+menu-


  • Category Archives Ecology Empowered by WA Law
  • Ecology’s Back “Amended Plus ” SMP WAC’S

    Ecology’s Back “Amended Plus ” SMP WAC’S
    This is an area of statewide concern. Ecology is “BEGINNING” rulemaking “TO AMEND SEVERAL” of the rules related to implementation of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA)

    ———————————————-
    Please send this out to notify

    ALL WA STATE VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS

    ————————————————–
    ECOLOGY STATES
    We have already reached out to INTERESTED parties such as the
    WA Department of Commerce (for Growth Management Act consistency), Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) and Association of Washington Cities (AWC).

    ——————————————————–

    ECOLOGY STATES
    We will communicate with STAKEHOLDERS through the agency email lists (WAC Track and program lists), a rulemaking web page, e-mail, and regular mail.

    We intend to get feedback and early input from A LOCAL GOVERNMENT SOUNDING BOARD.

    WE WILL CONSULT WITH INTERESTED TRIBES.

    ECOLOGY STATES

    WE WILL RELEASE A PRELIMINARY DRAFT RULE FOR INFORMAL COMMENT SO WE CAN GET MORE INPUT …..”BEFORE WE PROPOSE A FORMAL DRAFT RULE (CR-102) FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.”

    We will hold “PUBLIC HEARINGS” on the draft rule (CR-102) that are accessible to interested parties throughout the state.
    —————————————————————-
    IS COUNTY GOVERNMENT INTERESTED?
    ARE VESTED SHORELINE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS INTERESTED?

    —————————————————————-

    HOW INTERESTED PARTIES CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION TO ADOPT THE NEW RULE AND FORMULATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE BEFORE PUBLICATION:

    (List names, addresses, telephone, fax numbers, and e-mail of persons to contact; describe meetings, other exchanges of information, etc.)
    Rule Coordinator:
    Michelle Wilcox, SEA Program,
    WA State Department of Ecology,
    PO Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600.
    Phone: 360-407-7676.
    E-mail:smarulemaking@ecy.wa.gov.

    —————————————————————–
    —– Original Message —–
    From: Dumar, Laurie (ECY)
    To: ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK@LISTSERV.WA.GOV
    Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 4:56 PM
    Subject: Ecology rulemaking filing: Shoreline Management Act

    Ecology filed the following rulemaking with the Office of the Code Reviser:

    September 2, 2015
    Rule preproposal

    • Permits for oil or natural gas exploration activities conducted from state marine waters (WAC 173-15)
    • Shoreline management act – streams and rivers constituting shorelines of the state (WAC 173-18)
    • Shoreline management act – lakes constituting shorelines of the state (WAC 173-20)
    • Adoption of designations of shorelands and wetlands associated with shorelines of the state (WAC 173-22)
    • State master program approval\amendment procedures and master program guidelines (WAC 173-26)
    • Shoreline management permit and enforcement procedures (WAC 173-27)
    Thank you for using WAC Track!

    ________________________________________
    Visit us on the web or social media.
    Subscribe or Unsubscribe

    ————————————————–
    This is attachment A

    RULEMAKING IS NECESSARY TO:

    1.CLARIFY THE PROCESS TO COMPLY WITH THE PERIODIC REVIEW REQUIREMENT PER RCW 90.58.080 as the first round of Shoreline Master Program
    (SMP) REVIEWS WILL BE DUE TO ECOLOGY JUNE 2019;

    2. Simplify the process for approving minor updates to SMPs;

    3. Update the list of shorelines of the state to be consistent with the SMP updates;

    4. Ensure consistency with amendments to statute since the last rule revision;

    5. Capture any administrative updates since the last rule revision;

    6. Consider clarifying the planning process for water-dependent uses INCLUDING SALMON NET PENS; AND,

    7. Consider including a new section on planning for coastal hazards.
    ——————————————————————————————
    THIS IS A REALLY BIG LAND GRABBER…..
    DESIGNATING THE ASSOCIATED SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS

    • Adoption of designations of shorelands and wetlands associated with shorelines of the state (WAC 173-22)

    ——————————————————————————————
    Ecology’s full text
    Ecology rulemaking filing: Shoreline Management Act
    Chapters 173-15, 173-18, 173-20, 173-22, 173-26, 173-27 WAC
    Shoreline Management Act (SMA) Rules
    PREPROPOSAL STATEMENT OF INQUIRY
    CR-101 (June 2004)(Implements RCW 34.05.310)
    Do NOT use for expedited rule making
    Agency: Department of Ecology AO #15-06
    Subject of possible rule making:
    Ecology is beginning rulemaking to amend several of the rules related to implementation of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) RCW 90.58,
    SPECIFICALLY:
    • Chapter 173-15 WAC -Permits for Oil or Natural Gas Exploration Activities Conducted from State Marine Waters
    • Chapter 173-18 WAC -SMA–Streams and Rivers Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-20 WAC -SMA–Lakes Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • CHAPTER 173-22 WAC -ADOPTION OF DESIGNATIONS OF SHORELANDS AND WETLANDS ASSOCIATED WITH SHORELINES OF THE STATE
    • Chapter 173-26 WAC -State Master Program Approval/Amendment Procedures and Master Program Guidelines
    • Chapter 173-27 WAC -Shoreline Management Permit and Enforcement Procedures

    Statutes authorizing the agency to adopt rules on this subject :RCW 90.58.060 REQUIRES ECOLOGY TO PERIODICALLY REVIEW AND UPDATE WAC 173-26.

    The last rule update was in 2011 and focused mostly on GEODUCK AQUACULTURE.

    OTHER CHAPTERS ARE BEING INCLUDED IN THE UPDATE TO IMPROVE CLARITY AND CONSISTENCY ACROSS THE RULES.

