HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources October 17 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
Whatcom County Council
Special Water Resources Work Session
October 17, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 8:35 a.m. by Council Chair Marlene
Dawson in the Whatcom County Courthouse Multipurpose Room, 311 Grand
Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner Connie Hoag
L. Ward Nelson Bob Imhof
Dan McShane
Sam Crawford
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2000 -070)
1. WRIA PLANNING
WRIA Caucus Support
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Manager, stated that last July he was directed
by the County Council to seek input from caucus members to get information on
their monetary needs to continue in the WRIA planning process. From that
spawned a number of individual requests. In addition, Planning Unit members got
together to sort through the proposals and come forward with a unified proposal
that the Planning Unit could consider as a whole. That proposal was presented in a
draft during the previous Water Resources work session. It was more formally
approved at the last Planning Unit. He abstained from that vote. At the time the
proposal came forward, many Planning Unit members wanted to speak to the
Council directly on the need for caucus support.
Crawford questioned whether a staff member from the Executive office would
be present. Roll stated they have been invited.
Nelson stated he would like to hear from the caucuses.
Skip Richards, Community Water Associations Caucus member, stated he
would like to have information entered in the record by asking staff some
questions. The Initiating Governments created this planning unit structure, which
include the two tribes, Public Utility District (PUD) 1, the County, and the City of
Bellingham. It was created prior to Bruce Roll's arrival in the County. The private
water resources interests are represented in the caucuses. Those interests were
told that they have to organize themselves and either participate or not participate.
That structure was imposed upon the interests. Roll agreed. At that point, it was
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 10/17/2000, 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
created by the Initiating Governments, and driven through by the state legislation,
which identified a caucus -type structure.
Richards stated that, in terms of identifying the parties, the correct folks are
at the table. There aren't any groups that have been missed. Roll stated that they
have the major groups that are involved with water resource issues in Whatcom
County. He hadn't observed any groups or individuals that have not been
recognized. A lot of work went into identifying those areas. At this point, they are
in good shape.
Richards stated the process is set up so that competing interests have to
come together and collaborate, while maintaining their own interests. The planning
unit meeting takes about two hours a month, and the Planning Unit has to process
a certain number of documents. The subcommittees deal with the technical issues.
Roll stated there were five established technical teams that serve as a conduit
between caucus interest groups and also the technical work.
Richards explained that there is participation in the technical teams, where
the bulk of the work gets done. The Planning Unit meetings only look at the
technical work and make decisions about it. The real work gets done in the
technical teams. The governments that are participating have paid professional
staff people attending these meetings. Some of the caucuses haven't participated
at all. Roll stated their attendance has been sporadic. By and large, the
attendance has been by the governments and the state Department of Ecology.
Crawford questioned which meetings the caucus members have not been
involved. Richards stated they have not attended the technical meetings.
Crawford questioned whether the point is that there are more government
people attending who are paid, as opposed to the caucus participation in the
technical aspect. Richards stated that was correct. The government and agency
staffs outweigh the caucus members.
Dawson questioned whether there was an expectation that the public would
be involved. Roll stated that was the expectation. One of the reasons the technical
teams evolved was because the Planning Unit had an enormous amount of work to
do. There needed to be a conduit for shepherding the interests into the
development of the plans and technical assessment pieces. That collective group
of technical teams' membership is comprised of the Initiating Governments, the
DOE, and caucus members who also want to participate. To this date, meeting
frequency is at least once per week or every other week.
Kathy Bovencamp, Land Use Caucus member, explained that some of the
technical teams meet two days per week. Technical teams require the participation
of people with professional technical expertise, such as engineers. The Land Use
Caucus is the only caucus that has consistently participated in the technical team
on a regular basis. No other caucus groups are participating at that level. That is
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 10/17/2000, Page 2
1 the groundwork for their entire management plan. If you don't sit on those
2 technical teams, you don't participate in this process in any meaningful level.
3
4 Richards continued to state that there is work done by the technical teams.
5 Something comes before the Planning Unit people who aren't able to process this
6 information because they don't understand it. That slows the entire process down.
7 The Watershed Management Act says that the caucuses are supposed to have the
8 opportunity, in a fair and equitable manner, to give input and direction to the
9 process. The act further requires that the planning process be undertaken as
10 expeditiously as possible, with the focus being on local stakeholders cooperating to
11 meet local needs. He questioned whether the current situation meets those
12 statutory requirements, and if it is fair and equitable when there are technical
13 professionals. The Planning Unit is making decisions that have impacts on their
14 constituents. In effect, they are acting like a council. The Planning Unit is like the
15 water council of Whatcom County. They are playing a similar role in what Whatcom
16 County does, in deliberating and making decisions that will affect their constituents.
17 The way the planning process and management plan is supposed to come forward
18 is that the Planning Unit is supposed to approve a plan and then take it to the
19 County Council. If Planning Unit members are not up to speed once a plan is near
20 ready, then the entire planning process is at risk. Roll stated the intent throughout
21 this process is to acquire incremental buy -offs as they design this plan, so that by
22 the time they get to the plan, it is not a new, novel thing that is popping up in
23 Whatcom County. Instead, it would be something that is pervasive, understood,
24 and supported. Certainly having all of the groups sponsored in this process helps
25 achieve that incremental buy -off. If a significant number of the caucus groups left
26 the table, they are running the risk of whether the plan will be developed to meet
27 their interests and whether the plan would be supported during implementation.
