HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources November 21 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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special Water Resources Work Session
November 21, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Council Chair Marlene
Dawson in the Whatcom County Northwest Annex Hearing Room, 1000 N. Forest
Street, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Dan McShane
L. Ward Nelson
Connie Hoag
Barbara Brenner
Ahcant-
Sam Crawford
Robert Imhof
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Manager, stated they would begin with
informational items, including the Salmon Recovery Funding Board's second round
of grants. They also have a brief presentation on a voluntary riparian restoration
program.
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2000 -070)
1. SALMON RECOVERY
Salmon Recovery Funding Board Update
John Thompson, Endangered Species Act (ESA) Resources Planner, stated 13
projects were submitted in the latest round of Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF)
Board applications. He submitted a revised printout of the project list. The only
difference between this list and the previous list was that the cumulative total is the
same amount as the grant request. The citizen's committee, with help from the
Joint Technical Advisory Group (JTAG), reviewed each for technical merit and
provided a summary sheet for each project. The citizen's committee decided not to
submit two of the projects. One of them, the Marietta Slough phase II, did not
have the required match. The Nooksack enforcement package, a joint program
with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), the Lummi Nation, and the
Nooksack Tribe, wasn't an eligible project type. There was a high level of support
for the package, but it wasn't eligible. The next step is to present to the SRF Board
technical panel on December 5, which wants to hear how the projects fit into the
Puget Sound Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU). Defend the package and justify.
The tech panel will take the results of Dec. 5 meeting and make recommendations
to SRFB after the January meeting. At that time, the SRFB will make decisions on
what gets funded this round.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, 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
Dawson asked how much money they have to fund the projects. Thompson
stated they officially have $21 million. It's possible that more may be coming in.
The $21 million is for the entire state.
Hoag questioned the two projects that didn't go forward. Marietta Slough
Phase II didn't have the required match. She asked why the match is different
from other projects. Thompson stated they didn't actually have in hand the
$500,000 match that was shown. It was a speculative match.
Hoag questioned why they need a 50/50 match, when one approved project
had a 25 percent match. Thompson stated they didn't have any match. The
$500,000 didn't exist at all.
Dawson stated she thought the Nooksack River enforcement project was very
effective. Thompson stated it was. It was previously funded under the Governor's
Salmon Recovery Office under a different set of rules at the time. The feedback
from SRFB staff was that it was not eligible under the current rules.
Hoag asked what happens to the project. Thompson stated they could add it
to the list of projects for the area and look for alternate funding sources, or lobby
for funding.
Hoag asked what made the program so it wasn't eligible. Thompson stated
the SRFB doesn't want to fund programs, only projects. This was considered a
program.
Thompson continued to state that this process is getting more competitive.
They have an interim strategy that they've worked out. They are in the process of
evaluating the strategy and refining the ranking process. Each time they go
through this, they run into things that don't work real well, so they are trying to
improve each time. Compared to where the County was the first round, they are
getting good feedback from the committee.
Hoag questioned why they would fund the instream flow assessment or the
incubation assessment if they don't want to fund programs. Thompson stated
those are assessments, specific evaluations for potential limiting factors for salmon.
That is something where someone goes out, does the study, gathers the data,
develops recommendations, and then is done with it, compared to an ongoing
enforcement program.
Voluntary Riparian Restoration Pilot Program
Thompson introduced Dorrie Belisle and Jason Vanderveen. A voluntary
riparian project is being developed. They are bringing this program to the Council
so the councilmembers can see the community and volunteer efforts that are
ongoing. As they get into the Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance for the
County, there will be a regulatory baseline. If the County is really going to get to
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, 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
restoration, there is going to be a significant voluntary component and incentive -
based component. This was a project that really showed some of the potential that
is out there to have community -led efforts help solve part of the problem.
Dorrie Belisle, 231 Ten Mile Road, stated she and her husband grow apples.
Jason Vanderveen is a dairyman on the Pole Road. Together, they co -chair the
Agricultural Preservation Committee's Buffer Committee. They are presenting a
proposal that the Buffer Committee and the Agricultural Committee have endorsed
and would like to see move forward. The agricultural industry has many shadows
hovering above it, including the ESA, the Water Quality Act, and the Food Quality
Protection Act. Over the last couple of years, they've felt paralyzed. Some of the
farmers have gotten together and talked about what they can do to make
necessary changes that are good for water quality, fish, and farming. This is the
proposal they've come up with. She spent time talking with County staff and
farmers. Most farmers and landowners have ideas on what to do with their own
land. They have come to the Council with a Ten -Mile Creek Watershed Voluntary
Riparian Restoration Pilot Program. She applied for a two -year program with the
Washington Agricultural Forestry Education Foundation. That is a two -year
program that gets people like her off the farm to broaden their horizons about what
the needs are at the state and federal level for natural resource industries. The five
people listed on her handout (on file) helped her develop this program. Barbara
Poulson is a farmer in Eastern Washington. Scott Swanson and Kevin Arneson are
foresters. Both of them were very much involved with the forestry negotiations for
salmon recovery. They came to this committee with a lot of knowledge and help
for the agricultural committee. Steve Butkus has worked for the state Department
of Ecology (DOE) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). He is their Senior
Environmental Specialist. They chose this program because it is a program where
they can actually do something. She listed the goals for the program.
Goal one is to implement a demonstration project that addresses existing
public policy on riparian habitat and water quality through voluntary efforts focused
in a watershed. Policy is down. They want something where the landowners, the
farmers, and the community come together on a volunteer basis. They focus on
the needs for riparian habitat and water quality in the total watershed. The project
will show a proactive voluntary approach to preclude the need for regulations to
solve the need for environmental problems. They want the chance to solve the
problems before regulation comes down.
Goal two is to implement a demonstration project where farmers and
landowners can demonstrate their stewardship of the land and their desire to pass
on to their children cleaner water and a better environment. They are stewards of
the land. Farmers are environmentalists. They want to work together to pass
better conditions on to their kids.
Goal three is to implement a demonstration project where farmers,
landowners, and community can build a partnership and a commitment to each
other. They need each other. The urban areas need agricultural areas, and
agricultural areas need urban areas. Make a commitment to each other to
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, 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
participate in a doable project that meets the needs of salmon and agriculture in
the county.
The program develops solutions based on established performance standards
that are site- and function - specific. They want to walk with the landowners and see
what his needs and the needs of the fish on his or her property are. Create
something that works for both. They want to be site - specific and function - specific.
Look at the entire Ten Mile watershed, which includes Four Mile, Deer Creek, and
Barrett Lake, all the way out to the Nooksack River. If one farmer has a piece of
land that he can't cultivate, and can put up woody debris, it would be great. On the
other hand, if the farmer is cultivating and it's best to put up a filter strip and small
shrubbery, that would be great too. When they look at the total watershed, they
are going to make a difference. They are going to improve water quality and make
it good for fish and farming. They want to monitor results to show in two years
what they have accomplished. They want to protect existing buffers. The Ten -Mile
watershed has already had some work done on it. They want to work with what's
there and expand. They want to use education as the driving force. They've had
commitments from Cooperative Extension and the Conservation District. When
they go to the farmers, they can teach the farmers. They want to provide financial
and labor assistance so farmers and landowners don't have everything on their
backs. They want to develop demonstration sites within that watershed. This is
going to be a building effect.
They chose the Ten -Mile watershed because work has been done there
already. There are 65 miles of stream reach. Of that, 6.16 miles have already
been started. They felt this is a good jumping off place, but they want to complete
the entire watershed eventually.
Public regulations already exist. Her group went through all the regulations
on the books. Any of these public policies address habitat restoration on
agricultural lands. This project addresses all agricultural and habitat requirements.
They want to educate the landowners and agricultural people on what the functions
of the riparian area are.
They will go into connectivity. That is why they want the entire watershed
and diversity. It would all be a part of the education.
This will be a pilot project. They are trying to take a small piece and do a
two -year project to show that they can get results. They can get farmers who want
to work and have community involvement. Some of this has been done already.
