HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources January 26 19991
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
January 26, 1999
The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Connie Hoag, Committee Member, in
the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Kathy Sutter
Tom Brown
SPECIAL ORDER OF BUSINESS
ELECTION OF COMMITTEE CHAIR (AB99 -021)
Brown nominated Hoag.
Sutter moved to appoint Hoag by acclamation.
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
Absent:
None
Hoag announced that Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, and Dan Gibson, Senior Civil
Deputy Prosecutor, will give an update on the Governor's Omnibus Salmon Bill and Water
Bill, SB5289 (AB99 -064). She asked for responses from Craig MacConnell at the Cooperative
Extension office and also from Sue Blake, Whatcom County Planning and Development
Services Water Resources Planner. They will try to have a Council response prepared by
Thursday or Friday, in time for the legislative committee's consideration. She questioned
whether Monsen's letter was sent.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated that a letter has not yet been sent. The
Washington State Association with Counties (WSAC) will be making general comments at this
point. They are going to focus their energy on a Legislative Steering Committee meeting this
coming Friday in Olympia. That meeting is more important at this point. He will ensure that
something gets down there and Whatcom County intends to submit something, either on its own
or through the association.
Hoag requested that he indicate that the County has concerns with the bill.
Sutter stated that she is getting started on the new Senate Bill (SB) 5289. There are a lot
of new sections in there. They need to ask for more time to digest all of the information.
Brown stated that he is horrified. This is far worse than the Growth Management Act
(GMA).
Natural Resources Committee, 1/26/99, Page l
I Hoag commented that it seems there are a lot of extreme issues. They need to address
2 those items one -by -one. Since the committee is in agreement, she suggested that the committee
3 send something today.
4
5 Monsen replied that he can ensure something today. He suggested that Hoag draft
6 language.
7
8 Monsen distributed the Senate committee calendar for S135289. They have broken the
9 hearing into three parts, depending on the section involved. He also distributed a summary of the
10 bill. WSAC is in process of formulating a specific reaction to the bill. As a policy matter, the
11 Association can't forward that without review by the Association's legislative steering
12 committee. It is important that a representative is there. Council Member Robert Imhof is a
13 member of that committee.
14
15 Hoag stated that if Imhof could not attend, then she, Sutter, or Monsen should attend.
16
17 Monsen stated that last week he distributed State Salmon Strategy, Draft Nine, dated
18 January 8. That was the latest draft of what the Governor was proposing as a bill. At the end of
19 last week, the actual bill, SB5289 was produced. There are some subtle differences.
20
21 Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that they should not trust the digest
22 of S135289. The meat of the document is provided in three sentences at the bottom of the first
23 page, regarding revising provisions. Those are of such importance, that the rest pales in
24 comparison. Rural counties are viewed as unimportant. They should look at the different
25 constituencies that it addresses. Their interests are differing. Each of the constituencies can be
26 dealt with separately, which makes a unified approach a challenge. Rural western Washington
27 counties get hit with regard to modifications to groundwater exemptions. Municipal water
28 purveyors are addressed in section four. There is a fractionalization of the constituencies. The
29 bill is divided into ten parts. Parts four and five, in his view, are the meat of the bill. There are
30 important principals and considerations that are set forth in the earlier portions of the bill. Part
31 one establishes water conservation as a new, over - arching principal. The notion is that there is
32 not enough water, therefore water conservation is the hope of the future. That theme is picked
33 up throughout. Cities and counties will need to put into place water conservation ordinances.
34 Subdivisions will need to be approved conditioned upon their compliance with water
35 conservation measures. There is an important consideration; a prioritization of the use of
36 conserved or reclaimed water over rights for new water withdraws. That is an important theme.
37 There is developed a scheme for dealing with reclaimed water, in terms of industrial and
38 agricultural use. Water storage is a major emphasis, which is not a bad idea. Surface waters in
39 Washington belong to the State. If a landowner captures water and stores it in a pond, he or she
40 is simply storing the State's water for them. They are going to be generous. If the landowner
41 pays for the storage facility, then they get 50% of the water conserved through the water storage.
42
43 Hoag questioned whether they are talking in terms of dams at all. Gibson stated probably
44 not. From an environmental standpoint, it would be difficult to look at those kinds of large -scale
45 water projects. It would be small -scale detention facilities and any detention facilities relating to
46 storm water.
