Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources September 16 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 September 16, 2003 The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Council Chair Dan McShane in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room, 322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington. Present: Absent: Barbara Brenner None Laurie Caskey- Schreiber Seth Fleetwood Sharon Roy L. Ward Nelson Sam Crawford WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2003 -025) 1. WRIA ISSUES County Issues Related to WRIA 3 Watershed Plan Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, provided sections of the draft WRIA 3 and 4 plan for the Samish Basin. Skagit County representatives are here to discuss their plan. The Whatcom County Council will have an opportunity to vote against or in favor of the Samish Basin plan because parts of the basin are in Whatcom County. There won't be an opportunity to amend the plan. If the plan is not acceptable, it will go back to the planning group to work on the issues. Brenner asked about Snohomish County's role in the Samish Basin plan. Chal Martin, Skagit County Public Works Director, gave a history of water issues and instream flow in Skagit County. A portion of WRIA 4 is in Snohomish County. Skagit County combined the State money for WRIA 3, which includes areas in Whatcom County, and WRIA 4, which includes areas in Snohomish County, to work on the Samish Basin, even though the Samish Basin is not in Snohomish County. The Samish Basin is part of WRIA 3, which is the Skagit Basin. The Skagit Basin extends into Snohomish County. The basic premise of their plan is to ignore the instream flow issue, and instead ensure that everyone has enough water to continue operations and meet Comprehensive Plan requirements for future water availability. None of this has been agreed upon yet. The plan hasn't been agreed to by the Planning Unit. When it is, it needs to come before the Skagit County Commissioners, Snohomish County Council, and Whatcom County Council for approval. Water Resources Work Session, 9/16/2003, 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 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. There are specific features of the plan that involve Whatcom County. The plan proposal is to look at Lake Samish. There is a set of agreements in place that have to do with raising the lake level a few inches to provide additional water that can be put in Friday Creek during low flow periods, to make sure there is enough water in that stream. There's also a proposal to extend the Skagit County Public Utility District (PUD) pipeline up to the Skagit /Whatcom county line, and hook that water system into the Lake Samish water system. That may trigger some requirement for Lake Samish residents to hook up. The transition plan for those hookups hasn't been discussed. Also, the sewage from residents around the lake now is being shipped to Burlington. Another thought is to put in some sort of onsite system to collect that sewage and put it back into the aquifer, closer to the lake. They've been developing a concept of putting a cap on exempt well usage that would be otherwise allowed in this plan. The cap for residential use would be 800 gallons per day instead of 5,000 gallons per day. The thought is that is really enough water. He looks at it as a planning factor, not a set requirement. The Swinomish Tribe views it as a daily set requirement. The average daily residential use is less than 800 gallons. If they are limited, it helps overall provide an overall cap. It provides more certainty to the State Department of Ecology manage this type of arrangement. Caskey- Schreiber asked how they would enforce that cap. Martin stated they wouldn't enforce it. They would monitor it using meters on the exempt wells, and use that data for future planning. Brenner asked if they would calculate the amounts by the day or month. Martin stated there are different ways to do that. There could be an assumption that if a residence exceeds that 800 gallon limit for one day, it would be a violation of the law. However, he would rather see an annual limit. Within a year, a residence would use more than 800 gallons on some days and less than 800 gallons on other days. McShane stated he would like to see a monitoring element on five -acre parcels to see if the water is being used for irrigation. Martin stated that in the water code, there is an assumption that 5,000 gallons is based on being able to irrigate a half acre. It is quite limited. That's the main issue for Skagit County in these negotiations. In the Samish Basin, there are undocumented illegal water uses occurring. That practice needs to be halted. Those withdrawals are illegal. However, the County has an interest in trying to maintain the viability of agriculture. The basic approach is to set up a water bank and use existing water rights to cover the water usage. Nelson asked if they want to do their battle with private use wells and not with agriculture. Consumptive use in private homes are little. Most is returned to the aquifer, unless it is transported in the sewage. The real problem is how to Water Resources Work Session, 9/16/2003, 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 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. divert it back into the aquifer. Martin stated the issues are different everywhere watershed planning takes place. The residential exempt well issue is important because the Skagit River instream flow rule did not exempt new wells that previously had been exempt for rural residential use. The amount of 800 gallons is based on what is in their Coordinated Water System Plan. The reason this is important to Skagit County is because the Washington Administrative Code does not allow