HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources June 22 20041
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Whatcom County Council
Special Water Resources Work Session
June 22, 2004
Council Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. in the
Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N.
Commercial, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner Seth Fleetwood
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Sharon Roy
Sam Crawford L. Ward Nelson
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2004 -025)
1. WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
Instream Flow Action Plan, Version 6A
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated this draft hasn't gone
through legal review by some of the governments. Dan Gibson looked at it. They
propose to begin establishing a flow regime in Bertrand Creek. Until they begin to
wrestle with the data and people, showing this is the perfect plan will take some
time. This request is for conceptual approval that would initiate some of the work
in Bertrand Creek. The Watershed Improvement District (WID) has supported this
and supports Bertrand being the pilot area for a flow regime. As they go through
Bertrand, there will probably be others. The City of Bellingham wants to move
forward with the middle fork in the future. The Executive has been clear that it
wants to work toward a locally negotiated process that will allow people to agree on
managing wet water, and then back out the water right pieces. At some point,
there will be adjudication in the basin. Move forward cautiously. At some point
when they establish flows, determine how much water is available, and determine
who can get water, the State Department of Ecology will have to spend time and
energy sorting out water rights issues.
McShane referenced page 24 of the packet and the bullet item "land use and
zoning changes." Roll stated that item came from one of the other work groups,
not County staff.
McShane stated he wants to add "development standards" to that bullet item
or just keep it "land use" to be more generic. There are a variety of approaches.
Even if they keep language as it is, protecting stream flow regime by lowering
density may even require development standards. Keep a broader approach in
mind, rather than just going to do zoning changes.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/22/2004, Page 1
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Sue Blake, Senior Planner, stated there will still be refinements made to this
document before coming to the Council for formal approval. Approval now just
says they're going in the right direction.
Roll stated a proposal from the Planning Unit will be a supplemental. It will
be in the next version. Approval now is to support doing the work in Bertrand.
Brenner referenced page seven of the packet. It talks about the ultimate
goal being to have sufficient water to meet the needs of current and future
generations. She asked if the current influx of people causes them to not be able
to meet the needs of future generations. She asked if they take it away from
current generations to meet the needs of the future generations. Roll stated this
language is from the original scope of work from March 2000. Nothing is saying
that existing people will prevent future growth. The language says that they want
to do this in areas where they can, looking forward, develop strategies to achieve
this goal. Look at opportunities for areas to preserve. They will work through the
question of where they want to be in five to 20 years. For agriculture, the Planning
Unit goal is that agriculture is a viable economy in the County. It's a guiding
principal of tribes and others participants.
Brenner stated she's heard that Utah State University (USU) has taken
unfinished information on groundwater and printed a paper in a nationwide journal,
and they're blaming agriculture for the problem. She asked how USU can do
something on Whatcom County groundwater without having worked on the county's
groundwater. Roll stated USU did work on a fate and transport model for nitrate.
Blake stated there are a variety of perspectives from people who read the
article. It points out that, because agriculture is a contributor to nitrate problems,
if they took away the agriculture, it would get rid of the nitrate problem. It is not
an article in favor of not having agriculture.
Brenner stated the County didn't get groundwater modeling from USU. She
was surprised to hear USU take that information out of context.
Roll stated the model in there was recently delivered.
Blake stated USU wrote the model based on pre - completion work that had
been done, based on some of the loading they already know about. Even the
agricultural community acknowledges the nitrate loading problem. It's how they
interpret that information and use it from a management perspective that causes a
lot of sensitivity.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it's one article. It won't change their policy. It's
just information that is out there. Everyone knows agriculture has nutrients.
They've tried to address the problem positively, and farmers have been great about
it. The article just acknowledges the problem.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/22/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner stated they've come a long way. For USU to take that out of context
and do an article is offensive.
Caskey- Schreiber stated USU has the intellectual freedom to do that.
Brenner referenced the bottom of packet page eight. She is concerned about
why they are spending millions of dollars when they will probably end up in court.
The State legislators aren't working with them. Kelli Linville is appalled they're
doing as much as they're doing and spending as much money as they're spending.
She doesn't know that they 're going to be in a better position. They may be doing
all the legal stuff for people who take them to court, without furthering their own
position. They could end up in court for years.
John Thompson, Senior Planner, stated they are setting up a collaborative
process so they've already agreed to the numbers when they do go to court.
They've made substantial progress in developing a process that will let them do
that.
Brenner asked if the process includes farmers, tribes, and all factions, or just
the County and tribes. Thompson stated the process is to provide information to
the folks at the watershed level so they have good information to support local
negotiation and have the water users in Bertrand Creek, for example, agree to the
outcomes. It includes all parties.
Brenner asked if the farmers are a group that has to agree.
McShane stated no one has to agree to anything. When they talk about a
collaborative process, an example is the agriculture caucus and tribes agreement on
how to evaluate the drainage systems on creeks. There was a little friction there.
