Subscribe to Newsletter

To subscribe to our newsletter simply add your email below. A confirmation email will be sent to you!

Defending Citizens’ Water

 

Defending ALL CITIZENS RIGHTS to WATER in WA State?

OPPOSING AND LEGALLY CHALLENGING THE DUNGENESS WATER RULE?

Bottom Line

Failure to use or comply with EPA’s best Available science for American Family water usage?

————————————————————————————————–

A DOE RULE THAT RESTRICTS FAMILY WATER USAGE TO ONLY 150 GALLONS INDOOR A DAY?

Clallam County REPRESENTATIVES complete disregard of EPA family and individual WATER USAGE DOCUMENTATION?

EPA The average American family uses more than 300 gallons of water per day at home.

EPA Each American uses an average of 100 gallons of water a day at home.

Clallam County Commissioner’s and Planning Allowed the WATER USAGE EXPERTS FROM THE CITY of Sequim? to determine water usage based? on Sequim’s city mini-apartments dwellings for seniors and small city lots.

INDEED,LEGALLY CHALLENGING THE DUNGENESS WATER RULE?

BASED ON?

Failure to use or comply with EPA’s best Available science for American Family water usage?

Discrimination against Clallam County rural private property owners?

Loss of private property value by Government rules, regulations, and restrictions?

The use of unqualified persons to determine Clallam County rural water usage?
————————————————-
Water Use Today | WaterSense | US EPA
www.epa.gov/watersense/our_water/water_use_today.html‎
The average American family uses more than 300 gallons of water per day at home. Roughly 70 percent of this use occurs indoors. Nationally, outdoor water …

—————————————————————-
WaterSense Statistics & Facts | WaterSense | US EPA
www.epa.gov/watersense/about_us/facts.html‎
Each American uses an average of 100 gallons of water a day at home.
———————————————————————

AND THEN THERE IS THE TRIBAL INSTREAM FLOW
—————————————————————-

The Swinomish lawsuit (supported by the City of Anacortes without citizen input), if successful, could lead to all rural and agricultural landowners in the Skagit River Basin losing access to well water if they had drilled their well in 2001 or after, Ecology officials have said.

Moreover, if the Wash. State Supreme Court rules in favor of the Swinomish, Skagit River Basin owners of about 5,700 buildable lots–on which at least 400 homeowners have already built homes–could lose access to their well water for residential use.
————————————————————

Skagit County Suggests Swinomish Indian Tribal Community Dismisses Its [Water]Lawsuit

December 15th, 2012 | Tags: Anacortes, Defending Water in the Skagit River Basin, Just Water Alliance, lawsuit, Sandra Spargo, Skagit County, Skagit River Basin, Swinomish | Category: Defending Water Media, Defending Water Newsletters, Events, International, Maine, Massachussetts, United States | Leave a comment

Sandra Spargo, Defending Water in the Skagit River Basin, Dec. 15, 2012
Please find below an article in the Skagit Valley Herald that is entitled, County suggests Swinomish dismiss its lawsuit.

The Swinomish lawsuit (supported by the City of Anacortes without citizen input), if successful, could lead to all rural and agricultural landowners in the Skagit River Basin losing access to well water if they had drilled their well in 2001 or after, Ecology officials have said.

Moreover, if the Wash. State Supreme Court rules in favor of the Swinomish, Skagit River Basin owners of about 5,700 buildable lots–on which at least 400 homeowners have already built homes–could lose access to their well water for residential use.

The link of Skagit County’s letter of Dec. 14, 2012, to Chairman Brian Cladoosby and the Senate of the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community is located at Letter to Swinomish & Anacortes on Dec. 14, 2012. The link contains the letter’s three supporting documents.

To understand the viewpoint of landowners/homeowners caught up in the contentious water issue over which they have no input, visit the Just Water Alliance website at http://justwateralliance.org.

