+menu-


  • Category Archives Ecology’s response to Drought?
  • Clallam County WA SMP Update 2017?

    Clallam County WA SMP Update 2017?

    I received email notification because I am an interested party (since Jan 26, 2011).  The County Department of Community Development (DCD) has just released a Revised SMP Draft (June 2017).

    Clallam County Commissioners, Mark Ozias, Randy Johnson and Bill Peach, You are receiving this email because you are elected Clallam County representatives and you SHALL be deciding the fate of vested, voting, taxpaying, Shoreline private property owners on the Clallam County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update.

    Not one of you, the 2017 seated elected representative participated in the Clallam County SMP Update between 2009 and 2013.

    How bad was the Clallam County WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) SMP Update in 2009? 2010? 2011? 2012? 2013? 2014? and 2015? 2016?

    CONTENTIOUS…. OVER 600  PUBLIC COMMENTS WERE SUBMITTED.

    WHAT WOULD VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT?

    LET’S START WITH THE CLALLAM COUNTY  DCD SMP REVISED REVISIONS

    2014-2017

    The Revised Draft SMP (June 2017) shows proposed revisions to the November 2014 Draft SMP that the Clallam County Planning Commission held regional public hearings on in February 2015. The Planning Commission reviewed public comments at various Commission regular-meetings in 2015-2016. The Revised Draft SMP (June 2017) is based on these deliberations, comments from the Department of Ecology, and other clarifications/corrections.

    ————————————————————————————-

    A complete list of Clallam County DOE SMP UPDATE PUBLIC  comments 2010-2012

    doe smp public smp comments from 5/31/11 #100 to 7/02/12 #284

    citizenreview-clallamcounty.org/…/doe-smp-public-smp-comments-from-53111-100-to-…Jul 3, 2012TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. A COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2010-2012.

    The SMP ball is soon to be thrown into the your court, it’s time for you, the newly elected on the block to step up to the plate.

    PLEASE SEND YOUR COMPLAINTS TO our elected commissioners they need to know how the 2017 Revised SMP Draft and update has and shall  impacted  you and your property. Below is their contact information:

    ——————————————————————————

    Indeed, elected in 2014, DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn,. The Clallam County Department of Community Development is responsible for comprehensive …

    Director of Community Development

    Mary Ellen Winborn
    mwinborn@co.clallam.wa.us
    223 East 4th Street, Suite 5
    Port Angeles Washington 98362
    360-417-2321

    ——————————————————————————–

    Behind My Back | WA DOE Amending the SMA/SMP?

    www.behindmyback.org/2017/03/03/wa-doe-amending-the-smasmp/

    Mar 3, 2017 – Behind My Back | Ecology’s Back “Amended Plus ” SMP WAC’S … Shoreline Management | Introduction the the SMA | Washington State …

    This is my public comment on the Clallam County SMP Update

    It is a formal written complaint directed to Elected DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn

    The Clallam County SMP Update has been a work in progress for over seven (7) years

    The first Public comment on the SMP Update, was Dec 5, 2009

    The latest update on the Clallam County SMP website is from November 2014

    AND THE STATUS OF CLALLAM COUNTY  SMP  MARCH 3, 2017?

    Clallam County Southwest Under way

    How bad was the Clallam County WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) SMP Update in 2009? 2010?2011? 2012? 2o13? 2014? and 2015? 2016?

    CONTENTIOUS…. Over 600  public comments were submitted.

    The  “LAST” PUBLIC FORUM” was held Jan 14, 2015  in Sequim WA

    The latest update on the Clallam County SMP website is from November 2014

    Only one, non-elected county employee has been involved in the SMP Update from start to finish.

    Who’s running the SMP Update behind our backs behind closed doors

    How much Funding has been granted to Clallam County by the DOE $549,986.00

    Who’s being paid behind our backs behind closed doors to Update the Clallam County Shoreline SMP?

    HAVE THE VESTED SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNING CITIZENS OF CLALLAM COUNTY BEEN LEFT OUT OF THE PUBLIC OPEN MEETING PROCESS FOR A  “COOLING OFF PERIOD?”

    WHAT WOULD VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE TO COMPLAIN ABOUT?

     

    The Revised Draft SMP (June 2017) shows proposed revisions to the November 2014 Draft SMP that the Clallam County Planning Commission held regional public hearings on in February 2015. The Planning Commission reviewed public comments at various Commission regular-meetings in 2015-2016. The Revised Draft SMP (June 2017) is based on these deliberations, comments from the Department of Ecology, and other clarifications/corrections.

    PLEASE SEND YOU COMPLAINTS TO our elected commissioners they need to know the impacts that this 2017 Revised SMP Draft and update has and shall have on you and your property.

