‘We
have the authority’ to meter private wells,
says DOE
Citizens show up, speak out against agency metering
rules
By
Sue Forde, Citizen Review Online
www.citizenreviewonline.org
Sequim, WA – Sept. 17, 2001 – Approximately
300 citizens showed up at the Guy Cole Convention Center in Sequim, WA
to question and comment on the proposed rules from the Washington
State Department of Ecology (DOE) on metering wells.
The meeting began at 7 p.m. with an overview of
the proposed rules. Jeff
Marti, looking over the seemingly hostile crowd, stated that the
legislature was not talking about metering individual wells “at this
time.” After hearing
the statement, and believing the rules wouldn’t affect them, many
people left for home.
We had this new mandate, but our tools and
resources were taken away to handle the job, Marti commiserated. He explained that environmental organizations alleged that
Ecology was failing to implement the state law. The court said to DOE “You have to issue a new rule,” he
explained. A compliance
plan had to be filed, he said.
This will give “opportunities for efficiencies
in water use, Marti explained. There’s
“only so much water to go around,” he said.
We don’t want people taking more than you are entitled to, in
the way of water, he added. These rules will give greater
“opportunities” for “water use conservation.”
The rules apply to any new surface water rights, and is
retroactive.
He further explained that all existing surface
water rights must be measured – all owners of water rights,
including surface and groundwater.
He told the tense crowd that the DOE doesn’t
have any plans to meter “exempt” single domestic wells. “We
don’t have staff available to address that problem,” he added.
Someone from the audience shouted, “Yet!”
Marti went on to explain the various types of
flows that would be metered now, including open channel flows, as well
as pipe flows. The rules
may be modified on a case-by-case basis, he said.
“We want you to comply with these requirements,” he added. He
explained that the water users would have to provide the meters and
meet AWWA and USBR standards – he explained that USBR stood for the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, but didn’t explain the other initials. You must provide for easy removal and testing, and be
accurate in the measuring, he instructed.
“We want you to calibrate your devices,” and
meet the proposed maintenance requirements, Marti went on. “We will also accept ‘indirect’ metering methods, such
as the power consumption method and the timed pump method. Other methods “as approved by Ecology” will be
considered, but Ecology has the discretion as to whether to require
reporting. The more water
you divert, the more frequently you have to report, he explained.
He talked about “water users placing fish screens in your
diversions [of water], will “have to notify the department of Fish
and Wildlife.
The announcement was made that there would be
time allotted for questions and answers.
There was only one microphone available, so the moderator had
to move around the room to take questions.
Cynthia Nelson, representing the Dungeness River
Management Team (DRMT) for Ecology, Lynn Coleman, DOE technical
engineer, and Mike Harris, section manager, were on hand to answer
questions. Harris responded to the majority of the questions.
Harris began by explaining that ditch companies
have already installed measuring devices.
Questions and statements flew from the audience,
from declarations of unbelief, to questions about the lack of
scientific evidence of a need for metering.
Frank Ingrassias stated that this is the first time the people
are getting involved in this process.
“You say no private wells…I don’t believe you,” he
said.
Another man raised a question about the
historical data. “Since
water rights have been around since 1917, how will you measure without
the historical data?” he queried.
“If you don’t know how much you’ve been using, how do you
know how much to measure?” “Is
there a minimum size, or are you basing it all on one gallon a minute?
Is there a minimum?” he wanted to know.
Harris didn’t answer the first question.
He did respond to the second one.
“It doesn’t mater what the quantity is in the critical
area,” he responded.
A gentleman asked if he understood it correctly
that if you get 10 gpm or 5 gpm out of a sump, you’d have to measure
and report it?
Harris said, “Let me explain something about
water rights,” and didn’t answer the question.
He did say, “Ecology has no intention of requiring measuring
[of such items] at this point.”
What do you mean by ‘small withdrawals’?
another person queried.
“That section gives DOE the discretion.