They are developing nursery stock for use in the restoration projects. They want to
involve the agricultural community. They hope to obtain a grant to pay for a
coordinator to work with the farmers and to tie in all the projects and programs in
the county now. There are many different programs. They need to fit the right
farmer to the right program.
They have already started planting trees for salmon. There are already
34,000 Douglas fir trees on six farmers' lands. These seedlings will be transplanted
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, 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
onto buffers. These trees will be able to withstand the rigors of the natural setting.
They want the community to know that the agricultural industry is involved in the
salmon recovery. Farmers have planted thousands of trees. The Future Farmers of
America (FFA) from Meridian High School helped plant trees. They also had a 4H
group and neighbors help. People are looking for projects. They just need
someone to coordinate.
In the future they want farmers to continue growing trees for salmon and to
work with the people who need the trees to see which species they need. They
want to work so that this is a cheap way to get a good, healthy nursery stock.
They want to continue developing the educational materials. Agricultural Forestry
classes are developing a brochure of information written in simple terms that
explains what they are looking for in a riparian habitat. They are continuing to find
money for a coordinator. It would be hard to make that commitment on a
voluntary level, and would like to fund a part -time coordinator that actually sits
with the landowners and coordinates all the programs in the county.
There are people in the county doing something. They want the County
Council to watch them and the results they would get in two years. Take those
results as the Council considers policy down the road. Support the program to give
the landowners an opportunity to get something done. If they can get this going in
the Ten Mile watershed, they could get a grant in three years to implement a
program on all of Ten Mile Creek. She's talked to other drainage districts, who are
interested in implementing it on the different watersheds in the county. They just
need to begin.
Hoag stated this was great. She asked if the list of public policies show the
Whatcom County Nutrient Management program. Belisle stated it isn't on there,
but can be added. When talking with the farmers, they look at the total farm
management plan. If a farmer doesn't have a plan, they will connect the farmer
with the right people in the county.
Hoag asked if they included the state dairy bill, which required the farm
plans. Regarding nutrient management, it goes beyond the Critical Areas
Ordinance (CAO), which doesn't cover ditches. It is important that it be included.
Vanderveen stated the nutrient management covers filter strips, not buffers.
That is the difference.
Hoag stated it sort of does. There is language that addresses both, but not
in terms of habitat. Also, regarding monitoring, she asked how that would be done.
Belisle stated they have two ways of monitoring. Originally, they thought to
monitor temperature and turbidity. The more she considers it, she realizes that the
two -year pilot program addresses different things. Measuring temperature and
turbidity with this small of an area isn't going to change anything. Instead,
measure the farmer's attitudes. Out of that pilot area, measure how many farmers
participate and how many don't participate. Measure how many miles of streams
they can get buffers on. She is hoping the pilot plan would be successful so she
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, 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
can file a grant for the entire watershed, and then they can get the more scientific
things done.
Hoag stated they should include a measure of the number of miles and the
survival rate of trees. In two years, the trees aren't going to be big enough to
make a difference on temperature. Whatever they monitor, make sure they show
results.
Belisle stated her ideas on monitoring have changed. There would be a place
further down the line to do monitoring done by biologists. For her, she was more
comfortable monitoring the number of plants versus the number of people they've
contacted, and assessing what is there now. Many farmers and landowners have
made changes already.
Hoag asked if they are just focusing on providing habitat, or also looking at
filtering. She also questioned whether they would monitor water quality. Belisle
stated later on down the line they will. She pictures this as a total program. They
don't want to do things piecemeal and things that don't make sense. There is a
logical way to do this.
Nelson stated it seems as if they visualize this as a management program for
the entire reach, yet they have to address drainage and other issues. He asked
who the other participants and players would be to manage streams and buffers.
He questioned how they are going to tie the resources with the other groups that
want to participate. Belisle stated she's talked to interested parties to see if they
are willing and able to put energy toward the project. Most people said the project
meets their criteria of what their group does.
Nelson stated he was not talking about the project. He asked how they
would put this together so they do not get a lot of different groups doing the same
thing. Belisle stated that would be the coordinator's responsibility. They are
looking for funding for the coordinator.
Nelson questioned whether programs already on the ground would keep from
being duplicated. He questioned who would be responsible for seeing that the
duplication does not occur.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated there are only a handful of people
involved in this region now. They rely on people like John Thompson to be aware of
the potential overlap areas. A coordinator in this role would help, but would not
understand everything going on to prevent duplication.
Nelson asked if there is a policy on how to monitor or coordinate those
efforts. Monsen stated there is not a clearly stated policy. It is certainly an
intended goal.
Thompson stated that within the Chinook Recovery Plan, they would develop
the monitoring needs. For a project such as this, which is for a specific geographic
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, 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
area, it would be one way to develop the type of monitoring that needs to be done,
and how that project coordinates with other projects. This might be a way to do
that.
Nelson asked if it would be better to have a coordinator for each reach. He
didn't see a policy. He questioned whether the program in one reach would be the
same as another. Thompson stated he would like to move into a strategic mode to
work on a sub -basin basis. They can identify priorities for fish needs, what
landowners will do, and how far farmers will go.
Nelson asked if they are requesting funding. Belisle stated not at this time.
George Boggs offered to help her find funding. She was there to let the Council
know what is happening and to get the support of the County. The County
agencies have been phenomenal in helping her. Down the line, they might need
matching funds, but she hoped they wouldn't need that right away. If they do an
implementation in two years, they may need matching funds. She believed that
the federal and state governments should provide funds because they are setting
this policy for salmon.
Brenner asked if this is just for the farmers. Belisle stated it is not. It is for
all landowners. They want to do the entire watershed. Initially, they are targeting
people in the agricultural industry because they are agricultural people, but a
watershed needs total commitment, so it is for all landowners.
Brenner asked when this would begin to happen. Belisle stated the funding
proposal should be in by December or January. She would like to start in January
or this spring.
Vanderveen stated he liked this plan because it is site specific and not a one -
size- fits -all program. Something will happen. There aren't many drainage districts
in the county. Of this one, Four Mile Creek is the only one with a drainage district,
which is working with the Nooksack Salmon Enhancement Association (NSEA) on
their plan. There are many ditches that aren't under the jurisdiction of a drainage
district, and don't come under county jurisdiction.
Thompson stated much of the planting work is done by the Washington
Conservation Corps crews.
Nelson stated it's best to have this type of system, but he was concerned, as
they move forward, was that many people could jump in on this. How they
coordinate that strategy is going to be something to get on the ground right away,
for all the watersheds. Many may have forestry implications, for instance, instead
of agricultural implications. They need to plan for that so there is a coordinated
effort.
Belisle stated drainage districts are a governmental body supported by
landowners and might be a viable option. They are looking at the questions for the
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, Page 7
1 future. NSEA has been very valuable with that. Much planning has been
2 coordinated through NSEA.
3
4 Hoag stated many farmers asked if they could plant trees on the sunny side
5 of the creek for shading, and to leave the other side open to get in with machinery
6 if they have to dredge. She questioned whether that is a feasible option. Belisle
7 stated they need to look at every option. They are doing the total watershed. If it
8 is an option that is viable for one agricultural landowner, then they need to consider
9 it.
10
11
12 2. MARINE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
13
14 Update on Grant Proposal
15
16 Roll stated the Marine Resources Committee is working nicely. Last year,
17 they applied for and received $25,000 in funding for the shoreline inventory, which
18 also includes matching work done by the Port. It compiled all the existing shoreline
19 information for Whatcom County and created a very nice report, intended to help
20 give them a framework for those pieces of marine preservation and enhancement.