    Reasons why rules on this subject may be needed and what they might accomplish:
    This is Attachment A……

    Reasons why rules on this subject may be needed and what they might accomplish:
    RULEMAKING IS NECESSARY TO:

    1.CLARIFY THE PROCESS TO COMPLY WITH THE PERIODIC REVIEW REQUIREMENT PER RCW 90.58.080 as the first round of Shoreline Master Program

    (SMP) REVIEWS WILL BE DUE TO ECOLOGY JUNE 2019;

    2. Simplify the process for approving minor updates to SMPs;

    3. Update the list of shorelines of the state to be consistent with the SMP updates;

    4. Ensure consistency with amendments to statute since the last rule revision;

    5. Capture any administrative updates since the last rule revision;

    6. Consider clarifying the planning process for water-dependent uses INCLUDING SALMON NET PENS; AND,

    7. Consider including a new section on planning for coastal hazards.

    Reasons why rules on this subject may be needed and what they might accomplish (continued)
    Identify OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES THAT REGULATE THIS SUBJECT AND THE PROCESS COORDINATING THE RULE WITH THESE AGENCIES:

    Local governments must follow the SMP Guidelines (Chapter 173-26 WAC) when drafting their local shoreline master programs.

    The Guidelines translate the broad policies of the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.020) INTO STANDARDS FOR REGULATION of shoreline uses.

    We have already reached out to interested parties such as the
    WA Department of Commerce (for Growth Management Act consistency), Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC) and Association of Washington Cities (AWC).

    Process for developing new rule (check all that apply):
    Negotiated rule making n/a
    Pilot rule making n/a
    Agency study n/a
    OTHER (DESCRIBE)
    We will use standard rulemaking.

    We will communicate with stakeholders through the agency email lists (WAC Track and program lists), a rulemaking web page, e-mail, and regular mail.

    We intend to get feedback and early input from A LOCAL GOVERNMENT SOUNDING BOARD.

    WE WILL CONSULT WITH INTERESTED TRIBES.

    WE WILL RELEASE A PRELIMINARY DRAFT RULE FOR INFORMAL COMMENT SO WE CAN GET MORE INPUT …..”BEFORE WE PROPOSE A FORMAL DRAFT RULE (CR-102) FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.”

    We will hold “PUBLIC HEARINGS” on the draft rule (CR-102) that are accessible to interested parties throughout the state.

    HOW INTERESTED PARTIES CAN PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION TO ADOPT THE NEW RULE AND FORMULATION OF THE PROPOSED RULE BEFORE PUBLICATION:
    (List names, addresses, telephone, fax numbers, and e-mail of persons to contact; describe meetings, other exchanges of information, etc.)

    Rule Coordinator:
    Michelle Wilcox, SEA Program,
    WA State Department of Ecology,
    PO Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600.

    Phone: 360-407-7676.
    E-mail:smarulemaking@ecy.wa.gov.

    VISIT THE SEA PROGRAM RULE
    web page at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/rules/rulemaking-index.html

    Join the Listserv at http://listserv.wa.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0=ECOLOGY-SHORELINE-RULE
    Learn more about Shoreline Master Programs at:
    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/shorelines/smp/index.html

    DATE 09/01/15 CODE REVISER USE ONLY
    NAME (TYPE OR PRINT)
    Gordon White
    SIGNATURE
    TITLE Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program Manager


  • RCW 43.37 Weather Modification

    Washington State Weather Modification

    THIS IS THE LAW

    ——————————————————

    Chapter 43.37 RCW: WEATHER MODIFICATION

    apps.leg.wa.gov › RCWs › Title 43

    Washington State Senate Access Washington … 43.37 RCW. WEATHER MODIFICATION

    … 43.37.190, Liability of state denied — Legal rights of private persons not affected. 43.37.200 …

    ————————————————————–

    Complete Chapter | RCW Dispositions  (below)

    Selected RCW’s for the understanding of a reasonable person

    —————————————————————

    RCW 43.37.210
    LEGISLATIVE DECLARATION.
    The legislature finds and declares that when prolonged lack of precipitation
    or shortages of water supply in the state cause severe hardships affecting
    the health, safety, and welfare of the people of the state, a program to
    increase precipitation is occasionally needed for the generation of
    hydroelectric power, for domestic purposes, and to alleviate hardships
    created by the threat of forest fires and shortages of water for
    agriculture. CLOUD SEEDING has been demonstrated to be such a program of
    weather modification with increasing scientific certainty.
    [1981 c 278 § 1.]
    Actions during state of emergency exempt from chapter 43.21C RCW: RCW
    43.21C.210.

    RCW 43.37.010

    DEFINITIONS.

    As used in this chapter, unless the context requires otherwise:

    (1) “DEPARTMENT” MEANS THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY;

    (2) “OPERATION” means the performance of weather modification and control activities pursuant to a single contract entered into for the purpose of producing or attempting to produce, a certain modifying effect within one geographical area over one continuing time interval not exceeding one year; or, in case the performance of weather modification and control activities is to be undertaken individually or jointly by a person or persons to be benefited and not undertaken pursuant to a contract, “operation” means the performance of weather modification and control activities entered into for the purpose of producing, or attempting to produce, a certain modifying effect within one geographical area over one continuing time interval not exceeding one year;

    (3) “RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT” means theoretical analysis exploration and experimentation, and the extension of investigative findings and theories of a scientific or technical nature into practical application for experimental and demonstration purposes, including the EXPERIMENTAL production and testing of models, devices, equipment, materials, and processes;

    (4) “WEATHER MODIFICATION AND CONTROL” means changing or controlling, or attempting to change or control, by artificial methods, the natural development of any or all atmospheric cloud forms or precipitation forms which occur in the troposphere.

    [1973 c 64 § 1; 1965 c 8 § 43.37.010. Prior: 1957 c 245 § 1.]

    RCW 43.37.090

    EXEMPTIONS.

    The department, to the extent it deems practical, shall provide by regulation for exempting from license, permit, and liability requirements, (1) research and development and experiments by STATE AND FEDERAL agencies, institutions of higher learning, and bona fide nonprofit research organizations; (2) laboratory research and experiments; (3) activities of an emergent character for protection against fire, frost, sleet, or fog; and (4) activities normally engaged in for purposes other than those of inducing, increasing, decreasing, or preventing precipitation or hail.

    [1973 c 64 § 7; 1965 c 8 § 43.37.090. Prior: 1957 c 245 § 9.]