someone to build on a five -acre parcel and drill a well for residential purposes. State law allows it, except for the Skagit River. The Skagit River is the only and most recent river in the state to have an established instream flow rule. Gary Sorenson, Skagit County Public Works, stated the instream flow rule for the Skagit River did not allow for exempt wells. An exempt well could not be drilled. The exemption was taken out of the rule. Martin stated Skagit County was not paying close enough attention when the State took the exemption out of the rule. Brenner asked if the State meant to take out the exemption. Martin stated it did. It has caused Skagit County to focus on exempt wells. Whatcom County doesn't have the same issue. Nelson stated they are dealing with issues that cross jurisdictional lines. He wants to cooperate, but isn't having dialogue with the legislators responsible to the citizens. He asked what is expected of the Whatcom County Council. Martin stated he wanted to provide the Council with information on what is developing. This plan approval is in the hands of the elected officials, including the Whatcom County Council. Brenner asked if it is discrimination to hook up and meter one neighbor but not the other neighbor. Martin stated their attorneys haven't been brought into the planning process for the Samish Basin. The Skagit River instream flow rule has become a bit of a legal proceeding because of a concern it is not the correct rule. All this planning they are doing is in a good faith effort to avoid a lawsuit with the State Department of Ecology over the Skagit River instream flow rule and work out a process where everyone will have access to water. The basic concept is to make sure everyone who owns property now and who thinks that property can be developed for residential purpose will be able to do that after this process is done. It will probably cost more and have more technical requirements, but the rights to develop will not be taken away. Brenner asked about treating two houses next to each other differently after they are already built and operating. Martin stated the water usage will be virtually the same, if there is a 5,000 gallon limit or an 800 gallon limit. Caskey- Schreiber stated Western water law is first come first serve for water rights. It even applies to cities. Water Resources Work Session, 9/16/2003, 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 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 this doesn't have to do with water rights. It has to do with allocation. If there is already a problem, everyone should play by the same rules. Martin stated they are going to meter it to see the use, but it will be used for planning for future use and development. Monsen stated the shift from 5,000 gallons to 800 gallons is not an arbitrary number. It is a domestic water supply standard for within the public health code. Because the 800 gallon limit, or the elimination of the well exemption, is based on Western water law. They have closed the basin. It's not a discriminatory land use decision. The basin has been closed, including exempt wells. An exempt well is not outside of Western water law. It is simply exempt from approval procedures. It is still a right of use that can still be removed according to "first in time, first in right." Brenner asked if the Nooksack Basin is closed. Monsen stated it is, but not to exempt wells. People that are drilling exempt wells today are still obtaining, in essence, a right. However, they are exposed, like everyone else, to that right being taken away because of a previous hold. Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, asked for clarification on whether the Whatcom County Council is responsible to adopt an ordinance approving the WRIA 3 plan, and if it is, whether Whatcom County would be responsible for maintaining, checking, and implementing the ordinance. He also asked if that would limit building permits to only if mitigation has been provided. Martin stated the plan itself would provide the basis for mitigation or show where that water comes from or is allowed. It's Skagit County's intent to not limit development for those parcels that were developable, previous to this plan. The enforcement part hasn't been worked out yet. Skagit County's position is to just manage the process and collect data, not to enforce something that is pointless to enforce. Hart asked if exceeding the projected demand would kick in a moratorium situation. Martin stated it could, depending on the language in the plan. McShane asked if the plan would have regulatory options they would explore at a later time, or that they would be locked into when the plan comes forward. Martin stated the plan will include a statement that the options are ones adopted by the Planning Unit. They will be the actual actions that are part of the plan. McShane stated some of the options discussed are options that Whatcom County is in the midst of processing in the Lake Samish watershed. They have almost already done some of the options. He asked how that would affect the other options. He also asked if they would lock themselves into certain options instead of having choices for an area. Martin stated they want to allow choices. They don't know how long this plan will be for. Water Resources Work Session, 9/16/2003, 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 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. Sorenson stated the plan has to allow for new technologies and other options that aren't listed. Brenner asked if one option to a moratorium is to hook up to a public system that comes from somewhere else. She asked where the water comes from that is available to Lake Samish from Skagit. Martin stated it comes from the Skagit River. Roy stated she is concerned that the options will become requirements. Some of the options are pretty scary. She asked if this format would remain the same in the final document, and if there would be more specific information. Martin stated the format will be the same. The selections will become more specific. Roy asked if their Planning Unit will make a recommendation to the Whatcom County Council. Roll stated it will. Nelson asked about the potential population build out at Friday Creek. