFS to take a step back, take a deep breath, and see what we can do. Better yet, NMFS could even help us accomplish the dream. How about we ask that they not only give us a chance, but also help by becoming a part of the solution, rather than maintain their current position as a barrier to success?

State water proposal growing fears

2009-02-20T17:12:00.000-08:00

The following article appeared in the Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News on Friday, January 30, 2009.

State water proposal growing fears
By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News
PORT TOWNSEND -- A National Marine Fisheries official has recommended to the state that no additional water allocations from the Big Quilcene River or Chimacum Creek be permitted.
If the recommendation -- one of many comments sent to the state Department of Ecology on its proposed Jefferson County in-stream rule -- were adopted, it would mean that while present allocations would be preserved, no more water allocations would be allowed for new homeowners or farmers from those two waterways.
That prospect has stirred fears for the future of agriculture in the Chimacum Valley.
'We can't produce'
"If we regulate to that point, we can't produce our own food because of the water situation," said Roger Short, a longtime Chimacum Valley farmer.
"I don't know what's going to end up for the final rule," said Matt Longenbaugh, Central Puget Sound branch chief with National Marine Fisheries Habitat Conservation Division Washington State Habitat Office, on Thursday.
Ecology is accepting public comments on its in-stream flow rule proposal through Feb. 13.
Ecology's rule proposal targets the Chimacum sub-basin's low summer-fall creek flows, limiting new individual permit-exempt well uses, such as for individual homes, to 500 gallons per day per new household and setting a water reserve supply for 109 homes in the Chimacum Creek sub-basin.
The Quilcene-Snow watershed, known as Watershed Source Inventory Area 17, is facing increasing water demand for new residents and local agriculture, Ecology officials have said.
Threaten wildlife
Streams in the watershed have chronic low flows in the late summer and early fall, and increases in water use can affect already threatened salmon and other fish and wildlife, according to the state agency.
After years of working closely with local and state governments and the local community, Ecology proposed a rule that will help manage water to meet the current and future needs of people, farms and fish, officials said.
Longenbaugh said that the National Marine Fisheries' focus is on protecting fish.
In a Jan. 23 e-mail to Ann Wessel, Ecology's in-stream flow rules coordinator, Longenbaugh recommended that proposals for additional, capped allocations of water from the Big Quilcene River and Chimacum Creek "be revised to O."
"Any withdrawals that contribute to summer base flows are contrary to conservation of summer chum," Longenbaugh said in the e-mail.
"Ecology has asked for a reserve amount dedicated to endangered species. What we're concerned about are those fish with [Endangered Species Act] listings, especially summer chum. We focus on the federally protected fish."
Longenbaugh also recommended that additional water proposed for withdrawal, or reserves, be reduced to zero for Chimacum, the Little Quilcene River and Salmon and Snow creeks.
Ecology officials have revised an in-stream flow rule presented in 2005, when several Jefferson County residents objected to the original proposal, saying they were not given notice or adequate time to comment.
Late last year, Ecology returned to Port Townsend, revision in hand.
In the revised plan, 109 homes in the Chimacum Creek sub-basin would be allocated a total of 1,940 gallons per day, with no outdoor use.
Short said that, while he has adequate water rights on his property, he is concerned about others who might need water for agriculture in the future.
"At the moment, I feel that personally I am OK, but I am going to fight like hell for my neighbors," he said.
He said there was plenty of water in the Quilcene River, with 2 million gallons a day flowing to Quilcene Bay.
PUD concerns
Jefferson County Public Utility District Commissioners Dana Roberts and Wayne King said they were surprised by Longenbaugh's recommendation.
"I think it really almost has to hurt" agriculture, Roberts said, adding that he believed the state will probably review the in-stream flow rule in light of Longenbaugh's comments.
King said National Marine Fisheries has never been this detailed in its recommendations to Ecology in the past.
"Zero is zero. What are we going to do?" King said, adding that PUD is studying possible alternative water sources such as Peterson Lake, which the utility bought two years ago, and reverse osmosis of seawater.
He said the PUD commissioners would be willing to discuss the future of water supplies with Jefferson County and city of Port Townsend leaders.
Bill Graham, PUD water resource manager, said he hopes that the recommendation is not adopted, because it would make "us the last game in town and in the Chimacum basin for new connections.
"Our concern is, there will be a run on water" before the rule is put into effect.
The proposed Ecology's in-stream flow rule for 13 Jefferson County streams sets a conservation standard for new permit-exempt well uses in all WRIA 17 reserves -- except Chimacum.
Some elements of the proposal are:
· New individual permit-exempt well uses, typically single-family homes, would be allotted a maximum of 500 gallons per day and an average of 350 gallons per day.
· Water use on all new withdrawals would be metered, but the measurement would not be used to charge a fee for water use.
· Rooftop rainwater collection would be allowed.
· Those living within a public water system would be ineligible to draw from reserve supplies.
· Seasonal withdrawals, authorized by new water rights, would be possible on the Big Quilcene River and Chimacum Creek during high flow months only.
Approximate number of new households the reserve could supply under the present proposed rule: Big Quilcene River, 756; Chimacum Creek, 109; Donavan Creek, 8; Little Quilcene River, Leland and Howe creeks, 146; Ludlow Creek, 73; Piddling Creek, 7; Salmon Creek, 34; Snow Creek, 34; Spencer Creek, 8; Tarboo Creek, 26; Thorndyke Creek, 119.
Miller Peninsula in Jefferson County, Quimper Peninsula and Oak Bay would be allowed 5,000 gallons per day for commercial agriculture uses in certain withdrawal locations, and the number of households would not be limited by a reserve quantity.
Mats Mats Bay, Squamish Harbor, Toandos Peninsula, Bolton Peninsula, Devils Lake, Marple, Marrowstone and other islands would not be limited by a reserve, and the number of new households would not be limited by a reserve quantity.
Comments can be e-mailed to awes461@ecy.wa.gov or mailed to Wessel, Instream Flow Rules Coordinator, Department of Ecology, Water Resources Program, P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600.
______
Port Townsend-Jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew can be reached at 360-385-2335 or at jeff.chew@peninsuladailynews.com.

NMFS wants to set WRIA 17 reserves to ZERO nearly everywhere

2009-02-01T11:30:00.000-08:00

What does NMFS ask Ecology to do? Hold onto your seat . . .

In an email sent to the Department of Ecology, and obtained by the Peninsula Daily News and others at a public meeting we see:

"NMFS has identified several of the streams described in the Preliminary Draft Rule as important for conservation of summer-chum (listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act). Specifically, Big Quilcene, Little Quilcene, Chimacum, Salmon, and Snow creeks are key for recovery of the summer-chum, and are each flow limited. Therefore, NMFS recommends the Preliminary Draft Rule be revised to Not allow any additional water withdrawals from these streams."
. . .
"NMFS recommends that proposals for additional, capped allocations of water from the Big Quilcene (15 cfs) and Chimacum (3 cfs) be revised to 0. In addition, NMFS recommends that additional water proposed for withdrawal, termed "reserves," be revised to 0 for Chimacum, Little Quilcene, Salmon, and Snow creeks. We note that Big Quilcene has a larger watershed and different hydrology from the other streams and may be able to accommodate a small amount additional water withdrawal, but much less than the proposed reserve of 200,400 gpd or 0.31 cfs. A reserve amount close to 20,000 gpd (0.03 cfs) would be an acceptable withdrawal for summer-chum salmon conservation in the Big Quilcene."

State water proposal growing fears

2009-02-01T10:51:00.000-08:00

The following article appeared in the Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News on Friday, January 30, 2009.

State water proposal growing fears

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

PORT TOWNSEND -- A National Marine Fisheries official has recommended to the state that no additional water allocations from the Big Quilcene River or Chimacum Creek be permitted.

If the recommendation -- one of many comments sent to the state Department of Ecology on its proposed Jefferson County in-stream rule -- were adopted, it would mean that while present allocations would be preserved, no more water allocations would be allowed for new homeowners or farmers from those two waterways.

That prospect has stirred fears for the future of agriculture in the Chimacum Valley.

'We can't produce'

"If we regulate to that point, we can't produce our own food because of the water situation," said Roger Short, a longtime Chimacum Valley farmer.

"I don't know what's going to end up for the final rule," said Matt Longenbaugh, Central Puget Sound branch chief with National Marine Fisheries Habitat Conservation Division Washington State Habitat Office, on Thursday.

Ecology is accepting public comments on its in-stream flow rule proposal through Feb. 13.