Natural Resources Committee, 1/26/99, Page 2
I Water rights changes and transfers are addressed in part three. The key principal is that
2 they prioritize the processing of applications for change or transfer of water rights over new
3 water right applications. It legitimizes the delay that the State Department of Ecology (DOE) has
4 engaged in over the past ten years.
5
6 Hoag questioned whether this is a change in policy. Gibson stated that it legitimizes
7 DOE's practices. They have been sued a number of times for their failure to process water
8 rights. So far they have stayed those decisions.
9
10 Hoag questioned whether a water right that was given up by a person would go to the
1 I next person in line that was waiting with a new application. Gibson stated that, typically, the
12 people who are applying for new water rights are not looking to buy the new water rights.
13 Purchase of water rights is what is being pushed forward as the answer to deal with water
14 problems.
15
16 Hoag questioned whether they are hoping that people waiting for a new permit will
17 instead purchase existing water rights. Gibson stated that was correct. He has heard that the
18 State Department of Fish and Wildlife is gearing up to act as water cops.
19
20 Hoag questioned what will happen to farmers who don't have water rights to use the
21 water that they have been using for a long time. Gibson stated that they potentially will be cut
22 off. If they persist, then fines have been increased under the enforcement section to $25,000 per
23 violation per day.
24
25 Hoag questioned whether there will be an allowance, exemption, or grandfathering if they
26 can prove that they have been using the water for a long time. Gibson stated that there will not.
27 Practically speaking, those are considerations that would fit in at the point of prosecution. He
28 expected that no citizen will wait until that point to deal with it. Currently, there are 600 -700 un-
29 permitted agricultural water users in the County.
30
31 Nelson questioned, of the 600 -700 un- permitted farmers, how many have permits
32 waiting. Gibson stated that there are about 400 waiting.
33
34 Nelson questioned how long the DOE has been sitting on this. Gibson stated that the
35 DOE has been sitting on those applications since 1991.
36
37 Hoag questioned whether a person with a pending application could be fined. Gibson
38 stated that was correct.
ME
40 Gibson stated that this would create the potential of acquisition of water rights for
41 beneficial in- stream purposes. People could go and buy a water right for the purpose of keeping
42 it in the river. Couple that with the notion that they are going to prioritize the handling of
43 transfers or water changes. People who buy water rights to keep water in the river will be given
44 priority in terms of processing over those who have submitted new water right applications to
45 take the water out of the river.
46
Natural Resources Committee, 1/26/99, Page 3
I Sutter stated that is true, even on a transfer.
2
3 Gibson stated that, at that point, they are no longer limiting one to minimum in- stream
4 flows. They are talking about the maintenance of in- stream flows, which could exceed the
5 minimum in- stream flow, which would trump a new water withdraw.
6
7 Dawson asked for an example of who would want to keep water in the river. Brown and
8 Gibson explained that environmental organizations, the Lummi Nation, and others would do that.
9 Gibson stated that those competing for water rights are no longer farmers or those seeking to
10 build a house. They are competing for water rights against those who would want to keep the
11 water in the stream. They are sharpening the competition for a limited resource.
12
13 Nelson stated this could create a potential for water barons. He questioned whether there
14 has been discussion about creating water monopolies within regions. Gibson stated that the bill
15 doesn't discuss it.
16
17 Gibson stated that they should not overlook part three. Part four is regarding public water
18 supply. Currently the City of Bellingham, Public Utility District #1, and the City of Lynden hold
19 water rights. The water rights that they hold exceed their current level of use, which makes
20 sense for planning for the future. Part four proposes to have those public water purveyors prove
21 what they are currently using, get a certificate for the current level of use, and, for the remaining
22 unused water right that they currently have, they would get a reinstated permit. That reinstated
23 permit would allow them to use what they are currently not using as they grow. The reinstated
24 permit is subject to a number of stringent conditions. In other words, they earn the right to use
25 what they already have, by entering into a number of agreements, instituting a number of water
26 conservation policies, and creating a development schedule. When the Council looks at part
27 four, they should look at all the ways those reinstated permits are conditioned and who is setting
28 those conditions.
29
30 Hoag stated that the State is trying to find water for all different uses. She questioned
31 whether the reinstated permits include criteria that are legitimate. Gibson stated that the concern
32 is how reasonable the administration of this is going to be.
33
34 Hoag questioned whether there are any conditions that are understandable or could be
35 bettered by changing administration or the processes. Gibson stated that is exactly the response
36 they will get from legislators. If there was a high level of trust within the agency that is
37 administering this or there are significant measures of local control that are driven toward the
38 same end, then the issue is whether that will that work.
