HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources April 15 20031
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.
Whatcom County Council
Special Water Resources Work Session
April 15, 2003
The meeting was called to order at 10:05 a.m. by Council Chair Dan
McShane in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room,
322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington.
Present:
Barbara Brenner
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
Absent:
L. Ward Nelson
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2003 -025)
1. WRIA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Stage II Water Rights Report
Ann Atkeson, Public Utility District (PUD) 1, gave background information on
stage one of the water rights project, which was to collect all the water rights data
from the State Department of Ecology (DOE). They are required to produce
information about water rights in water resources inventory area (WRIA) 1. They
mapped the water rights to see how many are in each drainage.
In stage two, they talked to water right holders about how water rights work.
Councilmembers reviewed the materials she took to the public. The public provided
information on a volunteer basis. They mapped each water right to the correct
parcel, based on information provided on water right documents. There are 7,200
water right documents for WRIA 1. They mapped about 33 percent of those
documents. Some documents are claims that haven't been adjudicated yet. They
did not map those, which may or may not be valid. New water right applications
are mapped close to the vicinity, not the exact parcel.
Now people can find their water right much easier. The water rights are
under the name of the original owner. They mapped the water right to the current
parcel and combined that data with the Assessor's ownership data. That makes it
much easier for the public to find water rights. This is all public information, but it
was not in a form that was easy to sort and find. They just combined different
information sources into a more useable product.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/15/2003, 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.
They sent letters to 3,500 property owners with water rights, and followed up
with phone call. They set up appointments to go over the people's water right
documents. They managed to talk to about 900 people, associated with 1,700
documents. They are still responding to requests for information.
Utah State University (USU) is using this information in its surface water
modeling. A function in the model will simulate "what if" scenarios if they turned
on or off certain water rights. They will be able to see the effects of stream flow
downstream. This information will be available to caucuses and participating
governments.
Peter Gill, Public Utility District (PUD) 1, showed an example of how a person
would find a water right.
Atkeson stated there are 500 to 600 new water right pending applications
that go back about 15 years. The State hasn't been making decisions on new water
right applications. The applications are from the people who are waiting in line to
get water rights.
Gill stated a water right might cover many smaller parcels, such as a
subdivision, that used to be one larger parcel.
Atkeson stated multiple property owners can submit a change form to divide
the water right. Many people don't even know they have a water right. If the
water has been out of use for more than five years, there are potential
relinquishment issues.
Caskey- Schreiber asked their incentive is if DOE doesn't enforce the allowed
water usage. Atkeson stated there isn't an incentive right now. A lot of people
weren't aware of the relinquishment law in the code. There are some exceptions to
the five -year relinquishment law. The DOE is processing change applications at this
time.
Brenner stated there could be two parcels with two water rights. She asked
if it means the rights are for the same amount. Atkeson stated water rights are
very specific for use and purpose. All those things specified in the water right have
to match up with the actual use to be a correct water right. Many times someone
will move the well, so the paper doesn't match what they are doing.
Brenner asked if they are legal. Atkeson stated they are not, technically.
They can file a change application and change any condition except the amounts.
It's not difficult to initiate a change. People are concerned about what else happens
when DOE is evaluating their change. They are afraid of losing water because DOE
evaluates the actual water use. The Conservancy Board is where the change
applications can end up. It reviews applications locally. She doesn't think many
people will fix their water right.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/15/2003, 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.
Gill stated some parcels have more than one water right that overlap.
Applications are assigned to the section, not a particular location. This project is
one of the deliverables of stage two. Other formatted mapping products are
available.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they are going to get neighbors reporting against
neighbors. Gill stated they could.
Atkeson stated some neighborhoods have been following their own hierarchy
of use, and they found that the senior user didn't appear to have any paperwork.
It's helpful for people who are in need of a water right and want to shop for a water
right.
Fleetwood asked if the DOE and water right holder only initiate the
relinquishment process. Atkeson stated DOE initiates the process. If a third party
makes a complaint, it would move DOE to look into something and work through
that relinquishment process. Voluntary relinquishment is very simple, but
involuntary relinquishment is very complex and expensive. She doesn't know of
any formal involuntary relinquishments.