Ecology's rule proposal targets the Chimacum sub-basin's low summer-fall creek flows, limiting new individual permit-exempt well uses, such as for individual homes, to 500 gallons per day per new household and setting a water reserve supply for 109 homes in the Chimacum Creek sub-basin.

The Quilcene-Snow watershed, known as Watershed Source Inventory Area 17, is facing increasing water demand for new residents and local agriculture, Ecology officials have said.

Threaten wildlife

Streams in the watershed have chronic low flows in the late summer and early fall, and increases in water use can affect already threatened salmon and other fish and wildlife, according to the state agency.

After years of working closely with local and state governments and the local community, Ecology proposed a rule that will help manage water to meet the current and future needs of people, farms and fish, officials said.

Longenbaugh said that the National Marine Fisheries' focus is on protecting fish.

In a Jan. 23 e-mail to Ann Wessel, Ecology's in-stream flow rules coordinator, Longenbaugh recommended that proposals for additional, capped allocations of water from the Big Quilcene River and Chimacum Creek "be revised to O."

"Any withdrawals that contribute to summer base flows are contrary to conservation of summer chum," Longenbaugh said in the e-mail.

"Ecology has asked for a reserve amount dedicated to endangered species. What we're concerned about are those fish with [Endangered Species Act] listings, especially summer chum. We focus on the federally protected fish."

Longenbaugh also recommended that additional water proposed for withdrawal, or reserves, be reduced to zero for Chimacum, the Little Quilcene River and Salmon and Snow creeks.

Ecology officials have revised an in-stream flow rule presented in 2005, when several Jefferson County residents objected to the original proposal, saying they were not given notice or adequate time to comment.

Late last year, Ecology returned to Port Townsend, revision in hand.

In the revised plan, 109 homes in the Chimacum Creek sub-basin would be allocated a total of 1,940 gallons per day, with no outdoor use.

Short said that, while he has adequate water rights on his property, he is concerned about others who might need water for agriculture in the future.

"At the moment, I feel that personally I am OK, but I am going to fight like hell for my neighbors," he said.

He said there was plenty of water in the Quilcene River, with 2 million gallons a day flowing to Quilcene Bay.

PUD concerns

Jefferson County Public Utility District Commissioners Dana Roberts and Wayne King said they were surprised by Longenbaugh's recommendation.

"I think it really almost has to hurt" agriculture, Roberts said, adding that he believed the state will probably review the in-stream flow rule in light of Longenbaugh's comments.

King said National Marine Fisheries has never been this detailed in its recommendations to Ecology in the past.

"Zero is zero. What are we going to do?" King said, adding that PUD is studying possible alternative water sources such as Peterson Lake, which the utility bought two years ago, and reverse osmosis of seawater.

He said the PUD commissioners would be willing to discuss the future of water supplies with Jefferson County and city of Port Townsend leaders.

Bill Graham, PUD water resource manager, said he hopes that the recommendation is not adopted, because it would make "us the last game in town and in the Chimacum basin for new connections.

"Our concern is, there will be a run on water" before the rule is put into effect.

The proposed Ecology's in-stream flow rule for 13 Jefferson County streams sets a conservation standard for new permit-exempt well uses in all WRIA 17 reserves -- except Chimacum.

Some elements of the proposal are:

· New individual permit-exempt well uses, typically single-family homes, would be allotted a maximum of 500 gallons per day and an average of 350 gallons per day.

· Water use on all new withdrawals would be metered, but the measurement would not be used to charge a fee for water use.

· Rooftop rainwater collection would be allowed.

· Those living within a public water system would be ineligible to draw from reserve supplies.

· Seasonal withdrawals, authorized by new water rights, would be possible on the Big Quilcene River and Chimacum Creek during high flow months only.

Approximate number of new households the reserve could supply under the present proposed rule: Big Quilcene River, 756; Chimacum Creek, 109; Donavan Creek, 8; Little Quilcene River, Leland and Howe creeks, 146; Ludlow Creek, 73; Piddling Creek, 7; Salmon Creek, 34; Snow Creek, 34; Spencer Creek, 8; Tarboo Creek, 26; Thorndyke Creek, 119.

Miller Peninsula in Jefferson County, Quimper Peninsula and Oak Bay would be allowed 5,000 gallons per day for commercial agriculture uses in certain withdrawal locations, and the number of households would not be limited by a reserve quantity.

Mats Mats Bay, Squamish Harbor, Toandos Peninsula, Bolton Peninsula, Devils Lake, Marple, Marrowstone and other islands would not be limited by a reserve, and the number of new households would not be limited by a reserve quantity.

Comments can be e-mailed to awes461@ecy.wa.gov or mailed to Wessel, Instream Flow Rules Coordinator, Department of Ecology, Water Resources Program, P.O. Box 47600 Olympia, WA 98504-7600.

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

Ecology tackles watershed management

2007-08-16T09:38:00.001-07:00

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

Ecology tackles watershed management

By Lyndie Browning, Leader Staff Writer

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

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

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

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

Thus the game began.

The basics

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

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

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

Quimper, Chimacum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There will be another public meeting in the fall.

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

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

WRIA 17 instream flow rule-making process update

2007-02-11T17:35:00.000-08:00

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

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

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

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

On the question about the flip charts I learned that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE THESE NUMBERS DON'T INCLUDE

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

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

WATERSHED PLANNING FUNDS

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

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

SPECIAL FUNDING PROVIDED BY ECOLOGY

$50,000 special grant to the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe.
$3,000 to a local contractor for GIS work to support instream flow setting.

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

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

The HSC contract is set to top out at about $150,000. The final bill will depend on whether there are any further changes before we are finished. In addition to the above I learned that there are also discussions about funds for deep Chimacum well, WQ study per Phase 3 plan, and Phase 2 of Chimacum GW study for next biennium. It appears to me that the State has made a significant investment in moving Jefferson County forward on questions about water and is continuing to invest dollars in that process."
If more detail than this is desired or if this does not address the question asked please let me know.
Tom Anderson
HydroLogic Services Co
360-739-1968"

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

Clallam PUD questions Ecology

2006-08-06T10:18:00.000-07:00

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

Clallam PUD questions Ecology

By Brian Gawley
Peninsula Daily News

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

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

But there are still going to be disputes.

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

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

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

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

Two questions

The letter asks two questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking for consistency

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mediator joins water planning process

2006-07-26T23:19:00.000-07:00

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

Mediator joins water planning process

By Kasia Pierzga
Leader Staff Writer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time to regroup

That's where Anderson comes in.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What's ahead

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

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

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

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

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

Anderson agreed with Stohr's characterization.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Letter to the editor

2006-07-05T16:32:00.000-07:00

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

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

Water questions

Editor, Leader,

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

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

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

Janet Welch
Nordland

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

Marrowstone appeal denied

2006-07-05T11:03:00.000-07:00

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

Marrowstone appeal denied

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appeal to state

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

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

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

Major hurdle cleared

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Growing clout

2006-06-10T10:01:00.000-07:00

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

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

by Kasia Pierzga
Leader Staff Writer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water rights controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gathering allies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ruling backs permit for Marrowstone water

2006-06-04T09:46:00.000-07:00

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

Ruling backs permit for Marrowstone water

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 16 hearing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End of the year?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water right required

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2006-05-19T17:38:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

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

It was the wrong thing to say.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 'huge issue' of water

2006-05-17T22:50:00.000-07:00

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

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

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 conditions

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

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

Basic needs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PUD support

The PUD"s administrator also defended the project.

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

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

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

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

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

Water to 300 homes

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

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

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

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

Clallam plans groundwater storage study

2006-05-16T18:01:00.000-07:00

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

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

By Jim Casey
Peninsula Daily News

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

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

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

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

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

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

Carlsborg area

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

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

Aquifer stroage and recovery, as it's called, could follow three strategies:
Augmenting late-season flows in the lower Dungeness River and its tributaries.
Enancing flows in adjacent small streams.
Recharging groundwater directly in areas near wells that serve public water systems.
County Commissioner Steve Tharinger D-Dungeness, called storage and recovery a matter of "getting the water to the right place at the right time."

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

Deadline for proposals is June 30.

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

Water users

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

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

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

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

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

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

The funds will pay for clerical and information technology work.

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

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

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

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

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

Buck backs Marrowstone water line

2006-05-14T10:33:00.000-07:00

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

Buck backs Marrowstone water line
Lawmaker on record backing PUD effort

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

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

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

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

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

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

Courthouse hearing

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

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

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

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

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

'One small step'

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

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

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

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

'We are losing our water'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water line gets a friend

2006-05-11T23:05:00.000-07:00

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

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

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water pipes damaged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water area planning talks turn to metering

2006-05-10T07:44:00.000-07:00

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.

