HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources July 18 20001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Whatcom County Council
Special Water Resources Work Session
July 18, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 10:15 a.m. by Council Chair Marlene
Dawson in the Whatcom County Northwest Annex Hearing Room, 1000 N. Forest
Street, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Connie Hoag
Dan McShane
Bob Imhof
Sam Crawford
L. Ward Nelson
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2000 -070)
1. WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA (WRIA)
Scope of Work for Technical Studies
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Manager, stated that Utah State University
(USU) worked out the final scope of work for the technical studies. The group felt it
needed another month to make sure the caucuses and councils had opportunity to
respond, and also to create the draft that is dated June 26. Previously, he asked
for comments on the draft scope of work by July 14. They are drafting the next
and final draft. The goal is to have the final for the Planning Unit on July 26. He
asked for guidance so he could go to the Planning Unit and be ready for carrying
out this scope of work.
Dawson asked for a summary of the scope of work.
Brenner asked if the final could be in layman's terms. Roll stated they are
expanding the text portions.
Brenner stated there is a way to bridge the gap between expert and
layperson. Roll stated the goal of the process is to develop technical teams, which
include people from the Planning Unit, Initiating Governments (IG's), and the
caucuses. The technical teams serve as the bridge between the stakeholders and
the document. They've tried to develop a structure where the technical teams help
supply an interface between detailed, technical stuff and the interest groups' needs.
Part of this process goes through how the sections relate to various interests.
Brenner stated she didn't understand some of the terminology.
Crawford asked about Roll's concerns and if he was happy with the
document. Roll stated he was pleased with the amount of work contributed by
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, 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
48
49
caucus and Planning Unit members. The technical teams are working hard. There
is much support and effort going into it. From his standpoint, he was very pleased
with getting stakeholder input in a timely way and it is being molded into these
documents. USU is proactive in addressing comments. All the comments were
completed and forwarded last Friday.
Nelson stated much of the document is mathematical analysis, such as
recharge and the amount of water that is in the streams and that is charging the
rivers. This addresses the water quality issue. He questioned whether the data has
already been collected or whether they would have to collect new data to do a
model that withstands scrutiny. Roll stated phase II determines the data that
exists and whether there are data gaps they need to fill. There are two extremes in
this decision - making. One decision is that they can collect sufficient data to come
up with a management choice, which is too costly, or they can marriage data
collection with modeling to get a likely scenario with some level of confidence in the
outcomes.
Nelson asked the timeframe of the deliverables. Roll stated the deliverables
of the decision support system (DSS), which is the compilation of the four pods, is
next year.
Nelson asked if they have enough data and, if not, they have time to fill
holes. Roll stated they are working on that. The key in phase II is to clearly define
the data gaps. As the stakeholders bring forward the specific areas where
questions exist, they have to go through the exercise to identify the current data,
the needed data, and whether they need a model.
Sue Blake, Resources Planner, stated they are going to pull together existing
data, identify and collect new information, and use models where appropriate. One
of the comments from the water quality group is to recognize that, in some cases,
there is not 100 percent certainty because they don't have the years and years of
data in all locations to provide 100 percent certainty. They want to make sure that,
when they do apply a model, they have an idea of how much certainty there is in
the answer they get. As managers who are trying to deal with the resource, they
know the certainty. There is a mixed bag in terms of data. They won't have all the
answers at the end of the year. They need to know how much they know.
Nelson stated much of the data is from agencies, the Lummi Nation, or the
Nooksack Tribe. He questioned how much is backed up with anecdotal evidence
from the community.
John Sproul, Watershed Program Specialist, stated the question needs to be
focused in each of the six areas. The six areas are quantity, quality, instream flow,
habitat, the DSS that blends them all together, and the watershed management
plan that is the document that goes with all of this. In the case of quantity, the
U.S. Geological Service (USGS) data is historic and is also ongoing. Regarding local
data, in the context of groundwater quality, local municipalities have done
groundwater research.
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Brenner asked if private engineers have data. Sproul stated they do. They
are working out how to have access to private data.
Hoag stated she liked the comprehensive nature of the document. Her
concern was that there are different ways the data can be interpreted and applied.
That can affect policy. Task six on page 46 talks about a comparative analysis of
the Department of Ecology's (DOE) instream flow requirement. The County will
compare its information and what it thinks instream flow requires with what DOE
requires. That is a very important step. She questioned how the County knows
what policy umbrella will be driving that analysis, and how do the councilmembers
interact with that and be a part of what is going on. Roll stated the legislation
stated they have the option to work on instream flows. At this point, they need to
do significant data analysis to determine how the County data compares to DOE
data. There is going to have to be some collective talk between the IG's and the
Planning Unit to decide whether to do instream flows. There will be work sessions
in the future.
Hoag questioned who is doing the comparative analysis. Roll stated USU
would do the comparative analysis from a scientific standpoint.
Monsen stated the analysis would be done with ongoing review from the
participants and technical teams.
Hoag stated the DOE, Western Washington University (WWU), and others did
studies on the aquifer located where she lives. She questioned whether that
information is available. Sproul stated it is.
Roll stated the technical studies could be held in a light of science driving the
questions and answers. The other piece that has to come forward concurrently is
the development of the plan to determine policy issues so that they connect. They
have to decide how to get from this point to June of 2002 with a plan.
Hoag stated that when they talk about the technical scientific part, such as
analyzing what is required for habitat, different experts have different
requirements. She wanted to make sure the habitat is protected. It is political
reality that people's opinions about habitat protection vary.