McShane asked if there is notification to people in the area of a voluntary
relinquishment. Atkeson stated one complication is if there are several property
owners with one water right. They can't do a voluntary relinquishment unless all
property owners agree to relinquish the right.
McShane asked if they've linked well logs on the map. Atkeson stated the
well logs are available to the public on the internet. The DOE has not linked it to
the water right documents. She started doing that a little, but it isn't part of their
scope of work. She can see how it would be useful.
Brenner asked if there is any protection for neighboring properties when
water rights are transferred. Water rights can be transferred in the same
watershed. Atkeson stated the legislation says "within the same body of public
water," which is a very vague, general statement. She advised people to not limit
themselves to a transfer within less than a mile. It could be allowed anywhere in
the whole Nooksack Basin. They don't know what it means. There are protections
for neighbors if someone decides to transfer a water right many miles away. When
DOE gets a change application, it has to evaluate whether there will be impacts to
neighbors if a right is transferred. They would also take into consideration exempt
wells. Seniority, interference, water quality issues, and other regulations apply to
exempt wells, which are only exempt from getting a water right.
Caskey- Schreiber asked the unit of measure of a water right. She also asked
how they make sure owners are not exceeding their approved volume. Atkeson
stated a groundwater right is measured in gallons per minute (gpm). A surface
water right is measured in cubic feet per second. There is a conversion formula
between the two. Also, an annual maximum amount of water is indicated on the
Water Resources Work Session, 4/15/2003, 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.
right, measured in acre -feet, which is a foot of water over an acre of ground. No
one is watching to see if a water right holder is exceeding the approved volume.
The DOE has that authority, but enforcement is not happening. Many property
owners were very interesting in having the actual water right document for the first
time.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how the County planning process has some
responsibility to match the volume of water. Atkeson stated the Health Department
reviews the water adequacy for a subdivision. That all goes through the water
availability review. The same is for a private well. For the exempt wells, there is
nothing that can be required, and it allows up to 5,000 gallons of water to be used
per day. There are many property uses that use less than 5,000 gallons per day.
John Watts, Bellingham City Council Member, asked if there is any County
requirement for firewater.
McShane stated there is.
Watts asked if firewater is included in the 5,000 - gallon exemption.
McShane stated it can or can't be. An applicant has to demonstrate
adequate flow.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if that is why they build the big holding tanks.
Atkeson stated that does happen in some places.
Brenner asked what they are considering surface water and groundwater.
She also asked if it would be a transfer to switch from surface water to
groundwater. Atkeson stated the DOE uses the definition that if the water is on the
surface of the ground, it is surface water. If a person digs in the ground and
captures water below the ground, it is groundwater. There is an issue that all
surface water bodies are closed to allocation. Much of the county has a sandy
gravelly layer called the Sumas aquifer. It is very porous. If there is a nearby river
or creek, groundwater close to the surface of the bottom of the river will not be
allowed for allocation. A person can apply to make a change to switch the source
from surface water to ground water. The belief now is that moving away from the
stream may be beneficial to the stream flow. If someone moves away from stream
and to a groundwater well, that person is still pulling the same water that flows to
the stream, but the time delay may be beneficial. There would be a time delay
between when the water is pulled from the ground and when it would have hit the
stream.
Brenner stated part of the delay might depend on the soil type. She asked
about a voluntary agreement by the property owners to do certain things, and its
relation to potential enforcement. Atkeson stated these products are deliverables
to many agencies, including the enforcing agency. Each agency can do whatever it
Water Resources Work Session, 4/15/2003, 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.
wants with it. It is a public document that goes to all WRIA participants. If the
DOE chooses to use it for enforcement, it is free to do that.
Brenner stated she was adamantly opposed to identifying the rights. She
has seen that some rights aren't needed anymore. She feels strongly that they
don't do anything to punish people for being more conservative with their water.