     

    RCW 43.37.190

    LIABILITY OF STATE DENIED — Legal rights of private persons not affected.

    Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impose or accept any liability or responsibility on the part of the state, the department, or any state officials or employees for any weather modification and control activities of any private person or group, nor to affect in any way any contractual, tortious, or other legal rights, duties, or liabilities between any private persons or groups.

    [1973 c 64 § 16; 1965 c 8 § 43.37.190. Prior: 1957 c 245 § 19.]

     

    RCW 43.37.215

    Program of EMERGENCY CLOUD SEEDING authorized.

    The director of ecology may establish by rule under chapter 34.05 RCW a program of emergency cloud seeding. The director may include in these rules standards and guidelines for determining the situations which warrant cloud seeding and the means to be used for cloud seeding.

    [1981 c 278 § 2.]

    Notes:

    Actions during state of emergency exempt from chapter 43.21C RCW: RCW 43.21C.210.

     

    RCW 43.37.220

    EXEMPTION OF LICENSEE from certain requirements.

    Upon a proclamation of a state of emergency, related to a lack of precipitation or a shortage of water supply, by the governor under RCW 43.06.210, the department shall exempt a licensee from the requirements of RCW 43.37.110 (2) and (6) and RCW 43.37.140.

    [1981 c 278 § 3.]

    Notes:

    Actions during state of emergency exempt from chapter 43.21C RCW: RCW 43.21C.210.

    RCW 43.06.210

    PROCLAMATIONS — Generally — STATE OF EMERGENCY.

    The proclamation of a state of emergency and other proclamations or orders issued by the governor pursuant to RCW 43.06.010, and 43.06.200 through 43.06.270 as now or hereafter amended shall be in writing and shall be signed by the governor and shall then be filed with the secretary of state. A proclamation of a state of emergency is effective upon the governor’s signature. The governor shall give as much public notice as practical through the news media of the issuance of proclamations or orders pursuant to RCW 43.06.010, and 43.06.200 through 43.06.270 as now or hereafter amended. The state of emergency shall cease to exist upon the issuance of a proclamation of the governor declaring its termination: PROVIDED, That the governor must terminate said state of emergency proclamation when order has been restored in the area affected.

    [2013 c 21 § 1; 1977 ex.s. c 328 § 12; 1975-’76 2nd ex.s. c 108 § 27; 1969 ex.s. c 186 § 2.]

    Notes:

         Severability — 1977 ex.s. c 328: See note following RCW 43.21G.010.

         Severability — Effective date — 1975-’76 2nd ex.s. c 108: See notes following RCW 43.21F.010.

    Energy supply emergencies: Chapter 43.21G RCW.

     

    Governor declares statewide drought emergency | Governor …

    www.governor.wa.gov/…/governor-declares-statewide-droughtemergen

    May 15, 2015 – State ramps up work to relieve hardships from water shortages OLYMPIA – With … Jay Inslee today declared a statewide drought for Washington.

    RCW 43.06.220

    State of emergency — POWERS OF GOVERNOR PURSUANT TO PROCLAMATION.

    RCW 42.30.070

    Times and places for meetings — EMERGENCIES — EXCEPTION.

    The governing body of a public agency shall provide the time for holding regular meetings by ordinance, resolution, bylaws, or by whatever other rule is required for the conduct of business by that body. Unless otherwise provided for in the act under which the public agency was formed, meetings of the governing body need not be held within the boundaries of the territory over which the public agency exercises jurisdiction. If at any time any regular meeting falls on a holiday, such regular meeting shall be held on the next business day. IF, BY REASON OF FIRE, FLOOD, EARTHQUAKE, OR OTHER EMERGENCY, THERE IS A NEED FOR EXPEDITED ACTION BY A GOVERNING BODY TO MEET THE EMERGENCY, the presiding officer of the governing body may provide for a meeting site other than the regular meeting site AND THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL BE SUSPENDED DURING SUCH EMERGENCY. It shall not be a violation of the requirements of this chapter for a majority of the members of a governing body to travel together or gather for purposes other than a regular meeting or a special meeting as these terms are used in this chapter: PROVIDED, That they take no action as defined in this chapter.

    [1983 c 155 § 2; 1973 c 66 § 1; 1971 ex.s. c 250 § 7.]

     

    Chapter 43.37 RCW: WEATHER MODIFICATION

    LEGISLATED INTENTION?

    RCW 43.37.090

    EXEMPTIONS.

    The department, to the extent it deems practical, SHALL PROVIDE BY REGULATION FOR EXEMPTING FROM LICENSE, PERMIT, AND LIABILITY REQUIREMENTS, (1) research and development and experiments by STATE AND FEDERAL agencies, institutions of higher learning, and bona fide nonprofit research organizations; (2) laboratory research and experiments; (3) activities of an emergent character for protection against fire, frost, sleet, or fog; and (4) activities normally engaged in for purposes other than those of inducing, increasing, decreasing, or preventing precipitation or hail.

    [1973 c 64 § 7; 1965 c 8 § 43.37.090. Prior: 1957 c 245 § 9.]

    —————————————————————————–

     

    Chapter 43.37 RCW: WEATHER MODIFICATION

     

    LEGISLATED INTENTION?

    RCW 43.06.210 STATE OF EMERGENCY.

    RCW 42.30.070 EMERGENCIES — EXCEPTION

    RCW 43.37.220 EXEMPTION OF LICENSEE

    RCW 43.37.140

    NOTICE OF INTENTION — Publication.

    (1) The applicant shall cause the notice of intention, or that portion thereof including the items specified in RCW 43.37.130, to be published at least once a week for three consecutive weeks in a legal newspaper having a general circulation and published within any county in which the operation is to be conducted and in which the affected area is located, or, if the operation is to be conducted in more than one county or if the affected area is located in more than one county or is located in a county other than the one in which the operation is to be conducted, then in a legal newspaper having a general circulation and published within each of such counties. In case there is no legal newspaper published within the appropriate county, publication shall be made in a legal newspaper having a general circulation within the county;
    (2) Proof of publication, made in the manner provided by law, shall be filed by the licensee with the department within fifteen days from the date of the last publication of the notice.