21 During that process, there was also recognition, which is why they saw the project
22 with the shoreline inventory kick off with the data gaps. That project would wind
23 up toward the end of the year with an inventory of those data gaps related to the
24 shoreline inventory of Whatcom County. During this process, one of the expected
25 outcomes is to compile all existing known information, to use the information to
26 take the next leap into where the specific areas are for preserving and enhancing
27 the marine habitat. They are now entering into a second phase of funding from the
28 Northwest Straits Commission. The Marine Resources Committee (MRC) desires to
29 submit an application. They are currently working on crafting a grant to bring them
30 into the next phase of the specific projects targeted by the shoreline inventory and
31 other pieces of information acquired through the Port project.
32
33 Erika Stroebel, Planner II, stated the funding amount that they are applying
34 for is up to $30,000. They wanted to make sure they are building off the work that
35 was done this year, so they will use the work done this year as a spring board to
36 get to high priority projects for the upcoming year. There are a number of steps to
37 go through to look at high priority projects. The first step is to make this
38 information assessable to the public. They will take the report developed this last
39 year and put it in electronic format and on the website. They would also make
40 additional hard copies of the report.
41
42 Roll stated they would also put it in the geographic information system (GIS)
43 format.
44
45 McShane asked if it would fit in well with the shoreline program.
46
47 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated she hoped so. They have
48 a table that shows what they need to collect for the shoreline management update,
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, 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
and then what has been collected so far. A good part of it is done by this
inventory. They would need to do more, but it needs to be tied together.
Stroebel stated the next step is to make sure they are coordinating efforts
with other programs, such as the salmon recovery program, the shellfish protection
districts, and developments with the shoreline management program. Make sure
they are bringing all the groups together to talk about the information on the
marine resources in Whatcom County and the elements they need to consider.
Using that information, they would identify high priority projects for their habitat
restoration and protection efforts. The next step is to work with a group to
facilitate these discussions with other groups. Find out how to enhance data and
use objectives of the Northwest Straits Commission and the MRC to identify high
priority projects.
The final piece is to ask for funding, around $20,000, to implement some of
the high priority items. There are a couple of steps where they are using the work
that has been done last year as a spring board to identify the data needs, enhance
the data they have, and work with objectives to identify high priority projects.
From that list, they would implement some of the selected high priority projects.
Dawson asked if the projects are itemized. Stroebel stated no. They still
need to look at the data. They are working with the other efforts that are going on.
From those efforts, they would identify a short list of high - priority projects.
Dawson asked when the list would be ready. Stroebel stated the list would
probably be ready in the spring of 2001.
Hoag stated she serves on the MRC. One thing she asked of the MRC was to
use some of the funding to look at the effects of air pollution deposition on the near
shore environment. They have many heavy industries right along the marine area.
If they look at the different agencies, they would find that there is a gap there. If
the committee approves of it, they could use a piece of the funding for that. One
problem with the herring at Cherry Point is that their weight is smaller.
(Clerk's Note End of tape one, side A.)
Hoag continued to state that there are mutations in the herring, which
generally indicate toxins.
Dawson asked if the air pollution authority could consider and provide
funding for and coordinate that study.
Hoag stated they asked for a professor or expert to assess the oversight
gaps and look at the pollutants that are being put into the air, which is easy to get
from the Northwest Air Pollution Authority (NWAPA), and then see if any are related
to genetic mutations in the fish. If they found there are oversight gaps and that
there are toxins, then proceed with sampling sediment and looking for bio-
accumulatives. She asked them to contact and lobby the Environmental Protection
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, 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
Agency (EPA), which is in the middle of looking at the cleanup at Oeser right now.
When she went to the EPA meeting about what they are doing at Oeser, she
learned that no one is looking at the near -shore environment for deposition or the
effect on the aquatic life. She mentioned to MRC that they could lobby the EPA, as
part of their assessment, to look at what it's doing. That would give them some
basis for looking at other things, such as the type of modeling they use and the
results they've found.
Nelson asked how extensive that modeling would be. They also have to
measure global impacts when assessing pollutants and toxins. They need to
identify the sources correctly. If they are going to do this, he would like to see how
they model the entire impact of off - shore, on- shore, and instream factors.
Hoag stated that air coming off the ocean is pretty clean. As inland sources
are added, the air becomes dirtier.
Brenner stated it seems like it is clean, but that isn't what they heard at the
Lake Whatcom meeting. They heard that mercury in the fish in Lake Whatcom
could be coming from China. However, she's had calls from people who can refute
some of the information that was presented. It is very confusing.
Hoag stated she talked with an expert at the University of Washington that
has done modeling that showed pollutants coming over from China. She
questioned mercury, because it is so heavy.
McShane stated sediment work done in the bay was tied to Oeser, which is
what triggered Oeser becoming a superfund site. The Army Corps of Engineers did
some sediment analysis at the mouth of the creek and discovered a problem. Prior
to that, it was not known that Oeser was releasing that level of contamination.
Hoag stated the EPA figures that sediment is leaching through the ground
water and into the creek. She was talking about air deposition, which no one is
looking at. The EPA did do some air monitoring in the local site with Oeser on land
sites to see what they would pick up. No one is taking that and translating it to
what happens to the marine environment when the air pollution hits the water, how
much of an impact it is, whether it is something that they should worry about, and
if it is negligible. They will find that, when they track all the different elements, it is
a typical gap that exits. The DOE will look at discharges, stormwater runoff, and
NPDES permits, but not the air.
Roll stated they touched on coordination. They clearly saw that, before
proposing more projects, they must bring in all the players that had stuff going on.
They can expect to convene the various groups. They have an opportunity where
the groups can jointly put together a SRF Board grant.
Nelson stated they could provide support to each other as well.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, 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
48
Stroebel stated the coordination of efforts might help look at other funding
options.
Hoag stated one of the things on the agenda was to work with other projects.
3. WRIA PLANNING
WRIA Caucus Support
Roll stated that this was before the Council Finance Committee on October
24, 2000. The outcome of the committee was that staff develop policies and an
application process, with the goal of bringing it back to the table as quickly as
possible. The next Planning Unit meeting is next Wednesday.
Brenner stated the application looks great. Don't make it too complicated.
Roll stated he wanted it as streamlined as possible.
Brenner stated she was concerned about the little caucuses who don't have
someone to fill out this proposal. Roll stated he has excellent facilitation services
and a decision - support system (DSS). He would help the caucuses go through the
process.
Brenner stated she liked this draft application. It is written so any layperson
can understand it.
Roll stated the Council originally had a proposal in the potential amount of
$360,000. The approved amount in the budget is $50,000 total for caucus support.
There is also language that recognizes that if additional funds were needed, a
supplemental request would come next year.
Brenner stated this application process was a middle ground, and it came out
well.
Roll stated his goal was to take an application to the Planing Unit. He would
like the applications to get back to the Council, through the Finance Committee, to
look at it in December.
Brenner stated she was pleased about looking at the proposals on a case -by-
case basis, based on the caucuses' individual needs.
Nelson asked if there is a rating system. He was not familiar with the
caucuses and their needs and whether or not the information each caucus supplies
is accurate.
McShane suggested that the Finance Committee come up with a rating
system.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, 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
Nelson stated staff is more knowledgeable about the caucuses. There needs
to be some way of evaluating these for preliminary review.
Hoag suggested that they could have criteria that the Council could review
the applications against. Roll stated page two of the policy has criteria. Each of
those criteria is in the application. The councilmembers would have each of the
criteria, and can weigh them according to the answer provided in the application in
terms of how it fits in the policy.
Nelson stated he wanted an evaluation of the accuracy of the information
presented in the application prior to the Council's evaluation. Roll stated the staff
could help with that.
Brenner agreed. She recommended that any applications go through Mr. Roll
first to evaluate the accuracy of the information. Roll stated he would give it his
best shot.
Hoag suggested a language change on page two, item two, of the
application. "...Please explain why these r-eseuFees will 1get allew effeetive
participatien ef caucus interest If you do not feel these are sufficient, please explain
why." The way the wording is currently, it seems as if the County is making an
assumption that the resources are not sufficient. Her suggested language only asks
the caucus to explain why it believes the resources are not sufficient. Some of
these caucuses have a better tax base than the County. Roll stated he would
reword it. He anticipated that there would be two approaches. The Council is going
to have requests coming forward that would potentially come from a government
agency. They would also have a personal services contract developed for those not
an established agency, such as the environmental caucus. In that case, they would
have a personal services contract to deal with what is being requested.