Figure out what rights are voluntarily not being used, and differentiate between
them and the people who are trying to conserve water. Include that in the future
analysis section of the draft stage two review.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Caskey- Schreiber asked if Whatcom County is the only county in the state
with this mapping system. Atkeson stated WRIA 13 has done a similar mapping
effort. They have gone further in analysis to say which rights look as if the land
use has changed. In Eastern Washington, the DOE has undertaken similar mapping
for a good portion of the Yakima area for the adjudication going on there. A plan
for DOE is to do this across the state, but the funding is not secure. This program
is basically the same geographic information system (GIS) mapping and
information database as is used elsewhere.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is very impressed.
Atkeson stated some maintenance is required for this system, as information
changes daily.
Dr. Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated they have not yet
defined who would be responsible for maintaining the system. This contract ends
at the end of the year. What follows is yet to be determined.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if County could subcontract with Ms. Atkeson and
her team to maintain the data. Roll stated there are many options they have. He
explained the contract specifics.
McShane stated the Council needs to approve the draft. He moved to
recommend approval of the draft to the Planning Unit.
Brenner stated she supports the motion. She asked how her concern would
be included. Roll stated Councilmember Brenner's issue is tied to what specific
agencies are going to do with this information. They've gathered the public
information to make decisions. There is no authority of this group to dictate how
water rights are or are not used. It is a public information piece.
Motion carried 4 -0 with Nelson, Crawford, and Fleetwood absent,
Roy stated it is nice to have a concrete product that they understand.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/15/2003, 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
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.
Instream Flows Peer Review
Dr. Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated the Planning Unit
and Joint Board agreed on a suite of independent peer review panelists to review
Utah State University (USU) products. However, all those peer reviewers are not
available as they go into the last phase of the work. One of the tasks that each of
the technical teams is charged with doing is coming up with peer reviewers that will
be available.
There is a memo from the instream flow technical team that recommends
four peer reviewers for the review of phase three deliverables. He asked if the
Council concurs with this list of recommended peer reviewers. It is likely that there
will be agreements between the Joint Board and the two independent peer
reviewers to review specific products as they are being defined. USU will have to
address the comments made by the peer reviewers. Any changes that they direct
will need to occur. He anticipates that instream flow work will happen sooner than
later. They want to get this group of peer reviewers together first.
Brenner stated she doesn't know enough to know whether these people are
okay. She trusts the administration's knowledge and recommendation.
John Thompson, Resources Planner /Endangered Species Act, gave
background information on the four people recommended for the review panel. Dr.
Reiser and Dr. Locke have worked on the technical team. They are getting
assurance that the work will be done well, the State will find it acceptable, and the
State will pay for their participation. The credentials for all are very good.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County is hiring these peer reviewers. Roll
stated there is an amount budgeted for the peer review process. Phase three
deliverables identified that amount, which is around $90,000 for all peer reviewers
for all the pods. It was part of the 2003 Joint Board budget. They did not move it
forward at that time. They were reluctant to have USU in charge of the peer
reviewers. In this proposal, peer review will be done locally. Scarlet Tang will
facilitate the peer review products. All the peer review groups are charged with
working within the budget.
Caskey- Schreiber asked what other areas will need peer review. Roll stated
groundwater quality, groundwater quantity, the decision support system (DSS),
surface water quality, and surface water quantity are the other pods that will have
peer review.
Thompson stated the instream flow group identified the specific tasks that
really need review. He discussed what would be reviewed.
Caskey- Schreiber asked who is responsible if they find flaws. Roll stated it
depends on the nature of the flaws. The Joint Board staff and technical teams
Water Resources Work Session, 4/15/2003, 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.
would receive comments and decide which ones they want to address. The goal is
to have a clear set of comments for USU to address. USU has to take the peer
review comments and comment on each one of them.
Roy asked if one of the reviewers was also on the technical team. She asked
if that is a conflict of interest. Thompson stated two of the peer reviewers were on
the technical team, Dr. Beecher and Mr. Caldwell. The actual work is done by USU.
The technical team is an informal peer review.
Roll stated the advantage is making sure that it is done separately. He is
comfortable that there is no degree of ownership on the part of the people who
have been a part of the process and will now review it. The ideal peer review
situation would be a completely separate group.