John Thompson, Resources Planner, stated one purpose of doing an instream
flow work shop last fall was to get the experts together and get an understanding of
how diverse the views are and come up with an agreed upon methodology. Now,
the instream flow work is working with the habitat folks. The model is trying to use
the best available science to identify the habitat. This fall, they will do a habitat
suitability index workshop. They will get experts with different viewpoints, but with
expertise, to determine the appropriate information for the Nooksack. They are
recognizing that there are differences of opinion, but they are trying to get people
to agree on methodology and concepts.
Hoag asked if they are trying to get that out on the table at the beginning,
before they proceed on with making the analysis. Thompson stated the methods
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, 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
48
49
for data collection are standard. In the workshop, they are laying the groundwork
for getting an interpretation of that analysis.
Hoag questioned how to make certain there are diverse groups of people
being represented. Thompson stated it is about getting the best available expertise
for the workshop. They are trying to get the expertise on the Nooksack Basin or
very similar areas so they are using data that applies to this area.
Crawford asked if there are any reservations or concerns. Roll stated there is
an issue that has to do with the money involved. He was very comfortable with the
body of work that is being produced. They brought it through a process where it
has gone through as many people as possible. From that perspective, this
document embodies the collective Planning Unit and IG's.
Monsen asked if the work done to this point changes the financial
projections.
Roll stated it does not. They have good estimations of what they will need in
phase II. The proposed amounts for phase III cover the work anticipated for next
year. As October and November roll around, and they produce the products, they
can anticipate another iteration into phase III. The numbers now have been
consistent.
Hoag asked if the workshops include the caucuses, such as the farmers. Roll
stated he was asked to break the document down with the agriculture caucus. That
group felt they wanted the work to move forward. They are trying to determine
through interview sheets what specifically happens at every caucus. He
anticipated, going into next year, they will have a new thrust to make sure the
constituencies and caucuses are involved in the process. He can't answer what is
going on in each caucus. They will continue to be involved in the process. There
has been extremely good attendance in the caucuses.
Brenner questioned the definition of a 'water balance.' Roll stated a water
balance is a formula of what water is going in and what is going out.
Brenner asked if Drayton Harbor is in the water resource inventory area
(WRIA). Roll stated it is.
Brenner asked about the 'pan evaporation data.' Sproul stated it is a
technique to identify vapo- transportation.
Imhof stated it is a method of measuring the evaporation over an area.
Craig MacConnell, Cooperative Extension, stated one uses a pan and
measures how much water evaporates under climactic conditions. It is related to
vegetation.
Brenner questioned the definition of generalized lease squares, as referenced
on page six.
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
McShane stated it is a statistical method.
Roll stated it refers to the mechanism of how the data is analyzed.
McShane stated it is related to different and neighboring data points. It is a
method that relates the two neighboring data points.
Brenner questioned why language on pages seven and eight were changed.
She questioned whether this could cause rights holders to use more water. They
are calculating rights and are not basing it on actual use. She is concerned that
people will use more water because they are afraid they will lose their right. Roll
stated it is a possibility. They could come up with an average estimation, which
would be skewed by those situations because they are outside the population as a
whole of what the population is using.
Brenner asked if the winters have been drier. Blake stated it has gotten
wetter and cooler the last few years.
Brenner asked about Bayesian or Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty
Estimation methods. Roll stated this is what they are proposing to use to estimate
the uncertainty of an outcome. It is the estimation of a range of a model. It is a
statistical measure to measure the variation.
Brenner suggested giving an example of technical scenario when describing a
technical method. If they want ownership from non - technical people, they need a
visual description.
Brenner questioned who makes selection of the surface water quantity
models, as referenced in task four on page 12. Roll stated the consultant will
propose a modeling strategy. That occurs during phase II, which is between now
and the end of the year. That will be sent through the Planning Unit and IG's as
endorsements. The consultant will provide a range of models to apply to situations.
Brenner asked if this document would be as technical as this when it comes
to the County Council.
Imhof stated it would be more technical. They have a model. They plug in
certain data that generate the outcomes from the model. Those outcomes are only
as good as the information put in the model.
Brenner questioned whether the staff technical people would do that. If she
is going to be responsible, she needs to understand what this is about.
Imhof stated the councilmembers are responsible for the policy, not for
knowing every technical thing. They are to look at where this gets the County, is
this where the County wants to go, and how it is funded. Those are the questions
the Council needs to ask.
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, 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
48
49
Brenner stated someone has to bridge the technical terms. Policy depends
on this. They are interconnected.
Imhof stated they also depend on staff and the administration, who have to
make it work.
Brenner stated it is not her job to trust. Her job is to ask questions.
Nelson stated it is not about trust. The only problem with a model would be
using incorrect data. They are attempting to put forward the complete picture of all
the data they are trying to collect and put together a model for the DSS. When it
comes to the Council, the councilmembers will have the tools to make informed
questions based upon the data that is collected. The only question would be
whether the data is appropriate, complete, or whether the model doesn't explain
the entire picture.
Roll stated the expertise will come from local people and also an independent
peer review group that will be approved by the stakeholders, as the group that
critiques the technical model.
Nelson stated the stakeholders would accept the model. As soon as that is
done, the decision system will be put into place.
Sproul stated a sister document is the March 27 final scope of work that
includes specific objectives that the technical scope of work is attempting to
address. Those are the policy issues. The Council voted on it. This is to be used in
conjunction with those documents.
Brenner asked what ASR stands for, as referenced on line 681 on page 17.
Sproul stated it may stand for aquifer surface recharge area.
Crawford stated it stands for aquifer storage recovery.