39
40 Hoag stated that she would like to see more power in the hands of the elected officials
41 instead of the agency. She questioned how it could be set up that the agency would be advisory
42 and the legislature would have responsibility. Gibson stated that probably the legislature would
43 not have that kind of role. They might want to think of agency restructuring, so there is some
44 confidence in the proper use of that power.
45
Natural Resources Committee, 1/26/99, Page 4
I Nelson stated that, when legislation is passed, there should be a cause and an effect.
2 They have not been informed of the cause of the problem and what the needs are. They will
3 have difficulty getting public buy -in when effects are not specified. If they can't quantify the
4 water needs for the communities, then they can't trust the State agencies when local communities
5 and counties need to plan for economic development and growth, then be dependent upon an
6 agency that can't give quantification needed to give answers to the public. There is no other
7 answer than to put trust into a non - elected agency.
8
9 Brown stated that buried in the bill is a threat far more serious than the Growth
10 Management Hearings Board. If the counties do not deal with this in a responsible manner, then
11 all water rights will be restricted.
12
13 Gibson explained part five, the groundwater exemption. Under this proposal,
14 groundwater exemption becomes history. Currently, there is a 5,000- gallon exemption. Under
15 this proposal, it would be done away with in two years. This means that every private well that
16 was drilled would have to be supported by a water right. The water right would have to be
17 obtained first. DOE issues the water right and also determines hydraulic continuity. One can
18 regain a portion of that exemption as a County, through negotiation with DOE, in theory.
19 Currently, private wells are not covered under water rights, per se. They will be in two years,
20 unless the County is able to achieve an agreement with DOE. In order to achieve that agreement,
21 the counties will have to meet a significant number of criteria, which are set out in part five.
22 They shouldn't ever expect to get a 5,000- gallon exemption. They are talking about a single -
23 family residence. One of the things DOE is looking for in its criteria for counties to qualify for
24 this is clustering. They want the counties to cluster. They are clearly going into land use and
25 growth management. This is the Trojan salmon.
26
27 Dawson questioned how the State could address an aquifer that is below the riverbed. If
28 there is an aquifer that is 80 feet down, the likelihood of that continuity is unrealistic. Gibson
29 stated that if there is sufficient length, it may hook up with the river at some point downstream.
30 They will be able to make that argument to DOE.
31
32 Sutter stated that one would have to prove that not one molecule of water reaches that
33 river from the well. She was concerned with the power that is given to DOE. She questioned
34 what it does to the ESHB 2514 and ESHB 2496 planning, and how it will affect Nelson's
35 concerns about quantifying the water. Gibson stated that there is only one point in the bill where
36 they mention basin management plans. It is discussed in relation to conservation. Other than
37 that, the basin management plan, or watershed planning, could serve as a valuable source of
38 information as they enter into negotiation with DOE regarding exemptions.
39
40 Sutter questioned whether they would require that the ESHB 2514 planning, for example,
41 be included in this bill. Gibson stated that there is nothing that explicitly says that. It is fair to
42 say that they will try to tie the bills together.
43
44 Gibson stated that the County is going to have to deal with it in a way that they will give
45 something and hopefully get something in return.
46
Natural Resources Committee, 1/26/99, Page 5
I Brown stated that he was working off of the draft. He asked about technology based
2 effluent limitations or standards for discharges, etc. on page two of the draft. He questioned why
3 the Nooksack isn't included on the list. Gibson read from the document, "regardless of the
4 quality of the waters of the State, all wastes and other materials and substances proposed for
5 entry into said water shall be provided with all known available and reasonable methods of
6 treatment prior to entry. Notwithstanding that, the standards of quality established for the waters
7 of the State would not be violated." In other words, if one discharges in any amount, they should
8 not count on the fact that the amount is below the current standard. Any discharge that could
9 affect the quality of the waters of the State is addressed. Expect that there is going to rule -
10 making by DOE as to water quality.
11
12 Hoag questioned whether that means that a sewer treatment plant could not allow any
13 bacteria to go into the river at all. Gibson stated that would be the starting point for negotiation.
14
15 Hoag questioned the credit that they are allowing on other rivers that they are not
16 allowing on Whatcom County rivers. Gibson stated that they have in mind specific sewage
17 treatment plants, which were drawn to the attention of the bill's authors, and were included as a
18 perk or condition of sponsorship. They are saying that, if they are cleaning up the water as it is
19 coming into the plant, a credit will be given as the water leaves.