Brenner stated she didn't want to hire someone from the environmental
caucus.
Nelson stated the environmental caucus would put out the request for
funding. Roll stated the personal services contract would be with a specific person.
Monsen stated they can only do this as expenditures consistent with the
Whatcom County Code (WCC). That means that the County is either reimbursing
eligible expenses through a preset agreement, or making a direct expenditure on
behalf of someone. There may be an individual supporting an individual caucus,
but through a contract with the County. Everything here is a direct expenditure for
an item or a reimbursement of an expense.
Brenner stated they would end up doing that for all the caucuses if they do it
for one.
Nelson stated not necessarily, because some of the caucuses have an
organized system.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, 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
48
Brenner stated that, even if they don't have an organized system, if someone
is available and has that expertise, they should all give a little bit. She didn't want
someone to use this as a way to make some money.
McShane stated the councilmembers would have the option as a voting
member of the County Council of not approving the application. Monsen stated
they create the framework in which they create the legal and administrative
relationship to pull it off.
Nelson asked Mr. Gibson to review the proposals for legality of providing the
funding, in addition to having staff review them for accuracy. He didn't want to be
put into a position, through the request, to not be able to make the agreement
legally.
Hoag asked if anyone would review to see if there is better funding available
from somewhere else. Roll stated they would continue to seek funding. It has
been difficult to acquire funding to deal with reimbursement of individuals working
on these committees.
Another point is that they are assuming there is $50,000 available. He asked
if the Council was inclined to pilot the funding for a set period of time and set a
recommended amount requested by each caucus. If they don't set boundaries for
people to work with, the applications will request the entire amount.
Brenner stated that it may be feasible to leave the application period open to
give everyone an opportunity to apply and so one person doesn't ask for it all.
Roll stated some caucuses have new leadership, and they may not be in a
position for all of them to seize the moment. There needs to be a window. They
don't know how much of the $50,000 would be used during a particular time
period. It has to last the entire year. This amount is different than what the
caucuses brought forward as a proposal. He was concerned that a caucus would
come forward with a request for a large amount. He suggested that they tie the
requests to an amount for a period of time, such as $4,000 for the next two or
three months.
Hoag stated some caucuses have no need for money, and others have a
large need. She didn't want to specify a certain amount for each caucus. She
requested clarification on what Mr. Roll proposed.
Roll stated there was a $360,000 proposal that came forward. The budget
went forward with $50,000. They have the criteria and policies. Applicants might
request anywhere from $5,000 to $100,000. He wanted to provide guidance on the
limits they should ask for.
Brenner stated she would rather give them a timeframe in which to make
applications. The Council may decide it is seeing important things coming forward
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, 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
and appropriate more than $50,000. She would rather do it that way than say they
would all get a certain amount for a certain period of time.
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated the Council might want to
establish a trial period in which the caucuses would demonstrate their productivity.
Rather than give them a year to spend $30,000 to $40,000, give them a few
months to demonstrate that they are producing what they claim they need the
money for.
Hoag asked if they could hire a person for that short period of time.
Monsen stated the message to be conveyed is that there is $50,000 total for
12 months. Subject to the applications, that number may be different, which would
be done through a supplemental budget request. The question is how to convey
that message.
Hoag stated that if they put that message out the way Mr. Monsen just said
it, they would have requests for $360,000 come back. That isn't the message to
send out. Make the message be that there is $50,000 available for the next year.
If one thinks that his or her caucus needs some help, he or she could put in for a
piece of it.
Brenner stated she would like to give them a few months to put something
together, and then evaluate them all.
Dawson asked when the evaluation of the results would take place.
Hoag stated they are going to blow the budget right out of the water. She
would support saying that $50,000 is budgeted for the year. If they accept
applications from the caucuses that have their requests for the year, the Council
could evaluate their work after the first quarter for effectiveness. If the caucus is
not meeting certain criteria, it won't get the other three - quarters of the funding, or
the funding could be reduced or increased. The caucuses shouldn't apply for
$100,000 if the Council only approved $50,000 for the year. They should not send
out the message of doing a supplemental budget request at the beginning of the
process because they will get requests for the $360,000.
Brenner stated an evaluating tool could be efficiency in their request.
Nelson stated there is about $5,000 available for each caucus.
Hoag stated that is not the way they want to do it.
Nelson stated a caucus is going to perceive that their importance is equal to
that of any other caucus.
Hoag stated some of them have a much better tax base.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, 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
Nelson stated the Council of the Whole, not the Finance Committee, should
evaluate the applications.
Brenner agreed.
Nelson stated this is an important element of the entire planning process.
The Council needs to support it or they are doomed.
Brenner asked to agree that there are two or three months to get the
applications in. Roll stated the applications would be in by December 15. The
caucuses have already worked on budgets and are aware of the process. He is
willing to take his holiday and screen the applications for accuracy. He can bring it
to the Council at the first of the year.
Hoag suggested that the caucuses request what they need for the year so
they can plan around that. The Council can review it after three months. Roll
stated he would like to have a trial period of three months to see how the funds are
being used. At that time, they can evaluate it. At that time, the Council could also
see where it stands in terms of the $50,000. The language as stated now, "in the
event that additional funds are needed, a supplemental budget request may be
made" is so that the Council would have the opportunity to gauge if the programs
are working. The worst case scenario is a request for $360,000. He didn't know if
they would even get close to that.
Brenner stated they have to keep an open mind.
Hoag asked if her proposal addressed Mr. Roll's concern. Roll stated that he
needed guidance on what amount to tell the caucuses is available for the year.
Hoag stated they've designated $50,000 for the year. That would be the
appropriate amount to bring to the caucuses. If the Council determines the caucus
needs more after a few months, the Council could look at that.
Brenner stated that the message should be that the budget is $50,000, and
there is a potential for supplemental budget requests in the future if they can show
a good case. She was nervous about the caucuses doing a budget for the year.
She suggested doing a trial period for three months, tell the caucuses that the
amount for the year is $50,000. The Council could judge the caucuses by what
they used and how efficiently they used what they requested.
Roll suggested that $15,000 to $20,000 be available for the first few months
and then do an evaluation.
Monsen stated they want to make the message clear about whether or not
the $50,000 is a firm amount. He's heard that it is firm to a point. A supplemental
budget request would be considered, but there is no suggestion of what would allow
consideration of a supplemental budget request. He questioned whether the limit
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, 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
of $50,000 is for the trial period, or do they limit amount available in the trial
period to less than $50,000.
Hoag stated they have to be careful about sending the message that there is
supplemental money. If the Council sends out a message that there is $50,000
available and that they would consider more under a supplemental budget request,
then they are not saying anything other than there is money available. If the
Council wants to keep within $50,000, but are also willing to look at needs over
that, then don't send that message ahead of time. Review the proposals when they
come in, not before then.
Nelson asked what Mr. Roll perceived as a legitimate need by the caucuses.
Roll stated there is a mix of needs, such as getting information back in the hands of
caucuses and making sure the caucuses are functioning the way they intended.
Make a process in which the technical information is getting into the caucuses so
the caucuses can see that their particular concerns are being addressed in the
technical assessment and other phases of the process. Some caucuses are saying
they need technical support. Some are saying they need clerical support. Others
just need a body to attend and bring the information back to the caucus.
Nelson asked if $50,000 is a reasonable amount for a year. Roll stated he
didn't know.
Monsen stated that once they begin paying for billable hours, they could
quickly go well beyond $50,000. The costs of basic administrative support are
within the $50,000. It's about the number of hours they are willing to reimburse,
and for what types of services.
Nelson asked if the grant application could be geared toward the
administrative support. Other applications for caucus support would go through a
different process, and the Council would have to look at each individually in a
supplemental budget request. Monsen stated that when they conceived of the
amount of $50,000, it was for administrative support, not billable hours.
