HomeMy WebLinkAboutSurface Water Work Session March 15 2016Whatcom County Council
Special Surface Water Work Session
March 15, 2016
CALL TO ORDER
Council Chair Barry Buchanan called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. in the Civic
Center Garden Level Conference Room, 322 Commercial Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
ROLL CALL
Present: Barbara Brenner, Satpal Sidhu, Rud Browne, Barry Buchanan, Ken
Mann, Todd Donovan and Carl Weimer
Absent: None
SURFACE WATER WORK SESSION (AB2016 -024)
1. COORDINATED WATER SYSTEM PLAN (CWSP) /JOINT BOARD /PLANNING
UNIT UPDATE
Gary Stoyka, Public Works Department reported on the CWSP. The final meeting
with the Water Utility Coordinating Committee (WUCC) is on April 20. If approved then,
they will begin a consistency review with the Planning and Development Services
Department and will route it through to Council for a public hearing and approval sometime
in June. It's out for final comment right now. Will present it to the Planning Unit on March
30.
The Joint Board will meet in two weeks. They've done outreach on the interlocal
agreement joining the Salmon Recovery Board and Joint Board. They hope to get it to
Council in April or May.
Phase 2 of the four phase groundwater modeling project is complete. They don't
have funding right now for the final part of the project, which is computer modeling. They
are working to find a couple hundred thousand dollars for that effort.
A water supply coalition began meeting in 2009 to start talking about water needs in
the county. Now that the CWSP is on track, the group is meeting again on water supply and
water needs. The group are staff from various agencies and jurisdictions. The first step is
to quantify the water needs of the public water systems. The other part is to quantify needs
of all other users in the county. This group will put the other part together and come up
with a plan to meet those needs.
The Planning Unit last met in February and is reviewing the Comprehensive Plan.
The next meeting is March 30. They will discuss the CWSP. There will be a presentation on
CWSP and Lower Nooksack Strategy.
Mann asked how the water supply coalition is different from other entities planning
for water. Stoyka stated it's a staff level group of people very involved in providing water
Surface Water Work Session, 3/15/2016, Page 1
1 quantification and working on water supply issues. The Joint Board was kind of doing
2 quantification, but they didn't include small cities, small water systems, or other
3 jurisdictions.
4
5 Sidhu asked if the group is just about potable water. Stoyka stated it is not. It will
6 look at potable water, agricultural water needs, industrial water needs, and nonpublic water
7 system needs.
8
9 Sidhu stated the agricultural water board is also working on agricultural water, so it's
10 repetitious. Stoyka stated it is a way for the agricultural water board representative, Henry
11 Bierlink, to update the staff group.
12
13 Sidhu asked why the group was silent for so many years. Stoyka stated the CWSP
14 progress fizzled for about five years. They restarted it at the end of 2014. Now that the
15 CWSP is nearing completion, it's time to start reengaging.
16
17 Sidhu asked if it includes quantifying irrigation water. Stoyka stated it does. A lot of
18 the work has been done over the years. They need to repackage and update the
19 information. It won't be a significant effort to complete quantification. The next step is
20 planning how to meet water needs.
21
22 Brenner stated there is overlap with agricultural people, who used to participate in
23 the Planning Unit. Some entities don't seem to want to deal with the current process, so
24 they're setting up this process. She asked if the Birch Bay Water and Sewer District
25 participates. Stoyka stated it does. The agricultural representative still participates on the
26 Planning Unit. The staff water supply coalition would share any information with the
27 Planning Unit and Joint Board.
28
29 Weimer stated it sounds like they will complete the 2012 water budget, which is
30 based on averages and general quantifications. He thought they were going to refine that
31 information. Stoyka stated not a lot of metering data is available. The information they
32 have is about the best they will get, and is better than spot- metering. They could do spot
33 metering to check the estimates they have. The metering data depends on a lot of climate
34 and environmental factors that vary, so long term information is needed.
35
36 Browne stated the use is based on irrigation method, which is a function of what the
37 farmer uses at that particular time. He moved to ask staff to identify and document the
38 different groups involved in water, who the people are in each group, to map out topics, and
39 to identify overlap of people and topics. Create a comprehensive understanding for
40 everyone in the county. Bring the information together and prevent duplication.