Lacey signs on to water deal

2006-04-29T19:10:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the April 28, 2006 edition of The Olympian.

Lacey signs on to water deal
County’s three biggest cities in accord on All American plan

BY CHRISTIAN HILL
THE OLYMPIAN

LACEY — The county’s three largest cities now have agreed to jointly buy the water rights of the former Miller brewery after the Lacey City Council signed off on the accord Thursday.

The council approved a settlement that will enable the cities to acquire all water rights owned by All American Bottled Water Corp. and pay $1,750 for every acre-foot of water that the state determines is valid.

In the same vote, the council authorized the cities to supply half of their newly acquired water to All American for its as-yet-unrealized business operation for 99 years. Under the agreement, All American can receive no more than 1.8 million gallons per day.

There was no discussion among Lacey council members before the unanimous vote.

In February, the city of Olympia sued to condemn the water rights at the property in neighboring Tumwater. The cities of Lacey and Tumwater later joined the petition. All three cities need to secure more water to serve their growing populations.

The cities and All American agreed to the settlement to avoid a protracted legal fight.

The negotiated price for each acre-foot is “in the ballpark” of what other cities have paid to purchase water rights, but is higher than what Lacey has paid in the past, City Attorney Ken Ahlf said.

“It’s important we acquire the water rights expeditiously,” he said.

Last June, the city imposed a de facto moratorium on new development within its urban growth area because it is rapidly running out of water it’s authorized to withdraw.

On paper, the former brewery has water rights for industrial use totaling 7,420 acre-feet. An acre-foot is 325,851 gallons.

The cities will ask the Washington State Department of Ecology to change the water rights from industrial to public use. As part of the process, Ecology will determine how many of those “paper” water rights are valid.

It could take Ecology up to three years to make the determination, Tumwater City Administrator Doug Baker said this week. In the meantime, All American can use up to 1.8 million gallons a day, according to the agreement.

The cities fear some of the water rights have become invalid from non-use, Ahlf said. The state can relinquish water rights not used for at least five successive years.

Olympia made changes to the agreement Tuesday to protect the cities’ interests. The Lacey City Council approved the revised agreement. The Tumwater City Council, which voted for the original agreement Monday, is scheduled to approve the revisions Tuesday, Ahlf said.

The Thurston Public Utility District, which provides water for customers in neighborhoods just outside Lacey, is proceeding with a separate court petition to condemn the former brewery’s water rights.

All American has yet to convert the former brewery into a water bottling plant. Its settlement with the cities will allow the company to secure financing to complete the conversion.

A water right gives the holder legal authority to withdraw or divert a specific quantity of water for a specific and beneficial purpose. The authority is required because water in Washington state collectively belongs to the public.

Olympia signs on to water deal

2006-04-26T22:18:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the April 26, 2006 edition of The Olympian.

Olympia signs on to water deal

By Katherine Tam
The Olympian

Two down, one city to go.

On Tuesday night, the Olympia City Council joined neighboring Tumwater in signing onto a settlement agreement to acquire the water rights at the old Miller brewery. The deal also would provide half the water to the owner so a water bottling operation promised two years ago can be launched.

The council made three clarifications to protect the cities’ interests.

A key change ensures that All American doesn’t simply turn on the faucet to satisfy language in the contract requiring that it use some of the water during a consecutive three-year period to preserve the supply.

All American must use the water for water- or beverage-bottling operations or the cities can claim All American’s share, the clarification states.

Olympia’s vote was 4-0-1, with councilmen Joe Hyer and Jeff Kingsbury absent.

Councilwoman Karen Messmer abstained, saying she recognized the deal’s importance but she did not want to vote until other agreements came through.

Those other agreements would outline, for example, the operating arrangement among the cities for the brewery land and facilities, such as wells and pumphouses, they’ll use to draw the water.

Other council members said signing the agreement for the water rights is key now, and other details will be worked out later.

“It’s important to get this relationship nailed down, take advantage of the fact we’re able to negotiate rather than litigate,” Councilman Doug Mah said. “Time really is money.”

All American does not object to the clarifications to the settlement contract, said Tom Lemly, attorney for the brewery owner.

“All American is not interested in wasting a drop of water,” he said. All American could consider increasing production in the winter and decreasing production in the summer so the cities can have more water during the hot months when the cities’ demands peak, he said.

The changes mean the agreement must go back for final approval to the Tumwater City Council, which unanimously signed off on the original contract Monday, said Bob Sterbank, Olympia city attorney.

Tumwater Mayor Ralph Osgood, who was reached by phone after the meeting, said a council vote might not be necessary if the changes aren’t substantial, but he planned to check with his city attorney. The council would reconvene to approve it if necessary, he added.

Lacey is slated to take up the agreement Thursday.

Under the settlement agreement:

• Lacey, Olympia and Tumwater would acquire all of the water rights and pay $1,750 per acre foot. Each city would deposit $500,000 into the Thurston County Superior Court registry as an initial payment.

There’s up to 7,000 acre feet of water, according to the Department of Ecology’s records, meaning the price could be as high as
$12.3 million. All American’s lawyers and city officials think there’s less water than what appears on paper, so they would pay less. Final numbers will come from the state Department of Ecology.

• All American would be supplied with half the water — with a cap of 1.8 million gallons per day — for 99 years. The cities would not pay for the water rights allocated to All American. All American would pay the cities $10 a year, plus a fair share of the operations, maintenance, repair, testing and treatment costs to supply the water.

• If cutting the water supply in half for All American produces less than 1.8 million gallons a day, All American can buy up to 750,000 gallons a day from Tumwater at the city’s standard commercial rate.

• If All American doesn’t use the water for three years in a row, the cities would claim all of it and pay $1,750 an acre foot to the company. During the three years All American doesn’t use the water, the cities can use it at a fee of $17.50 per acre foot a year, plus inflation.

The price for the water rights was based in part on the cities’ experience on recent water right purchases, Sterbank said.

Meanwhile, the Thurston Public Utility District, which is not party to the settlement agreement and filed an eminent domain request on the brewery land after the cities filed theirs, will press ahead with its petition in court, Gary Cooper, head of the commission, said Tuesday.

Olympian reporter Christian Hill contributed to this report.

Tumwater OKs brewery deal

2006-04-25T15:10:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the April 25, 2006 edition of The Olympian.

It's another step along the road, although things are far from over.

Tumwater OKs brewery deal
Agreement shares water rights between 3 cities, bottler

By Katherine Tam
The Olympian

TUMWATER — The first of three cities has signed onto a settlement agreement to buy water rights at the old Miller brewery, possibly for as much as $12.3 million.

The City Council approved the deal at a special meeting Monday night. Officials said they are hopeful that a part of the agreement providing half of the water to the owner, All American Bottled Water Corp., will be an incentive for it to launch its bottling operation as promised. The brewery supplied 400 jobs before it closed three years ago.

“I am looking forward to those 200 jobs, which will replace half the jobs that were there before,” said Ralph Osgood, Tumwater mayor.

Monday’s vote was unanimous, with councilmen Jerry Murphy and Pete Kmet absent.

The Olympia City Council will take up the proposal tonight. Lacey follows suit Thursday.

The three cities and All American reached a settlement agreement late last week. Lacey, Olympia and Tumwater would acquire all of the water rights and pay $1,750 per acre foot. Each city would deposit $500,000 into the Thurston County Superior Court registry as an initial payment.

There’s up to 7,000 acre feet of water, according to Ecology’s records, meaning the total price could be as high as $12.3 million. All American’s lawyers and city officials think there’s less water than what appears on paper, so they would pay less. No one knows how much water there is until the state Department of Ecology transfers the rights from industrial to municipal use.

All American would be supplied with half of the water — with a cap of 1.8 million gallons per day — for 99 years. The cities would not pay for the water rights allocated to All American. Instead, All American would pay the cities $10 a year, plus a fair share of the operations, maintenance, repair, testing and treatment costs to supply the water.

If All American doesn’t use the water for three years in a row, the cities would claim all of it and pay $1,750 an acre foot to the company.

During the three years All American doesn’t use the water, the cities can use it at a fee of $17.50 per acre foot a year, plus inflation.

If cutting the water supply in half for All American produces less than 1.8 million gallons a day, All American can buy up to 750,000 gallons a day from Tumwater at the city’s standard commercial rate.