Thompson stated that's why there are four peer reviewers instead of two. It
is a valid point. Dr. Reiser and Dr. Locke operate independently. Dr. Beecher and
Mr. Caldwell have been good about raising issues with USU.
Roy stated that even the two outside representatives have their own agenda,
but they have to be pleased eventually. Roll stated another large peer review
process is through the Planning Unit, caucuses, and Joint Board.
Brenner asked if it was impossible to find equally qualified people who aren't
a part of the technical team. Thompson stated a direction of the technical team
was to find two or three peer reviewers. They found four for the price of two. They
could add another independent consultant. With each additional consultant, the
cost would go up. The State pays the salary of Mr. Caldwell and Dr. Beecher, who
would work on the peer review process as a part of their job with the State.
Roy moved to approve the administration's recommendation.
Motion carried 4 -0 with Nelson, Fleetwood, and Crawford absent.
Instream Flows Action Strategy Update
Dr. Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated he would describe
where they are in this process, and then talk about governance, which is what they
have to nurture and keep what they have moving forward.
Phase one is completion of the Utah State University (USU) decision support
system (DSS) model development. At the end of the project, they will have
developed the water resource inventory area (WRIA) action plan, which needs to
include some recommendation for how they move forward with coming up with
instream flow recommendations. A group has met to craft a strategy to create an
instream flow development process. That is phase two. He anticipates that it will
Water Resources Work Session, 4/15/2003, 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
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.
take two or three years to go through the entire basin to balance instream and out
of stream uses and to have a recommendation by 2006.
There is also phase three. Now that they know how much water needs to be
in the stream, and have an agreed upon regimen for instream and out of stream
use, it'll have some bearing on which management options are and are not
available. Once they have a WRIA -wide instream flow adoption, work will need to
continue.
Brenner asked if the County is going to adopt instream flows. She also asked
if the State would honor what the community adopts. Roll stated there are two
pieces to the draft strategy. One piece is getting the people together to talk about
what the data is and flows should be. That process will be a recommendation. The
next piece is to set the recommendations in a legal framework so they are legally
enforceable. Version four has been vague about that. The plan recognizes one way
to do that. The question is if that way is the best, especially since they seek to
have tribal input.
Another layer is the tribal claims related to their rights to water.
Brenner asked if the tribes are not going to be part of the final decision, and
would just provide input. Roll stated they need to be part of the final decision.
There are different ways to approach that. This strategy for developing the plan is
being done with tribes and governments in mind.
The other layer that is problematic regarding instream flow is the issue of
water rights. Water rights are not going to be solved overnight. It will take years
to sort it out. There is a need to think of water in terms of "wet water" versus
paper water.
Roy asked if the recommendations to be made regarding instream flow soon
would be based on wet water or paper water for phase two. Roll stated staff
recommends thinking in terms of wet water. Another thing that compounds that
issue is the adoption of the process for instream flows recognized in the current
Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 2514 legislation, which has provisions that
says they can't alter, impair, or change existing rights or alter the timeline for when
people have rights.
McShane asked if they visualize instream flow decision taking land use into
account. Roll stated they do, from the perspective of what the land is doing to use
the water. They will see how far they get on the groundwater pieces. He can't
define how much information will be available.
McShane stated much of the purpose of instream flow is fish. He asked what
the most influential thing is in Western Washington regarding instream flows and
fish habitat. Thompson stated it depends on where they are in the basin. The
ecological flow regime isn't the minimal flow to keep fish alive, but also to maintain
Water Resources Work Session, 4/15/2003, 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
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.
the channel. The flow recommendation becomes a tool to use when talking about
land use.
Roll asked if the Councilmember McShane wants to see something in habitat
section that more clearly describes limiting factors on a drainage -by- drainage area,
so they have some understanding of the relationship of instream flows to something
else, such as temperature.