Do the citizens of Anacortes want the City to support the Swinomish lawsuit against the the Dept. of Ecology that could result in at least 400 homeowners losing their well water for residential use, possibly their homes? For a history of Anacortes’ involvement with Swinomish lawsuits, see the legal section of the City of Anacortes website at http://www.cityofanacortes.org/Legal/WaterRightsSwinomish/index.asp.
In addition, my opinion is that without supporting compromise of the Skagit River Basin water issue while promoting the sale of five million gallons of water per day to Tethys Enterprises for a beverage bottling plant, the City of Anacortes–which represents its citizens–is a lousy neighbor.

All the best,
Sandra Spargo

Anacortes, Wash.
County suggests Swinomish dismiss its lawsuit
By Kate Martin | Posted: Saturday, December 15, 2012 1:00 am
MOUNT VERNON — Skagit County commissioners say they will rejoin a 1996 water agreement if the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community drops its lawsuit against the state Department of Ecology.

The tribe’s lawsuit is currently being reviewed by the state Supreme Court. If the tribe is successful, it could lead to all rural and agricultural landowners in the Skagit River basin losing access to well water if they drilled their well in 2001 or after, Ecology officials have said.
The letter, sent Friday, is in response to those sent last week by Anacortes and the Swinomish. Those letters in turn were in response to a November letter by commissioners, which announced the county had left the 1996 Memorandum of Agreement, which outlined a historic water agreement in the valley.

Commissioners also asserted that they had left the agreement because the Swinomish and Anacortes broke that agreement by suing Ecology to invalidate a 2006 state rule amendment that allows more water for rural and agricultural users. The original rule amendment, from 2001, provided no new water at all for rural landowners or for agricultural uses, the county states.
The commissioners’ letter outlined a path to where the county could rejoin the agreement: “You can remedy your ongoing breach by dismissing your pending lawsuit. Until that happens, Skagit County is not a party to the 1996 MOA, and has no further obligations under the 1996 MOA.”
Anacortes Mayor Dean Maxwell said he had not had a chance to read the letter, which was sent at 2 p.m. Commissioners Ken Dahlstedt and Sharon Dillon could not immediately be reached for comment.
Larry Wasserman, environmental services director for the tribe, had little to say about the commissioners’ response.

“The tribe doesn’t believe it is productive to continue to have these debates in the newspaper,” Wasserman said. “Our previous letter speaks for itself, as do the facts on our website. People can look there to find out what the real history has been.”

The commissioners’ letter also says the tribe and city’s ongoing lawsuit “completely undermines the stated purpose of the 1996 MOA” by seeking to eliminate all water for rural landowners and farmers.
The city and tribe both said in their letters that the county was using the same legal process for challenging Ecology’s rule when it sued the agency in 2003 as the tribe used to challenge the rule amendment in 2008.

Skagit County Commissioner Ron Wesen said it’s not the same.
Wesen said the 2003 disagreement the county had with Ecology involved the 2001 instream flow rule because that rule did not include any water for rural agriculture or residences requiring a well.
“What the tribe and Anacortes are saying, ‘We don’t agree with Ecology’s authority to make this change.’ If they don’t have authority to do that, then all exempt wells since 2001” are gone, Wesen said.

The Swinomish contend in their lawsuit that Ecology is using an overly broad definition of a narrowly defined exception to provide water in exceptional circumstances. The Swinomish lost an earlier round in the Thurston County Superior Court in 2010. The state Supreme Court’s ruling could be months from now.

“It’s complicated, but we’ll find out when the Supreme Court makes its ruling who is right,” Wesen said.
Wesen said the MOA and the instream flow rule don’t take into account the fact that water use changes over time. “To say this is the rule we have for 50 years and have no flexibility, it doesn’t make any sense to me.”

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml]

Search Citizen Review ARCHIVES for keywords, stories

 

Search Citizen Review
(Current News - from Jan. 2012 to present)

Note about Searching this Website

If you wish to use this website to research by topic or keyword, there are TWO search engines - one for the current stories as posted in our Wordpress format, and the ARCHIVE search engines, which goes back in time to 1999.  Be sure to use both to access stories relative to your search that covers both time periods. - Ed.