20
21 Brown stated the County needs to investigate adding the Nooksack River to the list.
22 Also, Governor Locke expressed concerns regarding the water temperature.
23
24 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
25
26 Brown continued to state that anytime water goes through the treatment process, the
27 temperature is raised. That is another condition about which he is concerned. Gibson stated that
28 they can count on water temperature being an increasing focus. Four drainage districts in the
29 County received letters from DOE, called notices of violation. The notices of violation were for
30 violation of thermal pollution standards. The water in the ditches and streams were too warm.
31
32 Hoag questioned whether the thermal pollution applies to what is being put in the water
33 or the state of the water as it is. Gibson stated that is the way DOE is currently interpreting it.
34
35 Brown questioned whether the treatment process raises the temperature. Gibson stated
36 that he did not know.
37
38 Hoag asked about the exempt wells. Some counties were concerned about the six -pack
39 type of wells. She questioned whether they could request that the legislature put in language,
40 such as stating that someone cannot provide water for sub - division with multiple exempt wells,
41 and if that would help this go away. Gibson stated that they have to think whether that would be
42 determinative regarding the politics of the situation. It probably would not.
43
44 She questioned whether he believed that exempt wells are on the chopping block, period.
45 Gibson stated that they will need to negotiate tooth - and -nail to get some exemption that will
46 allow some level of rural development. It will be a hard - fought battle.
Natural Resources Committee, 1/26/99, Page 6
2 Hoag questioned whether disallowing multiple exempt wells for a subdivision
3 development could be a criterion that the County would have to meet to regain some sort of
4 exempt wells. Gibson stated that DOE has already addressed that based on an Attorney
5 General's decision. DOE might say that the County can't give up what they don't have.
6
7 Brown stated that they mentioned either single or multiple exemptions.
9 Hoag questioned how the condition that lakes be left in their natural condition would
10 affect Lake Whatcom in terms of withdrawals that may be allowed and whether boating,
11 swimming, docks, and other similar things would cause a problem if done properly. Gibson
12 stated that it depends upon the number of swimmers who are also voters.
13
14 Hoag stated that she would like to see the County argue for what is needed and what is
15 right.
16
17 Sutter raised the point of how things are being defined. She questioned how many lakes
18 are currently in their "natural condition" and the definition of "natural condition." Gibson
19 explained that gets into the rule making.
20
21 Steve Seymour, Whatcom County Fish Biologist, explained that the challenge is how this
22 can work for Whatcom County.
23
24 Hoag asked for his input and his perspective on it from the fisheries standpoint.
25
26 Nelson asked about the quantification of water temperature and flow, and questioned
27 whether there has been any work done to help counties in planning for population growth as well
28 as groundwater withdrawals. Seymour explained the 303D listing draws from a lot of different
29 databases. It deals with temperature, fecals, and other types of information. He didn't believe
30 that there was a clean data set that exists to allow them to make the calls. That is frustrating.
31 There will be an increased emphasis on gathering that data and getting everyone to agree that it
32 is legitimate. There are problems with summer low flows in many of the tributary streams.
33 Whether or not that is linked to water use, they don't know. There seems to be a direct link, but
34 there is no empirical data.
35
36 Brown explained that in- stream flow is set and every year they say that they are being
37 violated. For example, water around Mt. Shukson is too warm, but that is totally natural.
38 Regarding in- stream flow, there are natural conditions that reduce the in- stream flows. When
39 something has no scientific explanation, then these violations need to be looked at.
40
41 Seymour explained that the specifics need to be looked at. They need to be able to look
42 up an explanation on a database. No one has that information. Until it is gathered, there will be
43 a lot of effort into going nowhere.
44
45 Hoag questioned when the modeling is supposed to be completed for in- stream flow.
46 Monsen stated that he did not know.
Natural Resources Committee, 1/26/99, Page 7
2 Hoag stated that hopefully that will provide some answers.
3
4 Brown stated that he hoped that Seymour would also look out for the people that live in
5 Whatcom County and try to find a way to weave their interests in with his interests in fish
6 biology.
7
8 Seymour explained that he has been in Whatcom County for 25 years and has a vested
9 interest. He does have a fisheries bent to his views. The challenge and his vision is to look at
10 what this area will look like in 50 years. There is opportunity all around.
12 Dawson questioned whether Seymour believed that the State has adequate information
13 about regions of the County affecting the water continuity. Seymour stated that he didn't know
14 at this point. He guessed that they probably don't have adequate data.