28
29 Richard stated that the way this is designed by the state act and the way this
30 process is going, this isn't a plan that will be a bunch of rules and regulations. It is
31 going to require the active engagement of all the interests that have been sitting at
32 this table for the plan to be implemented. Even if the plan is passed, it could fall on
33 its face if those parties have not been actively engaged in the process of
34 development, understand it, and support it so they can voluntarily undertake the
35 measures that the plan will require.
36
37 Roll stated that this group would have to ultimately decide whether it
38 represents the constituency and interests of the constituency. His job is to help
39 shepherd the constituency so that the products of the WRIA planning process are
40 representative of the collective group. If they have a situation in the coming year
41 in which the agriculture interest is not represented in the water quantity
42 component, then they are going to have big problems. They are going to have
43 problems in terms of making sure the issues related to water allocation in the
44 agricultural community are addressed through alternatives to plans that are
45 malleable. It is critical to keep as many of these interests in the loop as possible.
46
47 Nelson questioned how is the plan going to be implemented, and whether it
48 would be implemented by a collaborative effort. Roll stated it would. They looked
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 10/17/2000, 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
at the case studies on where this process worked and where it hasn't. Where it
hasn't worked is where a bunch of government workers get together and try to
create something that they think represents the constituency. The other places
that have trouble is when there are groups or stakeholders that are not assured
that they represent the caucus philosophy. They have that here. Each of the
caucuses represent and are required to represent their groups. The technical
teams have to communicate and bring this information there. Otherwise, the
Planning Unit and others will spend many meetings not resolving any issues.
Steve Mach stated he is on the Diking and Drainage District Caucus and an
alternate on the Planning Unit. He participated on an ad hoc committee to develop
the initial proposal that was worked over by staff and which the Planning Unit
approved. He owns property in the County. He talked to their representative, Art
Anderson. They are supportive of this proposal. Mr. Richard's presentation sets
the stage to say that the Planning Unit approved it, for different reasons. There is a
philosophical difference. The Planning Unit is working in a way. There are folks
who have different philosophical points of view. They have to work through issues
such as public involvement and education. That is one of his caucus's concerns.
Peer review is another concern. He was not sure that the caucus system was
designed to solve all of those problems. Those are issues in the background. He
has been attending the habitat technical team. There are caucus members who are
actively involved in a technical matter. He was also concerned about funding for
education involvement, whether that would be included in this caucus support
money. There are other caucuses who look at that. Some of the caucus concerns
are related to the peer review issue, and some are related to communications.
What is important is that together, they support each other. He supported the
requests of the people who are concerned about peer review. He would like
support for education information. That represents the best of this process.
Tom Shone, President of water systems caucus, stated the caucuses are
trying to handle a tough job. His caucus, for example, is trying to represent the
interest of approximately 350 non - municipal water systems in this county, which
represents a significant portion of all of the County Council's constituents. It takes
time and money to do that properly. His caucus has been one of the most involved
since the beginning of this process. His involvement with water systems goes back
many years, through several different attempts to come up with water plans. The
county is to work out its own plan according to the legislation. The rules,
procedures, and results of the plan are not going to change the state rules and
regulations directly, because they can't. This plan is in addition to state and federal
regulations, to try to come to grips with the things in Whatcom County. That
means that they are adding an extra burden upon their own populace to come up
with a plan. It requires active, voluntary participation. It is important that people
feel they are being represented in this plan. It is important that these people be
represented, and feel that they are represented fairly and equitably. If they are not
part of the plan, they will be part of the problem later. They need to consider
supporting these caucuses. They are not going to be on a level playing field with
government, whose resources outstrip anything they have. Many of their
participants are volunteers and laypersons. They have some technical expertise.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 10/17/2000, 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
Most water systems have at least some contact with an engineering firm who are
professionals. He is a full paid business manager for a water system, so he is up to
the day -to -day activities. They have expertise available to participate on the
technical teams. They also have other obligations. They can't afford to spend the
amount of hours this takes for free. This puts them at an unfair disadvantage in
the process. That is a good reason why there has been less participation from
many of the caucuses and individuals that might otherwise be present at these
meetings.
Pat Jones, Land Use Development Caucus, stated he serves on a number of
the technical committees. Apart from the involvement and buy -off of the plans to
make them work, an important part is to develop a plan that represents technical
matters. It has a number of technical issues connected with it, and it takes
technical expertise to evaluate and offer alternatives to negotiate technically
feasible programs that will ultimately go to the Planning Unit. This year, he has a
stack of paper three feet high that he received in connection with the various
committees. There are probably two meetings per month per technical team, which
amounts to eight to ten meetings per month. They take a couple of hours each.