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.) Martin stated that data is based on the Skagit County Comprehensive Plan. The number of buildable lots is included in the plan. Hart asked if that estimate is just for Skagit County, or includes Whatcom County. Martin stated it included the Lake Samish area. Nelson stated the estimate was probably done prior to any downzone. It doesn't seem to be accurate in comparison to the other basins. He questions whether that is possible based upon limitations within the planned area. However, they are going to use it for consumptive uses. He questions the data. Hart asked if the Whatcom County Council and residents get credit for the downzone in this process. Martin stated that was an option. The Swinomish Tribe wanted them to consider downzones as a part of the plan. Nelson stated the estimate in the plan is without the downzone. If the downzone is upheld, the data must be altered. He asked where they got the data for the instream flows for Upper Samish basin and Friday Creek basin. Martin stated that was part of the original technical study done by a consultant. The County position on instream flows is that they are so incredibly high that they detract from the credibility of the entire plan. The Planning Unit hasn't directly addressed it yet. Nelson asked the Tribe's position. Martin stated the Skagit Systems Cooperative, which used to be the fish restoration technical agency that worked on fish issues for all three Skagit County tribes, needs to be reorganized. The Upper Water Resources Work Session, 9/16/2003, 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 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. Skagit Tribe withdrew from that organization, which used to speak for all the tribes and agreed with the instream flow levels that were set. The Upper Skagit has since told the County that it does not agree with the instream flow levels. The Samish basin is the geographic area of the Upper Skagit Tribe. Brenner asked if they are considering a regulatory option of retrofitting existing homes for stormwater collection. Martin stated they have not addressed stormwater in this plan. Sorenson stated their plan doesn't deal with water quality, just water quantity. Brenner asked if people could still have large holding tanks on their property if the County changes the cap to 800 gallons of water per day. Martin stated they haven't discussed it. If the County Council is interested, they can bring it up. He's heard the folks at the Department of Ecology have a mixed opinion about it. McShane stated it exists for fire flow purposes, also. Hart asked about the Skagit PUD becoming the water source for a large part of the southern part of Whatcom County. To allow that to occur, Whatcom County would have to adopt an ordinance. Martin stated the Skagit PUD views the water district as another customer. Hart stated that if someone is within 500 feet, that resident has to hook up to the water line. That is an action Skagit County is potentially asking Whatcom County to do. Unidentified speaker, Health Department, stated developments done on two - party wells would be restricted under the 800 gallon restriction. Also, the use of Group B public water supplies could not be approved with the 800 gallon restriction. That's something to think about. The connections to the existing public water supply is already in the County ordinances. If homes have access to a public water supply, hookup is required. Brenner stated there are places where water mains are located and people are not hooking up. Unidentified speaker stated that requirement is for new house development. Martin stated there was some discussion that the allocation would be increased for two -party wells. The Skagit County Health Department said this proposed plan would still allow Group B development. There may be a disconnect between the Whatcom and Skagit county codes. Water Resources Work Session, 9/16/2003, 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. Hart asked for the potential inconsistency with the Growth Management Act by extending PUD water to an area that is not necessarily ripe for additional development. Martin stated that is a conflict. Nelson asked if raising the level of Lake Samish would be enough to mitigate instream flow requirements and population needs. He asked how that would be done. Martin stated there is a mechanism in place at the outlet of the lake. That can be fixed up. People have been talking about the lake level going up six inches during the summer. He doesn't know how that affects the systems around the lake. That is a lot of water, and would mitigate for all the use in the Friday Creek basin, down to the mouth of Friday Creek. Hart stated that brings up impacts to vegetation, the environment, docks, and other issues. Sorenson stated the Lake Management District currently raises the lake a couple of inches seasonally, and then holds it back longer to provide the low flow. Most of the water rights around the lake are conditioned on that mitigation. When public water becomes available at the lake, they will stop withdrawing water from the lake. Nelson stated there is quite a bit of information the Whatcom County Council needs to gather from the community at Lake Samish about what they want. McShane stated it would be useful to have one of the Whatcom County