    Contact information:

    County Commissioners

    Mark Ozias, District 1
    mozias@co.clallam.wa.us
    Clallam County Commissioners
    223 East 4th Street, Suite 4
    Port Angeles, Washington 98362-3000
    360-417-2233

    Randy Johnson, District 2
    rjohnson@co.clallam.wa.us
    Clallam County Commissioners
    223 East 4th Street, Suite 4
    Port Angeles, Washington 98362-3000
    360-417-2233

    Bill Peach, District 3
    bpeach@co.clallam.wa.us
    Clallam County Commissioners
    223 East 4th Street, Suite 4
    Port Angeles, Washington 98362-3000
    360-417-2233

    Not one of the 2017 seated elected representative participated in the Clallam County SMP Update between 2009 and 2013.

    How many of the 624 SMP  public comments have Clallam County Commissioner Mark Ozias, Randy Johnson and Bill Peach actually read?

    And, how many of the 624 SMP Public comments have been shoved under the rug, through the combined efforts of ESAAdolfson  SMP Consultant Margaret Clancy (between 2012 and 2017)  and Steve Gray, Deputy Director/Planning Manager Clallam County Dept. of Community Development using after the fact cut off dates for public comment et al,  and  a matrix system?

    ——————————————————————————–

    Not one of you, the 2017 seated elected commissioners, participated in the Clallam County SMP Update between 2009 and 2013.

    The SMP ball is soon to be thrown into the your court, it’s time for you, the newly elected, on the block, to step up to the plate.

    doe smp public smp comments from 5/31/11 #100 to 7/02/12 #284

    citizenreview-clallamcounty.org/…/doe-smp-public-smp-comments-from-53111-100-to-…

    Jul 3, 2012 – TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN. A COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2010-2012. Available on Clallam County …

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

    A COMPLETE LIST OF CLALLAM COUNTY DOE SMP COMMENTS 2010-2012

    Available on Clallam County SMP website.

    http://www.clallam.net/realestate/html/shoreline_management.htm

    All public comments are subject to Public Disclosure.

    I will complete the comments on #1 to #99 and document the pros and cons.