More significantly, there are probably as many hours spent evaluating, reviewing,
and studying the material so that participation can be meaningful. He sees the
technical teams coming forward with proposals and recommendations to the
Planning Unit. The technical teams help to drive the plan, which is a result of the
input from the public sector and the private sector, and represents an overall
positive and effective way to go about dealing with the plan. It would be a loss to
not have that input at the technical level.
Kelli Linville, State Representative, stated she wanted to hear from other
caucus members
Steve Jilk, Small Cities Caucus representative, referenced the issues of active
engagement in involvement and development of the plan and incremental buy -out,
understanding, and support. The six small cities continue to struggle with why they
play an active part in this process instead of going out on their own to handle the
same issues on a case -by -case and city -by -city basis. They know they have to be
on one of the governmental units that is going to be strategic in implementing the
plan and its effects. When the plan is adopted, the County will have to deal with
issues such as land use, water use, habitat conservation, and setbacks in terms of
zoning. He struggles with having to be at the table consistently to understand the
process. When the recommendations first begin to come out of the process, he is
going to have to stand up to the constituents and explain what is happening and
why. When this process started, the small cities were the only municipal
governments in the county that were not allowed the opportunity to be involved in
decision - making, along with the other municipal forms of government. The small
cities feel as if they've been abdicated to a lesser role because of that. It takes a
lot of effort to keep them involved. When the issue of caucus support came up, the
response he received from the six mayors was that they are going to stay at the
table and be involved because they know their responsibilities. If it comes down to
having no financial support, those small cities will find a way to stay involved.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 10/17/2000, 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
However, they see that the County and Initiating Governments have taken this
process on. There are state and county dollars being used in the process. The
mayors feel that a more appropriate way to fund and get buy -in from the broader
constituency is to have dollars coming from the County to support that effort. The
ultimate success of this process is the involvement. In two years, the Council will
have the results from the Planning Unit to take action on. If the councilmembers
know that there was a continuous engagement, involvement, support, and
participation by every caucus, then the councilmembers will be comfortable
adopting the plan. If they don't know that, the councilmembers would have a lot of
hesitation in making those decisions. The kind of money that they are talking
about in budgeting for all the caucuses is a small price to pay to make sure they've
done whatever they could to ensure that continuous involvement.
Henry Bierlink, Agriculture Caucus Member, stated they have been involved
since the beginning of the process and before. The reason they've been involved is
because they have to be and they want something to be solved. There are a lot of
issues that have been hanging over their heads, and have true implications for how
they are going to do business in the future. They are motivated to attend. They've
all had qualms about volunteering in this process, and then asking for money to
make it work. He wasn't sure that was the right thing to do. However, if they can't
get out to the people and make this watershed process one that has roots in the
community, then they are going to set up another fagade of a process and the
County Council would be faced with a plan that has minimal support. He was in
favor of the proposal. It may need some tweaking and adjusting. It will take an
investment to get the caucuses to do their jobs and communicate to their people,
getting people involved, and doing what it takes to slowly build this process. It is a
slow process, but it is starting to produce some results. They are in favor of this.
They are going to have to invest something into the caucuses so they can do their
jobs.
Bovencamp stated that, on behalf of the Land Development Caucus, they've
been involved since the Nooksack Initiative Task Force, through the Water
Resources Management Council, and now into the House Bill (HB) 2514 process.
She invited Kelli Linville and Doug Erickson to this meeting because she wanted
them to hear that this is what they consider an unfunded state mandate. The
County Council has an opportunity to tell them that they need more money for the
process that they set up. This is an incredible drain on resources. If one is not
sitting at the technical team table, then he or she had better believe that the
government is made to help the people. Her caucus does not adhere to that
philosophy. They want to sit at the table and know that the technical expertise is
representative of private industry. They are going to have peer review for this
process, and the process on the technical aspects is formulated by government
agency employees and peer reviewed by academics from Utah. Her caucus insists
that the peer review list includes Washington- based, quality engineer firms so they
know they have input from the private industry. Her caucus wants to know that
they've done what they need to in order to know that there is a safety net. They
are not covering their costs to participate. Her proposal of $30,000 is a low figure
of what it realistically costs. Her caucus members are being flooded with
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 10/17/2000, 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
paperwork. The volume of technical material is overwhelming. There is a draft
technical study coming out that is close to 82 pages of technical material. One
caucus group has already said that it doesn't have the technical expertise to
process this. That caucus is not going to endorse it. They are in a consensus -
based process on the Planning Unit. The caucuses are beginning to not approve
proposals due to lack of time.
Dawson stated that part of the problem is defining what is fair and equitable.
Bovencamp stated that if her caucus can't sit at the technical table and bring
forward its own technical expertise, it is not a fair and equitable process for them to
participate in. If she has to depend solely on government agency personnel, she is
not representing her constituents fairly.