councilmembers interface with Skagit County on this issue. Jeff Monsen, Whatcom County Public Works Director, stated the Whatcom County Council is the governing body for the Lake Management District. The district's biggest challenge is the beaver dams that stop the water when they want to release water. Brenner stated she would like to be involved with the other groups to hear their opinions so she doesn't start at square one, and asked if there are minutes of their meetings. Martin stated the other parties to this planning unit includes the three tribes, the PUD, and City of Anacortes. They all look at the issues from different points of view. Brenner stated she would like to have a meeting with these groups, but would like some background information first. Martin stated they may want to invite Larry Wasserman from the Skagit System Cooperative to talk to the Whatcom County Council. He has a different view. He thanked the County Council for giving him an opportunity to speak. McShane stated they are interested in showing them an overlay of development standards that are in the works for Lake Samish. They would tie in well with the plan, and could be considered elsewhere in Skagit County. Martin Water Resources Work Session, 9/16/2003, 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 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. stated there is a steering committee meeting coming up. Any councilmember is welcome to attend. Roy asked if the County Council has the option of just not being involved in this. She's not advocating that, but she's curious. Roll stated it may be an option. (Clerk's Note: The Council to a break.) Hart stated it's important to have a policy decision from the Council to either be involved directly or keep a low level of involvement. The discussion in Skagit County is moving on. Roll stated there are many opportunities to engage the plan development. Skagit County would like Whatcom County involved from the beginning. There is an impact on County resources to be involved. McShane asked for information from staff at a later meeting on whether or not Whatcom County should participate. Hart stated that if Whatcom County gets involved, they have to decide how to maintain its position if this becomes a serious concern of the general public. Some of the things here could tie up the staff just with answering questions from the public. McShane stated that sounds like a finance issue. He asked for a report of what this would mean to staff and administration. Nelson asked if they would want to send representation to the meeting to at least inform them of the concerns. Roll stated staff could write a letter that expresses their concerns. Brenner stated Whatcom County wasn't involved from the beginning. It doesn't serve any purpose for Whatcom County to jump in right now. Let them do what they are going to do, and then bring it to the Council. Hal stated he would put together a letter to bring before the Finance Committee stating the financial concerns. A second letter would get into their process and what would be required for a meaningful outcome. USU Site Visit and Progress Report Roll stated they are creating a WRIA watershed management plan draft that will be available in October. Pieces of the work done by Utah State University (USU) will be included in parts of the plan. He anticipates additional information from USU will be added to later drafts as the work becomes available. He discussed the history of the USU contract phases. They've moved forward so far with Water Resources Work Session, 9/16/2003, 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 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. consensus from everyone involved. During the different phases of the contract, they went through many iterations of the process that were needed for all participants to come to a mutual agreement that the scope reflected what they wanted to get done. As they got into it, they learned new things. Those new things may have led to people wanting more information and more work done. It's an evolutionary process. The process is set up to have a strong interplay between the technical teams and USU team. The phase III work identified a number of steps and work products that needed to get done. One piece of that scope of work was a checkpoint in the fall of 2002 to make sure what they'd scoped originally was in line with where they want to go forward. The results of that checkpoint included changes to a multi -layer model that is a different approach. As there is a change in scope, all the participants must provide feedback. They also found new land use information that was more up -to -date. (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.) The WRIA collectively decided that the process by which they would engage in scope development and product review would be all- inclusive. The technical teams would be a front -line, go to the staff team, and then the Planning Unit and Joint Board members. As the products were being worked on, it became evident during the first quarter of 2003 that it was questionable whether they would be able to meet everyone's needs and still stay within the budget for the scope of work. Staff was clear about the budget they had to work with. He and Mr. Monsen went on a site visit of USU to gather more information to understand why the potential changes to the scope were needed to accomplish as much as they could. There were also discussions about pieces that WRIA requested and that was beyond the scope of work. This is similar to what they'd experienced in phase I and II. When they needed to make adjustments then, they did that. When they needed to make this adjustment in phase III, a stop work order was issued and mutually agreed to by everyone. WRIA needed to understand how much work was done, how