Brenner asked for an index of acronyms. Roll stated he would bring that
request forward. Blake stated there is a seven -page list of acronyms.
Roll stated that has not been tailored for WRIA.
Nelson agreed on having a list of the acronyms being used.
Roll stated he is going to Planning Unit on July 26. He needed guidance from
the Council on the scope of work.
Imhof moved approval the scope of work as presented.
Brenner stated she would abstain.
Motion carried 6 -0 -1 with Brenner abstaining.
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, 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
47
48
Hoag stated she appreciated the level of effort this represents.
Nelson stated it was a good idea to add USU.
Issue Paper for Phase 2 and 3 Water Rights Analysis
Roll stated this item is for information only. He hoped to have a document
for this, but it has not come forward from the water quantity group. Stage 1 has
been approved through the end of year. Within the next few months, they will
bring forward for proposal to do stages 2 and 3. The discussion paper has not been
finalized.
Nelson asked the mission that the group was assigned. Sproul stated
discussion paper was generated by Public Utility District (PUD) staffers and
presented to the water quantity technical team and USU for comment to direct,
suggest, recommend how to move forward with stages 2 and 3 of water rights
analysis.
Nelson asked for an overview of phase 2. Roll stated this hasn't been fully
worked out. They would take those rights that possibly exist and making the next
cut. They are verifying those received during the paper exercise.
Dawson stated phase 2 is the on- the - ground evaluation.
Sproul stated the proposal is to use caucuses and members of the
community to be involved. Phase 3 would be to compare and document in a map
form what the existing allocations and actual uses ultimately are.
Nelson questioned whether they have run into roadblocks from the tribes.
Sproul stated they haven't. The PUD has been assimilating the comments. The
item is scheduled before the Planning Unit in September. The County Council work
session in September will discuss this.
Nelson stated the water rights issue is a critical issue that has been ongoing
for years. It needs to be drawn to a conclusion. Much work has gone on prior to
this work, including the Nooksack Steering Committee's work. It will be a
controversial issue. This has to move forward. Roll stated people are moving
forward. No one is blocking the process.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Roll continued to state that they all need to decide on the methodology and
who will do it.
Monsen stated they might want to do a briefing on this during the September
12 Council meeting because there is a work session scheduled on September 19.
They want people to understand this one from the beginning.
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, 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
48
Sproul stated another issue relating to the water balance is the estimated
use. It is a different issue, but the issues begin to converge.
Dawson asked if they are finding many water rights that aren't being use.
Roll stated that information hasn't come forward at this point. That summary
hasn't been written.
Sproul stated that each area on the color map has a different mix of where
the allocation and use are located. The attempt is to get distinct drainage
delineations.
Groundwater Team Proposal and Update
Roll stated that at the previous meeting there was a proposal to create a
groundwater team sub -unit of the Water Quality Technical Team. Sue Blake would
give an update on that proposal.
Blake stated the proposal that the County Council endorsed was to form the
committee that would identify early action items that would make a difference. The
Planning Unit endorsed it, but said that they wanted the committee to come back
with more information on how the committee would work. Also, they wanted to
make sure that the suggestions from the committee are linked back to the Planning
Unit. Her handout describes that process (on file). Becky Peterson is currently the
lead for the committee. The committee will come up with suggestions, which go to
the larger water quality technical team for discussion. When the proposals are
agreed upon, they will ultimately go back to the Planning Unit and IG's for review
and approval. Nothing comes out of the group that does not end up in the process
for endorsement.
Hoag stated she liked the interaction. The water quality technical team
becomes a screen. Nothing from the groundwater subcommittee can go to the
Planning Unit or IG's unless the Water Quality Technical Team endorses it. She
questioned whether there is any way that the subcommittee recommendations can
have a method to take its recommendations to the Planning Unit and IG's for issues
with a lack of consensus. Blake stated they could also include the minority report
on issues that haven't reached consensus. The process is not intended to stop
comments, but to make sure they are tied in with the rest of the process.
Hoag stated there should not be divergent issues on the groundwater quality.
If there are, the minority report could go forward.
Nelson stated that normally, if there is a committee, and the committee
decided to have a subcommittee, the subcommittee was assigned a specific task
that is brought to the committee, which brings the recommendations forward to the
board or commission. It is still responsible to the Water Quality Technical Team. If
they are not uniform in their decision, they will have to go forward with the
information they have.
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, 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
48
49
Hoag stated her concern doesn't include just technical team members, but
also representatives of affected interests and other caucus members. If those
members don't feel the technical team is addressing the concerns, even though
they are serving on the subcommittee, it is important that the information be able
to make it through.
Blake stated this doesn't preclude that flow of information from happening.
She could pass that information along.
Brenner stated she was concerned unless they are offering resource
assistance to everyone on the list. Half or more of the membership are
government members who have plenty of resources. Her concern was that the
private well owner doesn't have a lot of information and background. She asked
who would provide that representative with resources to provide input. The
agricultural business representative can hook up with the commercial operators and
the agricultural caucus. Blake stated it is the responsibility of the caucuses to
provide help.
Brenner stated they are spending a lot of money. If they don't provide
resources for caucuses that represent many people, then they are doing a
disservice to this whole project.
Nelson stated the support for the private well owner would probably come
through information obtained from the County Health Department or State
Department of Health.
Brenner questioned who would help the private well owner to access all that
information. She knows the person. That well owner wasn't a part of any
association, but only walked in on the process. They have to supply a token
amount of resources.
McShane stated he also knows the private well owner representative, and he
wouldn't underestimate her ability to understand private well issues.