Nelson stated that is a separate issue, and those have to come forward as
supplemental budget requests individually and based on very strong criteria. He
would separate those out from this process. They need hard information from the
caucuses about why they need it. He also suggested an agreement by the Planning
Unit on appropriate needs to evaluate the data. There is a tremendous amount of
information coming before the caucuses. The Planning Unit should determine what
is appropriate collectively and what the Council can look at.
Hoag stated there is some validity to that, but that would tie the caucuses'
hands somewhat. Some caucuses have administrative support pretty well covered.
Give the caucus the money and allow it to decide what it wants to spend the money
on.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, 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
Nelson stated that if the Council is stuck on $50,000 per year, then so be it.
He was concerned that there are two separate issues.
Roll read from the eligible expenses in the policy: 1) administration 2)
facilities for caucus meetings, and 3) development of public information and
education material for caucuses. Those are the three eligible categories.
Nelson stated he didn't know if those resources are necessary, and no one at
that table has the ability to second guess whether those resources are necessary.
Brenner stated the private well owner caucus is made up of one woman with
no expertise.
Nelson stated he couldn't discern what is necessary for each group. They
need to address the administrative end. Information needs to be delivered to the
caucuses and staffing is needed for their meetings.
Hoag stated that is where they were a year ago.
McShane stated the application would take care of one aspect of the
involvement and outreach. They should go with this for an interim period to assess
how it is working for four months. There is another concern about the technical
support that should be treated separately. Don't clutter the application and funding
with the need for technical support. That particular problem should be looked at
separately. Spreading technical information may be something they want to do,
but it will not be full participation.
Roll recommended keeping it separate. The majority of members are looking
more for administrative help. Only two or three are asking for technical support.
An independent peer review committee is being developed. There is an enormous
amount of technical ability coming in through the governments and other entities.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Brenner stated that if they just evaluate how they are using the money, they
would be comparing apples to apples. If there are caucuses screaming for technical
support, let them make a separate case for it.
Hoag questioned whether, if adopted as it is, the policy precludes the
caucuses from using the money for something other than administrative support.
McShane stated the Council would evaluate these and make that decision. It
isn't out of the Council's hands. If the Council feels that the application is a good
way for the caucus to spend its money, then the Council can approve it.
Roll stated he encouraged the groups with technical questions to go into the
technical teams.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, 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
Hoag questioned whether adopting the policy the way it is precludes a caucus
from using their money for technical support if it would rather do that.
Gibson stated the ultimate decision is the Council's.
Hoag stated that if it doesn't matter, the draft looked good to her.
Roll asked the councilmembers to tell him what he would say regarding the
amounts the caucuses are directed to ask for. He heard consensus for a four -
month trial period in which the use would be evaluated.
Dawson stated the money would be distributed according to the three
criteria, based on need.
Roll stated he would say there is $50,000 in the budget to be available
immediately and will be evaluated in four months.
Hoag asked if that provides the message that the caucuses can have up to
$50,000 in four months. Roll stated he would have to be silent on that.
Dawson stated the $50,000 is for the entire year of 2001. Requests for
technical support will be reviewed outside the process to access the $50,000.
Monsen questioned whether the Council was saying that there is not a
$5,000 limitation per caucus because there is some evaluation done, but on the
other hand, no caucus should expect $40,000 out of the $50,000. He did not
suggest this language in the written form, but once asked the question. A third
point is that, while a four -month period is one -third of the year, don't expect more
than $50,000 for the year.
Dawson asked if they want to develop an application for the technical
aspects.
The committee concurred to not include the technical support in the
application.
Hoag stated she wouldn't even bring it up with the caucuses.
Nelson stated the Planning Unit needs to evaluate what type of technical
support the caucuses need and can use.
Hoag stated that if they put out the message that the Council will review
requests for technical support separately, then they are not likely to take
advantage of some of the resources that Mr. Roll mentioned, such as the technical
teams and government resources.
Nelson stated the review would include that.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, 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
Brenner stated the caucus would have to make a case that the available
resources are not enough.
Hoag stated that if there was a need, it would be brought to the Council.
Nelson stated it has already been brought to the Council.
Dawson asked who did not support the idea of evaluating the need for
technical support separate from the $50,000.
Hoag stated that is a different thing. That message should not go along with
this application. Roll stated the Council should say that this process cannot be used
to fund technical support.
Nelson moved to go forward to provide immediate assistance for
administrative support as outlined in the policies, with the three to four month
review period. The technical support still needs to be evaluated through the
Planning Unit, with a full evaluation of the resources that are available.
Brenner suggested a friendly amendment that the Council is sure that it is
sufficiently taking care of the technical aspects.
Nelson stated that would happen after they have gone through this process.
He accepted the friendly amendment.
Motion carried 4 -1 with Hoag opposed.
Monsen stated that they would do what they can to have it ready for
January, but it may be February to bring back an updated financial projection with
regard to the Water Resource fund budget as it relates to the watershed project.
As they adopted the budget for 2001, they said they are dipping into the fund
balance further than what, at that moment, was appropriate to finance the
watershed project. However, they need to get better information on timing and
actual expense on a project, and put together a financial plan for the next two to
three years. They need to have some discussion on that in February. He would
have that ready for the February Water Resources work session.
Hoag stated that, regarding the vote, she supported the funding, but they
are being less flexible than she liked to be.
Roll stated he would ask for the applications on the December 15 so he
would have time to review them during the Council break.
WRIA Stage II Water Rights Review Proposal
Roll stated the Council approved the work identified for stage II of the water
rights assessment. Caucus members at the Planning Unit meeting made additional
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, 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
comments. He expected that this would go back to the Planning Unit next week.
He brought the changes forward to the County Council. They are slight changes.
John Sproul, Watershed Program Specialist, stated the document is a revised
version from what the Council approved a month ago. At the last Planning Unit
meeting, caucus members wanted to get together with the water rights review
team to clarify a few points. He introduced Ann Adkinson, who is a member of the
water rights review team.
Roll stated Ms. Adkinson is one of the two employees hired by the Public
Utility District (PUD) for the WRIA process.
Brenner stated there is a water quality technical team. There is also a
contractor. She questioned who is on the water quality technical team. Sproul
stated he is on the water quality technical team, along with David Davidson from
the small cities, Pat Jones from the Building Industry Association (BIA), and others.
Roll stated he would provide the list of members.
Brenner stated these people recommended staying with the PUD, and they
didn't discuss any of the Council's needs. Sproul stated Pat Jones, who volunteered
that recommendation, brought it up. There was a consensus vote to consider it.
Brenner asked if there was any discussion about the Council's concerns.
Sproul stated there was discussion. The concern was related to a conflict of
interest. They found no evidence of such conflict of interest.
Brenner stated this is all about people voluntarily telling the PUD what their
water rights are. Few people are going to volunteer to give that information to the
PUD. Sproul stated it is voluntary and education oriented.
Nelson asked why the language in the document was changed. Sproul stated
there was clarification on the word "voluntary." The emphasis is on what would
take place. They inform the individuals about their water rights and the
opportunities for water rights review.
Ann Adkinson, Public Utility District, stated those are the key changes made
by the folks who met at the Planning Unit on November 7. The substantive
changes were about finding the water rights not used and that people don't want to
use, so they could get those rights off the books. There are a lot of paper numbers
that may or may not be real. She would go after the water rights that look like
they are not being used. Regarding the voluntary nature, she would show up at the
house after sending a letter. She would bring paperwork on the water right. Some
people view her contact as a service. If volunteered, she would assess with the
owner whether the right is used. If the owner wants to contribute information
about present use, she would record that information. For people who don't
understand their water rights, the information provided is clear information about
what the law is.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, 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
Nelson asked if she would ask whether the owner is aware of the water right
and what can be used. Adkinson stated that was correct. She would go over the
elements of the water right.
