Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session July 17 2007Whatcom County Council Special Surface Water Work Session July 17, 2007 Council Vice -Chair Seth Fleetwood called the meeting to order at 10:15 a.m. in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner Carl Weimer Dan McShane Laurie Caskey- Schreiber L. Ward Nelson Sam Crawford SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2007 -025) I. COMPREHENSIVE WATER RESOURCES INTEGRATION PROJECT UPDATE - PRESENTED BY PAULA COOPER, PUBLIC WORKS RIVER AND FLOOD MANAGER Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, submitted a handout (on file). They received two proposals. Consultant interviews were last week. The consultant chosen was the CH2Mhill team. It's approach mimicked the request for proposals (RFP) well. The handout is how the consultant laid out its approach and tied it to the RFP. The consultant envisions ten to eleven workshops in a six -month time frame, ending at the end of January. They are turning this approach into a scope and budget, They are going to develop the methodology to prioritize projects and programs, review County actions, define core functions, and suggest organizational structures. Phase II would get into the funding issues. This is bringing together all the water resources tasks that the different County departments are involved in. The process will produce a methodology to prioritize projects on the County's plate. They will be able to see where they can get to with the existing funding and staff resources. If they want to get further down the list, they will need more resources. Brenner asked why they can't do this in- house. Cooper stated this approach is a compromise, by including the staff (STAT) team. CH2Mhill will provide guidance through the process. It will get a result much quicker. Brenner stated that when they started the water resource inventory area (WRIA) process, this was going to be an opportunity for the County to work collaboratively and cooperatively with all the other jurisdictions, so they wouldn't end up in lawsuits, specifically with the Tribes. The Lummi Nation has fled a lawsuit. Depending on what happens with the lawsuit, this WRIA I implementation plan may be for naught. This approach was to ameliorate that from happening. Surface Water Work Session, 7/17/2007, Page 1 Cooper stated this item is not specifically about the WRIA project. Nelson stated the Council budgeted $100,000 to coordinate all the water resource efforts in the community. Whether or not the tribes are there, they still need to do this coordination. The staff has taken a lot of time to outline the elements of phase one that need to be evaluated. The huge part of it is looking at phase two funding. There will be problems to initiate and coordinate larger water resource efforts. Brenner asked about the lawsuit. Peter Gill, Planning and Development Services Department, stated the lawsuit is about water system holders. Any water system with 15 connections qualifies as a municipal water holder, which provides a lot of rights that they didn't have previously, according to the law passed in 2003. He doesn't know when the tribes filed suit. Frank Abart, Public Works Department Director, asked if the lawsuit is saying that the Lummi don't have to follow the law. Nelson stated it challenges a number of things. McShane stated the County's role is limited. It's not a water purveyor. It does approve subdivisions and housing. The County is outside the water law. There is no connection between the lawsuit and the County's action, other than informing the County. The County is at no risk of being sued. Brenner stated it will affect all the issues with salmon, stormwater, residential, commercial, and industrial water supplies. She's concerned that the County will do a lot of work, only to have everything they've done change because of this. Cooper stated that if the projects change because of the lawsuit, the methodology will stay the same. This is a development process to explain to the public what they're working on and why. Roland Middleton, Planning and Development Services Department, stated one reason they want to go with CH2MHill is their approach. One thing this consultant brought to the table was a way to establish a methodology for the future. There will always be lawsuits. The methodology will assist the County in identifying funding and prioritizing projects. The methodology can adjust to whatever lawsuit the County has to deal with or whatever comes up. Any project that comes through goes through the methodology to see how it's prioritized. It will also determine the core functions of the County. The County will prioritize projects based on its responsibilities. This process would help the County answer to the lawsuit in the future. Brenner asked if they foresee that one outcome of this process would be an ability to foresee actions and their consequences. Middleton stated one way to come up with criteria is to go through that process. They will run through it with the Council. Brenner stated make sure they have those warning signs ahead of time, rather than be reactive. Nelson stated it's essential to have a process in place. Without a coordinated process, the community will be more prone to litigation. When they get into a litigious situation, the plan itself will prevent harm. The courts will look at the planning process. Surface Water Work Session, 7/17/2007, Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 John Thompson, Public Works Department, stated another part of this exercise is defining the County's roles, needs, and wants. Evaluating those things will allow the County to do what it needs to once there is a decision in the lawsuit. Now, functions are scattered. As they clarify roles, they can see if