41
42 The motion was seconded.
43
44 Donovan asked who would do that work.
45
46 Browne asked if Public Works staff would be the proper people.
47
48 Jon Hutchings, stated they could do that.
49
50 Sidhu stated the data presented for agricultural irrigation is statewide. Whatcom
51 County has unique crops. There must be some kind of direction to the consultants, also.
52 He's looked at five different data sets from five different people. The numbers are very
53 generic, which skews quantification. Metering on irrigation is too expensive and does not
Surface Water Work Session, 3/15/2016, Page 2
1 produce better results. The data should be specific to Whatcom County crops and needs.
2 Several people, each who have their own angle, are working on it, and their numbers aren't
3 coming out the same. The Council should study all the results and come up with good data.
4 Once they find the overlap, give direction so that everyone is not competing with each
5 other. Stoyka stated the consultant uses standard industry methods, using the Washington
6 Irrigation Guide, which is county- specific and specific to certain areas of the county. The
7 consultant and staff are working with the agricultural community.
8
9 Browne restated the motion to request the county government to identify all
10 groups working on water - related issues, the people participating in each group, and the
11 overlap, if any, of people, topics, and resources being used.
12
13 The motion carried by the following vote:
14 Ayes: Browne, Weimer, Brenner, Mann, Buchanan, Sidhu, Donovan (7)
15 Nays: None (0)
16
17 Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Unit Member, gave an update on the Planning Unit
18 activities, which include the chairs who run each meeting, the process for producing the
19 agenda and packet, two subcommittees on governance and funding and on instream flow,
20 reviewing comments on the interlocal agreement, how to spend the $40,000 in funding, and
21 a review of the County Comprehensive Plan.
22
23 Ann Russell, Planning Unit Member, continued the update on the governance and
24 funding subcommittee work; engaging the public in complex water issues; upcoming
25 presentations and recommendations on the CWSP, Lower Nooksack Strategy, and
26 Comprehensive Plan; the 2001 Comprehensive Water Resource Plan informing the staff's
27 review of all the water - related groups; doing a review of the water budget; and the
28 caucuses that aren't attending the Planning Unit meetings regularly.
29
30 Sidhu asked if anyone is talking about the threshold of 5,000 gallons of water per
31 day for water planning. Russell stated that discussion will come up as they talk about the
32 Comprehensive Plan, the CWSP, and in various other discussions. The private well owners
33 keep raising the topic.
34
35
36 2. FLOOD BUDGET HISTORY AND OVERVIEW
37
38 Gary Stoyka, Public Works Department, submitted and read from a presentation (on
39 file). He referenced handouts on the flood and water resource program and described the
40 revenue, expenditure, and year -end balance history of the program. Historically, they have
41 come in about 20 percent under budget. The Deming levee project is planned for this year
42 and is budgeted for about $4 million. They have spent emergency flood funds on a couple
43 of emergencies that have come up this year.
44
45 Paula Harris, Public Works Department, stated they will submit a supplemental
46 budget request. She continued and completed the presentation on the river and flood
47 programs.
48
49 Browne stated the public perception is that flood funds are purely for flood issues,
50 and some segment of people believe it's purely for flood related to agriculture. The State
51 legislation says the funds are for flood, water quality, and water control issues. The tax
52 imposed on people is imposed countywide. The City of Bellingham residents pay about 37
53 percent of the revenue, but derive little or no benefit from the tax. There is a disconnect
Surface Water Work Session, 3/15/2016, Page 3
1 between the people who feel the money should be spent on a very narrow range of projects
2 and the people who have been taxed to fund those projects. The County's mandates to do
3 projects such as the national pollution discharge elimination system (NPDES) will create this
4 conflict going forward. The flood fund balance is running down. The current forecast is to
5 run out of the reserves in about three years. The rate of forecast expenditures is quite a bit
6 higher than the rate of incoming revenue. The Council must be aware that these issues,
7 both the public perception and the lack of adequate funding, will come up and have to be
8 resolved in the next couple of years.
9
10 Donovan referenced the flood fund and asked if more is coming from the general
11 fund to cover program costs, but there is a separate stormwater fund. Harris stated there is
12 no revenue for stormwater.
13
14 Stoyka stated the revenues are from the flood fund, real estate excise tax (REET)
15 funds, and grants.
16
17 Sidhu stated they must no longer call the fund the Flood Control Zone District fund,
18 which is the source of the confusion about what can be spent. Call it by the correct name of
19 the Flood and Water Resources Program.
20
21
22 3. SYSTEMWIDE IMPROVEMENT FRAMEWORK (SWIF) CAPITAL PROJECT LIST
23
24 Paula Harris, Public Works Department, submitted and read from a handout (on file)
25 and referenced the tables in the work session packet. She described the capital projects as
26 listed in the presentation.