McShane stated that is correct. As they proceed, they are going to have
some great data of what fish need for habitat in the streams. If all they are worried
about is water withdrawals, it will resolve only a portion of the problem. Use the
tool in a very broad sense. Thompson stated fish habitat is an integration of
instream flow, water quantity, and water quality. In making instream flow
recommendations, they need to look at all the factors. They are in the process of
working out exactly what data they need.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if they are physically going to make sure the
streams are adhering to the instream flow level. She also asked how they are
going to make sure property owners adhere to the limits.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the impetus for the
content in the current version is the Lummi Nation. Their approach to setting
instream flows concentrates on establishing a senior, treaty -based right to a certain
flow, which would have priority over all other rights, if recognized.
The Lummi Nation talked about working through all the differences about
instream flow, and then stepping into federal court for an official decision, and then
enshrining the decision into State rulemaking. They are talking about flows
throughout the basin and WRIA -wide. That seems to be the approach that is
implicit in these materials.
As the other initiating governments looked at this, they thought about
whether this is the best way to go about it. Presently, they have instream flows set
for the Nooksack by DOE. The instream flows set at that time have a priority date
of 1985 or 1986. They would only serve to cut off junior users, which are users
that have a priority date after 1985 or 1986. That is problematic for the tribes.
The tribes have not definitively won the battle of their off - reservation servitude
over water for fish. As the non - tribal initiating governments look at this, they ask if
there is a way to address the legitimate tribal concern for wet water sufficient for
an adequate productive fishery and also avoid dealing with their claim of having a
right immemorial that takes precedence over all other rights. It is unlikely they can
agree and enforce a prior tribal right. The model that the Tribe is pushing is a
negotiation that creates paper rights that take meaning through DOE enforcement.
Other initiating governments are saying that there needs to be a different
approach. Concentrate on wet water instead of paper rights.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Water Resources Work Session, 4/15/2003, Page 9
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 asked how optimistic Mr. Gibson is that they are not going to do a
whole lot of work and end up in court anyway. Gibson stated it is a test of the
honesty of various participants. To the extent that there is wet water providing the
function that the tribes have a right to expect, and to the extent that is predictable
and of a significant duration through time, the incentive to go to court evaporates.
If the tribes are getting what they want and need, then there is no reason to
torpedo that through a federal setting. There will be a lot of ideas from different
people of what is needed. Finding agreement will be a challenge. The meaningful
players include the tribes, the PUD, the City of Bellingham, and the City of Lynden.
Those major players have rights in varying degrees. They can ride on their paper
rights and manage their paper rights. Or, they can coalesce and determine how to
manage in a way to satisfy everyone's needs, including habitat. That involves more
than water and includes habitat. It enables those parties to do fish a good turn so
they can use water in a more efficient way. The idea is to have WRIA 1 divided into
various components, perhaps by drainage, and engage the major players. Get buy -
in from the major players so they react as an interested party in a contract that will
benefit them over the long -term.
A question is the State's role. If the contract -based arrangement is working,
they expect the state to not get involved in minor enforcement.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it works in theory. She asked if the players would
have to contractually agree. Gibson stated they would. The significant players
would contractually agree to a management arrangement. One of the devices that
would hopefully help is the idea of a comprehensive irrigation district management
plan. A coalition of users would agree on how to manage their water use within a
particular basin. The hope is that they would also free up water for irrigation by
moving it around strategically in a way that is fish - friendly. That's the idea. This is
not easy to do. It is management intensive. One of the things they are looking for
is investment in having everything straightened out by parties who would benefit
from having it straightened out. A contractual management- intensive approach is
better than a water rights enforcement approach.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the tribes understand that this product will be the
reason they would be supportive of this contract process instead of going with their
idea. Gibson stated that needs to be sold to the tribes.
Brenner asked if the court is allowed to take into consideration all the efforts
they've made if they end up in court anyway. Gibson stated all the work that has
been done is a two -edged sword. If they ever reach that point, all the work would
demonstrate the need for an intensive management -based approach. He can't
predict how the court would approach it exactly. Any judge with an ounce of sense
will realize the need for management of a scarce resource. This is being presented
to Council to see if it meets the Council's need in terms of policy.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/15/2003, Page 10
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.
McShane stated Whatcom County is not a water purveyor. Its role is to
come up with a method of resolving a potentially big problem. He asked if the
County has any interest other than that of representing the interests of the county
as a whole. Gibson stated the County has a general governmental interest in
solving water problems for the sake of the general good of the community. The
County must establish land use policies that bear on this and also establish
stormwater management policies, which are relatively miniscule at this time.