The authority is there to do that [meter private wells], but we
have no intention to do so,” Harris said.
There was lots of laughter from the audience in response to his
statement.
A question was raised about the water flowing off
a roof into a cistern. “It’s
considered surface water,” Harris said. “When you’re using
surface water…we don’t have any way in which to enforce that…”
Wouldn’t it be wise to take laws like that off
the books? a lady wondered.
Harris responded, “I understand what you’re
saying, m’am, but we don’t make the law.”
Steve Marble said he’d heard that DOE is
planning on opening an office in Clallam County.
If so, why? he questioned.
Harris said he was not aware of it; neither was
Cynthia Nelson.
Bob Forde asked, “Fish runs are what you want
to protect? Are we in a
drought?” DOE members
responded “yes” we are in a drought.
“Then why are there so many fish coming back when we’re in
a drought?” Forde questioned. He
also wanted to know why, if Ecology was trying to conserve water, they
didn’t build dams, and keep the existing dams from being taken down.
Cynthia Nelson responded with a commentary about
dams being under federal control, and that the DOE doesn’t have
anything to do with it [the Elwha Dam].
“What about the water flowing from the dam?
That’s your domain, isn’t it?” pursued Forde.
Nelson responded that they are looking at storage on the
Dungeness River – small reservoirs in the ditches to even out
diversions. “Re-regulated
resources,” she called them.
John Bennett said, “I have a great desire to
believe you…it specifically says ‘any’ owner of water use.
Can you request a change in the RCWs?
You’re telling me the only reason you can’t meter my well
is that you don’t have the dollars to do so.”
Harris responded that DOE is required to comply
with the interpretation of the state from the courts.
“The rules must be as interpreted by the courts,” he said.
Kim Bennett questioned the compliance plan.
“Please define ‘non-obligated water users’”, she asked.
“Water rights were issued prior to the new
law,” Harris responded. He
said those would be the ‘non-obligated water users’, which they
would be looking at including next.
Doug Mackey asked if DOE could measure on a
sample basis? “It would
probably give you enough information,” he said.
Cynthia Nelson said, “That’s a really good
point. A number of the
states are looking at doing exactly what you’re talking about.”
A 10% sampling would be good for future measuring. Now it’s too diverse.”
Mackey responded, “Random sample”.
“Have you done an economic analysis?”
questioned an attorney representing the Washington State Farm Bureau.
“Would you write a new rule if you change your mind about
metering wells in 5 to 10 years?
“No additional rule-making would be required to
meter individual wells,” Harris responded.
The authority to do so is already in place.
A man asked, “Do you need an attorney to
trespass on my farm?”
No, was the response.
DOE has access to private property, one of the representatives
stated. There was some
comment back and forth, and it was suggested that they come back to
that later.
Isabelle Dunlop, Sequim realtor, asked “Why can
you not put in the rule that private wells are not subject to this, so
it could be re-addressed in 2002?”
Harris responded, “It is not the intent of DOE
to meter your wells.” Dunlop
asked the question again.
“The statute doesn’t give us that authority,
m’am,” Harris responded.
One young lady asked, “When can the people vote
for all this? Did I miss
it?”
Harris responded, “Did you vote for your
legislator?”
“What is the end result for non-compliance?”
another person queried. “We’re
still discussing that aspect,” Harris stated.
There would be notices sent out, statements that water users
“need to comply”. We
want “voluntary compliance,” he added.
DOE addressed an earlier question: “We won’t
access private property without permission.
We’ll take you to court.”
R. W. Robinson asked, If the tribes are making
the rules, what are we arguing about RCWs for?
The response was that this was a group endeavor, with tribes,
ecology and others.
Another man said he had been on the Dungeness/Quilcene
Planning group. He said
environmental groups at that time wanted all wells to be metered,
including the exempt wells. “Environmental
groups took this to court,” he said.
Question is, when another environmental group takes you to
court to meter private wells, will you comply then, too?