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    July:
    ·    070212 – RKonopaski – G
    ·    #284 clarifying the setbacks on marine shorelines?
    June:
    ·    062312 – ESpees – G
    ·    175-150 + 10 foot setbacks
    ·    061712 – PHewett – G
    ·    DOE private meeting
    ·    061412 – PHewett – G
    ·    Futurewise and Grays Harbor
    ·    061412 – PHewett – SED
    ·    WHAT IS THE ECONOMIC FUTURE OF CLALLAM COUNTY?
    ·    061112 – PHewett – G
    ·    See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987). precautionary setbacks
    ·    060912 – PHewett – G
    ·    25 See Nollan, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987).
    ·    060712 – PHewett – G
    ·    #277 Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims. 65% taking violates law
    ·    060312 – ESpees – G
    ·    #276 public access to our shorelines
    May:
    ·    053012 – PHewett – SED
    ·    #275 RE-DESIGNATE TO FRESHWATER RURAL
    ·    052912 – PHewett – G
    ·    #274 COORDINATION PROCESS 43 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1712
    ·    052412 – RCahill – SMPdraft
    ·    #273 the spirit and intent of the Department of Ecology’s Shorelands and Environmental Assistance, publication number 09-06-029,
    ·    052212 – JBlazer – SED
    ·    #272 The problem… my parcel and the 2 parcels to the south would be hard pressed to build residences that take advantage of the marine view using the 175 ft setback in the proposed designation of Freshwater Conservancy.
    ·    052112 – MBlack – SMPdraft
    ·    #271 The overall concern I have is that you are in fact taking future uses away from
    ·    private land holders without clearly acknowledging doing so.
    ·    051712 – PHewett – G
    ·    #270 SELLING AND BUYING DOE SMP NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY
    ·    051612 – PHewett – PPS
    ·    #269 SMP Public Forum participation
    ·    051512 – ASoule – SMPdraft
    ·    #268 SMP references to sea level rise
    ·    051212 – PHewett – G
    ·    #267 FORKS SMP PUBLIC FORUM MAY 10, 2012
    ·    051212 – KNorman – SED
    ·    #266 I hope that you will reconsider the classification of these lots based on this information as to do otherwise would be a severe hardship on the owners of the lots and would constitute a “taking” of the land.
    ·    051112 – FutureWise-PPS – SMPdraft
    ·    #265 Clallam County v. Futurewise 7 years + lawsuit Carlsborg. The current SMP updates are an opportunity to significantly improve protection for the straits and the county’s other shorelines.
    ·    050812 – EBowen – G20
    ·    #264  S. Gray to Ed Bowen Final Draft WRIA 20 Preliminary SMP Elements Report
    ·    050812 – WFlint – SED
    ·    #263 The Lower Lyre River should be designated as Freshwater Residential (FRSD), and not Freshwater Conservancy (FC) as it is now proposed.
    ·    050812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #262 SCIENTIFIC PAPERS AND THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW DOE has consistently ignored questions asked on SMP comments, posted on the Clallam County SMP Update website, and at SMP Advisory meetings. I am requesting answers to the following questions to comply with the core principles of Due Process and the DOE SMP taking of private property in Clallam County.
    ·    050712 – USFWS – SMPdraft
    ·    #261  The Service strongly supports maintaining the feeder bluffs in their natural functioning condition.
    ·    050612 – PHewett – G
    ·    #260 If it is not recorded with the Clallam County Auditors Office it is not on the Property Title. What should be recorded with the Auditors office for Public Record?
    ·    050512 – ESpees – G
    ·    #259 The premise of the SMA/SMP Undate ‘that there is and environmental crisis’ that requires a draconian governmental intervention is bogus.
    ·    050412 – LMuench – G
    ·    #258 I think you would best be served by showing shrubs as well as trees. Since the graphics are done, what about a red arrow pointing to the trees saying “may be limbed for views.” This is a major issue with shoreline land owners.
    ·    050412 – ESpees – G
    ·    #257 The ECONOMIC IMPACT of the DoE imposed SMA/SMP Update for 2012 will be staggering!!!
    ·    050412 – PHewett – G
    ·    #256 Clallam County DOE SMP update, written text, uses our safety and protection as an excuse to take, restrict and control the use/development of our private property.
    ·    050312 – JBettcher – G
    ·    #255 I appreciate the public benefit of a healthy ecosystem but oppose the taking of private property by prohibiting private landowners from applying the best engineering practices to resist natural whims.
    ·    050212 – PHewett – G
    ·    #254 REAL ESTATE MARKET VALUE OF NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY
    April:
    ·    042812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #253 FEMA AND OTHER POLICY SPECIFIC INSURANCE COVERAGE
    ·    042812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #252 House Bill 2671  If a county appeals the (DOE) Department of Ecology’s final action on their local shoreline master program and  the appeal is given to the Growth Management Hearings Board?
    ·    042812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #251 No. 87053-5 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