Brenner stated they need to make sure the caucuses have the resources and
staff they need. Roll stated the issue has come up already. He hoped there is a
uniform proposal from the Planning Unit. He's heard about different proposals for
providing support.
Brenner questioned whether the Council could ask the caucuses if they need
support.
Nelson stated they addressed this at the beginning. They allocated funding
for the caucuses in general. There is a dollar amount to be distributed as needed.
That is all they can do as a legislature.
Brenner questioned whether the caucuses know there is funding available.
Roll stated they do. They get updates on what they have spent. There is $500
allocated each year. To date, only two caucuses have used those funds. One
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, 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
47
caucus is going to exceed that amount. The water utilities caucus and a diking or
drainage caucus have used their funds.
Nelson moved to send a request for information on expenditures for caucuses
and for the caucuses to prepare a budget. He requested that each caucus prepares
and presents a budget to the Council so the Council knows what each caucus
needs. They need the budgets prepared before September so the Council can look
at it before the budget process.
Roll asked for clarification on whether they want budgets from every caucus.
Nelson stated that they only want budgets from caucuses that require
funding from the County.
Roll questioned where the proposed working budget is to go.
Nelson stated the proposed budget would go back to the County Council
before the budget hearings, so it can provide direction to the administration on
what it is willing to spend.
Hoag stated this might open a can of worms by asking the caucuses if they
need money. She suggested instead looking at the caucuses and determining if
there is money that the Council determines necessary and that the County can
afford to provide.
Nelson stated he doesn't have that expertise. The County has to give the
caucuses the opportunity to manage their resources. If one caucus says it needs
$50,000 and another says it only needs $500, then it's the Council's responsibility
to look at the appropriate amounts.
Dawson stated it is the Council's responsibility to give the caucuses a
minimal amount, but they need to enlist volunteers.
Brenner agreed with Councilmember Nelson's suggestions. They asked the
same thing of the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee, who responded
beautifully. The County Council doesn't know what they need. If she hears from
them, then she would understand. An across - the -board allocation of $500 each is
not appropriate. Some of the caucuses have more resources than others. It is not
fair to do it that way.
Dawson stated some have not even used their resources. Roll stated most
have not.
Brenner stated that one of the reasons some haven't used their funding is
because they know that is all they have and they are scrimping to the point where
they may not be as effective as they need to be.
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, 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
47
Sproul stated that during the last Planning Unit they came up with the
suggestion of a per diem cost as well. If the Council pursues that invitation, it may
be a line item.
Monsen clarified the motion. Because of the format, the direction is to the
County Planning Unit representative to bring the request for budgets to the
Planning Unit table.
Roll stated he would go to the Planning Unit and request budgets. There will
be a dozen different proposals.
Nelson the question is whether they should have the Planning Unit put
together a uniform package for what all the caucuses need.
Imhof stated they have that the way they do it now.
Nelson stated they have to have a process in which people don't get
frustrated and leave. This is not a short -term process. This process could go on for
awhile. He didn't want to lose quality people with background and interests
because they can't afford it or they are frustrated. He suggested they find out up
front what is needed.
Dawson stated a budget has to itemize what they need.
Motion carried 6 -1 with McShane opposed.
Roll questioned whether the proposals would go directly to the Council or if
the Planning Unit should mold them into a single proposal.
The Council agreed to look at the proposals directly from the caucuses.
Nelson stated Council would look at the budgets and send them back,
identifying the medium - ground funding. Or, the Council may provide direction that
it is appropriate for certain caucuses to receive different funding amounts. He
wanted the chance to look at the budgets and see what the concerns are. It is not
appropriate for the Council to make a final decision until they do the budget, but it
gives guidance on what the Council is thinking.
Brenner stated that when they hear information, it is usually from the
Planning Unit. The Council is not getting as much individual information.
Monsen asked if they want to encourage the caucuses to suggest their needs.
As that information comes forward, they will disclose that information to the
Planning Unit membership.
The Council concurred.
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, 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
48
49
McShane stated he agreed that they should be supportive of the caucuses.
What the caucuses think is needed should come out of the planning process and
should be brought to the Council.
Brenner stated that some caucuses need more help than others. If they do a
package request, it is a one - size - fits -all request.
McShane stated a plan brought forward to the Council may say that certain
caucuses could be supported financially or would have staff available.
Blake questioned whether there were any suggestions for the groundwater
subcommittee other than the presentation of the minority reports.
The Council agreed.
Roll stated this is an informational item only. Some budget items may come
through the process later.
McShane questioned whether the subcommittees also have to approve by
consensus. Roll stated they probably do.
Hoag stated that if they can't reach consensus, then the minority reports be
forwarded. For those decisions in which they can't reach consensus, they produce
majority and minority reports.
Blake stated most groups have been able to come to consensus.
(Clerk's Notes: The Council took a five - minute break at 11:30 a.m.)
2. WATER RESOURCES 2001 BUDGET
Anticipated 2001 Revenue and Anticipated 2001 Funding Requests
Roll handed out a list of the tasks that are occurring or being funded by the
Water Resource fund (on file).
Monsen stated he would try to identify the issues that need to be dealt with
through and to the end of the County's budget process at the end of November.
Now, with the transfer of half of the flood fees to the Water Resources fund,
and with other miscellaneous revenues, the fund generates about $2 million per
year. That ends at the end of 2002. The current flood fee has an ending date.
There was an ending date at the end of 1999. It was renewed for three years.