The settlement proposal is the result of about two months of talks that began a week after Olympia moved to condemn brewery land for water. At one point, All American’s attorney said the owner would be forced to file for bankruptcy unless the cities withdrew. The cities refused.

All American has not filed for bankruptcy so far, according to the federal court’s online database.

Once the cities secure the title to the water, they will be protected and the water rights won’t be affected if All American files for bankruptcy, the city attorneys said. If the company files for bankruptcy before the title is transferred, the attorneys said they aren’t certain what will happen next.

How long it takes for the cities to secure the title depends largely on when Ecology transfers the water rights from industrial to municipal use.

Negotiations are not over. The cities want to buy the land and facilities that are necessary to draw the water, such as wells, pipes and pump houses. The settlement agreement grants officials access to the property so they can determine what they’ll need.

They will try to negotiate that sale out of court, to avoid going through trial to determine the market value, said Christy Todd, Tumwater city attorney.

The Thurston Public Utility District, which serves nearly 3,000 connections, is not a party to the settlement proposal. The commissioners will meet tonight to discuss their next steps.

“The PUD doesn’t count in the cities’ minds,” said Don Taylor, PUD attorney. “They have ignored us.”

The district filed an eminent domain petition of its own after the cities took action. No hearing date has been set.

Katherine Tam covers the city of Olympia for The Olympian. She can be reached at 360-704-6869 or ktam@theolympian.com.

City, tribe hope to settle Cedar River issues

2006-04-25T14:57:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the April 22, 2006 edition of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

City, tribe hope to settle Cedar River issues
Proposed deal would end long-term disputes

Saturday, April 22, 2006

By LISA STIFFLER
P-I REPORTER

Seattle officials and Muckleshoot Indian tribal members recently announced a sweeping agreement to resolve a range of long-standing issues between the two.

They cheered the proposed strategy as a win for both sides, ending a legal dispute over the use of water in the Cedar River, making reparations for historical damage suffered by the tribe and setting up a mechanism for resolving future problems.

"It's truly extraordinary that we have an agreement between the city and the Muckleshoot," City Councilman Richard Conlin said. It's "a huge achievement."

But others in the region -- hunters, state officials and environmentalists among them -- have been less than enthusiastic as they've delved into the plan in the weeks after its release. Many remain puzzled. Some are downright upset.

Negotiations began about a year ago as a way to settle the tribe's court challenge of a plan for water and forest management in the watershed, but grew into a multifaceted agreement worth $40 million in cash and land going to the tribe.

The Cedar is the main source of drinking water for Seattle and other cities. If approved, the deal would cost a Seattle Public Utilities residential customer paying $23.53 a month an additional $3 a year on average over the next 30 years.

A convenience store billed $58.83 a month could pay about $20 more a year in coming decades. City Hall, which pays a $2,160 monthly bill, could expect to pay about $600 more annually over that time.

The agreement seeks to transfer more than 1,230 acres to help settle damages to the tribe when it lost access to the land for traditional uses, including the collection of food and other resources. It also reinforces Seattle's commitment to building a new sockeye hatchery and lets the tribe engage in gathering and hunting on city-owned land that's off limits to the public.

To the surprise of some, it's that last piece that's fueled the greatest amount of concern.

There have been questions about the fairness to other hunters, the apparent exclusion of state regulators in the deal and fears over the safety of the public and city workers.

"The game belongs to the people of the state of Washington," said Daniel Tucker, a board member with the Washington Big Game Council. "It doesn't belong to the city, and it doesn't belong to the Indians."

"Our policy is if it's open to one group of people, it should be open to all groups. We have brought that repeatedly to the city of Seattle," said Lora Leschner, a manager with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife, which is responsible for regulating hunting statewide.

Some point to a 1995 agreement between the city of Tacoma and the Muckleshoot Tribe regulating land use in the Green and Duwamish rivers' watersheds as the approach Seattle should take. It allows some public hunting and makes Fish and Wildlife a partner to the agreement.

Seattle officials steadfastly oppose hunting in the forested watershed by non-tribal hunters.

"This is a water supply for 1.3 million people," said Martin Baker, a city negotiator for the agreement. Allowing public access would risk contamination to the naturally clean water source.

The reason the tribal members are given access to the land is because they are entitled to hunt there because of treaty rights, city officials said.

The city also will pay the tribe $250,000 a year for a decade to study the deer and elk populations on the land to help determine suitable hunting limits and establish an overarching plan for managing the populations.

But the hunting is allowed to start shortly after the agreement's approval, causing some to wonder why the research isn't done first. Critics wonder if the $2.5 million research program is too pricy. And some ask if the tribe has a track record demonstrating that it can manage the animals and police its tribal members to the benefit of the land.

Supporters say yes.

"The tribe has a vested interest in making sure the resources are protected for future generations," said John Halliday, a Muckleshoot member and tribal liaison for the city. "It's not part of tribal culture to decimate a resource."

A legal challenge to the sockeye hatchery is still in the courts. Those opposed to the hatchery fear the sockeye could harm native chinook protected under the Endangered Species Act. The city and tribes support the project, and Seattle potentially would owe millions of dollars to the tribe if the hatchery is axed.

Questions also remain surrounding the amount of natural resources -- wood, berries and plant material -- the tribe can take from the watershed as allowed by the agreement.

The exact acreage of the land to be transferred is unclear, and one parcel is owned by the Woodland Park Zoo, which hasn't agreed to the deal.

"There are all these questions coming up, but there are no answers," said Joan Burlingame, a public representative on the Cedar River Council, an oversight group whose membership also includes agency officials and elected leaders.

The council plans to submit a letter to the city commenting on the plan, but is seeking more information, she said.

Those in favor of the agreement are confident it will win the necessary approval by the City Council, the Muckleshoot Tribal Council and U.S. District Court. A public hearing is scheduled with the council for May 15.

"This thing is going to be fine," said Rollin Fatland, spokesman for the Muckleshoot Tribe. "The issues and questions and concerns expressed by some people are more a reflection of a lack of understanding about the agreement.

"Once they see what's in there and how this agreement is good for hunting and the management (of the watershed), I think they'll be OK."

GETTING INVOLVED

Seattle City Council's Environment, Emergency Management and Utilities Committee will discuss the agreement May 4 at 2 p.m. in council chambers at Seattle City Hall, 600 4th Ave.

A public hearing on the agreement will be May 15 at 5:30 p.m. in council chambers.

Read the proposed agreement: goto.seattlepi.com/r133

P-I reporter Lisa Stiffler can be reached at 206-448-8042 or lisastiffler@seattlepi.com.

PUD Posthumously lauds man for his lake

2006-04-23T22:43:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the April 23. 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

New storage resources to support future growth are key to the continuting economic viability of the rural regions of Washington, coupled with the need to protect our natural resources, including the many species of concern found in our forests and waters. The Public Utility District's foresight and efforts in this area of water resource management are commendable, and an example worth following at all levels.

As we look toward the challenges of providing adequate stream flows to help assure the success of salmon and other fish species, while also providing for the needs of the people who live here, and those who will be building their homes here in the future, we need to be imaginative and innovative. Storing water in times of high availability, and then releasing it into streams when flows decline is one of the areas where we need to apply a lot of innovation in eastern Jefferson County.

Water storage and active flow management are going to become increasingly important ways to make up for a possible loss in snowpack related to climate change. If more of our annual precipitation arrives in the form of rain, we will need to adapt to the challenge by capturing the runoff using efficient and comprehensively engineered storage options.

It's good to see our local Public Utility District anticipating the need and acting on it.

PUD posthumously lauds man for his lake
240 acres to be future water source for region

By Evan Cael
Peninsula Daily News

EAGLEMOUNT — Jefferson County Public Utillity District commissioners spent Saturday afternoon at the recently purchased Peterson Lake following a memorial service for Bernard "Bernie" Peterson.

Family and friends gathered at the Peterson home that overlooks Peterson Lake at the end of Peterson Road, south of Discovery Bay and north of state Highway 104, for a barbecue to celebrate the life of Peterson.

Peterson died Oct. 31, less than a month after the PUD acquired the lake from him.

PUD commissioners attended to honor the man who sold 240 acres of lake property last fall to benefit the community and prevent a developer from subdividing the land.

Public Utility District commissioners signed documents in October agreeing to pay $2.22 million for the property homesteaded by Peterson's grandfather in 1889.