    ·    042612 – PHewett -G
    ·    #250 CLALLAM COUNTY- NEGLECT OF WIRA 20 SMP PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS
    ·    042112 – Spees – G
    ·    #249 this insane outrageous governmental over reach under the thinly veiled cover of saving the environment. The problem now is not the environment.
    ·    042112 – PHewett – G
    ·    #248 PARTIAL DISCLOSURE OF SMP IMPACT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS
    ·    041812 – PHewett – G
    ·    #247 The statistics introduced at the last SMP Advisory meeting, on how many private property owners, property and single family dwellings will become non-conforming by the SMP Draft marine 175′, 150′ plus 10′ setbacks, has not been posted on the SMP web site.
    ·    041712 – Port of PA – G
    ·    #246 Table 4.1 the proposed draft buffer in row “a” should be modified from 100’ to 50’
    March:
    ·    032912 – PHewett – G
    ·    #245 THE MOST UNSCIENTIFIC PARTS OF THE DOE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP ARE, that even with DOE’S 1616 employees and a billion dollar budget.DOE doesn’t have a single analyst capable of compiling and reporting the most important documented/published scientific statistics provided by The Clallam County Inventory and Characteristic reports.
    ·    032612 – PHewett – G
    ·    #244 ESA Adolfson’s consultant’s failure to comply with WA State Law RCW 90.58.100 Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion.
    ·    032512 – PHewett – G20
    ·    #243 WIRA 20 Sol Duc River Reach 80 needs to be re-designated on proposed draft to 3.1.1.4 Freshwater Conservancy (FC)
    ·    032312 – RCrittenden – SMPdraft
    ·    #242 Thus, all regulation is evil by its nature and it is repressive. The best regulations are those that are the least that is necessary to accomplish their intended legitimate purpose. And “legitimate” is not to be broadly construed.
    ·    032212 – PHewett/RCrittenden – G
    ·    #241 Dr. Robert N. Crittenden SMP comments, testimony, tables and reviews
    ·    032112 – OEC – SMPdraft
    ·    #240  Change “should” to “shall” ,,,,culverts, and bridges shall be conducted using best practices….
    ·    031712 – PHewett – G
    ·    #239 PATENT LAND GRANTS ISSUED PRIOR TO STATEHOOD
    ·    031412 – MBarry – G
    ·    #238 These shorelines are critical for wildlife and natural ecological functions. I favor large setbacks. I favor development restrictions
    ·    030912 – PHewett – G/NNL
    ·    #237 Building Permit 2012-00014 issued to owners, David and Maria Tebow, Battle Creek MI. Two story 4 bedroom house 4770 sq feet, garage 927 sq feet, covered deck 173 sq feet with 19 plumbing drains (Number of Bathrooms?) Setbacks 60/25/25 Project value $486,781.18. the written guarantee bythe Clallam County DCD of no net loss to ecological functions (documented on building permit)
    ·    030512 – ESpees – SMPdraft
    ·    #236 There is no way that these voluminous shoreline land use policies can be understood. It takes no imagination to understand that this process is not ‘due process’ in the taking of beneficial use of our Private Property
    ·    030412 – PHewett – SMPdraft
    ·    #235 DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages) has gone missing
    ·    030312 – KAhlburg – SMPdraft
    ·    #234 The last sentence runs directly counter to this assurance and needs to be modified or deleted. It otherwise will constitute yet another unfunded mandate burdening the County and “other entities” (which ones?).
    ·    030212 – PHewett – NNL/SMPdraft
    ·    #233 Lake Sutherland is a perfect example of Ecology’s NO NET LOSS.
    ·    With a 35 foot setback since 1976 there is no net loss of ecological function in Lake Sutherland.
    ·    030112 – MarineResourcesCouncil – SMPdraft
    ·    #232 It may also be possible that under certain development conditions, if done to minimize impervious surface and maximize water infiltration, could enhance the function of the buffer and perhaps allow for a narrower buffer.
    February:
    ·    022812 – FutureWise – SMPdraft
    ·    #231 The first half establishes the expected character of shoreline buffers, and is well stated. But the second half goes on to state that only 80% of the buffer vegetation is protected, and that 20% can be used for lawns and other use areas.
    ·    022812 – PHewett – NNL
    ·    #230 NO NET LOSS MENTIONED In law RCW 36.70A.480 (4) Shoreline master programs shall provide a level of protection to critical areaslocated within shorelines of the state that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined bydepartment of ecology guidelines adopted pursuant to RCW 90.58.060.
    ·    022812 – PHewett – NNL
    ·    #229 The policies, goals, and provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW and applicable guidelines shall be the sole basis for determining compliance of a shoreline master program
    ·    022712 – WDOE- SMP Statue
    ·    #228 Gordon White letter dated Feb. 27,2012 page 4, disclaimer of creating enforceable state LAW by rule on Page 88 of the WA State Public Trust Doctrine.
    ·    022412 – QuileuteNation – SMPdraft
    ·    #227 TRIBAL comment
    January:
    ·    010312 – LowerElwhaKlalllamTribe – SED
    ·    #226 TRIBAL comment