the existing structure works or not. They will be more proactive rather than reactive. Brenner asked if it matters how much work they do if the law is the law, regarding water rights. She asked if the County's good faith work makes a difference legally. Fleetwood stated it's hard to answer without knowing the lawsuit that may be brought against the County. Brenner stated it says that there is an over - allocation of water rights now, and that municipal water right holders have more rights than they should have. Thompson stated that if the water association is treated as a municipal water right, there is a chunk of water that the association can use or will use in the future. If they are not treated as a municipality, then the water is available for instream flows or other water users. Brenner asked if the County's good faith will matter. She asked how much they should do before they settle the WRIA1 implementation plan. Nelson stated the tribes are waging a battle against the State legislation. Brenner stated it could affect what they are doing in the County. They are all working together to create certain benchmarks, which could change if the tribes win. Cooper stated the lawsuit may be one project that rates high against all the other projects. Nelson stated he's impressed with the work the County staff has done to get this set 2. WRIA 1 DETAILED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - PRESENTED BY PETER GILL, PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GIS SPECIALIST Peter Gill, Planning and Development Services Department, submitted a handout (on file). He will talk about phase four. Fleetwood asked for a summary of the phases. Gill stated phases one, two, and three were about data collection and writing the actual plan. The Council approved the watershed plan in 2005. This is taking it to the next step to decide how to implement the plan. This adds detail to the actions and strategies that are already in the plan. Nelson stated using the term 'implementation plan' is not the same as the water resource integration implementation plan. There may be some confusion. Gill stated one is internal to the County. The other includes all the jurisdictions. He read from the presentation on the presentation goals, an overview of the detailed implementation plan. With approval of the plan, they can get State funding for years two, three, and four to do identified tasks. Surface Water Work Session, 7/17/2007, Page 3 Fleetwood asked when they are actually going to get to implementation, and whether getting State grant money will obligate them to make the tough decisions. Gill stated it will. They won't keep getting money and support if the County doesn't make something happen with instream and out -of- stream water supply. McShane stated the ability of politicians to avoid controversy is remarkable. One example is instream flows. He asked if the legislation or grant function will require them to take interim actions before making final decisions. They are spending all this time planning, yet they know things are happening on the ground. The link between water rights and land use is a poor connection. He asked when they would start making those kinds of controversial decisions. Gill stated things are happening on the ground now. McShane asked where those controversial decisions would be made. The State Department of Ecology (DOE) is avoiding (inaudible) to solve some of these problems. Bertrand is a collaborative process that isn't controversial. Gill stated one controversial item is compliance. The DOE now has enforcement personnel in the watershed. It has done enforcement in the last year. As compliance and enforcement ramps up, there will be more people looking at who has the water rights. When that is going to happen is hard to say. McShane stated it sounds like DOE is taking a controversial baby step. It's not the County's issue, but the County can help by resolving some of those (inaudible). Gill stated the County can help with education. John Thompson, Public Works Department, stated that the Bertrand project is in the process of negotiating instream flows. There are a lot of assumptions based on land use. If the Council can change those land use assumptions, it can have an effect on negotiating water use and instream flows. Brenner asked where in the plan is a specific mention of individual well owners. The plan doesn't say that it is dealing specifically with well owners. Gill stated that right now, private residences on wells don't need a water right. It has a priority, but they don't need a State DOE right to put a well in the ground if using less than 5,000 gallons per day for non- commercial use, and irrigating less than a half -acre. Brenner stated that if they add up everyone with a private well, it's a lot of water. Nelson stated the private well owners are involved in the Planning Unit process. They are going to look at the impact on the individuals. Brenner stated people with private wells aren't an organized group. It's hard to educate them about what's going on. Gill stated that they will be affected when the instream flows are negotiated. In other places, the DOE has removed the exemption for single - family residences in a certain watershed. He continued to read from the presentation on the Plan format. Brenner asked if the ten percent required match comes from the County. Gill stated it includes the County and all the initiating governments. He continued to read from the presentation on the Plan contents. Surface Water Work Session, 7/17/2007, Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 Fleetwood asked if the Utah State University (USU) decision support system has been corrected. Frank Abart, Public Works Director, stated he and his staff have been in meetings with others to