15
16 Brown stated to Gibson and Monsen that everything the Governor has said is being
17 defeated by the policies that are in place for managing the Nooksack River. They will never get
18 the Governor's statement of cool and deep water. Legislation needs to be in place to define the
19 stream channel and maintain a depth.
20
21 Gibson explained that is an on going debate with DOE as it relates to flood work.
22
23 Sutter stated that she would like to address what the State government is doing to help the
24 local jurisdiction carry out projects that will be beneficial, such as restoring habitat and flows.
25 She questioned whether the County is going to have to jump through hoops to get there.
26
27 Monsen stated that the need is for more technical support from the State, instead of the
28 State waiting until the local entities fail before they step in.
29
30 Sutter stated that all the time spent on all the regulatory items to get a permit can be
31 defeating to the end product.
32
33 Gibson stated that some communities believe that doing nothing is the best thing, which
34 results in bank erosion, sedimentation, etc. Getting the agency to believe that doing something is
35 critical and positive is an on -going challenge.
36
37 Nelson questioned how the definition of public use and public interest will relate. What
38 is public use and public interest for the State may not be the same as for within a region, county,
39 or city. He questioned how that would be applied by DOE and whether they have a framework
40 for deciding what is the best public use and in the best public interest. Gibson stated that public
41 interest will be defined by a State agency in a broad manner.
42
43 Brown commented that this bill has built in conflicts with GMA, specifically extending
44 water services to exempt well sites. It can't be done. If they abide by GMA, then they cannot
45 provide water to certain areas.
46
Natural Resources Committee, 1/26/99, Page 8
I Monsen stated that he has heard that the water bill as it is will not pass, but most people
2 want to pass a bill of some type. The State feels compelled to do something legislatively
3 regarding salmon to show their intention to National Marine Fisheries Services.
4
5 Monsen stated that he had a summary of the Governor's proposed budget, relative to
6 salmon recovery. It ties into the bill a bit. He also has a summary of a salmon recovery project
7 list. Those projects are in the form of a grant request for federal money. It is a prioritization of
8 the top ten that are in the Governor's salmon office for funding consideration. There are still
9 steps that need to occur.
10
11 Hoag stated that there is a proposal for decoupling on the timber revenues. They have a
12 draft letter regarding the decoupling of the timber revenue impacted by the Endangered
13 Species Act (ESA) (AB99 -065) requesting the Department of Agriculture go ahead with the
14 stabilization proposal, but requesting that it have cost of living adjustments attached to it. She
15 wanted the committee to take this under consideration and, if they approve, forward it to the
16 Council for approval of a letter.
17
18 (Clerk's Note: Throughout this discussion, the committee referred to the letter as a
19 "resolution. " The document was not a resolution, but a letter to Dan Glickman, U.S.
20 Department of Agriculture)
21
22 Hoag stated that the County received federal money for roads and schools from the
23 timber harvest. Revenues can fluctuate. There is a proposal from the Department of Agriculture
24 to stabilize the revenues and lock them in to what the County was receiving in 1997. The
25 County has also asked that the amount be tied to the Consumer Price Index so that they don't end
26 up with a continually shrinking revenue base. She read the letter into the record.
27
28 Dawson stated that this letter could be brought forward at the evening Council meeting.
29
30 Nelson questioned whether the dollar amount could be sustained with acreage in the local
31 forests. Brown explained that there has been no cut within the forest for a number of years.
32 Funding may run out in a few years.
33
34 Nelson questioned whether they are offering a reasonable level.
35
36 Hoag stated that the reason they call it "decoupling" is because they don't want it tied
37 directly to the harvest any more. It may be better not to harvest a particular place for five years,
38 but then have a tremendous burst of harvesting.
39
40 Brown stated that he wanted to add language because the federal forest roads provide a
41 lot of recreational resource. Federal legislators need to realize that forest roads and forest lands
42 have a big impact locally.
43
44 Hoag suggested amending language in the third paragraph, "We depend en fiffibe
45 hafvests f em federal f felt !a-ads not only pr -evide the fedef ' on the revenues for schools and
46 roads, but also to provide wages to..."
Natural Resources Committee, 1/26/99, 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
Brown moved to recommend to full Council.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated that the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee is having a
difficult time dealing with projects because there are no meander limits set on the river. There
has been a suggestion that the Council request the Flood Advisory Committee set meander
limits and set criteria for bank stabilization projects, so they have something specific that
they can refer to when dealing with State agencies.