    SMP Comments 2011:
    December:
    ·    120811 – PHewett – G
    ·    #225 WETLANDS NOT ON SMP MAPS Attachments: Lowell OREGON Local Wetland Inventory Report DRAFT.docx
    ·    120811 – PHewett – G
    ·    #224 Perkins and Coie  Your Request on Tacoma SMP Attachments: 12-13-10 letter to Gary Brackett.pdf; SMA and Public Access.pdf
    ·    120711 -OlympicEnvironmentalCouncil (OEC) – G
    ·    #223 Sea level  rise and climate change
    ·    120611 – WDOE- ICR20
    ·    #222  Draft WRIA 20 Inventory and Characterization
    November:
    ·    113011 – ESpees – G
    ·    #221 In the WRIA Process and the SMA/SMP Update Process the concept of State regulation of land use based on Feeder Bluffs and Littoral Drift Cells is a False Construct.
    ·    112511 – ESpees – G
    ·    #220 The DoE’s current cram-down of NNL and increased set-backs based on precautionary principle and ‘new understandings of science’ (non-science/non-sense/pseudo-science) should be rejected.
    ·    112411 – ESpees – G
    ·    #219 It’s content is extremely pertinent to the work we are doing in Clallam County’s SMA/SMP Update.
    ·    111611 – MPfaff-Pierce – SED
    ·    #218 Specifically, I am requesting that you reclassify the entire Whiskey Creek Beach Resort area as Modified Lowland. Right now you are proposing that a short area west of the creek be designated as Modified Lowland and the rest as High Bank.
    ·    111111 – JPetersen – SED
    ·    #217 Many activities would be prohibited without really looking at the specifics.
    ·    111011 – PHewett – G
    ·    #216 This is on the DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages)”Finally, SMP’S, unlike other comprehensive plans, are adopted as WAC’S and become part of the state’s Shoreline Master Program. As such, all local SMP rules, regulations, designations and guidelines BECOME STATE LAW AND ARE ENFORCEABLE. in this manner, protection of public trust resources and uses becomes binding.”
    ·    110711 – PHewett – G
    ·    #215 SMP FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW
    ·    110711 – PHewett – G
    ·    #214 Court: Washington Supreme Court Docket: 84675-8 Opinion Date: August 18, 2011 Judge: Johnson Areas of Law: Environmental Law, Government & Administrative Law, Zoning, Planning & Land Use Applicable Law and Analysis. In affirming the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court explained that even though there is significant local government involvement in the creation of SMPs, the process is done in the shadow of the Department of Ecology’s (DOE) control.
    ·    110711 – PHewett – G
    ·    #213 the Shoreline Management Act dictates that the Department of Ecology retains control over the final contents and approval of SMPs. Therefore, SMP regulations are the product of state action and are not subject to RCW 82.02.020.”
    ·    110611 – PHewett – G
    ·    #212 EXCLUDED SMP DOE WAC’S DO NOT BECOME LAW
    ·    110511 – ESpees – NNL
    ·    #211 In keeping with regard to no net loss was unclear and without any foundation.
    ·    110511 – ESpees – G
    ·    #210 The law has recently been perverted by State Agencies to usurp private property rights, an uncompensated State taking by regulation.
    ·    110511 – PHewett – G
    ·    #209 There is no WA State law requiring any taking of private property for public access on the Clallam County SMP Update.
    ·    110411 – PHewett – G
    ·    #208 WHO CAN STOP DOE WAC’S FROM BECOMING STATE LAWS?
    ·    110411 – PHewett – G
    ·    #207 Victory for PLF Whatcom County’s shoreline management rules conflict with state law, which mandates that counties “shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion.” RCW 90.58.100.
    ·    110411 – PHewett – G
    ·    #206 BY Law there is NO mention of the words “imminent or danger or soft armoring” IF THIS WORDING IS USED ON THE CLALLAM COUNTY SMP, IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT IT CONTRADICTS WA STATE LAW RCW 90.58.100 Protection of single family residences IT WILL BECOME CLALLAM COUNTY LAW.
    ·    110311 – WDFW – ICR
    ·    #205 A useful tool may be to describe, in general, the range of possible existing conditions within any portion of the shoreline.
    ·
    October:
    ·    103111 – WDOE – ICR
    ·    #204  Not a copy format
    ·    103111 – JLarson – ICR
    ·    #203 I made at last SMP-WG meeting be incorporated into record
    ·    102011 – PHewett – SED
    ·    # 202 Who’s toes will you be stepping on by using this? Will you be able to notify the private property owners that are inadvertently compromised? Are there any single family residences, in any areas, where you have not specifically provided comment on protection by Law?
    ·    102011 – PHewett – SED
    ·    #201 Is this another WAC overstepping it’s authority and the LAW?
    ·    101911 – PHewett – NNL
    ·    #200 The concept of no net loss in this State originated with earlier efforts to protect wetlands. In 1989, Governor Booth Gardner signed an Executive Order establishing a statewide goal regarding wetlands protection.
    ·    101811 – JEstes – G
    ·    #199 There are 3,289 shoreline property owners in Clallam County about to be subject to
    ·    further regulation and restriction on the use of their land.
    ·    101711 – PHewett – G
    ·     #198 Unconstitutional Conditions of  WAC 173-26-191 Some master program policies may not be fully attainable by regulatory means due to the constitutional and other legal limitations on the regulation of private property.
    ·    101711 – WSP – ICR20
    ·    #197 Any additional comments on the two Clallam County SMP Inventory and Characterizations Reports are due by October 31, 2011
    ·    101111 – PHewett – G
    ·    #196 WAC’S ARE NOT LAW’S? Guidelines Are Not Law’s? Rules Are Not Law’s?
    ·    100811 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #195 WAC 365-195-905 Criteria for determining which information is the best available science
    ·    100611 – PHewett – G
    ·    #194 REMOTE VIEWING AND SPACIAL DATA I did not find a State- of- the art- GSI and remote sensing facility for WA State?
    No b comment for #193?
    ·    100411 – PHewett – G/ICR
    ·    #192 Please bring the SMP Public Comments up to date.
    ·    100311 – JTatom – G
    ·    #191 As a property owner in Clallam County, I cannot imagine that you, as servants of the county, would even consider placing additional restrictions on residents who live near shorelines (marine, rivers, streams and lakes). Already we find ourselves so restricted that we are unable to use large portions
    ·    of our “privately” owned property.
    ·    100111 – PHewett – G
    ·    #190 Is it the intent, of two Elected County Commissioners, that total control of all private property in Clallam County, be given to the Federal Government and the WA State DOE, one way or the other?
    September:
    ·    092611 – PHewett – G/ICR
    ·    #189 Taking of Private Property for Public Access I insist that ESA Adolfson give us the total land acreage of private property that is affected by the SMP Update subject to NO NET LOSS and taking for Public Access.
    ·    092511 – PHewett – G
    ·    #188 Noxious Weed Control ‐ LMD#2 Lake Sutherland
    There is no #187  public comment?
    ·    092211 – PHewett – G
    ·    #186 SHORELINE RESIDENTS SWAMPED BY REGULATIONS