Regarding expenditures, 1999 expenditures were less than $1 million
because the division was just starting. In 2000, with the start of the watershed
activities, expenditures are close to $3 million. He tried to envision what
expenditures and revenues would be in the future. His best guess is to sustain
activities they started, like using the tools that come out of the watershed
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, 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
processes, making informed decisions regarding water rights, dealing with some of
the broad -based monitoring programs that need to occur on an ongoing basis, and
do review and revisions that will need to occur. The best guess is that those
activities will require an expenditure in the $1 million per year range for years
beyond 2002. If the total expenditure tasks for this year are added up, the total is
almost $5 million in one year. This stage is the ramp up and completion of the
watershed plan. The curve will level out at around $1 million per year.
Nelson questioned whether the groundwater protection management
program was a carryover. They budgeted $350,000 for Lake Whatcom
management. They don't need $350,000 for a joint plan.
Monsen stated they would come back to that discussion. He doesn't expect
the Council to approve a $5 million budget. It is an aggressive list. They are
refining the budget process. There are four issues: 1. They have to understand
where they are heading, 2. The watershed project itself is in the $3 million range,
for 2001. There is a short -term financial gap, 3. There is a point in time when they
will need to deal with funding beyond 2002, and 4. There is a question of what
they do as a community regarding stormwater management. That is a different
financial matter that is not a part of this discussion. Starting next year, they have
to decide where they are going with stormwater and how it is managed in the
future.
Hoag questioned whether splitting the flood fund affected the reserves.
Monsen stated it did not.
Hoag asked how much could be applied to 2001 and that would be left over.
Monsen stated they would have very little reserve by the end of the year. There
may be as much as $500,000.
Hoag stated that state law requires a lot of what they are doing. She
questioned whether using grant funding could offset any of the $5 million. Monsen
stated it could be if they find it. The state hasn't been gracious with providing
dollar amounts. The new County grant writer will help to identify some of the
sources.
Roll stated there will be an additional $250,000 coming from the WRIA
sometime this year.
Brenner asked if there has been any instance when the expenditures leveled
out on any other issue. That doesn't really happen. She would rather separate
WRIA from flood, do a WRIA fee, and re- negotiate how the flood fee is done to
make it a fairer breakdown. They shouldn't be tied to each other. It is fairer to
people to separate the fees. People will be more inclined to support something
when the title of the fee reflects what the money really goes toward. This is too
hazy.
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, 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
47
48
49
Hoag stated stormwater management amount is on the list. She questioned
whether the $5 million includes stormwater. Monsen stated it does not include item
stormwater. It may be funded in the years 2002 or 2003.
Nelson stated part of the stormwater funding was to come from the
$350,000 for the Lake Whatcom Management committee. Monsen stated that
stormwater issues specific to Lake Whatcom don't get the County an urban
stormwater management permit through the Clean Water Act. It may create a
template that is useful for the rest of the county.
Nelson asked how much the County would spend on this. Monsen stated
what they are learning doesn't have to be duplicated for the rest of the County.
There are no activities regarding stormwater management for the County.
Nelson questioned the amount the County would spend. Monsen stated it
depends on what they do. The work would range from doing nothing and not
allowing development to occur to retro- fitting everything.
Nelson stated this is a huge unfunded mandate from the federal government.
Monsen stated Councilmember Nelson is not alone to believe that.
Dawson stated they legally couldn't be held accountable for non -point
pollution. She asked Monsen if he agreed. Monsen stated there is not an absolute
answer on that.
Brenner stated the Water Resources Support Program 2 sounds top- heavy.
It is outrageous to have people coordinate other people to efficiently use resources.
They are drowning in the process.
(Clerk's Note: Crawford left the meeting at 11:50 a.m.)
Hoag referenced item two regarding salmon recovery. She believed the
County was getting a lot of grants, federal money, and state money. She
questioned whether the $220,000 takes into account other money, or whether this
would be expended in addition to other money received. Monsen stated it is a first
attempt at doing budgeting. This is intended to reflect the County's share of
activities. It is not the total cost.
Hoag asked about $350,000 for Lake Whatcom Management and whether
that money came from the flood fund prior to dividing the fund. Monsen stated it
did not. The initial investment to Lake Whatcom was a direct transfer from the
flood fund. When the Water Resources fund was created, 50 percent of the fund
transferred.
Hoag stated shellfish protection has $100,000. She served and appreciated
the districts, but they never had expenses that high. Roll stated the Council asked
that the Water Resources Division budget for a full -time staff person to accomplish
some of the work they will be doing within the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection
District Strategy. These numbers reflect an additional position.
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, 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
48
49
Hoag questioned whether the position is in addition to the two facilitators
contracted currently.
Regina Delahunt, Environmental Health Supervisor, stated a Centennial
Grant that has expired funded the contractors' work. This request would be a
replacement of that support.
Hoag questioned whether they are adding a staff person in addition the
contractors. Delahunt stated it is not.
Hoag suggested that they not get rid of Chris Woodward, the current
contractor.
Delahunt stated they talked about keeping Chris Woodward at the last
Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District Advisory Committee meeting.
Hoag questioned whether there was Conservation District funding for this.
Delahunt stated there is not. The County had a match for the Centennial Grant
funding, which came through the Conservation District.
Hoag stated the Marine Resources Committee has $10,000 budgeted. She
thought that the committee was funded through the state. Roll stated there are
two grants. One grant was for startup costs.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Roll stated a second $25,000 was awarded for the shoreline inventory. This
request goes to staff, and clerical help. The startup money ends this year. The
other $25,000 included money for administering the contract and the grant money.
There is no funding for staff. He served as chair.