After several years of a declining utility district tax rate, commissioners now have to consider increasing the tax rate up to 15 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation to pay for the lake's acquisition.

Under the property purchase agreement, the utility district pays $225,000 down and $14,300 a month at 6 percent annual interest to the Petersons.

Peterson signed the purchase and sale agreement on Oct. 3.

Natural storage site

Long seeking future water storage, utility district leaders envision Peterson Lake as a natural water storage site for at least the next 30 years.

District officials said the lake has 26 acres of surface area and is 60 feet deep in the middle, and its level fluctuates less than a foot each year.

At 565 feet in elevation, the lake is at the headwaters of Chimacum Creek and has never seen a motor boat or development beyond the Peterson home, district officials said.

The district is considering the lake for a reservoir or well field, and have no plans to use it in the short term.

Utility district consensus is that the lake could ultimately, perhaps 30 years from now, serve as a backup source of water to growing areas in the county, especially Marrowstone Island, where 50,000 gallons a year are being trucked in to homes with wells that have run dry or are fouled by saltwater intrusion.

The utillity district will secure the lake, sealing off access to protect the waters believed to be close in quality to when they were first settled in the 1800s.

Fences are expected to go up and signs will be posted around the site, letting people know it is a federal offense to trespass.

Costs to study and improve the lake will be paid through state Department of Ecology grants.

Reporter Evan Cael can be reached at 360-385-2335 or evan.cael@peninsuladailynews.com.

Cities reach tentative water deal

2006-04-23T20:39:00.002-07:00

This article appeared in the April 22, 2006 edition of The Olympian.

It's nice to learn that the three cities and the property owner are nearing a deal that will avoid the actual eminent domain taking of the parcel for its water rights. It's a bit disconcerting, though, to note that the PUD is not only left out of the deal, but that it also doesn't get so much as a mention in this story.

Assuming the deal goes through, another hurdle on the horizon is the water right change application to the Department of Ecology. There's no guarantee that the change will go through with the current water quantities in place. It could be that in changing the use from industrial to municipal that Ecology might decide to reduce the amount of water that can be withdrawn with the water rights.

This is still well worth keeping an eye on.

Cities reach tentative water deal
Olympia, Lacey, Tumwater would pay for all rights at former brewery site

BY KATHERINE TAM AND CHRISTIAN HILL
THE OLYMPIAN

The county’s three largest cities have reached a tentative agreement with the owner of the former Olympia brewery to pay as much as $12.3 million for all the property’s water rights.
The agreement includes supplying as much as half the water to the brewery’s new owner, All American Bottled Water Corp., for use in a future water bottling business.

The cities can pay an additional fee to use any water All American doesn’t use. And if the company doesn’t use the water in three years, the cities get all of it.

“We were able to negotiate rather than litigate,” said Steve Hall, Olympia’s city manager. “It saves time, it saves money and it meets the ultimate goal of preserving it for public use.”

The agreement could be final in less than a week. Tumwater City Council has called a special meeting to vote on it Monday. Olympia City Council will take it up on Tuesday, Lacey on Thursday.

If the deal is signed, the cities would own all the water rights and pay $1,750 per acre foot for those rights, once the state Department of Ecology transfers them from industrial to municipal use. There’s up to 7,000 acre feet of water, according to Ecology’s records, meaning the total price could be as high as $12.3 million.

But the All American attorney and city officials think there’s far less water, so the price would be far less as well. Each city would put $500,000 into the Thurston County Superior Court registry as an initial payment.

Under a separate supply agreement, the cities would provide half the water — with a cap at 1.8 million gallons per day — to All American for 99 years. In exchange, All American would pay $10 a year, plus a fair share of operations, maintenance, repair, testing and treatment costs to supply the water.

If the water All American is slated to get is less than 1.8 million gallons a day, All American can buy up to 750,000 gallons a day from Tumwater at the city’s standard commercial rate.

If All American doesn’t use the water for three consecutive years, the cities would get all of it. During those three years, the cities can use any water that All American doesn’t use and pay the company $17.50 per acre foot a year, plus inflation.

The deal can be transferred to other parties, only if those parties use it for a water or beverage bottling plant at the brewery.

Tumwater Mayor Ralph Osgood said the deal allows the public to get the water, while paving the way for All American to move forward with the promise it made two years ago when it bought the old brewery to open a water bottling operation. Osgood and other Tumwater officials have been eager to see the site redeveloped so it will start providing jobs for the community and tax money for the city.

“Yes, it was a hit to the city of Tumwater with taxes, but not as large as the negative impact of losing 400 family-wage jobs,” Osgood said. “The side issue of losing the revenue was small compared to the loss of the jobs.”

An All American water bottling venture would employ up to 200 people, company representatives have said.
Water needs

Of the three cities, Lacey’s need for water is the greatest. Last June, the city imposed a de facto moratorium on development within its urban growth area because it’s running out of water it can pump from the ground. It used 86 percent of its granted water rights to serve utility customers both in and out of the city limits in the 12-month period ending Feb. 28.

The city has requested additional water rights totaling 10,500 acre-feet from the state Department of Ecology. The agency is reviewing the requests. It will continue seeking those water rights, even with rights secured through the brewery settlement, said Greg Cuoio, Lacey city manager.

“This is going to be a helpful piece,” he said of the brewery water, “but a very minor contribution relative to the overall requirements.”

Cuoio and City Attorney Ken Ahlf have outlined points of the proposed settlement to the council members individually, the city manager said.

“They are comfortable with the terms and conditions of the agreement, and I anticipate they will respond favorably Thursday,” Cuoio said.

The legal pursuit for brewery water began Feb. 13 when the Olympia council decided to condemn the brewery land for 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 a water right or it reverts to the state.

After initial sore feelings, Tumwater and Lacey joined Olympia’s eminent domain filing as copetitioners. And the cities signed a deal to equally share any water they win in court as well as the cost of getting it.

Talks with All American began one week after Olympia filed its petition in court and have continued for the last two months. At one point, All American’s attorney said the company would be forced to file for bankruptcy unless the cities abandon the legal proceeding. The cities refused.

A settlement is expected to shorten how long the court proceedings will be and how much it will cost. That’s because the parties have reached a price tag for the water rights and won’t have to go through trial to determine market value. It also takes away the uncertainty of what could happen if All American files for bankruptcy.

The company had filed no such action as of Friday, according to the federal court’s online database. Tom Lemly, attorney representing All American, could not be reached immediately for comment.

“It’s a fairly complicated agreement,” said Bob Sterbank, Olympia’s city attorney. “It took a fair amount of time and effort to put together, a lot of thought and consideration and creativity of all sides.”

The cities probably would tap their water reserves or look to leverage funds, possibly through selling bonds, to get the money to buy the water rights. Olympia, for example, has about $3 million in its water fund reserve, Hall said. Tumwater has more than $1.5 million in its reserve, Osgood said.

Lacey’s share of the cost will come from connection charges assessed to developers to “buy in” to the existing water system, Cuoio said. Using the money to expand the water system is an acceptable use, he said.

The city officials don’t expect to raise utility rates in the short-term to pay for buying the water rights, they said. Nor is it likely the cities would have to come up with the cash immediately, since the Department of Ecology would need time to transfer the water rights from industrial to municipal use and the court proceedings need to be completed.

The multimillion dollar cost of acquiring the water rights is competitive with how much cities pay to research new water wells, dig them and build pipelines, Osgood said.

All American’s stated plans to bottle water haven’t materialized, in part, because the president, L. Eric Whetstone, has had trouble securing financing. The man who claimed to be All American’s vice president at one time is suing All American in federal court for breach of contract.

Don Kubley, an Alaskan lobbyist, claims in court papers he was heavily involved in All American’s acquisition of the former brewery. He further charges Whetstone reneged on a verbal compensation agreement after the sale was closed that would have richly rewarded Kubley once the plant began bottling water.

Whetstone denies any compensation agreement existed between the two men. Kubley met with city officials and other business people in Washington state, but some of those sessions were without Whetstone’s knowledge, according to court papers.

The lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial in Washington state on May 22.

The company president and Kubley entered into a confidential settlement agreement on Dec. 22, 2004, according to a draft of the document obtained by The Olympian. The draft was dated Feb. 16, 2006.

All American was unable to refinance the loan on the brewery property in order to meet the payment schedule to Kubley as agreed upon, according to the document. The agreement was extended five times previously.

Whetstone agreed to pay Kubley and his counsel a minimum of $1.4 million if All American was able to refinance the brewery project or sells property through his settlement with the cities by the trial date, according to the document.

