HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole October 21 20031 WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Committee Of The Whole
3
4 October 21, 2003
5
6
7 The meeting was called to order at 6:15 p.m. by Council Chair Dan McShane
8 in the Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
9
10 Present: Absent:
11 Barbara Brenner None
12 Laurie Caskey-Schreiber
13 Sam Crawford
14 Seth Fleetwood
15 Sharon Roy
16 L. Ward Nelson
17
18 1. DISCUSSION WITH WATER RESOURCES MANAGER BRUCE ROLL
19 REGARDING WRIA ISSUES (AB2003-025)
20
21 McShane stated this is about a Utah State University (USU) new scope of
22 work.
23
24 Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated the staff team and
25 technical team crafted a scope of work that will complete the project shortly. He
26 submitted a draft synopsis of what has changed and what is different with the
27 scope of work. He will bring this information to the Planning Unit meeting
28 tomorrow night. Ultimately, he's looking for guidance from the Council and the
29 Planning Unit on amending the contract and finishing this work.
30
31 This work being proposed is within the existing budgetary constraints. He
32 anticipated that, by implementing this in the next month or two, it would be
33 complete mid-2004. They will also talk about the timeline for the rest of the plan.
34
35 The major piece that would not be done that was in the original scope is
36 groundwater. Early in the process, there was debate about a singular model that
37 might be useful for the WRIA. After that, there was a discussion to come up with a
38 proposal for doing a multilayer of groundwater modeling. They had to consider
39 whether this modeling approach is the best at this point, given the cost of doing
40 groundwater modeling. It was an item the staff team felt could be deferred to a
41 later date. All the work done to -date would be packaged in a way that someone
42 can take it up in the future. Other than that, there are smaller pieces in each
43 element that won't be completed.
44
45 They need input on the development of the plan to make sure USU concurs
46 with the findings presented in the technical assessment sections. USU was an
47 integral part in' all reports generated during phases one and two that assessed the
48 entire basin.
Committee of the Whole, 10/21/2003, Page 1
2 McShane stated staff is asking for direction on whether to go forward with
3 this revised scope of work at the Planning Unit. Roll stated it's already in the
4 budget.
5
6 Brenner stated the groundwater portion is at least as important as the
7 surface water portion. They are gutting a huge part of the WRIA. There are as
8 many people getting water from groundwater as those from surface water. She
9 won't support eliminating groundwater. Don't continue with USU at all. Roll stated
10 there are two groundwater models that will be developed. One of the models is a
11 single well water right application. It helps guide someone who wants to put in a
12 well in a particular area. That will be a vital tool. The other piece of the
13 groundwater component is a fully functional model to deal with the transport and
14 fate of nitrates in the areas that are currently contaminated. Groundwater is not
15 completely eliminated. The stumbling block was that making a populated, fully
16 functioning model was far more money than anyone wanted to contribute at this
17 point.
18
19 Brenner stated she read the GeoEngineers report from last year, who felt
20 that they could get everything they need within a few hundred thousand dollars.
21 They are $500,000 over budget. Monies could have been used for this that
22 weren't. Roll stated GeoEngineers was one of the participants on the panel that
23 discussed the best modeling approach. They proposed the multi -layer model.
24 There are differences of opinion on how much data is needed. They all agree
'5 there's a lot of data they don't have right now. In the absence of that, they have
26 to make broad assumptions on flows and water movement. People weren't willing
27 to pull assumptions out of the air without hard data.
28
29 McShane stated GeoEngineers made a strong argument to not go with the
30 single layer model. He asked to see the claim from GeoEngineers. He'd be
31 skeptical that one could do it unless it's a three-dimensional model that's uniform
32 over the entire aquifer.
33
34 Nelson referenced section nine in the memo to the WRIA 1 Planning Unit
35 from the WRIA 1 Staff Team and Technical Team dated October 12, 2003. He
36 asked if they will or won't have an ability to support the watershed plan and
37 develop the environmental impact statement (EIS). Roll stated there have been
38 changes with the EIS. One big change was the fact that the Department of Ecology
39 came up with a programmatic EIS for watershed planning. The Department of
40 Ecology did a lot of work that the WRIA will be able to use.
41
42 Nelson asked about socio-economics. Roll stated there will be pieces of it.
43 Parametrix described how they would weigh socio-economic issues in the context of
44 water resource management.