McShane asked if the County has a significant role with land use decisions
that go beyond water usage and into habitat. Gibson stated that is an issue. One
question that will come up is what the County will do in terms of land use and the
interface between land use and a comprehensive water management strategy. In
the long -term, it will become more significant. Another question is whether the
County would be a signatory to the contracts.
McShane asked about the participation and interest of the U.S. Forest
Service.
Jeff Chalfant, Land Use Specialist II /Shorelines, stated there is no interest
other than management in the upper watershed.
Thompson stated some say the U.S. Forest Service has its own right for
protection of the environment.
McShane stated the U.S. Forest Service won a case in Idaho. Gibson stated
Forest Service would be represented through the U.S. Department of Interior.
Roll stated he would ask that question of Jon Vanderheyden.
Gibson stated various players look at the contract -based approach from
different views. Some who don't have the water rights that they'd like are a little
nervous. Their goal is to have more water. Major utilities want certainty for many
years. The contract -based approach has to be thought of in those terms.
Watts stated the State has established the County's role by setting up the
WRIAs. If the County is not a purveyor, it is an entity that has taxing authority for
all jurisdictions. It makes sense for the County to be in charge of coordinating the
effort.
Implementation Strategy Update
Dr. Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated governance is the
thing needed to move the plan from adoption to implementation. The initiating
governments were created through State legislation. From there, the water
resources inventory area (WRIA) Joint Board was developed as a government entity
Water Resources Work Session, 4/15/2003, Page 11
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.
for the purposes of administering those pieces of the plan needed to accomplish the
first draft.
Now, they need to ask what governing bodies they need for implementation.
There will be many components in the plan that includes work that needs to go
forward. They have not defined who would be the lead and provide resources to
accomplish each of the components. They need to make decisions soon about what
the County sees as the role of others and the role of the County as they embark on
implementation.
The role the County plays today may need to change. Consider how that role
will change. His primary role has been to coordinate Joint Board events and
contractor work. The majority of the contracts will be done by the end of this year.
The only piece that will continue is the model development and peer review. That
will be completed sometime in 2004. His recommendation for implementation is
some mechanism for some form of technical teams that are there to work with Utah
State University (USU).
Also consider the role of the Planning Unit. There will be descriptions of this
in the implementation strategy. He described the current role of the Planning Unit.
Brenner asked what will be the role of the County Council once the plan is
adopted. Roll stated County government and State agencies are required to
implement the plan. The County would be responsible to implement those
components in the plan for which it agrees to be a part. The administration will be
responsible for implementation. As the administration gets information on the
decision support system (DSS) outputs, a huge role for the Council is translating
the need for fisheries habitat in County policy.
Brenner asked if there would be a certain point where they include the
checks and balances. Roll stated the checks and balances would be the entities'
willingness to commit. It depends on who brings money to the table. If no one
moves forward to work on a project, the project won't go forward.
Crawford asked for the dollar projections for each phase. Roll stated he
could begin to develop that information. He expects contributions of resources
from various jurisdictions.
Crawford asked to see the model in terms of the funding effect on the flood
fund. Roll stated he could develop that information.
Crawford stated Whatcom County faces a fiscal situation. He's open to using
taxes if they can sell the taxpayers on a reduction of the flood tax. Roll stated his
goal is to begin to provide some of those estimates.
raTel
McShane stated the Council needs to look at the list to see what it wants to
Water Resources Work Session, 4/15/2003, Page 12
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.
Roy asked to see the number of activities that are mandated by legislation.
Roll stated the legislation said they must address water quantity. The other
components are optional. However, the County signed interlocal agreements that it
would work on all pieces comprehensively. There are legal commitments for that.
Roy stated she would like to see an analysis of the County's legal obligations,
which they need to stand by, including contracts and agreements and the federal
and state regulations. As part of their discussion, she would like a refresher on
what they are obligated to do.
Crawford stated the investment today would have long -term benefits.