It’s unknown whether the agreement has been amended since February.

Lemly said it was his understanding that the settlement reached with the cities would avoid the trial with Kubley.

Legislators back Marrowstone water plan

2006-04-19T21:47:00.000-07:00

The following article appeared in the April 19, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Legislators back Marrowstone water plan
By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News
PORT TOWNSEND — Two state lawmakers representing the North Olympic Peninsula say they favor a Jefferson County Public Utillity District water system for Marrowstone Island.
State Sen. Jim Hargrove and Rep. Lynn Kessler, both Hoquiam Democrats, urged Jefferson County Hearing Examiner Irv Bertig to approve the Public Utility DIstrict's application for a shoreline substantial development permit that would allow the agency to install water pipes along Marrowstone roads nearest to the shore.
"Residents of Marrowstone have been in dire need of potable water for an extensive period of time," the lawmakers wrote to Bertig.
"The lack of water for these families, including a number of children, has become a public health issue and a serious concern."
"They've had to drive great distances and endure exceptional sacrifices in order to obtain water for essential needs."
"Granting this application is a small step toward ensuring that the Marrowstone families are getting the water they desperately need."
A death in the family forced Bertig to postpone a shoreline permit hearing Tuesday on the Public Utility District's proposed water system for Marrowstone Island.
The hearing is yet to be rescheduled.
House Majority Leader Kessler and Hargrove state that water "is a necessity everyone deserves access to."
Discrict Commissioner Wayne King of Gardiner said he was pleased to see the letter supporting the project.
"We're just trying to get water out there to those people," King said.
"That's what our job is."
King said the Public Utility District is working to establish a reverse osmosis system to convert saltwater to freshwater, and he cited the district's purchase last year of Peterson Lake as a reservoir to meet future district needs.
Some 100 wells of the estimated 500 on Marrowstone are either dry or contaminated by saltwater intrusion, which is a growing problem.
As planned, water lines will be extended the full length of Flagler Road, district officials said.
After the Flagler Road backbone is in place, the lines will be extended to the county roads, which are easily accessible from Flagler Road.
The project would be complete after lines are installed on all county roads not already constructed and on private roads that include easements.
Utility district officials have had wetlands delineated on the island where the pipeline will run.
The district built a water reservoir to also provide water to the state park during a fire and as a backup to Marrowstone residents in case of a water shortage.
The proposed project would bring water to about 300 homes on the island.
Utility district officials have reapplied for county and state permits after prevailing over a lawsuit filed by a group of residents opposed to the project.
Utility district officials are also beginning construction of a well near Jefferson County Airport.

Mayor forecasts water deal

2006-04-19T21:37:00.000-07:00

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

At this point, it looks like the municipalities involved in the eminent domain condemnation process are negotiating the owner into a "willing seller" position for the water rights. Of course, how many options does the owner have while the property is under condemnation? Would anyone else want to purchase it now? What chance does the current owner have to actually obtain a fair and full market price for the water rights under these conditions?

Mayor forecasts water deal
Tumwater’s Ralph Osgood expects cities to reach accord within one month

By Jim Szymanski
The Olympian

TUMWATER — A deal for Thurston County’s three major cities to purchase water rights from All American Bottled Water Corp. could be reached within a month, Mayor Ralph Osgood predicted Tuesday.

He made the announcement at an annual “State of the City” speech to the Tumwater Chamber of Commerce. At first, he predicted a deal in two weeks, but later in the day was more confident about a one-month negotiation period.

“We’re talking high-stakes negotiations here; they’re up and down from day to day,” Osgood said. “But I think they’re getting very close. I would hope we could get something within a month.”

Lacey City Attorney Ken Ahlf, who with his peers from Olympia and Tumwater is negotiating with All American, said there is validity to Osgood’s statement about a settlement in two weeks.

“Things are going well,” he said.

Ahlf declined to disclose details about the points of negotiation between All American and the cities because they haven’t been discussed with elected leaders from the three cities.

Asked whether the proposed settlement would allow All-American to retain water rights, the city attorney responded any agreement would protect the company’s interests.

Tom Lemly, the Seattle attorney representing All-American, couldn’t be reached for comment Tuesday.

Osgood said he was holding out hope that the water company might retain enough water rights in a deal to begin bottling water at the city’s former Miller brewery site.

“I want to see something happen at the brewery,” Osgood told about 50 members of the Tumwater Chamber of Commerce. “There are potentially 200 family-wage jobs to be had there. Around the state, people are actively competing to get those kinds of jobs.”

All-American has been a source of frustration for Olympia, Lacey and Tumwater after it failed to obtain sufficient financing since it acquired the former Miller brewery property in 2004. All-American has proposed selling its water rights to the cities, leasing 2.5 million gallons a day for its water bottling operations at a nominal fee and reaching a purchase price for the rest of the water.

Olympia, Tumwater and Lacey city officials have joined in condemnation proceedings against All-American out of fear they might permanently lose rights to the water if the company were to seek bankruptcy court protection. The cities want the water because it is an important natural resource for growth and development.

But city representatives are trying to avoid a lengthy and costly court condemnation process.

“The litigation will take at least a couple years and be incredibly expensive,” Olympia Councilman Joe Hyer said Tuesday. “If they (All-American) fail to perform, we don’t want them to have water rights.”

At the same time, Osgood said he was holding out hope that All-American could obtain sufficient financing in a sale of water rights to start bottling water.

Nearly 400 employees lost their jobs when Miller closed the brewery.

Were All-American to retain some water rights, it would be a “very strong competitive edge” in the company’s stated goal of converting the brewery into a water bottling plant, Osgood said.

Talks aimed at a deal are delicate enough that he can’t predict success just yet, Osgood noted.

Initially, Olympia moved on its own to condemn the brewery property, which angered city officials in Tumwater and Lacey. Though the cities now are cooperating on a deal to share the water rights, Osgood said the wounds from Olympia’s solo move are healing slowly.

“There’s no question that the action Olympia took hurt the trust between the cities,” Osgood said. “The relationships are a little tense right now. We’re walking very carefully with one another.”

Hyer, too, cautioned that the cities’ talks with All-American are not guaranteed to succeed.

“There are so many things that could upset that,” Hyer said.

Officials want to pinpoint how much water there is and who would pay to treat the water to improve its taste, Hyer said.

Until Olympia’s interests can be best protected, Hyer said he would not predict that a deal will be worked out.

“We want to make sure that any deal we make with them protects the city’s interests,” he said.

Further, Hyer noted, any deal would take the approval of 21 elected officials in the three cities.

It’s still too early to assume political support for a water deal, Hyer said.

Olympian reporter Christian Hill contributed to this report.

New community farm, PUD differ over water issue

2006-04-04T10:27:00.000-07:00

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

Some of the opposition to the PUD using the Sparling well to serve water for the Marrowstone Island public water system centers around concern that withdrawing the water from that location might have negative impacts on instream flows for Chimacum Creek. This article tells us that there's a protective layer that will protect the well from any potential nitrate issues from Sunfield Farm runoff or infiltration. That would tend to indicate that the same protective layer would protect Chimacum Creek's instream flows from anything related to increased pumping from the Sparling well.

Which view do you suppose has the greater validity?

New community farm, PUD differ over water issue
Agency worried animal waste could foul well
By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News
PORT HADLOCK — Concerns that an educational and sustainable agriculture project could foul the Tri-Area's largest groundwater source are without merit, a representative of Sunfield Farm said Monday.
Abby Jorgensen, Sunfield site committee member, said that Jefferson County Public Utility District officials have not discussed with Sunfield Farm representatives the farm's waste management concept.