    [1973 c 64 § 11; 1965 c 8 § 43.37.140. Prior: 1961 c 154 § 4; 1957 c 245 § 14.]

     

    RCW 43.37.120

    Separate permit for each operation — Filing and publishing notice of INTENTION — Activities restricted by permit and notice.

    A separate permit shall be issued for each operation. Prior to undertaking any weather modification and control activities the licensee shall file with the department and also cause to be published a notice of intention. The licensee, if a permit is issued, shall confine his or her activities for the permitted operation within the time and area limits set forth in the notice of intention, unless modified by the department; and his or her activities shall also conform to any conditions imposed by the department upon the issuance of the permit or to the terms of the permit as modified after issuance.

    [2009 c 549 § 5114; 1973 c 64 § 10; 1965 c 8 § 43.37.120. Prior: 1961 c 154 § 3; 1957 c 245 § 12.]

    Complete Chapter | RCW Dispositions

    RCW Sections

    43.37.010

    Definitions.

    43.37.030

    Powers and duties.

    43.37.040

    Promotion of research and development activities — Contracts and agreements.

    43.37.050

    Hearing procedure.

    43.37.060

    Acceptance of gifts, donations, etc.

    43.37.080

    License and permit required.

    43.37.090

    Exemptions.

    43.37.100

    Licenses — Requirements, duration, renewal, fees.

    43.37.110

    Permits — Requirements — Hearing as to issuance.

    43.37.120

    Separate permit for each operation — Filing and publishing notice of intention — Activities restricted by permit and notice.

    43.37.130

    Notice of intention — Contents.

    43.37.140

    Notice of intention — Publication.

    43.37.150

    Financial responsibility.

    43.37.160

    Fees — Sanctions for failure to pay.

    43.37.170

    Records and reports — Open to public examination.

    43.37.180

    Revocation, suspension, modification of license or permit.

    43.37.190

    Liability of state denied — Legal rights of private persons not affected.

    43.37.200

    Penalty.

    43.37.210

    Legislative declaration.

    43.37.215

    Program of emergency cloud seeding authorized.

    43.37.220

    Exemption of licensee from certain requirements.

    43.37.910

    Effective date — 1973 c 64.

    Another Chapter in the Book of Revelations by Pearl Revere


  • Past and Present Drought in WA State

    History of Droughts in Washington State

    An interesting read on WA State DROUGHT PLANS

    BEFORE THE INSTREAM FLOW RULES.

    History of Droughts in Washington State_1977.pdf  A 43 page document

    ———————————————————————————–

    PRESENT DROUGHT PLANS FOR CITIZENS IN WA STATE?

    AFTER THE INSTREAM FLOW RULES?

    May 24, 2015  The WA statewide drought emergency PLAN?.

    Hmmm…  LAWMAKERS have yet to act on DOE’s request for $9.6 million in drought relief funds. The request came in late March, weeks after legislators began putting together spending plans.

    UPDATE: WHAT’S THE HOLDUP ON THE $9.6 MILLION IN DROUGHT RELIEF FUNDS?

    What’s the problem?

    WATER FOR CITIZENS IS WORTH FIGHTING FOR…

    IT’S A VALUE JUDGMENT

    At a drought committee meeting Monday, Honeyford reminded Stanford that he had been willing to embrace Stanford’s drought preparation bill in exchange for the House approving legislation to let the city of Lynden draw water from the Nooksack River in Whatcom County.

    Tribes and environmental groups oppose the bill, which passed the Senate.

    ————————————————————————-

    THE “CITIZENS  REVIEW” OF ECOLOGY’S DROUGHT PLANS IN WA STATE?

    What YOU can expect at a COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUM?

    This  Report by Lois Krafsky-Perry
    for Citizen Review
    Posted Saturday, May 23, 2015

    Sequim/Dungeness community listens to drought concerns

    IT’S A MUST READ

    http://citizenreviewonline.org/sequimdungeness-community-listens-to-drought-concerns/

    CITIZENS REVIEW  is an online  resource for disseminating critical information to keep citizens informed

    —————————————————————————————————

    AS PROVIDED ABOVE BY LOIS…

    We the people have partners too….

    My website, behindmyback.org,  is dedicated to investigating, researching, documenting, UPDATING and disseminating critical information to help keep American citizens informed by posting and reporting things they don’t know. This is just one chapter in the book of revelations by Pearl Revere.

    ————————————————————————————————

     A 43 page document History of Droughts in Washington State_1977.pdf

    MEDIA Drought alert Sun., Feb. 6, 1977  

    WOW! THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

    Dear Reader: On February 16, 1977, Governor Dixy Lee Ray established the “Governor’s … drought occurrences in the State of Washington since 1900. Various.

    OCR Text

    Northwest Officials ponder energy outlook By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Some nfflntnla HUn n*a« nn n_.. «-L. nn«<m.»». .i~-i_i_n.. M .-. THE DAILY NEWS—21 Angeles, Wash., Sun., Feb. 6, 1977

    By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Nervous government weather- watchers are mobilizing for battle should a Pacific Northwest drought short-circuit electric power and whither crops this spring. Homeowners may be asked — or forced — to reduce their electrical use. During Christmas, Seattle City Light asked its 370,000 customers not to use outdoor decorative lighting. Further sacrifices may be around the corner if a serious drought occurs.

    —————————————————————————-

    MEDIA COVERAGE?   2015 WA STATE DROUGHT?  

    NOT SO MUCH..

    CAPITAL PRESS  Published:  

    Their full media report is  here

    Washington’s late reaction to drought revives legislation …

    www.capitalpress.com/Washington/…/washingtons-late-react

    Capital Press May 14, 2015 – A House bill to revise how the state prepares for a drought sank in the Senate, but may resurface in the special session.

    ——————————————————————————-

    Ecology’s  current drought report is sort of an interesting reading.