They came to an agreement, which is a huge step. That's what they're aiming for.
The Council works on stuff as well. Sometimes it's not comfortable, but it's better
than being totally adversarial in court. This gets rid of some of the adversarial
nature that they'd have otherwise. This has been the debate from the beginning of
this water resources approach. They have to be very cautious of wasting a lot of
money. Some perspectives are that they spent too much in some areas. He
doesn't see that they're completely mired in the commitment to spend money
unless there is collaboration.
Blake stated that is a value to the pilot projects. This program lays out a
strategy to get people to the table to work with information collected by USU. The
pilot projects allow them to see the extent people are coming to the table to work
together.
Brenner stated it took too long to get to the pilot projects. Spend money on
pilot projects and not process.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/22/2004, Page 3
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Caskey- Schreiber stated there is enormous local incentive for everyone to
collaborate. Otherwise, they are putting local control in the hands of the federal
level, and they won't have a balanced perspective. The agricultural people and
tribes she's talked to really want this to work.
Brenner stated the ag people she's talked to are afraid of this. They're really
concerned about USU. If something comes out that is biased against one of the
caucuses, they're going to lose that caucus.
She referenced the section on target flows on page it of packet. The
language says to both try to achieve and that it is achievable. She asked which it
is. Thompson stated the intent was to identify flows that are physically obtainable
and that the physical environment can provide. When it says the community tries
to achieve the flows, it's about getting the community to work together to get those
flows.
Roll stated the flows have to be achievable. Until they get into the process,
he can't answer that definitely. The operating procedure is to work with flows that
are achievable.
Brenner asked if it means they will figure out what is achievable and go with
that. Roll stated it does.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the language means that they won't come up with a
dream goal. They will come up with something that everyone can live with and
they will realistically achieve.
Brenner stated it's good they took out the water master language. She
asked if they took it out everywhere. Roll stated they did. To understand
enforcement, they need buy in from those who will make an agreement. The WID
need the assurance there will be a mechanism to ensure people are using the
proper amounts of water. The agriculture community knows it needs to happen
and hopes to participate in the process to put some level of enforcement in the
plan. Ultimately, they may have different methods of enforcement in different
drainages. They'll hear from Bertrand as they develop this project. In return for
having water of a certain quantity, the community will have to have assurances
that someone is using the proper amount. They're going to have to come forward
with a strategy they can adhere to. The affected parties will be required to monitor
their progress.
Brenner referenced the definition of "adopting flow settings." She doesn't
comprehend "establishing instream flows as water rights." Roll stated staff has
marked that time as one that needs work because there wasn't agreement on the
definition.
is.
McShane moved to approve the instream flow action plan, version 6a as it
Water Resources Work Session, 6/22/2004, 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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Roll stated he's looking for support for the Bertrand watershed pilot project
to move forward.
Brenner stated she is against the motion. The Planning Unit members should
make their comments on this before the Council makes a decision on version 6a.
She talked to two caucus people who hadn't seen it.
Blake stated the instream flow working group didn't meet until June 9 to
address comments. They do have this version now.
Brenner stated she doesn't have their comments.
Caskey- Schreiber stated their comments are in the packet.
Blake stated the comments in the packet are on version 6. Version 6a
reflects the responses to the caucus comments on version six.
Brenner stated she hasn't been comfortable with the Council making opinions
to the Planning Unit. It should be the other way around.
McShane stated comments from the caucuses were provided and written up.
Changes were made to version six. Version 6a is based on the comments made by
the caucuses.
Brenner stated they haven't commented on version 6a.
Caskey- Schreiber stated version 6a reflects their input on version six.
Brenner stated it may or it may not. The changes are someone's
interpretation of the caucus's input. It's important for the Council to let the
caucuses guide this without unduly influencing it.
Roll stated there will be many versions, and each version will include
comments that have come up and been addressed. The Council will continue to see
this format into the future. They don't expect to all agree on this version, and not
make any more comments. He expects to hear more comments on whether the
changes made are good enough to proceed forward.
Blake stated the request today is not on all the language and terms in this
version. The request is to know whether they are heading in the right direction and
to move forward with the pilot projects in the Bertrand watershed, knowing future
versions will come forward based on all the comments that will come forward in the
coming months.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the language indicates that this is still a work in
progress. She's comfortable with giving approval.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/22/2004, Page 5
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner stated she's concerned about the process. It would be more
beneficial to have the Planning Unit consider this before the Council, rather than the
other way around.
McShane stated the question is whether there is something in the plan that is
not okay. They need to speak freely about that, and the caucuses will have to live
with that.
Roll stated that when a caucus is unable to support an item, it must indicate
what it needs to change to have support of the item. He will need to respond to the
question of what the County Council caucus needs changed to approve this version
of the plan.
Motion failed 3 -0 -1 with Brenner abstaining.
Brenner stated she abstained because the Planning Unit needs to be
comfortable with this version before she approves it.
(Clerks Note: Discussion continued below.)