Carl Weimer, Environmental Caucus, stated his caucus supports the proposal.
This is the quickest way to keep the process moving. Different caucuses have
different uses for the money. The concern of his caucus was that they saw the
technical teams being aware that this process was being steered by the questions
that are asked and the answers they receive. It became apparent early on that his
caucus couldn't keep up with the technical team meetings. His caucus intends to
use this money to make sure they have a representative at the technical team
meetings who can report back to his caucus. They need to answer some questions.
They are talking about obligations, participation, and involvement, which haven't
been defined. With the amount of money they are asking for, they are not going to
have an engineer or Ph.D. in water quality sitting in. It means they are going to
have a person report back to the caucus about what is going on. If their obligation
is to be able to write technical information, that isn't going to happen.
Dawson stated the proposal is for $30,000 for each caucus to be spent on
three general areas: technical team meeting involvement, office communication
support, and reimbursement of representatives for attending Planning Unit
meetings.
Nelson stated he appreciated that the legislators were there. It is
appropriate because it is not only a local issue. It is also a statewide issue. They
are dealing with all the caucuses throughout the state. He wanted to get from the
legislators an idea of how this can be approached to get total community support.
There may be other types of involvement that are being done in other areas.
Regarding this request for funding, the County Council needs to address that to
support the caucuses.
Dawson questioned whether this is the procedure to get fair and equitable
participation that is involved, or if there are other ways that communities are doing
it.
Doug Erickson, State Legislator, stated that the key issue is that this is an
unfunded mandate to private groups also. The legislature needs to address that
issue when it goes back to the table in January. It is an important issue because
they are asking people to take tax dollars and also asking them to pay the taxes
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 10/17/2000, 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
themselves. If they have a process that over - samples a certain genetic pool of
issues, ideas, and thoughts, they are going to come out with a skewed project as
the end product. They have to be careful of over - sampling methods, training, and
thought on this issue.
Linville stated it is not easy to do watershed management. Her commitment
to the local community was that if they do a command - and - control top down
approach, there is resistance on the ground because those people are not involved
and don't understand. In 1994, she passed the first Watershed Coordinating
Council bill. There was no will from the agencies to implement the bill. She was
grateful that people have taken this on. This is a complicated process, and will not
come to resolution unless the community buys into it. In 1998, the amount of
$500,000 was picked out of the air to fund each watershed. She wanted to know
how much it costs to get the product they want, so the state knows how much it
will cost to do a good job and to get people to buy into it. She hoped there would
be projections for caucus participation and other costs. Counties, cities, and private
entities are using their own funds to do some of this stuff. The state people need
to understand how much it really costs. She hears that there is a commitment to
working on this at the local level. She supported accepting recommendations from
the County Council and others about what it would cost for participation. It is clear
that there were timelines put in place. That is another issue that the County has to
deal with. They need to know when the planning process would be completed.
There needs to be a dialogue. She supported what the caucuses need.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Linville continued to state that, regarding having to work with existing
authorities, the legislature anticipated contradictions in the law, which would be
part of the responsibility of the local planning units to bring to the legislature.
Make aware the state law would need changes. If there is a state law or regulation
or rule that is standing in the way of decision - making authority, they should be
aware of that.
Brenner stated this should have taken place years ago. It didn't take long to
see that it wasn't working because it was under - funded. She questioned what the
legislature is going to give them and when they would get adequate funding.
Linville stated the legislation was set forward for four years. The amount suggested
at that time was $500,000. That amount wasn't adequate. Since the first funding,
she asked that concrete recommendations about the true cost be brought forward.
No one has given her a concrete proposal about the costs that are needed. Every
year, the state has put more money into it.
Brenner stated she hoped that the legislature bases the need on what
they've already spent. Linville stated she agreed, and that's what she's been telling
people.
Roll stated cost numbers would come forward to Representative Linville.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 10/17/2000, 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
Linville stated she needed the estimates now, not in a couple of months.
Roll stated that so far they've spent around $2 million. He would provide
estimates.
Linville stated she also needed to know how much they anticipate spending.
She needed the information in writing, and it can't be anecdotal information.
Nelson stated the caucuses have legitimate concerns. Mr. Richards talked
about maintaining continuity and the buy -in issue. He didn't like to be in an
adversarial position of the government against the private interests, when they
talked about the government outnumbering the caucuses. Government represents
the people as well as the caucuses represent interests. If the concern is that
agencies are representing their "fiefdom," it is a concern, but hopefully they are
also representing their legislative bodies. They need to find a mechanism that
makes everyone feel that they are working equally, in the same direction, and with
the same criteria. He asked about whether the education process mentioned was
for the caucuses or the public.
Bovencamp stated her caucus looks for funding for the technical support.
They have a public involvement and education team that is run by Whatcom County
government. Having the individual caucus groups go out and do public education is
a redundant use of money.