    Last revised: May 22, 2015

    Washington Drought 2015 | Washington State Department …

    www.ecy.wa.gov/drought/

    3 days ago – Washington State Weekly Drought Update – Office of Washington State … Current Snow Water Equivalent (SWE) % of Normal – View Map …

    ——————————————————–

    And more history…. a response from Ecology

    —– Original Message —–

    From: Marti, Jeff (ECY)

    To: pearl hewett

    Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 5:23 PM

    Subject: RE: History of Droughts in Washington State

    Pearl, good sleuthing.   1977 was indeed a bad drought year, which triggered the (still ongoing) Yakima water rights adjudication.

    Here’s a couple more reports that you might find interesting.

    Jeff

    ————————————

    Jeff Marti

    Water Resources Program

    360-407-6627

    jeff.marti@ecy.wa.gov

    2005 Drought Response Report to the Legislature

    www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0611001.html

    • 2005 Drought Response Report to the Legislature … While it is generally viewed as a climate anomaly, in fact drought is the dry part of the normal climate cycle.

    Drought Response 2001: Report to the Legislature

    www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0111017.html

    Author(s), Curt Hart. Description, This legislative report outlines how the state agencies responsible for managing Washington’s emergency drought activities .

    ——————————————————————————-

    History of Droughts in Washington State 1900 to 1977 etc…

    Title History of Droughts in Washington State
    Publication Type Report
    Year of Publication 1977
    Authors Staff, GAHEWEC
    Keywords climate, droughts, environment, historic, history, washington, water
    Title History of Droughts in Washington State
    Publication Type Report
    Year of Publication 1977
    Authors Staff, GAHEWEC
    Keywords climate, droughts, environment, historic, history, washington, water

     



  • Are You A Normal Person?

    Are You A Normal Person?

    The is a DIRECT QUOTE OF ECOLOGY’S ANSWER  to a basic question.

    Aren’t people more important than fish?

    IF YOU’RE A NORMAL PERSON, YOU’D ANSWER “YES, PEOPLE USUALLY ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN FISH.”

    HOWEVER, the issue of instream flow isn’t that simple.  It actually boils down to a “VALUE JUDGMENT” of what we want our world to look like.

    ————————————————————————

    VALUE JUDGMENT by definition

    An assessment of a person, situation, or event. The term is often restricted to assessments that reveal the values of the person making the assessment rather than the objective realities of what is being assessed.

    ——————————————————————————–

    WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY  Answers to your basic questions,

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/isf101.html

    ————————————————————————————————-

    ARE INSTREAM FLOWS ALL ABOUT PROTECTING FISH? WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE?

    ——————————————————————————————————

    SO? WHAT ABOUT PEOPLE?

    ARE YOU A NORMAL PERSON?

     By definition.. NORMAL is also used to describe individual behaviour that CONFORMS TO THE MOST COMMON BEHAVIOUR IN SOCIETY (known as conformity). Definitions of normality vary by person, time, place, and situation – it changes along with changing societal standards and norms.

    —————————————————————-

    ARE PEOPLE USUALLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN FISH?

    By definition.. USUALLY?

    1. Commonly encountered, experienced, or observed

    2. Regularly or customarily used

    3. In CONFORMITY with regular practice or procedure:

    ———————————————————————————

    ARE PEOPLE  MORE IMPORTANT THAN FISH?

    USUALLY…….

    By definition.. HOWEVER

    1. In spite of that

    2. nevertheless

    3.  by whatever means

    4.  in whatever manner

    ——————————————————————

    It actually boils down to aVALUE JUDGMENT” (by definition)

    An assessment of a person, situation, or event. The term is often restricted TO ASSESSMENTS THAT REVEAL THE VALUES OF THE PERSON MAKING THE ASSESSMENT rather than the objective realities of what is being assessed.

    ———————————————————————————

    THE VALUES OF THE PERSON MAKING THE ASSESSMENT?

     WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY VALUES FISH BEFORE PEOPLE?

     —————————————————————————

    Hmmm… THE $$$ VALUES  OF EARTH ECONOMICS ?

    devoted to promoting ecosystem health and ecological economics

    ———————————————————————-

    WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY

    Introduction to Instream Flows and Instream Flow Rules
    Answers to your basic questions,

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/isf101.html

    ———————————————————————————

    What was the question?

    Are instream flows all about protecting fish? What about people?

    What was ECOLOGY’S Answer?

    Isn’t instream flow really an issue of “water for fish” vs. “water for people”?  Aren’t people more important than fish?  If you’re a normal person, you’d answer “yes, people usually are more important than fish.”  However, the issue of instream flow isn’t that simple.  It actually boils down to a value judgment of what we want our world to look like.  Fish are in fact just one of many organisms that live in streams but they often offer a gauge of overall environmental health.

     Instream flow is an issue of water and river management – seeking ways to maintain healthy, diverse ecosystems that contribute to a high quality of life while sustaining our basic life functions and economies.  Accomplishing this goal is never easy, as it involves integration of scientific knowledge and societal demands within a set of legal limitations.

    But informed and effective instream flow management should afford a healthy, enjoyable existence for people while maintaining healthy, diverse aquatic resources.   It’s much more complicated than “keeping a little water in the creek for the fish.”

    Instream Flow Council

    ————————————————————————————–

    WA STATE ELECTED LEGISLATORS VALUE JUDGMENT?

     INSTREAM FLOW IS AN ISSUE OF WATER FOR CITIZENS

    An assessment of a person, situation, or event. THE TERM IS OFTEN RESTRICTED TO ASSESSMENTS THAT REVEAL THE VALUES OF THE PERSON MAKING THE ASSESSMENT rather than the objective realities of what is being assessed.

    —————————————————————-

    THE OBJECTIVE REALITIES OF WHAT IS BEING ASSESSED?

    Start here

    EVEN,  BEFORE GOVERNOR INSLEE’S WA STATE DROUGHT DECLARATION

    INSTREAM FLOW WAS AN ISSUE OF WATER FOR CITIZENS

    ——————————————————–

    Behind My Back | High, Dry and Destitute

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/01/highdry-and-destitute/

    Feb 1, 2015 – High, Dry and Destitute WA State citizens, private property owners and farmers, in Skagit and Clallam County have been left HIGH, DRY AND 

    DESTITUTE  by definition, WITHOUT THE BASIC NECESSITIES OF LIFE.