move forward with that issue. Deliverables will arrive soon. He is actively pursuing that issue. The deliverable is supposed to do what USU said it would actually do. Brenner asked if the deliverable would be worthwhile. She asked if the County has any recourse if it isn't worthwhile. Abart stated he's working on it. He wants USU to deliver what it said it would deliver, or give the contract money back. A substandard product would not meet the criteria of the contract. Gill continued with the presentation on the plan contents and implementation tasks. Nelson asked if the County is already spending money on gauges. Gill stated the County spends money on few. Mostly, the funding is from the State. Paula Cooper, Public Works Department, stated they use some of the gauges that she uses for early flood warning, which comes out of her budget. The budget amount is about $60,000 per year. Nelson asked if the total $300,000 will not come just from the County. Gill stated it will not. They just got a grant to keep the seven U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gauges to June 30, 2009 and to add temperature probes to those gauges. Brenner asked who approves the money. Cooper stated this is a patchwork of different funding networks. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Gill continued to read the presentation on implementation tasks on the long -term monitoring, compliance program, natural resource policy integration, and the governance structure for implementation. Brenner asked who is on the Salmon Recovery Board. Thompson stated the board includes the County Executive, the small city managers, and the co- managers. Gill continued to read the presentation on implementation tasks regarding governance, administrative tasks, adaptive management, and the June 20 Planning Unit meeting. Brenner asked for a list of the members of all the different boards. Nelson asked how they would fit the integration project into these phases. Gill stated this governance structure won't affect the internal comprehensive water resource integration program. The other agencies don't get to say what the County works on, other than weighing in on the public process. Nelson asked if they are making proposals to legislative bodies. He asked what those legislative bodies are. Gill stated it is the County Council. Thompson stated it is also the City Councils. Surface Water Work Session, 7/17/2007, Page 5 McShane stated they would have that as guidance for the County Council. As things come up through this governance structure, and it doesn't meet what is a priority for the Council, then the County could say it won't push a project forward. Nelson stated that's where it needs a better process. It needs a filtering system that is better than just the Council. It should go through the communities and various basins. Then funding and priorities should be identified. When it comes to the County Council, the Council can look at it and be able to prioritize countywide. Gill stated that things that come out of the detailed implementation plan will be on the table to evaluate, in terms of the County's priority, and vice versa. The WRIA staff team and Salmon Recovery Board will see what the County wants to prioritize. They get to weigh in on the County's priorities. Nelson stated they County must be responsive to the citizens locally in addition to the countywide level. Abart stated projects evolving from this process will not be exempt from being reviewed. Brenner stated the information on water quality on page 46 doesn't include contaminants such as mercury and other problems they keep hearing about. Gill stated that's where funding would come in. Look at the priority. The suite of parameters can say a lot about what is going on, but it may not pick up pesticides, for instance. These listed are the ones that the scientists say are the most important. In some places, testing for mercury will be more important. The monitoring plan doesn't take into affect the complementary monitoring programs built for specific watersheds, such as the Drayton Harbor shellfish monitoring. Those are happening as complementary programs. In certain places, different things would be monitored. Gill continued the presentation on the June 20 Planning Unit meeting and the next steps. Brenner stated comments given in the information say that a certain caucus expressed a concern that it shouldn't do this now, even though it voted in favor of it. She's not comfortable moving ahead with this without being able to communicate with planning Unit members. Rebecca Craven, Council policy Analyst, stated some of the confusion may be due to the time involved. Some of the comments were received before the meeting. The comments may have been clarified at the meeting. Gill stated the comments didn't come after the meeting. The comments came too late to be printed in the packet and commented on by the consultant. The development caucus comment was made on June 18, but the meeting was on June 20. All the comments were discussed at the meeting. Nelson stated the non - municipal water caucus approved only if the County Council approved. He moved to approve the detailed implementation plan and phase one of the governance structure. Brenner stated she would rather vote next week. Nelson withdrew his motion. Surface Water Work Session, 7/17/2007, Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 ADJOURN The meetin oourned at 11:25 a.m. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription The Council approved these minutes on August 7 2007. ATTEST: ``,����ptttttrrrp� �Y C� DancSBroivr Q "C�.ipc� Cle�c • ri` • ., qQ4 O • i ' • ... • • ��`� jrituw%'0'0 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON th *Fleetwo WCouncil -Chair Surface Water Work Session, 7/17/2007, Page 7