    ·    092211 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #185 I tried to stress the fact that it is not lack of public land, it is the lack of public access to that publically owned land,
    ·    that is the problem.
    ·    092211 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #184 CLALLAM COUNTY SHORELINE INVENTORY AND CHARACTERISTIC REPORT Based on the “Best Available Science?”
    ·    092211 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – ICR
    ·    #183 Tribal comment
    ·    091311 – LowerElwhaKlallamTribe – ICR
    ·    #182 Tribal comment
    ·    091011 – PHewett – G
    ·    #181 CLALLAM COUNTY SECTION 35.01.150 Real property assessments. PROTECTION FOR LOSS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY VALUE?  The restrictions imposed by the Shoreline Master Program shall be considered by the County Assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property.
    ·    091011 – PHewett – G
    ·    #180 PUBLIC COMMENT REPORT ON SMP Public Forum July 14, 2011
    ·    090411 – JLewis – CR/ICR
    ·    #179 Public access across our property through our wetlands and over our berm to our private beach would be of great concern to us. Here are some questions and concerns we’d like addressed and you consider amending the provisions for providing public shoreline access:
    ·    090311 – ESpees – G
    ·    #178 The Drift Cells, Littoral Drift, and
    ·    Feeder Bluffs Construct are so much BS/Smoke and Mirrors.
    ·    090311 – ESpees – G
    ·    #177 The Shoreline Master Program Update is rigged. NNL & larger setbacks do not represent the ‘will of the people’. It does not protect the rights of the Citizens.
    ·    090211 – ESpees – G
    ·    #176 I gave my opinion about ‘locking up’ shorelines property based on salmon and endangered species as a pretext
    August:
    ·    083111 – WDNR – ICR
    ·    #175 Incidentally, many of the docks and other development may
    ·    encroach onto State owned aquatic lands without proper DNR authorization.
    ·    083111 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR
    ·    #174 There is obviously no “ground truthing” of the information in this report.
    ·    083111 – JLWisecup – G
    ·    #173 It lists it as a slide area although for the past 32 years we have had no indication of any land movement or building shift.
    ·    083111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #172 It is more loony insanity being foisted on the Citizens of the State of Washington by a Government and their agents that
    ·    are out of control.
    ·    083111 – ESpees -G
    ·    171 The SMA/SMP and the WRIA processes are a means of locking up, transferring ownership to the State, and regulating the use of these areas/preventing private economic and other beneficial use of these prime areas.
    ·    082811 – PHewett – G
    ·    #170 SILT DAMAGE FROM ELWHA TO DUNGENESS SPIT?
    ·    082511 – ElwhaMorseMgmtTeam – ICRMaps
    ·    #169  Chris Byrnes commented on the yellow dots off shore (indicating “no appreciable drift”), argued that if it was so small, there wouldn’t be drifting anyway.
    ·    082511 – CoastalWatershedInstitute – ICR
    ·    #168 The characterization needs to be revised to include existing CLALLAM specific information and appropriate relevant recommendations that are in this existing information.
    ·    082511 – DAbbott – G
    ·    #167 I would like to see every effort made to ensure the constitutional rights of private property ownership made by those who have influence in our lawmaking process. These rights have been encroached upon over the years and there is a renewed concern today by many private citizens.
    ·    082411 – PHewett – G
    ·    #166 WA State SMP is requiring Public access on private property at the expense of the property owner.
    There is no comment#164
    There is no comment #163
    ·    081011 – MarineResourcesCouncil – ICR
    ·    #162 I urge you to look at the reach/s or resource issues within all reaches for accuracy, omissions, and errors.
    ·    There is no comment #161
    ·
    ·    081011 – WSP – ICR
    ·    #160 not able to copy
    ·
    ·    There is no comment #159
    ·
    ·    There is no comment #158
    ·
    ·    080511 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #157 Wetlands are not included on SMP Update maps showing the areas that are a threat and risk of development.
    ·
    ·    There is no comment #156
    ·
    ·    There is no comment #155
    ·
    ·    080111 – FutureWise – ICR
    ·    #154 The Sierra Club
    July:
    ·    072611 – WASeaGrant – ICR
    ·    #153 Coastal Hazards Specialist
    There is not comment #152
    ·    072211 – PHewett – G
    ·    #151 Fact or Fiction, It is illegal to collect water in a rain barrel?
    ·    The State owns all rainwater?
    ·    072011 – CCPlCom – ICR
    ·    #150 The July Forum attendance was low and those that intended appeared to be struggling with the information presented and the questions to ask.
    There is no comment #149
    ·    072011 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #148 Marine and Fresh water reach’s impaired by water temperature
    ·    072011 – PHewett – G
    ·    #147 Freshwater reaches impaired by water temperature (32) Marine reaches impaired by water temperature (6) Contaminated Marine Reaches (5)
    ·    Contaminated Freshwater Reaches (2) plus several
    ·    072011 – ESpees – G
    ·    #146 What the hell does NNL (No Net Loss of ecological function) mean? What is the plan for the amount of setbacks? What is the basis of this vague indefinable policy?
    ·    072011 – PHewett – ICR20
    ·    #145 On page 5-14 HOKO_RV_05 is not listed. Shore line length 3.8 miles and Reach area 246.40 acres 100% timber
    ·    071711 – PHewett – G
    ·    #144 TOP TEN PUBLIC SMP UPDATE CONCERNS
    ·    071711 – ESpees – G
    ·    #143 Tribes not affected by Shoreline Mgmt. Plan Updates
    ·    071611 – ESpees – G
    ·    #142 the DoE/EPA attempt to strip the Citizens of their private property rights.
    ·    071611 – ESpees – G
    ·    #141 It uses Drift Cells and Littoral Drift as excuses to take away private use and protections of private property. This has to do with ‘feeder bluffs’
    ·    071211 – TSimpson – ICR
    ·    #140 Page 6-12 Needs Correction :Lines 19-22
    ·    071211 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #139 COLD ENOUGH?Based on their own reports and data, the amount of tree canopy, logging, development and public access are NOT factors in the impaired water temperature? Perhaps 50 years ago the water WAS cold enough?
    ·    071211 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #138 Why is Green Crow the only contaminator mentioned by name? We should be given the exact location of every specific contaminated site and
    ·    the full identity of EVERY contaminator.
    ·    071111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #137 Conspicuously absent from the report of the first meeting is an accounting of the economical impact.
    ·    070811 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #136 If more public access is needed, it is not the responsibility of Private Property Owner’s to provide it.
    ·    070811 – PHewett – ICR
    ·    #135 The Clallam County SMP update requires private property owners to give public access to their privately owned marine shorelines, prior to permitting development.
    ·
    ·    No comment # 134
    ·    No comment #133
    ·    No Comment #132