Just the same, Jorgensen said the farm's approach to manure and other waste management is taken seriously.
"Biodynamic animal farm'
"A biodynamic animal farm requires meticulous animal waste management as part of its integral and sustainable system." Jorgensen said in a prepared statement Monday.
Helen Curry, Sunfield board president, adds: "We are very aware of the sensitive nature of the whole environment of the valley in which Sunfield is, and our educational mission actually involves raising the awareness of the sensitive nature of this area."
She said Sunfield wants to demonstrate how farming, open space and commerical activities can co-exist "when they have balanced, sustainable types of practices."
PUD Commissioner Wayne King said he was concerned that Sunfield bypassed PUD in its state Environmental Policy Act and building, storm water, commercial and conditional use permits applications.
"We're concerned about this recharge area in the Chimacum Creek basin," King said Monday.
"I would like to see a detailed plan of how they're going to retain the cow manure and animal waste."
"My concern is it will leach into the well area."
On the farm site off Rhody Drive near Kennedy Road, Sunfield Farm is establishing a learning center for all ages interested in creating balance between nature, agriculture, and our human needs, representatives said.
Programs are developing for youth from public and independent schools with a focus on sustainable agriculture and environmental education.
The farm will also be home to a pre-kindergarten through eighth-grade school using the Waldorf style of teaching.
Sunfield Farm , formerly a dairy farm run by the Spalding family, was acquired in April, 2004 by the Sunfield Education Association.
It was placed under a conservation easement by the Jefferson Land Trust.
Sunfield is a nonprofit community organization founded in 1998 with a broad mission that includes developing hands-on educationap programs in organic, sustainable agriculture.
Biodynamic agricultutre is founded on a holistic and spiritual understaning of nature and the human being, Sunfield leaders say. The concept builds on the pioneering research of Rudolph Steiner.
Every biodynamic farm aims to become self-sufficient in compost, manure, and animal feeds, according to the Steiner concept.
Sunfield is expected this year to produce three acres of organic/biodynamic-grown vegetables. The produce will be sold to Community Supported Agriculture program subscribers, at the Port Townsend Famers Market and The Food Co-op in Port Townsend.
Fences will be built to contain Dexter calves, Nubian goats, chickesn and a donkey.
Animal waste, which PUD officials fear could generate nitrates in the water table through leaching, is a major concern.
The Sparling well, the Tri-Area's largest groundwater source and operated by PUD, is about 500 feet away at Rhody Drive and Kennedy Road.
Sparling well pumped 164 million gallons fo water in 2005, according to (Bill) Graham.
The Kively well, by contrast, delivered 34 million gallons of water to PUD customers.
The Sparling wellhead protection area includes the farm site.
Four phases
It extends from the upper Anderson Lake Road area, including Anderson Lake State Park, part of a "Susceptible aquifer recharge area," and runs as far north as Irondale Road.
"It's basically all of the Tri-Area," said PUD Resource Manager Bill Graham, adding that the farm is upstream in the aquifer.
"So if anything was to infiltrate on that property, it's most likely it could reach our well," Graham said.
In the farm's case, he said, county regulations would require a septic system that diminish(es) nitrates.
"They'll have to do an alternative septic system based on the regulations," said Graham.
PUD concerns have been largely generated because the agency was unaware that there were four phases in the project.
Mark Denbro, president of Jefferson Land Trust, which is managing the farm's property as a conservation easement, said the biodynamic principle behind the type of organic would ensure that the land and water would be protected.
The conservation easement protects the land from being subdivided and developed.
"It's pretty much the way people used to have to farm," Denbro said, "adding some benefits of science, but they apply their respect and techniques for the land."
"There's a commitment that we're here to stay to protect the land forever, so we need to protect it forever."
County Commissioner David Sullivan, D-Cape George and a former PUD commissioner, said he believed issues between PUD and Sunfield Farm can be resolved.
Sullivan said from what he has learned, the water that recharges the Sparling well comes from a hillside.
"There is a real thick protective layer of glacial till that protects the aquifer down below," said Sullivan.
"That's why we have wetland and Chimacum Creek there."
Impervious protection
With the natural impervious protection of glacial till, the Sparling deep well water source is indeed protected, said Sullivan.
"It's not a bad question to ask, though," Sullivan said of PUD concerns about wellhead protections, adding that they should be discussed and worked out to ensure protection of the water source.
County Associate Planner Mo-chi Lindblad, Jefferson County Department of Community Development, said although the public comment period technically ended March 15, she was still taking comments from those concerned about the farm's possible impact on the area.
While the state environmental protection act review approval is within the county Department of Community Development's decision-making purview, the other permits much go before the county hearing examiner, who will also listen to public comments at a hearing yet to be scheduled, said Lindblad.
Port Townsend/Jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew can be reached at 360-385-2335 or jeff.chew@peninsuladailynews.com.

Island tap hits a snag

2006-03-31T13:29:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-31T13:19:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-30T10:05:00.000-08:00

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)

2006-03-29T12:22:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-29T12:01:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-23T14:05:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-22T09:13:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-21T19:45:00.000-08:00

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’

2006-03-21T19:22:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-21T18:36:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-16T22:38:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-10T13:12:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-08T08:58:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-07T20:53:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-07T20:37:00.000-08:00

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

2006-03-07T17:03:00.000-08:00

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.

Play for brewery’s water shocks cities

2006-02-17T10:16:00.000-08:00

This article appeared in The Olympian on Wednesday, February 15, 2006. The course of action that the city of Olympia is taking would seem to be a consequence of the Department of Ecology's work to justify instream flows. It seems that we are at a point where water issues are starting to display a strong relationship to eminent domain and all of the property rights issues that go along with such condemnations.

A few days ago we had the article in the Tacoma paper about cities in Pierce County that can't get additional water because of instream flow issues, and now we have one city condemning land in another city just to get the water rights that pertain to the parcel.

This is a bit of a turn for a state where we were assured that property rights are so well protected that we would not have to worry about something like Connecticut's Kelo case. Apparently that pertains so long as you don't have a sizeable water right. The details may differ, but the consequences are running headlong down a parallel path.

Because Olympia fears that the private landowner of the former brewery in Tumwater might exercise the right to sell or lease the parcel's water to someone of other than the municipalities, or perhaps even choose to sell water to them at a rate high enough to force increases in water prices to the consumer, the city files to condemn the land? Olympia can do this even though the property is located in another jurisdiction?

Does this mean that if a east Jefferson County landowner with a water right puts up a for sale sign on his property, Port Townsend would then be allowed to condemn his land in order to obtain his water right? It would appear so.

Why shouldn't the current owner of the property be allowed to sell or lease water to the municipalities? If the property is condemned for this purpose, what will the compensation be? Will part of that compensation include the actual value of the water right in addition to the actual market value of the parcel and its infrastructure?

If Olympia prevails in this course of action, the writing will be on the wall for a number of actions of this kind. How safe from condemnation would any private water right holder be if a public entity wanted the private holder's water?

Wouldn't the public good be just as well satisfied if the municipalities were either to purchase the property in the normal manner, or even simply to purchase or lease the water from the current owner?

With the Department of Ecology closing basins to additional withdrawals, based on an assumption that this is a wise course of action that will preserve stream flows, our municipalities are already starting to be choked, even though they are where smart growth advocates prefer that people reside. The state is projected to have a significant increase in population. The Department of Ecology is seeking to reduce the number of exempt wells allowed in the future, and are not very willing to allow new water rights for Washingtonians, or even for their municipalities.

Is it wise for Ecology to grant all previously unappropriated water (surface and ground) in a basin as the water right in line of seniority for the instream flow, when the Department's own thinking is that doing so will have little, if any, benefit for the fish populations in the streams? How does doing so meet the beneficial use test for water right applications?

Aren't we well past the time where the Department of Ecology should be required to provide iron-clad proof that their approach in regard to instream flows is the only appropriate way to go?

This instream flow business is not simply a localized issue. It appears to be the root of a rapidly growing state-wide problem with the Department of Ecology serving as a core driver. We're in a situation where it would seem there is a strong potential for litigation between a broad range of current water right holders and municipalities if the city of Olympia prevails in this.

Play for brewery’s water shocks cities
Olympia plans to condemn land, take over water rights

By Katherine Tam

The Olympian

Olympia decided to take immediate legal action to secure water rights at the former brewery in Tumwater, much to the chagrin of neighboring cities, because officials feared the brewery owner or another private party would beat them to the courthouse.

Officials found a rarely used legal tool that allows them to condemn land, even though in another city, for water rights. They said they wanted to act immediately before the brewery owner or another private party caught wind of the idea and filed a legal action to stop them.

They did not tell officials in Tumwater, who said Tuesday they were “shocked” by the move, because they worried the brewery owner might find out as more time passed before they could file the paperwork.

“We had to take action to preserve the water for public use so we don’t lose this chance and then have the conversation” with neighboring cities, City Manager Steve Hall said.

The brewery holds some of the largest water rights in the area: 12 to 14 million gallons a day. That’s enough to serve Lacey’s 60,000 customers on a typical day. And officials say it’s enough to put a big dent in water needs for the region.

So far, the brewery owner has no concrete plan for using the resource.

“The action was in response to the current owner not utilizing the water, creating the potential for the water rights to be relinquished and result in a permanent loss to the community,” Olympia Councilman Doug Mah said.