much work would be done within the existing budget, and how they would ensure that would happen. They will carefully evaluate all elements of the project and identify the priority pieces that need to be accomplished. The outcome will be a scope of work change that will go through the Planning Unit and other participants. Nelson asked what items will be left off of the scope of work. Roll stated he can't say right now. One recommendation is the groundwater quantity modeling portion. Until they have a scope to look at with USU, he can't provide a laundry list of items yet. Nelson asked if the groundwater would be critical to instream flow. Roll stated it is to some extent. In many areas it's not as big an issue as in other areas. Water Resources Work Session, 9/16/2003, 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. Nelson asked if there are assumption they aren't looking at. Roll stated they will have groundwater assumptions and information in some of those areas. This is a recommendation from the tribes. The Lummi Nation feel the surface water and ecological flow regime as the major components to include. He concurred. They will have to deal with some of the groundwater issues in some of the smaller watersheds. There are Planning Unit members who are concerned about dropping that piece. McShane asked if the groundwater model is something the participants hoped for, but they need to back off as they became aware of the complexities. Roll stated he's not advocating that they forget about groundwater. He is trying to make recommendations on prioritizing the work. It is something he recommends delaying. Going from a single layer to a multi -layer model had enormous implications for lacking information between those layers. The question is still how accurate and useful the outputs will be if they create a bunch of assumptions where they lack data. Caskey- Schreiber stated she believed that staff, at the previous meeting, advocated for assessing water in the aquifers. The Council had strong concerns about the cost of expanding that assessment. Roll stated that is tied to the long- term management strategy. The question is the data they need to collect to have the information they need. They need information. The County should not be responsible for financing that. They may want to consider it on a case -by -case basis. Brenner asked who the contract administrator is. Roll stated the County Executive or his designee is technically named as the contract administrator for the County. He has been fulfilling those contract administration duties. USU also has a contract administrator. Brenner asked why they didn't stop at the point when the first summaries were showing that the subtask costs were not being tracked. Roll stated they did stop when they learned it. They learned that during the site visit. A question came up about whether USU was able to complete the scope. USU said it may have some increased costs if they stayed on the same path. That led to discussion about the nature and extent of the proposed cost increases. That discussion led to the audit he and Mr. Monsen did during the site visit. Brenner asked about the other audit. Roll stated the State Auditor audited the Joint Board this year. The Water Resources Division was also audited this year. This contract was audited through the Joint Board audit. There were no audit findings. Brenner asked about USU not providing a warranty on their work. Roll stated public entities don't warranty items they do. No university has ever handed a Water Resources Work Session, 9/16/2003, Page 10 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. 1 warranty of something that it produces, that he knows of. However, it was 2 understood that WRIA 1 would have rights to all the information and software that 3 was generated during that work. 4 5 Fleetwood asked if USU is contractually bound to perform deliverables. Roll 6 stated there is a professional services contract with USU and the Joint Board. That 7 contract started as a clone of the County personal service contracts. 8 9 Brenner stated USU said it was not able to track the subtasks because it 10 doesn't have the software. USU then said they saved costs because they didn't 11 have the software. However, they have extra costs now, which may or may not be 12 related because there is no way to track it. They could have low- balled the contract 13 because there weren't checks and balances to make sure WRIA has what it needs. 14 Then they get to do all the change orders. She doesn't understand how they could 15 not be tracking it. Roll stated there could be 50, 100, or more subtasks in each 16 element of instream flow, water quantity, and the other elements. Now they are 17 getting closer to finishing the project. They need to make sure WRIA gets 100 18 percent delivery. That's when the debate began back and forth. USU is proposing 19 to track costs at the subtask level, and that there be a more actively, weekly 20 accounting of each component. 21 22 Caskey- Schreiber stated she wanted USU to be more accountable for its 23 matching funds. She's not sure how they spent their match. She wants a detailed 24 list of deliverables they are going to provide for that money. It's scary that there 25 wasn't more communication about how this match money would be used. She is 26 also concerned that money needed to be budgeted for education for their technical 27 teams to take on these tasks. She thought USU was hired because they knew what 28 they were doing. Roll stated they had to create a local knowledge base. The 29 technical teams vary in character. It was decided to include anyone who wanted to 30 participate in the technical teams, regardless of that person's technical background. 