45
46 Sue Blake, Resources Planner, stated there are five tasks related to the
47 socio-economic analysis that was done. Those will be in the plan. Like any other
18 model, there are limitations and it's expensive. The first plan sets the stage for
Committee of the Whole, 10/21/2003, Page 2
1 running new management actions through the full analysis. They will have to make
2 decisions on how to weigh the trade-offs.
3
4 Nelson asked about section ten regarding public involvement and education.
5 Roll stated they haven't been used extensively to -date. He sees the plan as the
6 cornerstone of public involvement and education as they describe the existing
7 conditions and where they're going in the future. They are more technical in
8 nature.
9
10 Fleetwood asked why USU is not contractually bound to deliver the full scope
11 of work. Roll stated it's a personal services contract. They don't view a public
12 institution the same as they would a private contractor. There are legal ways to do
13 contract oversight and execution. The planning group decided if it pursues
14 completion from a purely legal aspect, it would not get any products, the project
15 would terminate, and the Planning Unit would deal with it through other venues.
16 There's enough of a desire from Initiating Governments to move in a positive
17 direction, pick up the pieces, and create a strategy that everyone could live with.
18 The options were to stop the project or work through it.
19
20 Brenner asked if the Planning Unit caucuses were given the choice of
21 pursuing the contract. Roll stated he referred to the staff team and technical team.
22
23 Brenner stated they should go with a private contractor who is familiar with
24 what they are doing. Spend that extra money to know they've got a quality
25 product. She read from information provided by GeoEngineers that said the level
26 of funding for the groundwater modeling scope of work was sufficient to develop a
27 highly sophisticated, multilayered, transient, well -calibrated, and highly accurate
28 groundwater flow model.
29
30 McShane stated that references groundwater quality. Groundwater quantity
31 is the area they are going to back off of.
32
33 Brenner stated it's not adequate, according to an expert who was hired to
34 review their stuff. Don't continue with USU.
35
36 Roy stated she's very uncomfortable with a couple things, including the issue
37 of USU not fulfilling it's contractual obligations. She wants to know what the
38 planning groups think about this before making a decision. She's uncomfortable
39 with the amount of money they are spending on this.
40
41 Roll stated he has been working since 1999 to achieve consensus, which was
42 his direction. That's an extremely expensive process. In the absence of that,
43 there's one choice, which a single agency moving forward with what it feels is the
44 best option, hoping it's the kind of guidance that the community needs. He hasn't
45 been given direction to move away from a consensus -based process.
46
47 Brenner stated she wants to hear what the Planning Unit thinks. Changing
48 from consensus at this point is not a good idea. She asked the harm in the Council
Committee of the Whole, 10/21/2003, Page 3
1 going to the Planning Unit meeting to see what they think. Blake stated the
2 Planning Unit won't make a decision tomorrow night. This is going to be brought
3 forward.
4
5 Crawford asked if the Council could not make a decision tonight, explain to
6 the Planning Unit that the County Council is interested in what it has to say, and
7 then make a decision later. Roll stated they could do that. The project has been
8 on hold for some months. They're trying to get it going again. There is a desire to
9 present the information to the Planning Unit, and then doing a phone-in vote.
10
11 Crawford stated they don't have a lot of choices. They should pursue the
12 change in the scope of work. He shares the frustration with the way things ended
13 up the last few months. The Planning Unit is not going to make USU do something
14 it doesn't want to do without more money, and they've decided not to spend any
15 more money on USU. Staff has gotten the best it can from USU. Pursue this route.
16
17 Caskey-Schreiber asked the repercussions if the Council puts off a decision.
18 Roll stated it's hard to say. They've lost at least one of the graduate students who
19 was working on surface water. They need to find closure soon. They need to get
20 this on course so they can focus on the plan for the community. He's concerned
21 that this is a distracting element.
22
23 Blake stated part of what they need to describe in the plan is how all this fits
24 into the solution package. They don't know what they won't finish, and they'll
25 remain in limbo, if it's dragged out.
26
27 Brenner stated she would agree with Councilmember Crawford if this was
28 purely a matter of budget. It's not. It's a question of the quality of their work,
29 also. They don't get somewhere if they end up with a low -quality product.
30 GeoEngineers did the only technical peer review.
31
32 Fleetwood asked if USU is through working now. Roll stated there are a few
33 pieces. They're spending money responding to each proposed change in the scope
34 of work.
35
36 McShane stated he agreed that the product falls short of expectations. Make
37 a recommendation to accept the scope of work, have USU finish the proposed
38 scope of work. He slightly resents that USU didn't say the scope was too
39 ambitious.