“Your guess is as good as mine,” the DOE member retorted.
“How will this be funded?
By federal grant?” a woman wanted to know “Is this why you’re doing this?”
Lynn Coleman responded: We’re getting a grant
for $300,000. to establish a data management system, was the answer.
The money is there, available to use now.
The legislature has several pots of money to hire new staff;
there will be 3-6 staff statewide.
A second pot of money is available to construct a database.
Over two years, there will be $3.4 million statewide, for
assisting people in purchasing meters, etc.
“We’re in the process of developing the
criteria,” Coleman explained. “Economic
hardship – combining money with other pots of money…”
Several other comments and questions ensued.
One man said, “He who controls the water controls the
land.” Another asked
about taxing in the future. DOE
responded that this is a major concern around the state.
“Currently, there is no legislation on the books [for
taxing]”.
Another man said, “I’m trying to think of a
nice word for ‘bull’…this is an issue of control, not
groundwater…the majority of people are against this.”
Someone raised the question as to whether DOE
could fine people for noncompliance.
“Yes” was the answer. For
too much water use? the citizen queried.
“That’s one of the things we’ve been doing”, Harris
responded. Recently,
they’ve issued $50,000 to $80,000 in fines.
“Don’t need taxes with fines like that!” stated the
citizens.
“Down with the illegal water users,” called
out someone from the back.
“The water leaves the river and re-enters the
river,” explained one river property owner.
“Do you count the water as coming back into the river?” “No” was the answer.
Ted Cordua introduced himself as a taxpayer and
veteran. “You’re
trying to wear us out,” he said.
“I’ve never seen any scientific evidence” to back up the
need for metering. “This
strikes at the heart of the constitution.”
The question and answer period ended with most of
the people departing. Approximately
50 people remained while testimonies began at approximately 8:30 p.m.
Each individual who gave public testimony spoke out against the
rules, with the exception of Eloise Kailin, who claimed that although
they have heard “harsh comments” this evening, “not everyone in
Sequim feels this way.” She
introduced herself as president of Protect the Peninsula’s Future,
and said she represented many citizens not present there.
She stated that she and her group are aware that the amount of
water in the Dungeness River falls below sufficient levels to carry
fish.
David Lotzgezell talked about his being a 5th
generation farmer, and his concern about the loss of property rights.
“Everywhere we turn, there’s restrictions,” he said.
All these groups who say “save the farmland….everywhere we
turn, there’s restrictions; it’s choking us.”
He spoke about trying to get federal grants to help restore his
barn built in 1917; “no funds were available for that…don’t
throw out that carrot, ‘cause it’s not there,” he said.
“If you want to save farmland, stop choking us with these
regulations,” he said fervently.
John Bennett introduced himself as a Sequim
physician and chair of the Libertarian Party of Clallam County. “You take our liberties one at a time…you attack us one
at a time,” he said. He
said, how many people left when you said that terrible lie; it’s not
going to be your private well. “My
government is supposed to be designed to protect my property.
What good is it if we don’t have water?”
Greg Fleming said he is a veteran and holds a
degree in environmental science.
“I fought so that tyranny would not reign again,” he said
as he concluded his statement, pointing out the problems with the
rules.
Robert Short, a farmer in Chimacum with 300 dairy
cows, said he served on the Dungeness/Quilcene planning unit. “I lost so much confidence in DOE and the way politics
rules everything that goes on,” he said.
He added that there are “lots and lots of salmon” but not
because of additional water.
“I guess I’m paranoid about some of the things I hear
because DOE goes beyond what the law says….I know water measuring is
going to go beyond what you’re telling us today.”
Ed Sumpter, local realtor, said “I want to say
‘no’ to whatever you’re selling….Get our message!”
He compared the rulemaking to the income tax; “it was 1% in
1914. Look at it
today!” He concluded by saying “You’re laying the groundwork.”
The meeting ended at 9:15 p.m.
The written comment period ends on September 24,
2001.
|