    ———————————————————————————-

    WHAT’S NEXT?

    AFTER, GOVERNOR INSLEE’S WA STATE DROUGHT DECLARATION?

    INSTREAM FLOW IS NOW A  CRITICAL ISSUE OF WATER FOR CITIZENS

    —————————————————-

    WHAT’S NEXT?

    Community Drought Forum

    May 21, 2015

    6:00-8:30PM

    Guy Cole Convention Center

    202 North Blake Avenue, Sequim, WA 98382

     ————————————————————-

    Please GO PUBLIC with this.

    Invite every “CITIZEN” that is critically affected by

    Ecology’s WA State Drought Response?

    2015 Dungeness Dry Year Leasing Program FAQs

    GOT QUESTIONS? WANT ANSWERS?

    PLEASE  attend this Clallam County Community Drought Forum

    JEFF MARTI DROUGHT COORDINATOR WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY WILL BE THERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

    ————————————————————————————————————

    ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT ECOLOGY’S WATER VALUE JUDGMENT?

    GOT QUESTIONS? WANT ANSWERS?

    WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (WRAC)

    Meetings are normally attended by about FORTY PEOPLE WHO REPRESENT STATE AGENCIES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, WATER UTILITIES, INDIAN TRIBES, ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, CONSULTANTS, LAW FIRMS AND OTHER WATER STAKEHOLDERS. 

     GOT QUESTIONS? WANT ANSWERS?

    CONTACT

    Chris Anderson
    Department of Ecology, Water Resources Program
    e-mail: chris.anderson@ecy.wa.gov
    Phone: 360-407-6634

     


  • Water for Fish vs. Water for People?

    Water for Fish vs.  Water for People?

     Aren’t people more important than fish? 

     If you’re a normal person, you’d answer “yes,

    people USUALLY are more important than FISH.” 

    HOWEVER, THE ISSUE OF “INSTREAM FLOW” ISN’T THAT SIMPLE.  IT ACTUALLY BOILS DOWN TO A VALUE JUDGMENT

    WA  STATE LAW IS CLEAR THAT INSTREAM FLOWS  “MUST” BE SET AT LEVELS THAT PROTECT AND PRESERVE FISH

    ————————————————————————-

    WA STATE DEPT OF ECOLOGY

    Introduction to Instream Flows and Instream Flow Rules
    Answers to your basic questions,

    http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/instream-flows/isf101.html

    What is an instream flow? Answer…

    Why are stream flows important? Answer…

    What is an “instream flow rule”? Answer…

    Are there instream flows set in my watershed? Answer…

    How could setting instream flows affect me? Answer…

    Are instream flows all about protecting fish? What about people? Answer…

    How are instream flow numbers determined? Answer…

    Why are instream flows sometimes higher than the flow in the stream? Answer…

    Why not set flow levels lower than the existing flows in the stream? Answer…

    What are the laws that allow Ecology to set flows by rule? Answer…

    ——————————————————————————————–

    GOT QUESTIONS?  ECOLOGY’S GOT ALL THE BASIC ANSWERS

    Introduction to Instream Flows and Instream Flow Rules …

    www.ecy.wa.gov › Water Resources › Instream Flows In Washington

    This web page answers basic questions about instream flows and instream flow rules.

    Introduction to Instream Flows and Instream Flow Rules

    This web page answers basic questions about instream flows and instream flow rules.

    What is an instream flow? Answer…

    Why are stream flows important? Answer…

    What is an “instream flow rule”? Answer…

    Are there instream flows set in my watershed? Answer…

    How could setting instream flows affect me? Answer…

    ————————————————————————————

    Are instream flows all about protecting fish? What about people?

    Answer…

    Washington state law requires that instream resources, including fish, have adequate flow levels to protect and preserve them.

    When setting flows, a lot of discussion centers around fish needs because fish are considered an “indicator species” – setting instream flow levels adequate for fish generally provides flows adequate for other instream resources. And fish needs can be more easily quantified by existing methods than other instream values.  This is why fish studies are usually the basis for determining instream flow numbers.

    Adequate stream flows are important for instream resources and values that directly impact people, including water quality, recreational activities like fishing, boating and swimming, and the scenic and aesthetic qualities of natural settings that Washington State is famous for. (Also see the question Why are stream flows important?)

    When making decisions about water right permits, it is necessary to know how much is needed and how much is available.  Adopting instream flow rules help Ecology determine whether there is enough water for additional out-of-stream uses and support local communities in managing their current and future water needs.

    —————————————————————————————

    ISN’T INSTREAM FLOW REALLY AN ISSUE OF

    “WATER FOR FISH” VS. “WATER FOR PEOPLE”? 

     AREN’T PEOPLE MORE IMPORTANT THAN FISH? 

     IF YOU’RE A NORMAL PERSON, YOU’D ANSWER

     “YES, PEOPLE USUALLY ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN FISH.” 

     HOWEVER, THE ISSUE OF INSTREAM FLOW ISN’T THAT SIMPLE. 

     IT ACTUALLY BOILS DOWN TO A VALUE JUDGMENT

    of what we want our world to look like.  Fish are in fact just one of many organisms that live in streams but they often offer a gauge of overall environmental health.

    Instream flow is an issue of water and river management – seeking ways to maintain healthy, diverse ecosystems that contribute to a high quality of life while sustaining our basic life functions and economies.  Accomplishing this goal is never easy, as it involves integration of scientific knowledge and societal demands within a set of legal limitations.

    But informed and effective instream flow management should afford a healthy, enjoyable existence for people while maintaining healthy, diverse aquatic resources.   It’s much more complicated than “keeping a little water in the creek for the fish.”

    Instream Flow Council

    Welcome to the Instream Flow Council (link as provided above by ecology)

    The Instream Flow Council (IFC) is a NON-PROFIT organization made up of state, provincial, and territorial fish and wildlife agencies working to improve the effectiveness of instream flow programs and activities for conserving fish and wildlife and related aquatic resources.

    —————————————————————————————–

    How are instream flow numbers determined? Answer…

    ——————————————————-

    Why are instream flows sometimes higher than the flow in the stream?