Brenner asked if the volunteers would ask how the water is used and
determine whether it is allowed. Adkinson stated the owner could voluntarily
disclose his or her use.
Brenner stated people are scared about having their water rights taken away
or infringed upon. Adkinson stated that by starting with the unused and least
controversial water rights, she hoped to find water to give to someone else. They
have to get that information in the community.
Dawson stated the Council already agreed to let the PUD do this.
Brenner stated the Council has not approved the PUD to do the work for
stage II. Sproul stated that, for this item, they need clarification on what work
would be done, but not by whom.
Roll stated the next item would be about who does the work.
Brenner asked if they could contract with someone else, and why it has to be
the PUD.
Hoag stated the information they are obtaining, such as current use or
location, is not in current records. The public is concerned that the information can
be used against them, particularly in terms of proposed legislation that water rights
are lost if they are not used.
Brenner stated that provision is on the books now.
Hoag questioned whether there is any privacy associated with this in
anonymous terms. Adkinson stated they are sensitive to this issue. They are
working through scenarios on how it would be implemented. They have looked at
disclaimer language. The first thing to say to the water right owner is that
whatever the owner says is public information, so the owner should be careful of
what he or she says. It is difficult for her to record something, and not disclose it
because it is public information.
Hoag asked if there is a way to set up the process to protect that
information. They could be helpful to the water users by educating them on their
water rights and on the options that are available. They would get more
cooperation from people if they feel they are protected. It is their obligation to
protect those people. Adkinson stated that if they don't record the information,
there is nothing that could be disclosed. If there are legal parameters where they
don't have to disclose something that they've recorded, then they are open to doing
that. They haven't gotten to that level of detail because they haven't gotten the
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, 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
policy approved. Right now, they are erring on the side of not recording the
information.
Hoag stated she needed to keep a record to be effective. In other fields, one
could gather confidential records. Adkinson stated she could release the
information in an anonymous aggregate. That part is simple. However, if someone
volunteers information that is recorded, it has to be disclosed.
Hoag questioned legal counsel about whether they could do that.
Gibson stated they've struggled with this. When he sees a parcel specific
rendition of the information, he gets nervous from a public disclosure standpoint.
In the course of gathering public information, if the information is recorded on a
parcel specific basis, it will be discoverable. They've talked about various
mechanisms to achieve the goal of finding out whether there is enough water
without doing it on a parcel specific basis. They've said they would only do it on a
parcel specific basis with full information given to the person that it could be
publicly disclosed.
Hoag stated she didn't like that. Gibson stated he didn't either, but it is the
law.
Hoag stated the person may not understand the full impacts of what he or
she says. She questioned whether there is a method to make it so it could not be
publicly disclosed. Gibson stated the method would be to not record it on a
document. What could be disclosed is the document or the recorded information.
If the information is simply noted and recorded in the aggregate, then there would
be a break in the chain.
Hoag asked if there was any way to protect the information on an individual,
parcel basis if it was recorded. Gibson stated no.
Brenner stated people are nervous about disclosing information. The PUD
wants more water rights. This was the stage in which it would become more
sensitive. That is why the PUD should not oversee this. It needs to be an entity or
private contractor that is seen as not having a vested interest. The PUD has a
vested interest. She was not concerned about the contractor. She was concerned
about who is in charge. If something gets out when people have provided
information they thought was confidential, and the people discover that the PUD is
in charge, there will be heck to pay. It bothers her that this whole thing could be
thwarted based on who was in charge.
Roll stated there are two proposals. The one they are discussing now is what
they are doing in phase II. The second proposal is about who does phase II. He
suggested concentrating on what they are going to do. The Council was
comfortable with what was written. There were slight modifications. He needed to
go back to the Planning Unit with the Council's collective guidance on what is going
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, 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
to be done. That is what they are discussing now. Next is the discussion on who
would do it.
Dawson stated these three stages have been outlined before.
Sproul stated the Council approved the essence of the work last month. This
version just clarifies that it is more voluntary and is more explicit about the
education. They need to get at what water rights are available and not being used.
They need to keep pursuing the right way.
Dawson stated that with the PUD doing this, they've developed the contacts
and rapport, which is important. As they get into stage III, they can't have the
PUD do stage III. Maybe they shouldn't have the PUD for stage II if they can't have
them for stage III.
Hoag stated a there is a parcel map showing the location of source and use
of the different water rights. They should be able to gather the information. They
need to gather the information, but need to protect these people. That is not what
they are approving in this document. They are talking about gathering the
information and putting it on the map for the world to see. They need to have
balance between assessing what water is out there, and protecting people's
privacy.
Dawson asked how to do that and end up with information they can share.
Hoag stated they have to find some way to protect the original parcel specific
information. The other information could be published in the aggregate. Sproul
stated that if they use parcel specific information to aggregate up, it is still
discoverable.
Hoag stated there has to be a way.
Gibson stated they've spun through a number of scenarios. They've talked
about recording it in the aggregate rather than specific to a parcel. However, that
does not accomplish a way to tighten the noose, so to speak.
Adkinson stated the way the water rights are recorded is in the original
owner's name, from the 1940's or 1950's. The name in the file is the original
owner's name. The locations only go down to the quarter - quarter section. On the
certificate, which is public information, it says where the well is located. That well
location is measured to the foot on the certificate in the water right file, which is
public information. For the volunteer to determine whom the current owner is in
order to locate the well, they have to locate the well on a parcel map and then look
up the assessor data to find out who the current owner is, which also public
information. That is how they envision doing this. She didn't know how to hide
that.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, 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
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Hoag stated she didn't have any problem with that part. From there,
proceed to go to information that is not in the public record right now, which is the
amount of water the owner is using and whether and if it has been moved to a new
sight. Adkinson stated the easiest way to avoid that is to simply not record it.
Hoag stated they could record it in the aggregate. People are not sensitive
about what information shows that they have a water right.
Brenner asked the problem with recording it in the aggregate. Adkinson
stated she would have to retain the information in her head. She could note only
that the place of use was moved, for example.
Dawson stated a move would not affect the water right. Gibson stated it
requires a legal approval to properly transfer a water right. Recording in the
aggregate is a practical difficulty. They are dealing with thousands. If they record
in the aggregate, the question is how to procedurally keep track of whom they've
talked to. As soon as they start providing identifying information, that is where it
becomes discoverable.
Dawson stated the ultimate goal is to find out who has valid rights and who
doesn't.
Hoag questioned whether there is a way to make the field notes confidential.
Gibson stated that if a person acts as an agent of the government, the information
would be discoverable. They have thought about collecting the information
privately, but that is a question of credibility. They've wrestled with this and seen
this problem emerge before, where there have been guarantees of confidentiality,
but a government agency has pulled the plug on that.
Brenner asked how a government agency could do it privately. Gibson
stated a user group would collect the information and then provide it to the
government, but there would be a question of credibility, or how good the
information is.
Brenner asked what happens if the County hired someone. Gibson stated it
remains public.
Hoag asked if there is a change in the law that would make this doable.
Gibson stated the state government and possibly the federal government would
have to provide an exception for information gleaned in a process such as this. It
wouldn't happen.
Dawson stated the bottom line is that they have to find out who has valid
water rights. People will have an option to address that by transferring rights.
Hoag stated some people don't want to give up the water that they aren't
using. Adkinson stated the person could be silent on that.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, Page 24
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
Hoag stated the language in the document says, "water rights that do not
appear to be in use will be field checked." Adkinson stated those are the ones they
are looking at first. Because the sorting process is not perfect, they are going to
stumble into some that are being used during this first go- around. The initial goal
is to go to the ones that do not look like they are being used. Inevitably, they will
run into some that are used.
Craig MacConnell, Cooperative Extension, stated he has been talking to
people about water rights for at least a dozen years. He hears continuously
anecdotal pledges that various public agencies have given people about information
on water. He was very concerned that if they do it verbally, the individual property
owners would be at risk by divulging this information. He was concerned about
how to communicate to them about what their risks are. He was concerned that if
they inform the property owners verbally, there will be no record that they have
been informed accurately and to what limit, so they can choose to voluntarily
divulge information.