31 That allowed for inclusiveness, but it created a situation where more technical 32 memos needed to be written between USU and others to clarify the issues. Some 33 of those needed to be written at very basic levels. There is an interplay between 34 USU and those technical teams. 35 36 Caskey- Schreiber stated USU claims it spent $70,000 on the education. 37 That's enormous. Roll stated the budget for technology transfer for phase III is 38 close to $250,000. He would make sure that any nickel spent in that area is 39 carefully accounted for. 40 41 Monsen stated USU's response was that $70,000 is an additional cost beyond 42 what was budgeted. They used the term "scope- creep." He learned from his visit 43 that USU's scope of work and budget were built on the assumption that everything 44 would go well. There was no contingency built in at all. 45 Water Resources Work Session, 9/16/2003, 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 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 asked if USU should have come to WRIA with the $70,000 cost overrun. Monsen stated USU recognized these additional expenses at some point in the process, and did not advise the WRIA clearly about project implications. Brenner asked how USU was chosen. Monsen stated there was not an open competitive process. The Joint Board and others created a list of potential contractors that would be acceptable to all the parties locally. Through that exercise, there were only two names on the list: USU and USGS. USU was interested and willing to bring money to it. Using USGS would have been substantially more. USU was ultimately acceptable to everyone locally. Brenner asked about local consultants to USU. Roll stated GeoEngineers and others were involved. Brenner asked if GeoEngineers assessed some of the work. Roll stated GeoEngineers, with others, worked on the modeling for the groundwater portion. GeoEngineers contracted with the Public Utility District (PUD) 1. Nelson stated they are not having an increase in the budget. Some of the scope will be modified. USU will bring forward information on how they will complete the deliverables. Roll stated USU is working on scope changes. WRIA staff and technical teams are also working on how they engage USU. He hoped those recommended changes will come to the County Council by the end of this month. He anticipates USU finishing by the end of the second quarter next year. Nelson asked if the $500,000 additional money to complete the current scope will eventually come forward as a request. Roll stated he's not recommending spending any more money at this point. Those components are important for implementation. Monsen stated the work on this plan is not near done. They have the tools and basic directions to ask hard questions that will lead to hard decisions. Fleetwood asked the implication of not having this information, as it relates to the quality of the plan. Roll stated the technical pieces and plan development haven't gone forward at the same pace. Originally, they hoped to have all the baselines, technical assessments, and models fully functional and operating so they could run a series of management options through the model. What they will really get will be elements that can be included, and then they'll have the pieces that get done according to the timing and priority list. They won't have a completely integrated modeling system capable of modeling various management options for inclusion in this draft of the watershed management plan. The plan will need to identify the framework by which the community uses this decision support system in water resources management. It is part of the implementation part of the plan. Water Resources Work Session, 9/16/2003, Page 12 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. 1 Fleetwood asked if they are assuming money will be available in the future to 2 complete those aspects. Roll stated they don't know yet which they can and can't 3 complete. The groups haven't discussed what will and won't be included. They are 4 getting to the point where they can ask some hard questions. They need to decide 5 which questions to answer first. They need to get moving now on the instream flow 6 issue. It has big implications for water availability. 7 8 Brenner asked if the audit that was just finished was specific to the contract 9 and all phases of WRIA. Monsen stated the audit is procedural in nature. It is not 10 an audit that questions performance. The auditor's role is not to question whether 11 or not the County should have started the project. 12 13 Brenner stated she is talking about the checks and balances along the way to 14 make sure they agree on what WRIA is getting. She feels like USU has not 15 performed. USU may or may not be hiding behind loose language in the contract. 16 She's not comfortable with continuing with the USU contract. They can finish this 17 work with a consultant they've worked with already. USU has an attitude of "take it 18 or leave it." 19 20 (Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.) 21 22 Caskey- Schreiber stated the information for Skagit County seems clear. It is 23 a good product to use to form opinions and determine their direction. Roll stated 24 the Skagit product is a much smaller scale. 25 26 Caskey- Schreiber stated USU brought information from other sources such as 27 the State Department of Ecology (DOE). She asked why USU is having a hard time 28 with Whatcom County, and whether they bring in that kind of information for 29 Whatcom County. Monsen stated the Skagit River example was a small scope, not 30 based on scientific evaluation. In Whatcom County, there was concern and 31 disagreement amongst the major parties, beginning with the data collection phase. 