27
28 Brenner asked if the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers policies about trees on levees
29 have shifted. Harris stated they have. Trees aren't something to use to determine whether
30 the levee is eligible or ineligible for the program.
31
32 Harris described the prioritized order as shown in the work session packet.
33
34 Donovan asked about other environmental benefits. Harris stated • they didn't
35 evaluate environmental benefit at this stage of conceiving the projects and evaluating the
36 cost. They will evaluate other benefits later on.
37
38
39 4. PORTAGE BAY POLLUTION IDENTIFICATION & CORRECTION (PIC) UPDATE.
40
41 Erika Douglas, Public Works Department, submitted and read from a presentation
42 (on file) on the Portage Bay Shellfish Protection District.
43
44 Browne stated the key is to figure out what has changed. He asked if they looked at
45 any external data, such as the increase in density of cattle, introduction of outside feed
46 from outside sources, which produces manure that is greater than the land's capacity to
47 absorb, or the changing use of the berry farm. He applauds efforts to do monitoring at the
48 sources to work up the waterway. He asked what other comparisons they've done. He's
49 drawn to the work of the author of Freakonomics, who showed correlation between
50 disparate data elements and came up with interesting models. Douglas stated they have
51 looked at the data in many ways, including precipitation data, land use changes, and the
52 sources of the greatest impacts. No one has identified exactly what has changed. No one
53 has identified one solution to everything. They continue to have conversations with
Surface Water Work Session, 3/15/2016, Page 4
1 community members and identify patterns. They must evaluate what role each source
2 plays in the overall picture they're trying to address. They look at the impacts of each
3 source, including pollution from Canadian sources, manure use in other areas, and whether
4 the County has provided best management practice (BMP) tools.
5
6 Andy Ross, Portage Bay Shellfish Protection District Advisory Committee Member,
7 stated the data management activity is huge. Progress is being made on creating more
8 comprehensive data. They would benefit from having a dedicated data manager to
9 administer a database.
10
11 Browne stated that a department at Western Washington University may develop an
12 ongoing student project to manage that data for the project.
13
14 Albert deBoer, Portage Bay Shellfish Protection District Advisory Committee Member,
15 stated there are fewer dairies and number of cattle than in the past. They are placing an
16 emphasis on other sources such as Canada, blueberry farms, and other types of livestock
17 such as horses.
18
19 Sidhu stated the community engagement part of this work is incredible. He has
20 talked to Resources about creating a program in Punjabi to educate blueberry farmers with
21 a different cultural background on how to properly fertilize with manure. He asked how to
22 do remediation with owners. Certain methods such as hay bales or sand filters can be done
23 on a smaller scale where they suspect a source of pollution. That is a more natural way of
24 filtration and retention. It can be renewed every season or annually. Have a range of
25 solutions for farmers, not just one solution, that are more economical.
26
27 Brenner asked who would run the new ZAPS unit. Douglas stated the Lummi Nation
28 will host it. Company technicians will monitor and maintain it.
29
30 Ross stated the company is working with the Lummi Nation to do testing as well.
31 The Lummi Nation will maintain the unit, but other agencies will collect the data.
32
33 Wendy Scherrer stated she agrees with Councilmember Sidhu on smaller remediation
34 efforts. They have those remediation tools now, which are buffers. Small buffers and more
35 protection are proven methods. The Conservation District has an army of people who want
36 to develop those buffers. Get more people to agree to those methods.
37
38 Ross stated their other challenges include property access, data management, and
39 long -term funding. This is a long -term commitment.
40
41 Fred Likkel, Portage Bay Shellfish Protection District Advisory Committee, stated he
42 is the water quality coordinator for the watershed improvement districts. He looks forward
43 to working more with the County to improve on this. He sees the potential for more funds
44 to do something similar to what they're doing in North Lynden and other areas. He thanked
45 Ms. Douglas, who has been doing a fantastic job for the advisory committee.
46
47
48 ADJOURN
49
50 The meeting adjourned at 12:52 p.m.
51
52
Surface Water Work Session, 3/15/2016, Page 5
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
The Council approved these minutes on April 19, 2016.
ATTEST:
co
.I C }. /
•
Da► r� n- av ,- Counil CICrk
- a- _
S�p,TE MFG _
.r. • ° e�
Jill Nixof(,,. inutgs -kancPiption
`'`1111►►►1►►► ►►► \.1
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
uchanan, Council Chair
Surface Water Work Session, 3/15/2016, Page 6