Dawson asked how to educate the farmers. MacConnell stated communicate
what their risks are in writing, and that should be the only form of information
given about their risks.
Brenner asked Mr. MacConnell about the kind of buy off he would expect.
MacConnell stated it depends on what the property owners are told and what they
believe. If one person volunteers information that puts him or her at risk based on
misinformation, then he was concerned.
Nelson stated Mr. MacConnell wanted a Miranda Act for water rights.
MacConnell stated that the agricultural caucus is going to put forward a
recommendation, based on this proposal, asking the legislature for dispensation for
divulging this information. Their approach is the understanding of the real risks to
property owners.
Sproul stated Henry Bierlink is on the quantity technical team that is engaged
and aware of where this is at. They have been engaged.
Hoag stated that at this stage, the volunteers are just looking for the obvious
things that aren't being used. However, item four of what they are approving says
that owners would be asked to voluntarily verify the actual location of the source,
the place of the use, the purpose of the use, and the quantity and duration of the
use. After that, they will be mapped. That is a part of what they are being asked
to approve right now.
Dawson moved that part of the approval of stage II be subject to a Miranda
of rights for water rights identifying the risk in writing, and that the farmer signs it.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, Page 25
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
Brenner stated they are talking about having the farmers trust this process.
The farmers will not trust it wholeheartedly. It is not going to be trusted, and they
will have little bang for the buck.
Dawson stated Mr. MacConnell was saying that the water rights owners need
to be educated on the risks and that they need to have something in writing.
Brenner disagreed. Mr. MacConnell said they could make an informed
decision. Letting the owners know of the risks doesn't mean they are going to trust
it.
McShane asked where they are in the process on this. If the agricultural
caucus has an issue, they can raise it at that time. The agricultural caucus could
stop the whole thing if the WRIA process is consensus driven. Roll stated that is
correct. He was seeking consensus to proceed to the next phase. If any one of the
18 caucuses is not supportive, then it doesn't go forward and they rework the
pieces.
McShane stated that the agricultural caucus has already discussed this. It
still may have an opportunity to have issues. Sproul stated that was correct.
Hoag stated Engrossed Substitute House Bill (ESHB) 2514 had a portion in it
that was consensus driven and a portion that was by majority vote. She thought
the farmers were only required to have a majority vote.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Roll stated the process by which the Planning Unit operates and moves
forward, based on its process and procedure document, is that all of the contracts
have to have consensus of the entire group. That is what they've operated on for
the last year. The legislation refers to the actual plan adoption and the decision -
making process for doing that and the instream flow piece. At no time during the
course of the last year have they had a situation that had gone to a majority vote.
If this goes forward and there is not consensus support, they will go back and look
at it.
Hoag stated that, regarding the motion, none of the disclaimer should be
verbal. If they are asking for information voluntarily, the owner should be given a
written disclaimer. If the volunteers are doing an adequate job of educating the
owner as to the risks, they would not get the information that they request. She
would support that any information regarding risks be in writing.
Roll stated the document represents what input people have given. To add
things, it will have to be rerouted through the caucuses. If the Council doesn't
support the approval, he would need to work on the pieces that so the groups can
discuss them.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, Page 26
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 this leaves water right holders very vulnerable. If the owners
are adequately informed of the risks, they would not be able to obtain the
information they need. Approving this should be contingent on having protection
for water rights holders. When the protection is in place, the information will not be
used against the holder. They will then have a good chance of getting the
information they need. Farmers in her area will not give any information based on
this document.
Adkinson says that if the farmers don't provide information, then she would
move on to the next one. It would be the end of the conversation.
Hoag stated it goes beyond that. They have a responsibility to not put
people in that position. Adkinson stated that she could still provide the water right
holder the information in the file.
Brenner stated she would not support the motion because they are not going
to get much out of it, and it would cost them a lot of money to go ahead with this.
No one with water rights would voluntarily say they are not using the water and
also believe that the information couldn't get out to someone. They are not going
to get much response. Instead, send out a letter to the holder requesting them to
call if they don't want to use the right. Adkinson stated that was one of the ideas
they discussed on how to collect the information. All those ideas are not included
in the document.
Brenner stated do that first to see what kind of response they would get.
She was not ready or comfortable okaying the entire process.
Dawson restated the motion to approve a Miranda of rights for water rights
in writing, and signed by the owner.
Roll stated he heard that they Council wants to add something to the current
document.
Nelson stated the only motion on the floor is to accept the draft from the
Planning Unit.
Dawson stated her motion is not an amendment to the draft, but the Council
would want the information put in writing.
Nelson moved to approve the stage II water rights review document as
presented.
Hoag stated that this keeps coming up over and over in the WRIA process,
because they end up with documents that start somewhere and then come to the
Council. By the time they come to the Council, the Council is told that everyone
else agreed and it must agree or else it would have to go all the way back through
the process. She didn't care if it had to go back through the process. They are a
member of this process. If Councilmember Dawson proposed an amendment to it,
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, Page 27
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
the Council can pass the amendment and then the item has to go back to see if the
other members agree to it. It is not an un- amendable document. It doesn't have
to be simply thumbs up or thumbs down.
Roll stated he was hearing that there needs to be some work brought back to
the agencies regarding the confidentiality issue and strategy involved.
McShane stated Mr. Roll was hearing that in the discussion, but had not
gotten a majority vote saying that was his direction.
Nelson stated he was trying to get at the process. He would not vote on an
amendment until he knew what the Council's stand is on the document as
proposed.
them.
Dawson stated they always make amendment to things before they adopt
Nelson stated there needs to be a motion for consideration.
Dawson restated Councilmember Nelson's motion for consideration of the
document as presented. Her motion is an amendment to Councilmember Nelson's
motion. She restated her motion to amend the document by creating a Miranda of
rights for water rights in writing and signed by the water rights owner.
Nelson stated he would rather request an evaluation of the protection of the
agricultural rights, whether through a Miranda of rights or other system. Many
alternatives have been discussed. The amendment should be that there should be
a better evaluation of the rights and protection of the water right owners. He
supported the concept; he was the one who brought up the Miranda concept. He
was not sure that was the only mechanism, and he wanted it to be fully evaluated.
Hoag stated she wanted to make sure that anything that goes forward has at
least this. She agreed that more needs to be evaluated, but the motion to amend
should be reflected in the document.
Dawson restated her motion that the Miranda of rights identifies in writing
where the risks are, and that the owner signs the Miranda of rights.
McShane stated that the agricultural caucus is part of WRIA. If they have
any concern about this, they have the people in place to express their concern. The
Council is being too specific. Send a message, unrelated to this particular scope of
work, which may get changed by the agricultural caucus, that the Council is
supportive of whatever the agricultural caucus wants. They know this issue and
have a better handle on their concerns than the councilmembers.
Brenner stated Mr. MacConnell made his concerns known, and she believed
that Mr. MacConnell speaks for many of the farmers. The Council has a right to
have its concerns.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, Page 28
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 that farmers are also represented on the County Council, which
is supposed to represent the farmers' interests. It is not just the farmers that are
concerned about this vulnerability of water rights. The water associations have
expressed concerns about it, as have a number of other people. They are talking
about going forward with the program right now and supporting the program with
funds. The manner in which the Council does that shoots themselves in the foot. It
is unlikely that they will be able to collect the same quantity and quality of
information by going forward without this type of protection for people. The motion
is just to say that the risks are put down in writing before people volunteer any
information. She supported that. Separately, she didn't support this document
going forward at this time until the vulnerability issue is resolved. Regarding the
motion, the change needs to be included before it is even considered.