32 33 Roy asked why they would continue, when USU says they don't have the 34 expertise and that the project is too complex. Roll stated USU is technically 35 competent in their disciplines. USU is inexperienced using that technical prowess in 36 a multi - stakeholder environment where everyone wants their particular issue to be 37 the focus. Not too many are experienced in that regard. It's tough being a 38 committee - based, all- inclusive, consensus - building approach. 39 40 Roy asked if those things that will drop out of the scope of work come back 41 later for funding. She asked if they are sure about whether or not the County 42 wants to continue negotiating with USU, or if they are too far into it to back out. 43 44 Nelson stated they went through the Comprehensive Plan process in a similar 45 way. When they get to the end, it gets touchy. This is a more difficult process 46 than that one. Any other group they would try and bring in would have such a Water Resources Work Session, 9/16/2003, 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. large learning curve that it would be impossible. While he's disappointed, they've come a long way compared to a lot of other counties. Each WRIA is in a different situation. With the complexities of dealing with tribes, small cities, water associations, and others that Whatcom County has to deal with, they've come a long way. He'd rather be as accurate as possible. At this time, they need to allow staff to get the information and deliverables. The key now is what they are going to get for a product, and how they will do the measurement. Brenner stated she's heard differently about other counties. She would like a brief presentation in writing about other counties about where they are at, what they've spent, and the products they have so far. Roll stated the DOE website has that information. It's different to compare the programs of other counties because the issues and dynamics are broadly different. Caskey- Schreiber asked if USU can do the job that the County identifies exactly with the remaining funds available. Monsen stated they can. Staff is looking at USU differently than they did a couple of months ago. Brenner stated she's concerned that the product they end up with will not be adequate. She asked who would decide whether it is adequate. Roll stated the Planning Unit, the individual technical teams, and the Independent Peer Review Committee will do that review. Brenner stated she'd heard that the technical teams change, depending on who shows up. That makes her nervous. Roll stated the technical team leads have been consistent. The makeup of the technical teams over time has been consistent with people who are paid to be there. They can't expect the volunteers to be there all the time. There was a panel chosen for the peer review team. It has been going for years. Those who were originally chosen for the team are not all available. New recommendations for members will come forward from the technical teams. Brenner asked for a list of technical team and peer review members. Roll stated that information is available on the WRIA website. Monsen distributed information on the USU phase III budget (on file). After the September 2002 check -in, there became a disparity between the percentage of the project completeness and the percent of the budget expended. When they began to transition and make adjustments, USU stopped putting much effort into calculating the percentage of the project that is complete, directly compared to the financial element. USU was not aggressive in letting staff know of the long -term financial implications of some of the issues that came up. Now they understand those impacts better. Water Resources Work Session, 9/16/2003, 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 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. 2. RIVER AND FLOOD Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (Title 17) McShane moved to adopt the ordinance. Motion carried 6 -0 with Caskey- Schreiber abstaining. Caskey- Schreiber stated she needs more time. She has questions. Nelson moved to rescind the previous vote. Motion carried 6 -1 with Roy opposed. McShane stated this item would be rescheduled to another meeting. 3. WATER RESOURCES FUNDING OPTIONS Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated staff is finalizing the financing of the sub -flood districts and the details of moving the countywide revenue from a fee structure to a tax. Related to this issue is the three sub - zones. Their local supplemental revenue comes as a percentage of the countywide fee. Because of that, they can't just follow the same sub -flood funding formula. Staff is coming up with a fee structure that is based more on acreage. He's had some review by the advisory committees for those sub -flood zones. He submitted information (on file). The advisory committees' recommendations is to keep the fee formula the way it is, but they can't do that. Brenner asked if they looked at the option of having a flat fee per parcel countywide. Monsen stated the closest to that is a minimum fee. A flat fee is possible, but he doesn't know that the issues are any different than what they already have. Brenner stated she thought the issue was that they can't base a fee on assessed value. Monsen stated a fee still has to be based on benefit received. They have to design flood programs based on the notion that everyone receives some of the benefit relative to what they're paying. Caskey- Schreiber stated this item would be discussed further at a later meeting. ADJOURN The meeting adjourned at 1:05 p.m. Water Resources Work Session, 9/16/2003, Page 15 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. Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription These minutes were approved by Council on October 7_, 2003. ATTEST: Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON Dan McShane, Council Chair Water Resources Work Session, 9/16/2003, Page 16