Brenner stated it seems like this is a huge expense coming up. She asked if
more entities would participate financially. Roll stated there has to be more entities
that participate financially. As the County's current role as chief funding source, it
will have a lower rate of expenditures. It depends on the policy direction for what
projects the County wants to get involved in.
Brenner stated she doesn't see a need for all funds to come from the general
fund. It's better to have local funding.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated a huge financial variable is how
fast they want to accomplish the plan. The cost and pace of implementation is not
on the funding curve yet. The funding curve is only for the planning stage.
Caskey- Schreiber stated implementation has always been the payoff. Don't
drag it out. Implement the plan as soon as possible.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated that as the
plan is more fully developed in the next few months, the process would also
prioritize some of these things.
Roll stated that would happen to some extent. Prioritization is done by
everyone's willingness to bring funding to the table.
McShane stated that as they focus on certain projects they want, they will
find other projects they don't want.
Brenner stated that if they don't pace implementation, it would cost more.
There are up front costs, including more staff.
Caskey- Schreiber suggested that they use the current staff who have been
working on planning.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Water Resources Work Session, 4/15/2003, Page 13
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.
Crawford asked what other jurisdictions would provide funding. Roll stated
one example is the Public Utility District (PUD) 1. They've committed an amazing
amount of money to date.
Monsen stated the formation of an irrigation district could generate financing.
It doesn't require the County to generate money.
McShane stated that as money comes forward from interested parties, it
might affect the County's priorities.
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a five - minute break at 12:26 p.m.)
2. RIVER AND FLOOD
Canyon Creek Alluvial Fan
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated that there are three categories of
issues. One category is the physical risk and conditions and the technical options to
deal with them. The next category is a process to select an option, influenced by
several factors. The third category is the land use management. The discussion
today is a description only of technical risk and options, not who is responsible to
implement them.
Paula Cooper, River and Flood Division Manager, introduced the contractor,
Mike Curry. She showed a map put together by the geo- scientist contractor. A
County staff person, Paul Pittman, accompanied the contractor into the area.
One finding was that the 1989 event was a 200- to 300 -year event. The
map they developed depicts a 500 -year event. The report is put together except
the chapter on mitigation. One mitigation measure is a buyout. She wants to
make sure they notify the community of the hazards, as they know them. A
meeting with the community is scheduled for May 10.
At this point, they are struggling with the land use component. If they just
do the buyout and don't do any work on the dike, the dike will fail and continue to
erode. They are considering that some of the dike should be removed so it water
that gets past it couldn't get back to the creek. Part of the dike narrows the creek.
The dike was considered an interim dike until the County fully investigated buyout
options. The County has met the conditions. The County needs to decide what to
do with the dike, based on what is the right thing.
Brenner asked if work on the dike would give people a false sense of
security. Cooper stated it would. One option is to reinforce a bluff, take down the
dike, and the creek would have more room.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/15/2003, Page 14
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.
She is tempted to go forward with two different land use maps at the
meeting on May 10. One map would be of the area if someone took measures to
reinforce the dike so it is designed to withstand velocities, and one map is of the
area if that wasn't the case. It would clearly show people the options. Other
mitigation options include some kind of protection measure for the highway that the
State would do. Landslide monitoring in the upper watershed is another measure.
Curry stated that in terms of mitigation options, they've done a broad
screening of all possible things that could be done. They've narrowed it down to a
short list with Ms. Cooper. They are at the point where they can provide technical
input to help make the decision on how it moves forward.
Cooper stated it would be nice to clarify who will maintain any work that they
decide to do.
Brenner stated it seems that there is a small number of people who would be
affected. She asked how they would set up a diking district. Cooper stated they
are talking about 300 lots. There are diking districts with much fewer landowners.
Roy asked if removing the whole dike is an option. Cooper stated it is, but
erosion will occur. It will be difficult for people to build safely. It is an option.
Roy asked if the County direction is to get away from being responsible for
the dike. Cooper stated she is just providing information on the technical options.
Brenner asked if it is an option to set up a diking district to pay for
reinforcement of the dike in addition to maintenance. Cooper stated it is an option.