    SMP Comments 2011 cont.
    June:
    ·    062811 – JLMcClanahan – G20
    ·     #131 She was very concerned about any
    ·    potential regulatory changes that would result in the loss of options for using their two parcels in the future.
    ·    062411 – RTMcAvoy – G20
    ·    #130 they are against any such change for the reasons stated herein.
    ·    062411 – DMansfield – G20
    ·    #129 Adamant about no further restrictions on property
    ·    062411 – PCWidden – G20
    ·    #128 Concerns about changing the current SMP status from Rural to Conservancy.
    No comment #127
    ·    062011 – JEstes – G
    ·    #126  detail on how members of the public and affected property owners are being notified
    No Comment # 125
    ·    060611 – WDOE – CR
    ·    #124 local DOE
    ·    060611 – PortofPA – CR
    ·    #123 LIMIT NOT PROHIBIT
    ·    060411 – ESpees – CR
    ·    #122 The salmonid stocks in Clallam County are not limited by freshwater habitat
    ·    060311 – JamestownSKlallamTribe – CR
    ·    #121 Tribal Comment
    ·    060311 – HBell – CR
    ·    #120 This is not required by the RCW nor the WAC. WAC 173-26-241
    ·    060311 – WSP – CR
    ·    #119 State Park comment
    ·    060311 – WDOE – CR
    ·    #118 Local DOE
    ·    060311 – ESpees – CR
    ·    #117 By Dr. Robert N. Crittenden
    ·    060211 – RCrittenden – CR
    ·    #116 the low abundance of these stocks is also being used, to perpetrate the deception that it is caused by habitat loss.
    ·    060211 – JEstes – CR
    ·    #115 the CR is one of several steps the County will take to consider if any existing “policies or regulations need to change.” There must be demonstrated
    ·    need for any changes and all affected landowners should be invited to consider any changes.
    ·    060211 – SForde – G
    ·    #114 Which one of my individual rights are you protecting with the Shoreline Master Plan and/or any updates to it? The answer: None – in fact, you are violating them.
    ·    060211 – QuileuteNation – CR
    ·    #113 Tribal comment
    ·    060211 – CRogers – CR
    ·    #112 -Page 4 typo error
    ·    060211  –  QuileuteNation – CR
    ·    #111 Tribal comment
    ·    060111 – AStevenson – CR
    ·    #110 a marked up PDF of the Consistency Review
    ·    060111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #109 SMP Update – SMP Update Rigged Process
    No comment #108
    ·    060111 – PHewett – G #107
    ·    TOTALITARIAN: by definition(concerned with) arrogating (to the state and the ruling party) all rights and liberty of every choice, including those normally belonging to individuals, etc.
    ·    060111 – MTWalker – G
    ·    #106 The SMP should be rejected in all it’s forms. It erodes our rights and freedoms, does not comply with and is in fact contrary to the Constitution, is poorly written, poorly organized, vague, and its objectives are ambiguous/obscure.
    ·    060111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #105 Tribes Not Affected
    May:
    ·    053111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #104 The SMP erodes our rights and freedoms
    ·    053111 – ESpees – G
    ·    #103 The NNL Policy, larger setbacks and buffers, and new forced public access to private property will further erode our freedoms.
    ·    053111 – MGentry – G
    ·    #102 Green Point, group. 35 were invited and 17 showed up plus Dave Hannah was there to answer questions on bluff stability. Of the 17 only one was aware of SMP or said they had been contacted about forums.
    ·    053111 – PHewett – G / CR
    ·    #101 Pacific Legal Foundation If government blocks access to your land, it has committed a taking Dunlap v. City of Nooksack
    ·    052911 – ESpees – G
    ·    052911 – PHewett – G
    ·    052811 – ESpees – G
    ·    052811 – RHale – G
    ·    052711 – ESpees – G
    ·    052711 – PHewett – G
    ·    052611 – MGentry – G
    ·    052111 – PHewett – G
    ·    051811 – JPetersen – CR
    ·    051811 – NOTAC – CR
    ·    051311 – PHewett – G
    ·    051311 – PHewett – G
    ·    051311 – PHewett – G
    ·    051011 – TSummer – G
    ·    050611 – PHewett – G
    ·    050611 – PHewett – CR
    ·    050511 – PHewett – CR
    ·    050511 – PHewett – CR
    ·    050511 – PHewett – G
    April:
    ·    042611 – ESpees – G
    ·    042311 – MBlack – G
    ·    042011 – KAhlburg – G
    ·    041811 – QuileuteNation – G
    ·    041411 – RColby – G
    ·    041411 – TSimpson – G
    ·    041211 – BBrennan – G
    ·    041111 – NN – G
    ·    041111 – MGentry – G
    ·    041111 – NN – G
    ·    041111 – RMorris – G
    ·    041111 – NMessmer – G
    ·    041011 – RMorris – G
    ·    04 –11- RMorris – G
    March:
    ·    031511- PHewett – G
    ·    031511 – RMorris – G
    ·    031511 – RMorris – G
    ·    031411 – MGentry – G
    ·    031111- JWare – G
    ·    030211 – PHewett – G
    ·    030211 – PHewett – G
    February:
    ·    021711 – MLangley – G
    ·    021511 – PHewett – G
    ·    020211 – RBrown – G
    January:
    ·    012611 – MBoutelle – G
    ·    012111 – CAbrass – G
    ·    011811 – DJones – G
    2010:
    ·    110810 – WDNR – G
    ·    080510 – PSP – G
    ·    031010 – WDOE – PPS
    ·    030910 – WDOE – PPS
    ·    030810 – LMuench – PPS
    ·    030410 – QuileuteNation – PPS
    ·    022410 – FutureWise – PPS
    ·    020910 – JMarrs – PPS
    2009:
    ·    120509 – DemComm – G