Dawson stated that if there is any idea that water rights wouldn't be messed
with, in her situation at Sandy Point, all the information was exposed. The
association was told to cut back on its water use. When the association cut back by
one - third, it lost that portion of its water right. Now, there is not enough water to
serve the entire community. It is happening. She questioned whether the
agricultural caucus brought up any of these concerns. MacConnell stated he was
not a member of any caucus. He just relayed the history of his connection in the
community as the water rights issue became more and more apparent. There are
legitimate and real risks to water right owners by divulging information. As they go
about this process, the people need to be accurately informed about those risks and
there needs to be a way to ensure that everyone gets complete and factual
information about those risks.
Motion to amend carried 4 -1 with McShane opposed.
Hoag moved to insert language or put a contingency that says this would not
go forward until the issues of vulnerability and privacy for water right owners have
been resolved. Roll stated he was able to go before them and say that the issue
needs to be addressed before it has the Council's support.
Brenner stated she supported the motion, but not the process until they
know who would be in charge of the process. She didn't want to vote on this until
they determine who is going to be in charge. She would not support this at all if
the PUD is in charge.
Hoag stated she would withdraw her motion if Councilmember Brenner
wanted to make another motion first. She wanted Councilmember Brenner to
support her motion, so she asked that the Chair take up the issue of the PUD prior
to the resolution of this motion.
(Continued below)
WRIA Stage II Water Rights Proposed Contractor
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, Page 29
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
Brenner moved that the PUD would be excluded as the lead agency.
Dawson stated that if the protections are in place, she didn't have any
concerns about the lead agency.
Sproul stated that the quantity technical team, when it authored this, found
no evidence to suggest that the existing contractors are doing anything but a
professional job.
Brenner stated it is not about the contractors. It is about the lead agency.
Roll stated that the role of the technical teams is to bring recommendations
to the Planning Unit about who does the work in a particular area. They've done
that review per the guidance of that document. Before the Council is the Water
Quantity Technical Team's recommendation for the proposed contractor.
Sproul stated that Pat Jones made that recommendation.
Brenner stated that no one on the technical team understood how
controversial this issue was.
Dawson stated that there are protections in place.
Brenner stated people are going to see the PUD doing this and are not going
to volunteer information to the PUD, because the PUD may want the owners' water
rights in the future.
Hoag stated the concern is legitimate in terms of getting successful
cooperation of people in revealing information to the PUD. There may be a problem
there. They definitely don't want the involvement of the PUD in stage III. When
the PUD was first suggested for stage I, there were objections raised, but the
Council was told that it was just stage I, and it could be changed at stage II. Now,
they are at stage II and are hearing the same thing. She supported the motion.
Brenner restated the motion to exclude the PUD as the lead agency.
Motion failed 3 -2 for lack of Council majority with Nelson and McShane
opposed.
WRIA Stage II Water Rights Review Proposal
(Continued from above)
Hoag moved that approval of the proposal be contingent upon resolving the
vulnerability and privacy issues.
Dawson stated it may never go forward. She questioned whether it must be
at the state level.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, Page 30
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 at what level that is decided.
Hoag stated the rest of her motion was that the issues of vulnerability and
privacy be addressed to the County Council's satisfaction. Whether or not it goes
forward would depend on whether the County Council felt that this has been
adequately addressed. Things should be pursued at the state level, but the issues
could be brought back to the County Council. If the document is subject to the
issue being resolved to the Council's satisfaction, then the Council could make sure
it is adequately addressed to protect their constituents.
vote.
Brenner questioned whether it would come back to the County Council for a
Hoag stated yes.
Motion failed 2 -3 with Brenner and Hoag in favor.
Dawson stated the motion is to approve the stage II proposal.
Motion failed 3 -2 for a lack of Council majority with Brenner and Hoag
opposed.
Roll stated he would bring it forward to the Council at its November 28
Natural Resources Committee and Committee of the Whole, so he can get clear
direction. The next Planning Unit meeting is the night after the Council meeting.
Hoag stated that the additional people on the Council who would be voting
would not be privy to this discussion. There is a problem procedurally with that.
Roll stated he looked to their guidance.
Hoag stated there is a problem procedurally with bringing an issue before the
Council when it didn't have adequate support, because more councilmembers would
be present.
Dawson stated that is what they have to do.
Hoag stated that it did not pass the Council, and it should go back to the
Planning Unit with their concerns. The people who did not come to the meeting and
were not privy to the discussion should not be suddenly given the opportunity to
vote. There is something wrong.
Brenner stated the item died at the work session.
Hoag stated it died due to a lack of support of the people who were present
at the work session and had the information.
Dawson stated a 3 -2 vote is still a majority.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, Page 31
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 any official action of the Council has to have four votes. It died.
It should go back to the Planning Unit with the Council's concerns.
Nelson questioned how it could go back to the Planning Unit. There are no
concerns. Nothing came out of this. A majority of the Council did not express
those concerns. If they can't take it back to the Council, then they can't take it to
the Planning Unit.
Hoag stated there was a majority that expressed concerns about vulnerability
and risk, which is why the amendment that Councilmember Dawson passed by a
majority.
Nelson stated the motion to bring this forward failed. There were not enough
votes. If they can't bring it to the Council, they can't bring it to the Planning Unit.
Hoag stated she wasn't bringing it back to the Planning Unit. It goes back
with an expression of concern about why it didn't pass.
McShane stated he would put it before the Natural Resources Committee as
an action item.
Dawson questioned whether they would rather take action in Committee of
the Whole.
Hoag stated that there are inherent problems with the personnel on the
Council and the meetings that they attend. For instance, Bob Imhof has not been
present at this meeting, and she guaranteed that he would not be at the Natural
Resources Committee. When he comes to vote in the evening, he will have no
information on which to vote.
Nelson stated Councilmember Imhof has the information presented in the
work session packet.
Hoag stated that information does not address any of their concerns.
Brenner stated it is politics and that's the way it is.
WRIA I Decision Support Worksheet
Roll stated they have the WRIA decision support worksheet. This is a
worksheet they are using in the community to ask questions they need to have
answered through the technical assessment pieces. He asked that the
councilmembers look it over during the next few weeks and touch base with staff.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, Page 32
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
4. WHATCOM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2001 UPDATE
Roll stated he hoped to have this item scheduled in the Natural Resources
Committee next week. He provided the updated document. They will discuss the
status of the Comprehensive Water Resource Plan. The update addresses what
they did do last year and what they expect to do next year. The water team will
make a presentation.
Nelson asked for an electronic version of the document. Roll stated he didn't
have the electronic version. He could make that a goal for next year.
Monsen stated that if they can get that done, they would do it.
OTHER ITEMS
Dawson questioned whether there was any concern about the scheduled
work session meeting dates for the next year.
The Council concurred that the dates were okay.
Dawson questioned whether they had the discussion about whether to
schedule the previous item regarding the water rights review proposal in
Committee of the Whole or the Natural Resources Committee.
Nelson stated it is up to the Chair.
Brenner stated she attended the water meeting the other night. She asked
not to see another meeting like that. It was a dysfunctional meeting. The
presentations could have been in writing. The only thing they needed the meeting
for was the one vote, which took five minutes. She was upset that Regina Delahunt
presented incomplete information and did not have the paperwork for it. She'd
asked before to have a hard copy of anything that is put up on a screen.
Everything that was presented was something they could have gotten in writing.
Her time is valuable.
Dawson stated that everything could be in writing.
Brenner stated that the answer to all the questions they asked of Ms.
Delahunt was that she didn't have all the information because it wasn't out.
Dawson stated the information wasn't out.
Brenner stated that she shouldn't have been giving a presentation.
Nelson stated it was called an update. Ms. Delahunt received questions from
the Council. He thought the update was great.
Dawson stated she also thought it was good.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, Page 33
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
Brenner stated she would not go to one of those meetings again unless she
knew for sure that complete information would be provided.
Goodwin stated they talked about that at the water team. The idea was that
the Council would hear it from staff before reading it in the Bellingham Herald.
Brenner stated that was fine. Put it in writing. She didn't need a
presentation when she couldn't have her questions answered.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 1:30 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on January 9 , 2001.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 11/21/2000, Page 34