    Answer…

    While the amount of water in the stream is considered when determining instream flow numbers, they cannot be based solely on existing levels (see next question).

    STATE LAW IS CLEAR THAT INSTREAM FLOWS MUST BE SET AT LEVELS THAT PROTECT AND PRESERVE FISH and instream resources over the long-term.  The instream flows reflect levels that would be beneficial for fish if those flows were present in the stream.

    Actual stream flow levels naturally vary throughout the year due to seasonal changes and water use.  So the differences between the actual stream flows and instream flows will also vary throughout the year.

    If the instream flow number is high relative to the average stream flow in the stream in the summer, this does not mean that the instream flow number is wrong.  Rather it means that the stream will provide more fish habitat in wet years than in dry ones.  Protecting the occasional “good water year” is needed to preserve a healthy population of fish.  If we want to protect the habitat available in those good wet years, then the instream flow needs to be set at that higher flow level.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    Why not set flow levels lower than the existing flows in the stream? Answer…

    —————————————————————————————————-

    What are the laws that allow Ecology to set flows by rule?

    Answer…

    The legal authority to set instream flows by rule comes from laws passed by the state legislature, including:

    • Construction projects in state waters (RCW 77.57.020)
    • Water code (RCW 90.03.247)
    • Minimum water flows and levels (Chapter 90.22 RCW)
    • Water resources act of 1971 (Chapter 90.54 RCW, particularly section 020)
    • Watershed planning (RCW 90.82.080

    —————————————————————————-

    The bottom line

    The nuts and the Boltd of it

    THE ISSUE OF “INSTREAM FLOW” IS REALLY VERY SIMPLE. 

    IT ACTUALLY BOILS DOWN TO A VALUE JUDGMENT

    NO MORE FISH BEFORE PEOPLE


  • WA Drought Tribes Fish and Water

    INFLUENCE ON WA STATE ECOLOGYS (DOE) DROUGHT RESPONSE?

    The chain of circumstantial evidence…..

    1. ALL 24 Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA’s)  IN WA STATE THAT HAVE BEEN “DECLARED AS DROUGHT EMERGENCY” Have a SALMON RECOVERY PLAN.

    2. 1998 MOU ECOLOGY WILL SERVE AS THE …. COORDINATION BETWEEN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND SALMON RECOVERY:

    3.  DROUGHT LAWS and Rules. Chapter 43.83B RCW – Water Supply Facilities. Law which gives THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY AUTHORITY TO RESPOND TO A DROUGHT …

    4.RCW 43.83B.410  DROUGHT CONDITIONS — Withdrawals and diversions — Orders, authority granted.

    5. Upon the issuance of an order under RCW 43.83B.405, THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY IS EMPOWERED …..

    ——————————————————————————————

    RCW 43.83B.410  DROUGHT CONDITIONS

    The department of ECOLOGY may issue such withdrawal authorization WHEN, AFTER INVESTIGATION AND AFTER PROVIDING APPROPRIATE FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL BODIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT

    Just asking?

    IS CLALLAM COUNTY GOVERNMENT AN “APPROPRIATE” LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL BODY?

    WAS CLALLAM COUNTY GOVERNMENT  GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT?
    ————————————————————————————————

    RCW 43.83B.405

    Drought conditions — Withdrawals and diversions — Orders, procedure.

    (1) Whenever it appears to the department of ecology that a drought condition either exists or is forecast to occur within the state or portions thereof, the department of ecology is authorized to issue orders, pursuant to rules previously adopted, to implement the powers as set forth in RCW 43.83B.410 through 43.83B.420.

    THE DEPARTMENT SHALL, IMMEDIATELY UPON THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER UNDER THIS SECTION, CAUSE SAID ORDER TO BE PUBLISHED IN NEWSPAPERS OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE AREAS OF THE STATE TO WHICH THE ORDER RELATES.

    PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER, THE DEPARTMENT SHALL (A) CONSULT WITH AND OBTAIN THE VIEWS OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENT ENTITIES IDENTIFIED IN THE DROUGHT CONTINGENCY PLAN periodically revised by the department pursuant to RCW 43.83B.410(4), and (b) obtain the written approval of the governor. Orders issued under this section shall be deemed orders for the purposes of chapter 34.05 RCW.

    (2) Any order issued under subsection (1) of this section shall contain a termination date for the order. The termination date shall be not later than one calendar year from the date the order is issued. Although the department may, with the written approval of the governor, change the termination date by amending the order, no such amendment or series of amendments may have the effect of extending its termination to a date which is later than two calendar years after the issuance of the order.

    (3) The provisions of subsection (2) of this section do not preclude the issuance of more than one order under subsection (1) of this section for different areas of the state or sequentially for the same area as the need arises for such an order or orders.

    [1989 c 171 § 2.] Notes:     Severability — 1989 c 171: See note following RCW 43.83B.400

    ————————————————————————

    RCW 43.83B.410  DROUGHT CONDITIONS — Withdrawals and diversions — Orders, authority granted.

    Upon the issuance of an order under RCW 43.83B.405, THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY IS EMPOWERED TO:

    (1)(a) Authorize emergency withdrawal of public surface and ground waters, including dead storage within reservoirs, on a temporary basis AND AUTHORIZE ASSOCIATED PHYSICAL WORKS WHICH MAY BE EITHER TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT. The termination date for the authority to make such an emergency withdrawal may not be later than the termination date of the order issued under RCW 43.83B.405 under which the power to authorize the withdrawal is established.