40
41 Roy stated it seems that the County had a responsibility to see this coming.
42 It was forewarned. She won't support the motion.
43
44 Fleetwood stated he still doesn't have a really good sense of how the overall
45 plan is compromised because of the data they won't have. Roll stated one reason
46 they started down the path of all the technical stuff to have a common data set.
47 When they got to the point of making decision about how to manage resources,
48 there would be less debate about the science. Clearly, the expectations were too
Committee of the Whole, 10/21/2003, Page 4
1 high that they could write the plan and do all this within the timeframe. They're
2 hoping to vest in the science to make the future decisions. The plan won't answer
3 all the questions that people want answered. He hoped to show the roadmap for
4 solving the issues. Most WRIA plans being developed are doing these technical
5 studies. They are not automatically ready to apply the technical studies in a policy
6 setting. It's tough to have the cities, tribes, county, and other constituencies
7 molding the science into a policy direction. The plan won't fall apart because it
8 doesn't have the technical assessment. However, they are poised to make haste
9 on some of these issues, or at least pose the questions. It's not simple to wrestle
10 with land use, salmon recovery, and protecting resources.
11
12 Brenner stated the WRIA meeting for October 14 was cancelled. The date on
13 this memo was October 12. She asked why the Council had this memo handed to
14 them right now and is asked to make a decision right now. Roll stated he didn't
15 have information on the scope of USU's work. This is intended to give people an
16 idea of where they're going. They weren't calling for approval.
17
18 Caskey-Schreiber stated she would support moving this forward. They're not
19 going to get any more from USU. She's heard from professionals that USU's work
20 is the best. They have to give USU credit for the work it's done. They know what's
21 lacking. Down the road, they can reinforce those areas they're lacking now. Get
22 this work done.
23
24 Fleetwood asked if USU is in substantial compliance with the terms of their
15 obligations. Roll stated it depends on the goal. The goal of the Joint Board is to
26 finish it. This is a Joint Board contract. There will be a peer review process to
27 validate USU's work after they've created the products. There are mechanisms that
28 continue to indicate to the Planning Unit that USU is a technically competent group
29 capable of doing the work. It's not a simple matter for USU to interface with a
30 group like the Planning Unit. USU gets calls from people in the caucuses and other
31 places that provide direction.
32
33 Nelson stated he has great concerns about the groundwater, specifically the
34 small well users, water associations, small cities, and agricultural committee. He
35 would be more comfortable if he knew they concurred with the proposal. He won't
36 support sending it forward until he's assured that the people he represents have
37 evaluated whether or not they can live with this scope of work. If the data is
38 missing, the criteria mean nothing.
39
40 McShane stated any one of those caucuses can vote this down at the
41 Planning Unit.
42
43 Brenner stated there is more pressure on the caucuses when the County
44 gives a direction.
45
46 Nelson stated he doesn't have a problem with USU. They may have bit off
47 more than they could chew. However, if the Planning Unit decided in the beginning
48 it needs this information, then it better get it.
Committee of the Whole, 10/21/2003, 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
?5
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
McShane stated a simple one-dimensional or two-dimensional model for
groundwater doesn't work here. That is valuable information in itself. Figuring out
groundwater in any given area in the county is going to be complicated. Now they
know that.
Fleetwood asked if the Council can defer, pending discussion at the Planning
Unit, and then take it up again in two weeks. Roll stated they can do that.
McShane moved to accept the draft scope of work with the current budget
and no additional expenditure.
Motion carried 4-3 with Nelson, Brenner, and Roy opposed.
2. RESOLUTION CERTIFYING AND ACCEPTING THE PROPOSED POLL
BOOK FOR THE BERTRAND WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
FORMATION ELECTION (AN IRRIGATION DISTRICT) (AB2003-226B)
Crawford moved to approve the resolution.
Crawford asked if every landowner has one vote, or one vote per acre.
Dave Grant, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated a landowner gets two
votes per five acres, or a fraction thereof. There is a provision that no one person
can account for more than 49 percent.
Fleetwood stated a question was raised by Councilmember Brenner as to why
there is not one vote per person.
(Clerk's Note: There was no vote on the motion.)
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:05 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on November 18 , 2003.
ATTEST:
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown -Davis, Counci rClerk Dan McShane, Council Chair
Committee of the Whole, 10/21/2003, Page 6