Hoag stated she thought there was ongoing money available for that support.
Monsen stated it is possible at this point. They are going to continue to look
for ways to offset these matters. They are always going to try and find ways not to
use local dollars.
Hoag asked about task six regarding groundwater protection and
management. She thought it was a portion of WRIA. Roll stated there are two
programs that the Council supported. One is the integrated pest management
(IPM) program and the other is the nutrient management program. Additional
money was in there for early action items to be done in the WRIA. This is an
example of a cross -over item.
(Clerk's Note: Hoag left the meeting at 11:55 a.m.)
Roll discussed task one. The work is outlined by USU for $2.5 million. They
also have the actual development of the plan, which needs to be kicked off by the
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, 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
end of this year or the beginning of next year. They have stage two and stage
three water rights analysis as part of task one. There are also issues related to
additional stream gauging that may be needed.
Nelson asked how other communities are handling this cost. Roll stated he
hasn't seen anything this ambitious.
Nelson asked how the state is going to put together a plan that will be
approved by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). He asked if the state is
going to put in their money. This is one of his concerns. This is ambitious. He was
concerned that Whatcom County will get its work done and the citizens will still get
stuck with a listing and its adverse programs. He questioned why the County would
continue putting its money into this before they know what the statewide program
is. He questioned why the governor hasn't come up with a plan budget or how
much he would allocate to each location impacted by the listing. He questioned
where the state legislature is on this issue.
Brenner asked about joining other counties.
Monsen stated Skagit County is financing its effort through a stormwater
utility. Skagit County is not putting as much energy into some of the other
watershed planning efforts, especially regarding water rights and instream flows.
Whatcom County is on par with Skagit County regarding salmon issues.
Nelson asked why Skagit County is not focusing on instream flow. Sproul
stated Whatcom County's area of focus is much broader.
Nelson asked if there is a coordinated effort through the state. Monsen
stated there is not that level of consistency across the state.
Brenner stated the County should demand that. The state may change its
strategy after Whatcom County has done all of this work. There should be
consistency and money for everyone. Monsen stated it is consistent that they all
have to fend for themselves.
Nelson stated it would be remiss to continue funding at this level without a
coordinated state effort.
Brenner stated that there were several counties that want to work together.
Monsen stated there are, but they are focused on salmon recovery and agricultural
practices. The bulk of this money is not geared towards salmon recovery, per se.
Nelson stated that $3.2 million that is not geared toward salmon recovery
will be a hard sell to the public. Monsen stated that everything being done in the
WRIA planning process, from his perspective, has implications to salmon recovery.
The driving purpose is not salmon recovery. It is water supply.
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, 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
48
49
Dawson asked if what is driving this is potential litigation. Monsen stated
this number is the same number they've seen over the last year regarding the
watershed planning process.
Brenner stated it includes WRIA, ESA, and flooding situations. At some
point, they need to get more bang for their buck. It seems to be too
compartmentalized.
Nelson asked how to make this work without expending a tremendous
amount of resources for nothing.
Imhof stated the state and federal governments don't have a goal. Salmon
recovery is a great sound bite, but it isn't defined. Whatcom County is spending a
lot of money, but no one else is. The state and federal governments don't want to
deal with their issues. That isn't helpful to Whatcom County. Monsen stated there
is not a direct and absolute tie between watershed planning and salmon recovery.
MacConnell stated there is a difference between the Nooksack Basin and the
Skagit River. The Nooksack has unique and huge problems here that are not in
Skagit. Whatcom County has been dealing with instream flows since the 1980's.
Skagit County is now only dealing with the main stream of the Skagit River. It
doesn't look like they have the deficiencies in the instream flows that Whatcom
County has. Secondly, the agriculture in Skagit, because of soil types and because
the farming is in the lower delta, doesn't need to irrigate like Whatcom County
does. They don't seem to have the water right deficiencies. Whatcom agriculture
is 60 percent more valuable than Skagit County. One can't grow the crops for
feeding cows, and can't give the cows water, without water. A third item is that
Whatcom County needs water more than Skagit County. Lastly, Whatcom County
has had a more aggressive stance from Whatcom County tribes than Skagit County
has had with their tribes. All those items point to Whatcom County having more
serious problems than Skagit County. Whatcom County has more at stake than
Skagit County does. One can draw those conclusions to other counties on the west
side. Whatcom County has uniquely compelling problems.
Nelson stated he was concerned that $3.29 million is not specifically geared
toward salmon recovery.
McShane stated it never was supposed to be.
Thompson stated they would be spending that much money even if the
Chinook and bull trout were not listed because of the instream flows and channel
maintenance.
Nelson asked if Whatcom County would need this anyway for anything it
does in the future.
MacConnell stated they would not have the tribes so engaged in the WRIA
process if they didn't see salmon as a big part of it. A large amount of the USU
work is on instream flows, packaged within the WRIA effort.
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Nelson asked about other counties. MacConnell stated he is less familiar with
the other counties.
Nelson stated this is a big black hole. He questioned whether they need to
spend $3.29 million if there isn't a coordinated plan.
Monsen stated the $3.29 million has focused on the water supply issues,
done in a way that doesn't harm salmon recovery. Item two deals with recovery
and increasing numbers. Item one is to prevent the lowering of the numbers.
Brenner questioned why they couldn't put the two together and say that
increasing the numbers is not lowering the numbers. They could be the same.
Thompson stated that instream flow is about more than the fish, and salmon
recovery is about more than instream flows. The flow that they set for Chinook
salmon in river mile five of the middle fork will establish minimum flows to maintain
habitats. That is not being done because the Chinook are listed. Those flows are
going to be at what is needed according to the best professional analysis and
judgement for Chinook spawning and rearing.