McShane stated the diking district caucus is a very diffuse group. They had
concerns about getting information to their membership. It was about the cost of
doing mailings. It is about disseminating information to their constituents.
Nelson asked how he was to explain this to his caucuses. He needed to have
someone explain it to him. Bierlink stated they want to use the money within the
caucus. The caucuses, rather than doing it in a generic way by some body, should
do the education. The caucus members need to learn from the people what they
are supposed to represent. The Agriculture Caucus would like to use the money to
foster the communication within the caucus. That takes care of all of agriculture.
They don't have the funds and energy to do it.
Nelson questioned whether they have any problem understanding the
technical aspects. Bierlink stated he disagreed with Kathy Bovencamp about
understanding most of what needs to be done. He would rely on the peer review,
the County experts, and other experts for what he doesn't understand.
Nelson stated he didn't like to set up tax resources. The County has limited
tax resources to set up separate small groups with staffing and technical expertise.
The County is also fighting a staffing issue. The County is not sending a lot of
people to the table, either. The County has to decide how to do this as a
community and staff all the needs, and be able to trust that information. The
County can't afford $86,000 for each caucus.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 10/17/2000, 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
48
Bovencamp stated the County is well represented. Hiring Bruce Roll was the
best thing the County did. She was not talking about County staff. She was talking
about agency staff with an agency agenda, which doesn't look at Whatcom County
as a whole. It is a saving grace that the final result will come to the County
Council.
McShane stated the County Council might make a decision at the end, but
the state Department of Ecology (DOE) still has to buy off on it. People need to
recognize that.
Bovencamp stated DOE is sitting at the table as a caucus. There is a great
disparity between resources in the caucus groups. That needs to be recognized.
The Diking and Drainage Caucus has $125,000 of tax dollars in their budget to go
sit at the table with technical expertise. There is a disparity on the resources that
come into the group. The Non - Municipal Water Source Caucus, and other caucuses
don't have that kind of money. The County Council needs to weigh this very
carefully. She agreed with the idea of communication within the individual caucus
groups. She didn't want individual caucuses to do broad education. That is what
Mr. Roll and his staff is for.
Nelson asked if the caucuses could collectively identify the needs. There
could be one or two individuals that represent all the caucuses in the technical
aspect, for example. Otherwise, they would buy help for all the caucuses, and that
would get pricey. Bovencamp stated that was the nature of the process. They
didn't set up HB 2514. The legislature set it up. It is a technical process. Asking
them to participate in a technical process without technical expertise isn't fair and
equitable.
Dawson stated HB 2514 was a warm fuzzy for the public. The ultimate
hammer is with DOE. The County went through the Comprehensive Plan, but the
state is the one going to dictate to the County. She hated to spend a lot of money
when the state will ultimately control it. Bovencamp stated the state is at the table
and they've bought off on everything so far.
Tom from the Water Systems Caucus, stated they are not suggesting that
they need an engineer at every technical team meeting. Technical spans a broad
spectrum. There are a lot of people who have technical expertise in certain areas.
Technical could be more than design and engineering. They may occasionally need
to bring someone in and explain what is happening. They are not always going to
get two engineers to agree on everything either. Regarding representation, his
caucus needs communication between the group members. They can't even get a
viable mailing list from the state. There are interests that are not being
represented right now. The DOE represents the state. As a water system, they
deal less with DOE than the state Department of Health (DOH), which is not sitting
at the table. DOE is tacitly representing the DOH. Those two are not on the same
page. Part of the Water Systems Caucus is to represent the DOH interests as it
affects the Water Systems. The Water Systems have to answer to the DOH first
and foremost.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 10/17/2000, 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
Brenner stated that state Department of Agriculture should be directly
involved. The County has made farming a high priority. She attended the salmon
summit, and was impressed by the comprehensive and objective view that the
state has about how all of the interests mesh and don't mesh.
She was not comfortable paying people to go to meetings. She was
comfortable paying for costs and technical expertise, but this is a volunteer
program. They can reimburse anything that costs the volunteers money.
Mach stated the technical and planning parts are what they are going though
now to develop a plan in which they can say they've collaborated with the entire
community. His caucus can decide how to use resources in the future. The
Initiating Governments and the County, which is taking a position as lead agency,
have taken on a responsibility to say they represent everyone in the watershed, so
that in the future they can say there is a management process in place to use the
resources. The ultimate responsibility lies with the Initiating Governments and the
County Council to determine how the process is to work. They are asking the
County Council how it is going to facilitate the process and ensure total
engagement within the community, so that when the plan is all done, the County
can ensure that there will be implementation. Without that engagement, the
responsibility lies with the County. The small cities are saying this is an appropriate
use of the County's resources.
Jones stated the Land Development Caucus would expend the resources
necessary to sit at the table and make responsible decisions and recommendations.