After an executive session Monday night, Olympia council members decided to begin condemnation proceedings on the brewery land.

The city will ask the court to set the market value for water rights and give the city access to the land so officials can pinpoint where wells, pipes and pump houses are.

The city has no interest in the land beyond water rights, Hall said.

Court papers filed Tuesday morning encompass the entire property, but officials plan to narrow the request to those areas tied to water.

The city doesn’t want to hog the water either, Hall said. Olympia officials plan to meet with Lacey and Tumwater officials to discuss sharing the resource.

All-American Bottled Water bought the Miller Brewing Co. property in 2004 and announced plans to bottle water. The company has had trouble acquiring the financing needed to complete the conversion.

Olympia officials worry the community could lose the water entirely, Mah said. Jack Hohenadel, the attorney representing All-American, declined to comment Tuesday.

The company has told Olympia, Lacey and Tumwater it might be interested in leasing water, but not selling water rights. Owning water rights is valuable to a city because it means the city has the legal authority to withdraw water without someone raising the price.

With hope of buying water rights from All-American drying up, officials in the three cities began talking loosely about meeting to set a regional strategy for buying the land to get the water. But Olympia’s decision took Tumwater and Lacey by surprise.

Tumwater Mayor Ralph Osgood said he was “shocked” when Foutch called him late Monday night to deliver the news.

“It’s somewhat an embarrassment of interjurisdictional cooperation,” Osgood said.

Asked whether Tumwater will accept Olympia’s offer to discuss shared use of the water, Osgood said, “I still believe in interjurisdictional cooperation. I would have hoped they would have consulted with us first; they chose not to. We owe it to the businesses and the citizens of all three cities to work together. No doubt this will strain relationships.”

Osgood wonders what removing the water rights will mean for his city’s vision to see the sprawling 134 acres redeveloped. The brewery was an employment giant in its heyday, providing jobs for 400 on an annual payroll of $26 million.

Some water rights could be left with the brewery, said Hall, Olympia’s city manager. Or Tumwater could keep some water rights to sell to the person or company that develops the land. Those details will be discussed in upcoming meetings.

“It’s a valid concern; we’re not blind to that,” Hall said.

Lacey Mayor Virgil Clarkson doesn’t oppose the decision, but said he would have handled it differently had the roles been reversed.

“I was sort of taken aback,” Clarkson said. “I would have appreciated if there was some sort of conversation prior to the action being taken.”

Olympia is within its legal authority, said Bob Sterbank, Olympia’s city attorney. State law allows cities to condemn land in another jurisdiction for water as long as it’s for public use. Cities have done it infrequently in the past because it used to be easier to get water rights. But cities are finding it harder to increase their supplies, in part because the state is closing
basins to further withdrawals.

“We’re in a different world now in terms of water,” Sterbank said.

Condemnation for a water right is rare, said Tom Loranger, a water resources manager at the state Department of Ecology. The last time it happened was in 1895.

Another state law requires that water rights be relinquished if an owner doesn’t use the water for five years or have a plan to use it, Loranger said. That law dates to 1967 and was passed to preserve water as a public resource.

All-American has owned the brewery for two years. Sterbank said it could take a year for Olympia’s court proceedings to finish, but it’s unlikely that it’ll take as long as three years.

Cities’ water status

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 old 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: Lacey is reaching its limit on how much water it can pump because of growth. It has water rights totaling 8,274 acre feet a year, and is using all but about 600 acre feet. Officials began withholding certificates of water availability from developers in the urban growth area last summer because they can’t guarantee there will be enough water.
Need: It has applied to the state for water rights totaling 10,500 acre feet, enough water to serve Lacey at full build-out or a population between 135,000 and 140,000.
Plan: Lacey wants brewery water, too. It’s awaiting word from the state on its water rights requests. Officials have developed a four-tier water rate, in which big water users pay more starting in 2007.
Tumwater
Outlook: The city is in good shape now 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 another 3.17 million gallons a day by the year 2022.
Plan: Tumwater is also 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.
Olympian reporter Christian Hill contributed to this report.
Katherine Tam covers the city of Olympia for The Olympian. She can be reached at 360-704-6869 or ktam@theolympian.com

Water rights restrict burgeoning population

2006-02-17T09:18:00.000-08:00

This article appeared in the Monday, February 13, 2006 edition of the Tacoma News Tribune, and demonstrates what happens when a municipality's growth runs up against the artificial water availability limits set by the Department of Ecology's instream flow program.

When we look at this in the context of the sustainability movement, some interesting thoughts come to mind, particularly where the smart growth philosophy is concerned. For some years now, newcomers to most areas have been encouraged to settle within urban growth areas (UGAs), so as to retain the natural settings in the regions surrounding the designated growth areas. Now we are seeing Ecology applying the brakes to development within the UGA, and it's only just the beginning. Smart growth principles and salmon recovery principles are typically on the same page, but the Department of Ecology's water restrictions are starting to have an adverse impact on the progress of smart growth practices. This will increase tensions between these two aspects of sustainability.

As time goes on, this has the potential to strangle economic opportunity at all levels in Washington. Properties that have an existing well or water service connection will become extraordinarily valuable, and properties that don't will have their values plummet because of a regulatory environment that prevents their being used for anything other than open space. This distortion of the real estate market will increasingly pinch lower income families to the fringes of the community, if they can afford to live in the community at all. Although not an immediate consequence, the water restrictions will eventually cause even modest rental properties to be priced far out of the reach of people whose dreams of financial security will have turned into nightmares.

This underscores the importance of developing a system of water management that allows for reasonable levels of human activity, while enhancing wildlife habitat. The only way we are going to get to that system is through active participation in the process, with the public pressure that it takes to encourage government to respond to our needs.

Water rights restrict burgeoning population

EIJIRO KAWADA; The News Tribune
Last updated: February 13th, 2006 02:35 AM (PST)
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/5522893p-4975205c.html

It might seem an unlikely problem in a record rainy season, but some cities and towns in the Nisqually River basin are facing a lack of drinking water.

Roy is especially hard pressed, despite the fact that a couple of its bridges over Muck Creek were closed in early January as roaring currents ran beneath them.

The city has essentially slapped a moratorium on new home construction after reaching the maximum drinking water capacity allowed under state regulations last year.

Eatonville will be in the same predicament in less than five years.

White River basin communities including Auburn and Sumner face similar situations. But they’re not as dire as Roy and Eatonville, which are isolated and don’t have the option to tap into other cities’ water systems.

It’s not that the wells are drying up in these Nisqually Valley communities. Rather, they are running out of drinking water, legally speaking.

“The city’s well is capable of pumping more water, but the water right’s capacity doesn’t allow the city to do so,” said Dick Roush, a planning commission member in Roy.

The state Department of Ecology issues water rights, setting the maximum amount of water that can be drawn from a source.

Developers are knocking on the door at Roy City Hall, wanting to build more houses in the city of 865 residents.

The city is authorized to provide water for 438 hook-ups, according to Mayor Kim Eldridge, but some must be held in reserve for existing homeowners.

At least one local landowner already has prepaid for 50 hook-ups, and a waiting list includes an additional 227 connections, Eldridge said.

In Eatonville, a town of 2,330 residents, the water right allows for about 1,230 hook-ups, with about 300 of them left for new homes, said Mayor Tom Smallwood. Eatonville is expected to reach its capacity around 2010.

“There’s a lot of water out there,” Smallwood said. “What the town needs is more water rights.”

But Ecology officials say there aren’t any more water rights available in some areas of the Nisqually basin.

In 1981, Ecology set minimum flow standards for the basin – including the river and its tributaries – to better protect fish and other natural resources.

Since then, summer flows have often crept below the minimums, preventing Ecology from issuing new rights, said Tom Loranger, manager of water resources at Ecology’s southwest regional office.

Various agencies have studied the basin to look for new water sources, with little or no success, Loranger said.

Farther downstream from Eatonville and Roy, Yelm is conducting its own study, hoping to find a deeper water source unconnected to the river system, said Shelly Badger, city administrator.

Yelm recycles treated water for irrigation and other uses so that it doesn’t have to use drinking water for those purposes, Badger said. The city also is looking for farmers and other water-right holders who are willing to sell.

But those are short-term fixes, and for now the communities in the Nisqually River basin have to live with what they have.

“Obviously, until you solve the water problem, you can’t grow,” said Roush, the planning commission member in Roy.

Eijiro Kawada: 253-597-8633
eijiro.kawada@thenewstribune.com

Originally published: February 13th, 2006 02:30 AM (PST)