Watershed Management Plan Public Comments and Review Process
Blake stated they talked about this at the June 1 Council Public Works
Committee. There was discussion at the Planning Unit about a revision to the
public involvement process. Instead of the Planning Unit taking control of the
public process as it reviews the plan, the County and other legislative bodies will
receive comments from the public and go through the public process and do public
outreach. She didn't receive any comments or concerns from the councilmembers
about this proposal. This change is coming up before the Planning Unit for a
decision. She needs a decision on the second item on page six of the packet.
Reaffirm that the plan will be released to the public after Planning Unit approval,
and Whatcom County will take responsibility for the public review process.
Roll stated the County has to have a public hearing anyway on the
management plan. If the Council chooses not to support it, it has to indicate why
and what needs to change, and the plan will go back to the Planning Unit for more
work.
Brenner asked if the actual process of when it is released to the public was
agreed to by the Planning Unit. Blake stated the Planning Unit will give a copy to
anyone now with a note that says the Planning Unit is working on the plan and to
provide comments now or formally to the Council.
Roll stated it is a public document already, practically. The subtlety here is
to focus on getting Planning Unit support for the document rather than trying to
Water Resources Work Session, 6/22/2004, Page 6
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
broaden the audience and include audience comments. This method will show how
well the caucuses were able to represent the small interests.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if County approval is after Planning Unit approval.
Roll stated it is.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how that's done. Roll stated once the Planning Unit
recommends the plan, the Council will schedule one or two public hearings. The
Council will hear if there are a bunch of people saying they don't like it. If so, the
Council can determine it needs to change. If the Planning Unit has worked the way
it supposed to, the majority of water interest groups have been heard. Schedule a
hearing and a vote.
Brenner asked if the private well caucus has been active. Blake stated it is.
Roll stated the majority of people are ready to start implementing projects.
A minority of the Planning Unit members are concerned about the plan. Most want
to adopt what they can and move on.
McShane stated the Planning Unit members seem to be speaking out more.
He hasn't been hearing them ask councilmembers to speak up for them like they
used to.
Crawford stated this format is nice because they can hear responses to
concerns.
Roll stated it's been cumbersome, but the caucus format has great value
over the long term. It gives people of similar interests the opportunity to work
through issues. It also helped having someone come to the table to represent the
group's interest and not their own interests. All the caucus representatives have
done a great job of not promoting their personal interests. If that happens, that
representative is soon replaced by the caucus membership.
Blake stated they are working through formal and informal comments. All
comments are logged, as is the suggested changes. There is constant tracking of
responses to comments as discussions evolve with the Planning Unit.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Roll asked if the Council is comfortable with this change. The Council will
have to schedule a public hearing for this process, and that's all he proposes.
Blake stated the nature of comments at the last Planning Unit was that if
there are huge problems that would benefit from more action at the Planning Unit,
the members would be happy to do that.
Water Resources Work Session, 6/22/2004, Page 7
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Brenner stated most of the concerns raised were from the land use caucus.
That representative is here now. She asked to find out if their concerns were
adequately addressed.
Caskey- Schreiber asked when the final recommendation on the plan comes
forward from the Planning Unit. Blake stated the plan is at the end of the year or
next year.
McShane moved to approve the public process.
Motion carried unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a ten - minute break at 10:25 a.m.)
Instream Flow Action Plan, Version 6A
(Clerk's Note: Continued from above.)
Brenner moved to reconsider the motion to approve the instream flow
action plan version 6a.
Motion carried unanimously.
Brenner moved to conceptually approve the instream flow action plan
version 6a and identify that Bertrand Creek will be the only area they will work on.
Roll asked what they thought if Bellingham comes forward in three months to
do middle fork, and it's willing to put money into it.
Brenner stated they would take another vote then. Make sure they don't
expand this water resource inventory area (WRIA) -wide at this point.
Crawford asked if the motion excludes portions of this draft plan.
Brenner stated it does not.
Roll stated this is the guiding document to use at Bertrand initially. They will
support it conceptually, knowing they will change the plan any time as needed.
Motion carried unanimously.
2. SALMON RECOVERY PLAN
Update on Status Report to the Shared Strat
Water Resources Work Session, 6/22/2004, Page 8
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
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Roll stated everyone is working on information that will go to the Shared
Strategy group. This is a work in process. Their technical people will look at the
information and provide guidance. Between now and June 2005, the County will
need to make a formal statement related to the salmon recovery plan. Now, the
ideas are on the table, primarily the best available science. That best available
science is being used in the critical areas ordinance and shoreline master plan
updates. The Salmon Recovery Board will meet to confirm this is the information
they send to Shared Strategy and to confirm their support of the rank of the latest
Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board projects. They'll hear more about this later
in the fall when they get feedback from the technical review team. Preliminarily,
the people who have reviewed it so far have said this is one of the most thorough
they've seen.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on July 13 , 2004.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 6/22/2004, Page 9