Other caucuses cannot do that financially. His representative at the Planning Unit is
not inclined to make technical decisions. That is a substantial portion of those
decisions, without benefit of independent perspectives on the technical matters. In
the process, they do not get that. It is not critical of some of the proposals. They
have already learned in the process that, had they not participated, the process
would be different, from a technical perspective. Important matters have been
hashed out at the technical level. The question is whether the Council should
participate in part of this cost. That is the issue. The fact that they are either
going to spend the money or not play is a non - issue.
Crawford asked for an example of altering the process at a technical meeting.
Jones stated that a specific example is regarding the Utah State University (USU)
contract for technical studies of watershed management. The program
substantially did not have and did not clearly address the need for the statements
of limitation and results with respect to various study areas. The studies were
generally focused. That was not an issue that came up. That is a specific example
of where input changed that standard. Another example at the technical team
level, regarding water quality, was that the Land Development Caucus
representative was able to take a position supporting a Nooksack Tribe initiative for
an early action item, and also for items that went into the final USU plan. That
modified the USU studies a bit, and it also built consensus between two groups.
These efforts countywide, over five to six years, will cost over $18 million to $20
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 10/17/2000, Page 11
1 million. They ought not to kid themselves that it would cost only $2 million or $4
2 million.
3
4 Crawford stated the proposal for caucus support is to cover funding from
5 October 2000 through December 2001. He asked how the need for funding the
6 caucus support fit into the timeframe for the entire program. He questioned
7 whether they are going to do this for four or five years, or if it would be deliverable
8 by December 2001. Roll stated he originally put through a budget that looked at
9 the deficit this year as a reflection of the USU work and a blip in the budget. He
10 also submitted a secondary budget that worked within the existing revenue stream
11 to get through the water resource fund. That caused an extension of the USU
12 contract out to another year, so the revenue would cover the work that would be
13 anticipated. By and large, the technical work would transpire during that contract
14 now through next year. Then they have to look at plan development and
15 implementation. He anticipated this needs to start now and go through 2002 or
16 2003. They are trying to target June 2003 for plan adoption.
17
18 Crawford stated it appears that they anticipate more than a single -year effort.
19 They shouldn't have started something if they are not able to see it through. His
20 biggest concern was that he didn't want to start something that is a black hole and
21 sucks money out of the County. Roll stated the impetus for driving this group was
22 that they needed the water resources planning to occur. Legislation put timing on
23 other things. In the entire county, water resources need to be coordinated clearly.
24 There need to be mechanisms put in place so that water resource decisions are
25 made with the best available science and in a manner supported by constituency
26 groups. The complexity of the water rights issues is going to be here for some time
27 to come. It is not over in one year. This is analogous to road systems and having
28 a continued maintenance program to sustain them in to the future.
29
30 Nelson stated that, like the Comprehensive Plan, there is a huge amount of
31 front -end loading. The Comprehensive Plan process costs less now that they are in
32 the implementation phase. For this effort, they are going to front -end load this
33 effort. Costs would continue during implementation. He suspected that the cost
34 would be less.
35
36 Crawford stated they were shown a cost graph that peaks next year and
37 tapers off. He didn't get an answer last meeting to how many caucus groups they
38 are talking about. He was still trying to figure that out. Roll submitted a list of the
39 caucus groups. When this was set up, they had the Planning Unit, which is
40 inclusive of some of the joint board members, but not all of them. They also have
41 a joint board staff group that meets. There are eleven or twelve caucuses that
42 would vie for money.
43
44 Richards stated this process involves a bunch of different interests
45 contending with each other. That is the way it is designed. For instance, the
46 community water systems interests are directly opposed to that of the City of
47 Bellingham. County staff is excellent, but they can't advocate his interests. The
48 lead agency has to be objective.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 10/17/2000, 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
Nelson asked if Mr. Richards could accept the County's expertise. Richards
stated yes. This is not a voluntary process. Legislation and the Initiating
Governments imposed it upon them. It is not about paying people to attend
meetings. Councilmembers don't just attend meetings. They make decisions that
are going to affect all of their constituents. That is what the caucuses are being
required to do. If they don't show up at the table, the decisions may be made for
them. They might come up with a plan that is okay, but not great. Everyone's
ideas must be on the table and sorted out by the entire group. That is the way this
was designed to operate. If it doesn't operate that way, they are not going to get
the best possible outcome. He questioned why they would spend $8 million or $10
million just to get a piece of software that doesn't work because no one
understands how to run it. That is what this is about. This is a non - recurring
expense. Once the plan is developed, the Planning Unit goes on hiatus and only
comes back if they are modifying process.
Nelson asked if this is the best way to do that.
Richards stated Councilmember Nelson suggested grouping the caucuses
together. He's explored that idea, but there are conflicting interests. If interests
were the same then they would have already been combined.
Nelson stated he was not talking about combining the caucuses. He meant
combining the resources. Richards stated the resources are about the processing of
information, advice, and nuances. That stuff has to be separated out. The
legislation and the Initiating Governments separated it. That is not something they
chose.