Brenner stated it is all about the fish. She questioned why else they would
they do instream flow work. Thompson stated the Lummi Tribe and Nooksack Tribe
have the senior water right. Part of the water right is for instream flows for
fisheries and other reservation needs. That is a chunk of the instream flow. They
are going to look at the species to get at the range of instream flows that are
needed at any given point in the basin. They need to know what is available for all
the uses and what needs to be left in the river.
Brenner stated they could spend millions and not get the rights. She
questioned why they should wait for the coordinated plan.
MacConnell stated it is in the best interest to move the salmon things into
the WRIA process because they have the ability to bring the at -risk interests
together. Salmon is a part of it because it is a preferred place for it to be.
Nelson stated that everyone involved in the WRIA process believes that it is
geared toward salmon recovery. Monsen stated that is not correct. That is not why
they came to the table originally.
Imhof stated a lot of it is about water rights.
McShane stated it started before the WRIA process. They have an
opportunity for the community to decide what it wants to do with its water.
Nelson asked about the amount they are spending in one year and if the
intent is that it go to salmon recovery. He questioned whether the $3.29 million is
where they want to spend their money and if they will get anything for it.
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
McShane stated a lot of the $3.29 million comes out of the draft scope of
work. Roll stated the lion's share comes out of the plan.
McShane stated a lot of the money is also tied to phase three, which they
don't know about yet. Once they get through phase two, they will have a better
guess on what phase three will be about. He is not sure this is where they should
spend their money. He is comfortable committing to the instream flow issue. The
problem faced by the administration is managing this chunk of money. The Council
has to come up with a budget for next year, but is not sure how much they will
want to spend next year. They need to have the money available to make the
decisions.
Imhof stated that between now and November, more of these things need to
be drawn out and delineated. He questioned whether they want to do it all in 2001
or if any could be done later.
Nelson stated the Water Resources staff is pushing the Council because they
have a funding decision at the end of 2002. They don't want to make a
commitment and then not have the funding.
Brenner stated the expenditure curve might not come down. She didn't
believe it would.
Monsen stated that from the planning projects they have now, the activities
will drop because they need a large infusion of money to do the planning exercise,
but not as much money to implement the programs.
Dawson asked about the contribution. Monsen stated USU is covering part of
the cost for this year.
Sproul stated they don't do the same for the following years.
Dawson stated she wanted to see a budget for next year. Roll stated that
would come later in this year with phase three. They will create a detail in the
budget that shows the match amounts.
Imhof stated that should be done before November.
(Clerk's Note: Imhof left the meeting at 12:20 p.m.)
Nelson stated that if the instream flow and water rights issues are solved,
this money would be justifiably spent.
Dawson questioned whether a similar match is in next year's budget. Roll
stated a match would be worked out. They have been matching about 30 percent.
Nelson stated that John Sproul made a comment during testimony that water
resource managers will serve the public good by judging the overall advantages and
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
disadvantages of competing water use alternatives. He questioned whether they
are creating water lords. Monsen stated that water lords already exist.
McShane stated they are very quiet. They strike deals that are not in the
public's purview.
Nelson stated he doesn't believe that. They are going to expend the
resource, time, effort, and money doing what the state should have done years
ago. Someone will become a water lord and determine what resources are
allocated. The state is already doing the water lord be default, by saying they don't
to know what the rights are. Even though the County goes through this effort to
determine how it wants to allocate the resources, they don't have any assurance
that the state or federal governments would accept the determination.
McShane stated he is not worried about federal and state governments. He is
worried about local providers.
Nelson stated they have a responsibility as a community to determine water
resource levels, instream flows, what is and isn't being used, and how to allocate
the resources. The water resources managers are not going to be at the local level.
If they are going to spend this money and effort, they need the ability to make
decisions at the local level on how those resources are used. He doesn't feel
comfortable that he has that answer.
Monsen stated they don't know what the next two legislative sessions will
come up with.
Nelson questioned how much time and resources the County wants to put
into this without having any capability of being able to locally manage its water
resources.
Sproul stated the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 90.82 refers to
instream flow and local management. He read it into the record. It suggests local
decision - making. It is designed for that. The potential is there.
Nelson asked how much of the $3.29 million the County would spend to
determine how that process would occur. Sproul stated they would create a
mechanism to realize that objective, if it is an objective.
Brenner asked if the tribes have been participating actively. Roll stated the
Lummi Nation has. They are participating, but not at the Planning Unit table.
Brenner asked why they are not sitting at the table.
Nelson stated they don't have to be responsible. They can pull out.
Brenner asked what happens when the Planning Unit takes a turn that the
tribes don't like, which would cause them to pull away. The County would have
spent all of this money, some of which is for the tribes' benefit.
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Dawson stated the tribe is only interested in the instream flow.
Roll stated the tribes are invited to participate.
Brenner stated the County has little control. They are spending the money
hoping that something will happen. As soon as someone doesn't like what is
happening, the process breaks down. If there is an overall state plan, there would
be less of an impact.
Monsen stated a number of counties are going through that process. There
are plenty of pitfalls in the end.
Brenner stated there has to be many similarities in other counties. She
questioned why they are duplicating efforts.
Nelson stated they are doing the best they can.
Brenner stated the state needs to pull together.