    The department of ECOLOGY may issue such withdrawal authorization when, after investigation and after providing appropriate FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL BODIES AN OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT, the following are found:

    (i) The waters proposed for withdrawal are to be used for a beneficial use involving a previously established activity or purpose;

    (ii) The previously established activity or purpose was furnished water through rights applicable to the use of a public body of water that cannot be exercised due to the lack of water arising from natural drought conditions; and

    (iii) THE PROPOSED WITHDRAWAL WILL NOT REDUCE FLOWS OR LEVELS BELOW ESSENTIAL MINIMUMS NECESSARY (A) TO ASSURE THE MAINTENANCE OF FISHERIES REQUIREMENTS, AND (B) TO PROTECT FEDERAL AND STATE INTERESTS INCLUDING, AMONG OTHERS, POWER GENERATION, NAVIGATION, AND EXISTING WATER RIGHTS;

    (b) All withdrawal authorizations issued under this section SHALL CONTAIN PROVISIONS THAT ALLOW FOR TERMINATION OF WITHDRAWALS, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, WHENEVER WITHDRAWALS WILL CONFLICT WITH FLOWS AND LEVELS as provided in (a)(iii) of this subsection. Domestic and irrigation uses of public surface and ground waters shall be given priority in determining “beneficial uses.” As to water withdrawal and associated works authorized under this subsection, the requirements of chapter 43.21C RCW and public bidding requirements as otherwise provided by law are waived and inapplicable. All state and local agencies with authority to issue permits or other authorizations for such works shall, to the extent possible, expedite the processing of the permits or authorizations in keeping with the emergency nature of the requests and shall provide a decision to the applicant within fifteen calendar days of the date of application. All state departments or other agencies having jurisdiction over state or other public lands, if such lands are necessary to effectuate the withdrawal authorizations issued under this subsection, shall provide short-term easements or other appropriate property interest upon the payment of the fair market value. This mandate shall not apply to any lands of the state that are reserved for a special purpose or use that cannot properly be carried out if the property interest were conveyed;

    (2) Approve a temporary change in purpose, place of use, or point of diversion, consistent with existing state policy allowing transfer or lease of waters between willing parties, as provided for in RCW 90.03.380, 90.03.390, and 90.44.100.

    HOWEVER, COMPLIANCE WITH ANY REQUIREMENTS OF (A) NOTICE OF NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION OF THESE SECTIONS OR (B) THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT, CHAPTER 43.21C RCW, IS NOT REQUIRED WHEN SUCH CHANGES ARE NECESSARY TO RESPOND TO DROUGHT CONDITIONS AS DETERMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY.

    An approval of a temporary change of a water right as authorized under this subsection is not admissible as evidence in either supporting or contesting the validity of water claims in State of Washington, Department of Ecology v. Acquavella, Yakima county superior court number 77-2-01484-5 or any similar proceeding where the existence of a water right is at issue.

    (3) Employ additional persons for specified terms of time, consistent with the term of a drought condition, as are necessary to ensure the successful performance of the activities associated with implementing the emergency drought program of this chapter.

    (4) Revise the drought contingency plan previously developed by the department; and

    (5) Acquire needed emergency drought-related equipment.

    [1989 c 171 § 3.]

    Notes: Severability — 1989 c 171: See note following RCW 43.83B.400

    ——————————————————————————————————-

    When Jeff  Marti, Drought Coordinator for DOE (360-407-6627). was asked, how much influence do TRIBES have in the drought decision-making process.

    He said, “Absolutely none”!

    ———————————————————————-

    The chain of circumstantial evidence…..

    That’s like asking  how much influence did the TRIBES have on the Boldt decision?

    And, how much influence did the TRIBES have on the removal of the Elwha River Dams?

    And, how much influence did the TRIBES have on the 1998: SALMON RECOVERY PLAN?

    And, how much influence did the TRIBES have on the instreamflow?

    —————————————————————————-

    Washington State’s Salmon Recovery Network (online report)

    15 YEARS AGO, THE STATE OF WASHINGTON AND THE 29 TREATY TRIBES, CO-MANAGERS OF THE SALMON RESOURCE, SUPPORTED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW REGIONAL SALMON RECOVERY ORGANIZATIONS TO GUIDE LOCALLY-DRIVEN SALMON RECOVERY.

    Most certainly, the tribes and the fish have much to do with ECOLOGY’S WA States Drought Response.

    —————————————————————————————–

    1998: WA STATE SALMON RECOVERY PLANNING

    Memorandum of Understanding – ESHB 2514 and ESHB 2496

    www.ecy.wa.gov/Watershed/misc/MOU.html

    Memorandum of Understanding for the Coordinated Implementation of Chapter 247, … Laws of 1998: Salmon Recovery Planning (Engrossed Substitute House Bill 2496) By … For watershed management planning, ECOLOGY WILL SERVE AS THE …. COORDINATION BETWEEN WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND SALMON RECOVERY:.

    —————————————————————————————-

    Washington State’s Salmon Recovery Network (cont.)

    Our success is a result of salmon recovery being implemented by local jurisdictions, conservation districts, TRIBAL NATIONS, REGIONAL FISHERIES ENHANCEMENT GROUPS, STATE AND FEDERAL PROGRAMS, AND DOZENS OF LOCAL NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS relying on the volunteer hours of thousands of Washington citizens across the state.

    The benefits to all of Washington’s citizens are clear: cleaner water, less flooding, more productive farmland, improved bridges and roads, healthier forests and rivers and shorelines, more productive wildlife habitat, and improved opportunities for sustainable fishing and outdoor recreation.

    THIS WORK ENABLES US TO HONOR OUR COMMITMENT TO TRIBAL TREATY FISHING RIGHTS.

    Together, our efforts form a network for salmon recovery across our state, rebuilding and strengthening our fish, water, and land resources today to maintain what we love about the Pacific Northwest into the future.

    TOGETHER, WE ARE BUILDING THE FUTURE WE WANT FOR OUR CHILDREN.

    Read more for details about the Network

    http://www.stateofsalmon.wa.gov/

    ———————————————————————————————

    WHO’S BUILDING THE WATER FUTURE THAT CITIZENS WANT FOR THEIR CHILDREN?

    THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT, social context, socialtural context, or milieu, refers to THE IMMEDIATE PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL SETTING IN WHICH PEOPLE LIVE OR IN WHICH SOMETHING HAPPENS OR DEVELOPS. It includes the culture that the individual was educated or lives in, and the people and institutions with whom they interact.

    ————————————————————————————–

    THE NUTS AND THE BOLDT’S OF IT?

    NO MORE FISH BEFORE PEOPLE.

    ——————————————————————–

    UPON THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER UNDER RCW 43.83B.405, THE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY IS EMPOWERED