Monsen stated he presumes that the County will have to take an additional
step. The question is where the County stops its independent action. The County
can't make the residents form a district. If they don't form a district, it might
change the County's decision, which may influence the residents in deciding to form
a district.
Crawford stated the County has to stay involved as long as it is issuing
building permits in that area.
Curry stated they made certain assumptions to create the models. That isn't
to say there are zero hazards outside of the alluvial fan, which are still subject to a
small degree of hazard.
McShane stated the effect of a 500 -year event would change dramatically if
there were another 200- or 300 -year event in the meantime. Cooper stated this
map would go one step in terms of prudent land use regulations.
Curry stated the map is considered a still photo in time. It is one tool to use
in land use planning.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/15/2003, Page 15
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 the County might have some stake in this because it issues
permits. If the County doesn't do anything, builders will have to build to a level
that will be very expensive. It may be cheaper for the residents to create a diking
district. The general taxpayers should not keep paying for this.
Cooper stated she will present a reasonable land use map that would be
reasonable to use for land use regulation during the meeting on May 10. She will
bring any feedback to the Council. They will discuss a potential diking district at
that time.
Roy asked if the meeting is just about the facts of an event. However, the
people will ask the County to just fix the dike. That's not the County's inclination.
The residents should know that.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she thought the Department of Ecology wanted the
County to take down the dike for habitat. Asking the community to form a diking
district will encourage people to maintain the dike. Cooper stated the County is not
encouraging anything. This dike is not in the best location to last.
Roy asked if anyone else is concerned about asking for public input when the
County already knows it does not want to maintain the dike. She asked why the
staff is presenting a neutral position to the community.
McShane stated the County is not interested in spending any more money on
mechanical fixes. Cooper stated she could remind the community that the Council
is not interested in any structural measures. That will not solve all their problems.
Caskey- Schreiber asked the cost of buying out the lots, and if it is less
expensive than putting more money into the dike. Cooper stated she would not
recommend that a total buyout this point.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how the County permits building in the area knowing
there is a risk.
McShane stated that's the next step, which is figuring out what kind of
pressure that puts on the Planning Department when someone applies for a
building permit. A professional could write a report for a landowner saying that the
land is buildable. The Planning Department would have to argue against that
through the Hearing Examiner and all the way to Superior Court.
Cooper stated this map would provide a tool for the Planning Department to
base its decisions on allowing development in that location.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated any component
of what they decide should include a long -term educational piece.
Water Resources Work Session, 4/15/2003, Page 16
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.
Cooper suggested an annual notification regarding the alluvial fan. At the
May 10 meeting, she plans to present the buyout option and a land use map, and
then gauge the reaction. It will take some organization on their part to convince
the Council to maintain the dike.
Roy asked why the staff would give the residents that hope. Just tell the
residents that the County is not going to put any more County money into
structural repairs on and maintenance of the dike.
Crawford asked if the people who engineered the dike said it could be shored
up to some degree. Cooper stated they said it could have withstood the 1989
event. However, that may not be the case.
Curry stated it could be made stronger, but that is not the smartest strategy
in this location, especially because the buyout scheme is likely. Give the fan as
much area as possible, and pull back. If the County decides to mitigate with a
berm, he doesn't recommend upgrading the one that is there now.
McShane moved to recommend to staff that the County Council is not
inclined to fund any structural fixes at Canyon Creek.
Crawford stated he preferred not to make any statement at this time on the
removal of any section of the dike. They have not taken that step yet.
Brenner stated a diking district would only be for that small portion at the
top, not the temporary dike.
Motion carried 5 -0 with Nelson and Fleetwood absent.
1. WRIA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Joint Board State Auditor's Report
Dr. Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated the information for
this item is included in packet.
OTHER BUSINESS
Dr. Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated that next month,
someone will make a presentation on a pilot project that will start here shortly for
this water resource inventory area (WRIA) and the Bertrand Creek -Ten Mile Creek
areas.
ADJOURN
Water Resources Work Session, 4/15/2003, Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
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.
The meeting adjourned at 1:13 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on May 6 , 2003.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 4/15/2003, Page 18