Nelson stated that if the RCW provides the ability, then it is appropriate that
the process be developed at the front so the public is assured that the water
resources will be controlled locally. He wanted to see that program drafted. He
questioned whether the County is assured local control if it develops a program that
everyone agrees to, including the tribes. He questioned the process for someone to
use to get a water right. Sproul stated the process the caucus represented on the
Planning Unit is the forum to negotiate in stream flows. That is the mechanism he
referred to. There is a forum for discussion through the IG's and the memorandum
of agreement that was approved.
Nelson stated that in ten years, an industry might come to the County and
request a water right. He questioned how that would happen.
MacConnell stated they have to have a sustained process that is strongly
influenced or driven by the locals. This process seems to have the best chance.
One reason is because the tribes are there.
Nelson asked if they could have a solid process that can be sustained in ten
years. MacConnell stated that one issue is community participation. They can only
rely on community participation for a certain amount of time. If they want to drag
this issue out longer for financial reasons, they have to consider the level of
community commitment to the process. They have to front load the process to get
data and an agreement on the data. They have to work through a decision - making
process using that data. The modeling is a process to refine the decision - making
process. That takes some time. Out of that, they will have an understanding that
the program has to live. Before they get to that, they have to test the decision -
making program against those that have the power now.
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Nelson questioned whether they want to spend the money if they don't know.
Blake stated not if status quo is what they want.
Brenner stated there is another choice, which is to do sustained work rather
than the initial mountain of work. MacConnell stated they can't keep people
involved through a sustained process.
Nelson stated they have to get the data. They have a decision - support
system. The County needs buy -off from the community and people working with
this process. Now, they are going to test the model. If the community buys off on
this model, they need to agree on a mechanism to be used locally in the future.
MacConnell stated the trump card is adjudication. That is where they want
the community to stay involved and commited.
Nelson stated they can do that, but it is not identified. He is not comfortable
that they've identified where it is going.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Nelson questioned whether they could begin developing this process. If they
are going to put this kind of money into this effort, they need to be able to sustain
it. He doesn't want to spend this kind of money and then have to spend more
money on a judge. They will go to court if they don't have a process. If there is a
community process with agreement by all parties, then the court will look at the
decision - making process and the agreements. The strength is in unity and the
work done beforehand. They have an opportunity now to put together a process
and a model that will apply to the County. If they are not locally thinking about
how this extends into the future, they've failed. He doesn't want to fail.
Dawson asked where they are. Roll stated there is a process now that
embodies what they need. In the future, they need the same philosophy and
theme going forward with what is produced. This process has to look forward and
be geared toward the long run. There are two ways they are getting at it. One is
that they have to address this as they create the DSS. The other way is starting to
flush out the chapters in the watershed plan. Next year is the lion's share of that
portion of it that has to link with the DSS. If they don't do these specific things with
the DSS, it will not mesh with plan development. It has to happen at the same
time with the same stakeholders. A number of factors made that difficult. One
difficulty is that there is no luxury to do this over a long time. He is at odds with
what that means. He relied on Sue Blake and Craig MacConnell, who were vested
in the preceding processes, to move forward. The whole plan development is how
the DSS will be utilized by the stakeholders in WRIA as they move forward.
Nelson stated they need to take back an accountability, and to set up the
plan so they are not wasting money. If they are going to create a water lord, he
would rather it be local.
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Brenner stated somewhere there is going to be the immovable object hitting
the irresistible force. No one is trying to scam the County. Each level is operating
in a vacuum. They are not going to get where they want to go unless there is some
cooperation and movement by the state. She didn't like spending money without
feeling at least 50 percent confident they are going to get what they need. She
doesn't feel that here. The community can only take so much. This is good stuff,
but they need to pace themselves better.
Nelson stated all parties are participating. The government is the people.
He questioned Brenner about what would make her more positive about getting
what the County needs.
Brenner stated they need more state commitment to funding and assurance
that local control will be over the water rights.
Nelson questioned who gives the County that right.
Brenner stated they need that commitment from the legislature or the
governor.
Nelson stated that RCW 90.82.080 already said they could do that.
Brenner stated the state could say all it wants.
Nelson stated the County couldn't sign anything until they put a program
together.
Brenner stated she wanted to see the state's overall plan.
Monsen stated that what they do here has more reliance on future decision -
making based on local watershed planning processes. There are many people from
the state waiting for these plans to come out so they don't have to make the
decisions. He can't assure that the state won't muck it up down the line, but the
state agencies are now hoping and begging that the local watershed processes
succeed so they don't have to deal with them one -by -one.
Nelson stated he hoped they do it locally, but that it comes froward with how
the process would continue in the future.
Brenner stated she wanted a 50/50 matching fund. She wanted to make
sure they don't keep changing the rules.
McShane questioned whether Councilmember Nelson wanted to keep going
with this.
Nelson stated they have two choices. One is to not do anything but go into
litigation. Another is to take control locally through the RCW guidelines. His only
concern with that is that they don't have a process that is never - ending. They have
an obligation to the public to develop the model DSS.
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, Page 23
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
Dawson stated that they need to know the end where the County takes
control.
Brenner stated the County needs to tell the state that part of the bargain is
that the County will pace themselves.
Nelson stated that one issue is how to develop the instream flow and water
quantities. The second item is not a process. It is a decision - making tool that the
County needs to apply to whatever it decides upon. That is what he is concerned
about. There isn't community agreement yet. Monsen stated that, financially, they
are recognizing that they will apply for funding to maintain control.
Brenner stated she is not confident.
(Clerk's Note: Brenner left at 12:55 p.m. The quorum of members was lost.)
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 12:55 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on August 8 , 2000.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
County Council Water Resources Work Session, 7/18/2000, Page 24