More concerns aired at watershed hearing

-by Leif Nesheim
Gazette staff writer
Published 10.13.04


Port Angeles, WA - One after the other, some two dozen people spoke out against proposed a proposed watershed plan at the final of three public hearings Oct. 12. Many of the speakers testified at prior hearings.

Most of those who objected to the watershed plan said they were concerned that the plan would lead to burdensome regulation that was not needed. Some objected to the process, claiming that they had been excluded from the planning process at its inception a decade ago.
"This county has more than its fair share of regulations," said Kip McKeever of Sequim. He said the plan goes beyond what state law asks for in watershed planning and urged commissioners to remand the plan back to the planning units for revision.
The Dungeness River Management Team and the Elwha-Morse Management Team devised the plan over the past four years. The DRMT has been involved in watershed planning in the region for more than a decade and was incorporated into this most recent planning.
The proposed watershed plan is an advisory document designed to guide future water policy. It encompasses the watersheds in Water Resource Inventory Area 18, stretching from the Elwha River to the Sequim Bay area.
County commissioners are responsible for approving or rejecting the plan - crafted during the past four years in a public process attended by a wide variety of interested parties. According to state law, the county has two chances to approve the document. If the document is not approved the state Department of Ecology is responsible for setting minimum water flow requirements in area rivers and streams.
The initial hearing took place Sept. 21. Commissioners added two additional hearing dates - Oct. 6 in Sequim and Oct. 12 in Port Angeles - to meet the concerns of several people who testified that the public had insufficient time to study the 500-plus-page document.
County commissioners closed the Oct. 12 hearing after more than two hours of testimony, but left it open to written testimony until Oct. 15 at 4:30 p.m.
Supporters of the plan noted that it is not regulatory in nature and serves as a guide only.
"This is a planning document, not a set of rules and regulations," noted county planning commissioner Gary Gleason of Port Angeles. He said he was disappointed that many of those testifying against the plan seemed to be getting recommendations and regulations mixed up.
However, many remained unconvinced that what are deemed recommendations today wouldn't soon become regulations.
"(The state Department of Ecology's) intent is still to get at the private exempt wells," testified Sue Forde of Sequim. "Absolute control of the water is the goal, and private exempt wells stand in the way of that complete control."
Forde echoed the concern of many opposed to the recommendations. She and others said they were concerned that language in the watershed plan that recommended reducing the exemption from 5,000 gallons per day to 500 would soon become law, with metering required to guarantee the lower number was enforced.
Commissioner Mike Chapman, R-Port Angeles, queried whether any wells had been metered as a result of earlier planning; Forde responded that none had, yet, because the earlier planning efforts had died, only to be resurrected in the current watershed plan.
Opponents were also concerned about perceived ambiguity in the language of the plan, which includes terms like "reasonable" when describing how long property owners could wait before being granted a water right or how close to a public water system they had to be.
Public Utility District commissioner Hugh Haffner testified that the PUD is stymied in its efforts to obtain new water rights by the state Department of Ecology, which is swamped with a log jam of water rights requests.
"There's no free lunch," he said, noting that to get new water rights concessions must be made. However, he urged commissioners to get something guaranteed from the state in exchange for restricting current water use.
Dave LeRoux of Sequim, noted that he is in the process of planning a 65-acre development and would prefer to install a community water system rather than multiple individual wells but couldn't because of the permit backlog.
He urged the adoption of the plan to encourage more development. "I can't wait years for revisions," he said.
However, many in the real estate and building professions testified against the plan, saying it would drive up the cost of already skyrocketing housing in the Sequim area.
"If you restrict the availability of buildable land the price of a home will increase," Sequim real estate broker Jerry Strawn testified.
In addition to expressing concern about the plan itself, some said they were concerned about commissioner Steve Tharinger, D-Dungeness, also chairing the DRMT.
Kris Hallis of Sequim repeated her earlier testimony urging the commissioner to recuse himself from the proceedings.
Tharinger responded that he had consulted with the county attorney and noted he would only be required to recuse himself in situations of possible personal gain and not for chairing a committee, which commissioners do frequently in a variety of capacities as part of their duties.
"People may have some spiders crawling in their brain making them think there's a web of conspiracy," he said, dismissing the allegation.

Packed room speaks out against watershed plan
More than 150 people filled the Guy Cole Convention Center in Sequim Oct. 6 for the continuation of a watershed planning hearing.
Some of the speakers also testified at the initial hearing.
Most of those who testified urged county commissioners to send the proposed plan back to the planning units for further revision.
"It's not that there isn't some good ideas in this plan, it's that there's too many bad ones," said Keith Winter of Sequim, who is a well driller with Oasis Well Drilling.
Winter, like many of those who opposed the plan, said it places too many regulations on the exempt wells of residential property owners. He said the county commissioners shouldn't let themselves become the scapegoats for the state Department of Ecology by decreasing the amount of water that may be drawn from a residential well. Current state law allows an exemption of up to 5,000 gallons per day to be drawn by a residential well.
Part of the reason the planning process began was the state's desire to deal with a backlog of water right applications that can't be granted under current law because too much water has already been allocated, commissioner Steve Tharinger said.
The state initiated the watershed planning process in 1998 with the passage of the Watershed Management Act, designed to give local communities the opportunity to design water use policy.
"We have water problems," said Scott Chitwood, natural resources director for the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe. The tribe was one of the initiating government agencies that participated in the crafting of the draft plan. "Our water resources cannot support endless growth."
Chitwood and the handful of speakers who supported adoption of the plan said it included the best science available and created solutions and goals for water use that would make clean water available well into the future.
However, the opponents of the plan worried that the recommendations would soon become burdensome regulation and complained that the planning process excluded many.