Nelson stated they want to spend $1 million over the next three years.
Richards stated that in addition to the other $10 million they are spending, to not
spend that money is a nine -foot leap over a ten -foot wall.
Bovencamp stated that the Environmental Caucus's engineer is Marian
Beddill. The Land Development Caucus's engineer is Pat ]ones. Those are two very
different perspectives. She questioned whether Councilmember Nelson is asking
those two caucuses to use the same person to do both technical review and have
technical input.
Brenner stated there are not any voluntary groups that they fund for the
purpose of going to meetings. If they start doing that, they will be requested to do
it in all aspects. That said, she agreed with Mr. Richards. They don't want to
combine the groups. There are different best available sciences. Unless individual
caucuses have individual access to their individual technical assistance, they are
going to end up with someone else's idea of what best available science is. The
purpose was to get the stuff together, then figure out how to make it work after
they get all the expert opinions. If they don't get the expert opinions to begin with,
they are starting off flawed. The County has an obligation to fund both the
technical part and office support.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 10/17/2000, 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
Tom Anderson, Public Utility District (PUD) 1, stated they have to look at it in
relative terms. The nature of water law is an interesting game. Either they have
agreement by all of these affected parties and can then go forward, or they have
disagreement that costs millions of dollars. Adjudication has been going on in the
State of Washington for almost 20 years and has cost the state over $20 million.
That says nothing about what its cost the local irrigation districts. That is the
alternative. Spending $1 million on caucus inclusion and involvement to have the
caucus players comfortable with where they are going will potentially avoid an
extremely expensive fight with no resolution for the next 20 or 25 years.
McShane questioned whether Mr. Anderson was familiar with Montana's
system for adjudication proceedings. Anderson stated they've made improvements
because they had huge problems in the past. They spent $25 million to $30 million
in general adjudication. Water is more contentious in Olympia than it is in
Whatcom County.
Nelson moved to support the proposal for funding $30,000 for each caucus
from October 2000 through December 2001. He questioned how that process
would be initiated for a supplemental budget. Roll stated the current budget
doesn't have that money. They would have to find that money. It would have to
be flushed out through the budget process.
Crawford questioned whether that motion includes all the caucuses or only
the eleven caucuses requesting money.
Nelson stated he hoped that some of the caucuses would do their own
support, or their budget request wouldn't be that large. The amoung of $30,000
would the cap.
Crawford offered a friendly amendment. There are 11 caucuses out of the 18
caucuses that are specifically saying they want that money. He suggested that
they support funding those specific 11 caucuses.
Nelson asked if the others are government agencies with taxing authorities.
Crawford read the list of those that did not ask for money, which includes
Whatcom County, Lummi Nation, City of Bellingham, PUD 1, Nooksack Tribe, the
State of Washington, and the federal government. All the others are asking for
money.
Brenner stated the Port of Bellingham shouldn't be asking for money.
Crawford stated the ones asking for money are the nine caucuses, plus the
Port of Bellingham and the small cities.
Brenner asked if this is a recommendation to put this in the budget process.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 10/17/2000, 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
Nelson stated that is correct.
Brenner stated she wouldn't support funding the Port.
Crawford asked how the Port was added to the list. Roll stated some
caucuses did not submit a request. The entire Planning Unit supported the unified
document. The Planning Unit didn't draw a distinction separating who gets funding
and who doesn't get funding.
Nelson stated they should look at this as if the caucuses are applying for a
grant. The Council could then look at each individual proposal.
Brenner stated looking at the proposals takes time. She would not support
the motion if it considers the Port. The Port has plenty of money.
Crawford stated the County Council should have the perogative to review
each request. It is his friendly amendment that this be considered with the budget
process, under the conditions of the two page document, and add the Council's
authority to review each application. One condition could be the presence of a
taxing authority.
Nelson accepted Crawford's friendly amendment.
Brenner stated that takes time and money.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Nelson stated that none of the proposals are on the table at this time. There
are no proposals yet. They don't want to blanket $30,000 to everyone.
Brenner stated they should eliminate the ones they know they will not fund,
in order to save time and money.
Bovencamp stated it is an appearance of fairness issue. All the caucuses
should be able to bring forward a proposal. The Council should decide who should
get the money.
Nelson stated he would accept Crawford's friendly amendment, but not
Councilmember Brenner's suggestion to remove the Port from consideration. They
have many caucuses. They will look at the proposals.
Nelson restated the motion is to support, from October 2000 through
December 2001, at an annual rate of $30,000 per caucus. In regard to that
allocation, each caucus would submit a proposal for review and approval by the
County Council, who would put that proposal to a vote.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 10/17/2000, 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
48
Dawson stated the equitableness of this excludes the taxing districts. This
motion does not exclude the taxing districts. It is not fair for those districts to
request money.
Nelson agreed, but there is no appearance of fairness if they are not given
the opportunity to express a reason for requesting funding. They also have the
ability to fund into this.