Sutter questioned why they haven't done this already. Hoag stated that she believed,
because they are an advisory committee, they have not been asked to do this.
Monsen stated that part of the issue is the notion of meander. They applied that notion
from Everson upstream. He questioned how they would determine the boundary. That notion, in
general terms, applied below Everson with levies. Not a lot of the focus was placed there
because the meander limit below there was the levy system. They need to formalize the notion,
which they have already begun doing with the Department of Ecology (DOE), what level and
analysis and information is needed.
Hoag questioned Monsen about whether he would like the Council to make a formal
request to the Flood Advisory Committee. Monsen stated that would help.
Hoag moved to request that the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee set
meander limits and set criteria for bank stabilization projects.
Brown stated that he liked the set -up at Chilliwack with the dikes. He didn't recall that
concept being in the flood plan. He suggested that they look at something like that when setting
the meander limits.
Hoag stated that could be done within the meander limit. The problem with the meander
limit is that DOE is interpreting it as letting it go wherever it wants.
Brown suggested that, as they set the limits, they state that the limit would be maintained
by a certain method.
Motion carried unanimously.
Hoag stated that Mike Grady, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), has agreed to
come talk to the committee to come discuss the Endangered Species Act (ESA). They have not
yet scheduled a time.
Sutter questioned whether he was familiar with the salmon recovery plan. Hoag stated
that he is. He talked to the tribes.
Natural Resources Committee, 1/26/99, Page 10
I Monsen stated that the sooner they schedule the meeting, the better.
2
3 Hoag stated that they received a request from the San Juan County Board of
4 Commissioners for the Whatcom County Council to request a resolution regarding tugboat escort
5 of oil tankers and other vessels. She read the request into the record.
6
7 Brown stated that he is not sympathetic to the emergency issue at this time.
8
9 Hoag stated that they would not take it up as an emergency.
10
11 (Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B)
12
13 Sutter stated that she didn't know that much about the issue.
14
15 Monsen explained about tugboat escorts. The issue is that tug escort is required in the
16 inland waters. It is not required once the vessel moves into Harrow and the Strait of Juan de
17 Fuca. They are proposing to make that a requirement. The argument is that if a vessel loses
18 power in the Strait of Juan de Fuca, by the time a tugboat could arrive, it may be too late.
19
20 Brown stated that he could not work on this issue because he has a conflict of interest.
21
22 Hoag stated that the committee will work on this at a later date.
23
24 Hoag stated that they received a letter about a change in stream - typing by the State
25 Department of Natural Resources. She read the letter into the record.
26
27 Brown stated the Lake Whatcom Management Team should look at that.
28
29 Sutter concurred.
30
31 Monsen stated that Sue Blake would be at the Committee of the Whole to talk about the
32 watershed plan. They could bring the concern to her then.
33
34 Hoag stated that there is an on -going problem with Drayton Harbor and sewage
35 overflows into the Harbor. The system was just recently retrofitted and it is still not capable of
36 handling the stormwater. Part of the retrofitting was putting a new pipe under the mouth of the
37 harbor. This was upland from that. The County has an obligation to the citizens of that area to
38 become involved. She requested that the Departments of Health and Ecology provide a report on
39 the incident. She will talk with the City of Blaine and schedule the issue in a committee meeting.
40
41 Sutter suggested that there needs to be a commitment from the local, state, and federal
42 levels to get these problems fixed. They created the problem by narrowing the mouth of the
43 harbor. It can't flush. They need to start making an appeal for all of the governments concerned
44 to begin contributing money and technical expertise to attack the problem. She would like to
45 talk to the City. They have put a lot of effort and money into it, but there is still a problem
46 somewhere. It may be one that they have not been able to track down.
Natural Resources Committee, 1/26/99, 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
Hoag stated that she would schedule that for the next available meeting.
Sutter suggested getting all of the interested parties together and put the pressure on them
to contribute the dollars. They are going to have to go to the federal government for money.
Hoag questioned whether the committee wanted to talk about Portage Bay at the same
time that they talk about Drayton Harbor.
Sutter suggested that they keep them separate. Hoag concurred.
Brown stated that he would like to ask someone else to take his place on the Natural
Resources Committee because personal circumstances have changed and he may not be able to
attend at the regular meeting time.
F1 lard" a0
The meeting was adjourned at 11:40 a.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie Hoag, Council Member
Natural Resources Committee, 1/26/99, Page 12