Brenner stated it is the Council's job to first create the boundaries of how far
they are willing to go. She was not willing to fund municipality -type agencies.
Nelson stated the criteria for the motion are based upon 1) the resources
that are needed by the caucus, and 2) the ability to fund the resources. Some
caucuses, such as the water associations, have limited resources. They also have
the ability to raise a tax when they charge their ratepayers. All areas have
resources available to them. There needs to be an appearance of fairness.
Brenner stated it is unfair to consider a viable taxing district that has plenty
of funding. The motion should be restricted to the ten caucuses.
Dawson stated she agreed with Nelson's analysis in terms of the water
districts. They may not be a taxing district, but they have the ability to raise funds.
They shouldn't have to raise funds for participation.
Motion failed for lack of a Council majority, 3 -2 with Brenner and McShane
opposed.
WRIA Stage II Water Rights Review Proposal
Roll stated there is a draft of the proposed stage II water rights program.
They are winding down stage one. They are now looking at how to accomplish the
work in stage II. This proposal is going before the Planning Unit at the next
meeting for a unified vote of support. He asked for the Council's guidance.
Nelson questioned what authority they would have in order to go on the
property to do certification checks. Anderson stated they don't have any authority
to go on the property without the property owner's permission. All water right
owners to be investigated would have to be contacted ahead of time by mail and
phone. If the owner doesn't allow access, then they won't do the investigation. He
would end up putting those people in a special category. He anticipated a vast
majority being compliant. Those who are non - compliant would eventually be
investigated during the enforcement of state statutes. The DOE would go on the
property, do an investigation, and do enforcement of state statutes. When they are
all done with the planning process and they've investigated everything in a
particular water basin, if the conclusion is that the water use is vastly over -
allocated, then the state would move in and do enforcement because that is what is
necessary. People who are not cooperative will be enforced against by the state
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 10/17/2000, 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
agency. On the other hand, if the conclusion is that water usage is not an issue,
then there probably won't be enforcement.
Nelson asked about education at stage II. Anderson stated the goal is to use
the contact with the existing certificates and permits as a tool to get information
into the community, which then filters to other people.
Nelson asked if those without certificates or permits are going to be ignored.
Anderson stated no. He would respond to anyone who calls him. He would not
make specific contact during stage II.
Nelson stated these people are not being made aware that they don't have a
certificate or permit, when they assume they do. He questioned why they would
not be made aware during stage II. Anderson stated people wanted to go slower
than that, rather than push the issue. They expect that a higher percentage of the
people in that category are either illegal users or don't know the status of their
water rights and would be less cooperative and more resistant. They don't want to
go there first.
McShane asked how they would deal with the exempt wells in an area.
There is language in the WRIA legislation regarding the impacts that may occur to
exempt wells within a stream that has instream problems. Anderson stated he
expected that eventually in the final stages of doing the review, they might have
contact with all property owners at some point, and therefore they would contact all
the exempt wells in the area. Specifically targeting exempt wells would be difficult
because there is no paper trail to follow. It appears that it would be better to leave
them to the last item. When they are all done looking at all the parcels with
certificates, permits, applications, then all the parcels remaining either don't have
water or are exempt wells. They fall out of the mix. Regarding enforcement, it is
not specific to the planning process. It exists anyway right now.
McShane stated that there is specific language within the Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) that specifically states that, within an instream flow
area that has a problem, DOE would have the option to allow only inside, domestic
use of water. Anderson stated they have to do that through a rule- making process.
McShane stated they would have to do the rule- making process from what is
within the WAC.
Brenner stated that if they do a rule- making process, the legislature has to
agree with it. Anderson stated they don't.
McShane stated it is within the WAC.
McShane moved that Bruce Roll vote in favor of this at the Planning Unit
meeting.
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 10/17/2000, 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
Brenner asked if the Planning Unit and caucuses all agreed to the modified
version. Anderson stated they would have a final go at that during the next
meeting.
Brenner questioned why the County would recommend something before
they do that. Roll stated he would attend the meeting to vote as the County's
representative. He needed to know how to vote on behalf of the County.
Brenner stated the County is the lead agency. It shouldn't have a position
until after the Planning Unit has its position. She didn't like deciding first.
McShane stated it is time for them to make a decision.
Brenner stated she wanted to support what the Planning Unit caucuses agree
on. Anderson stated the Planning Unit originally saw this after the July meeting.
They reviewed it at the September meeting. They've had no further input from the
Planning Unit members. He believed the Planning Unit is very comfortable with it at
this point.
Motion carried 4 -0 with Crawford out of the room.
2. LAKE WHATCOM
District 10 Land Acquisition Ordinance
Roll asked that the Council read and comment by Friday. The proposal will
come before the Council in the joint meeting on November 17t ". Someone from
District 10 requested that it be jointly adopted.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on November 28 , 2000.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown - Davis, Clerk of the Council Marlene Dawson, Council Chair
Special County Council Water Resources Work Session, 10/17/2000, Page 18