    Posted in Shoreline Mgmt. Plan

    Comments are closed.


  • Calif. Farmers High Dry and Destitute

    Calif. Farmers HIGH, DRY AND DESTITUTE

    Obama admin allocates water for endangered fish, leaves …

    m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/feb/24/obam
    The Washington Times

    Logo: The Washington Times · Home · NewsObama admin allocates water for endangered fish, leaves California farmers high and dry … Wednesday, February 24, 2016 … some farmers are looking at another year of a zero federal water … “We’ve got to not only take a look at providing project [water] yield, we’ve also got …

    Washington State citizens, private property owners and farmers, in Skagit and Clallam County have been left HIGH, DRY AND DESTITUTE by WA State DOE WATER RULES.

    SO WHAT’S NEW? ENDANGERED FISH BEFORE FARMERS, FOOD AND THE ECONOMY.

    YEP… AGAIN AND STILL, FLUSHING TRILLIONS OF GALLONS PEOPLE WATER DOWN THE ENDANGERED SPECIES TOILET.

    ——————————————————-

    New post on Pie N Politics

    Feds allocate water for endangered fish, leave Calif. farmers high and dry
    by Liz Bowen
    By Valerie Richardson – The Washington Times
    Wednesday, February 24, 2016
    Despite wetter-than-average weather in California, some farmers are looking at another year of a zero federal water allocation even as the billions of gallons of water continue to be dumped into the ocean in order to save a three-inch fish.
    The worst part for many lawmakers at Wednesday’s House subcommittee hearing is that the Delta smelt remains as vulnerable as ever after the loss of 1.4 trillion gallons of water since 2008 under the federal Endangered Species Act.

    ———————————————————–

    PLEASE CLICK ON  AND LISTEN TO THE

    subcommittee hearing

    ———————————————————-

    High, Dry and Destitute

    Posted on by Pearl Rains Hewett

    Fish Before People Regardless of Cost

    Fish Before People Regardless of Cost

    The court held that the protection of EVERY ENDANGERED SPECIES is the highest priority of the federal government, REGARDLESS OF THE COST.

    California’s worst drought in 1200 years in pictures – BBC.com

    FARMERS BEFORE FISH?

    Pacific Legal Foundation, CHALLENGED, sought Supreme Court review, but the High Court denied, it set up reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s  ruling…..

    the court held that the protection of every endangered species is the highest priority of the federal government, regardless of the cost. The result has been a heavy-handed, top-down bureaucracy that frustrates human interests and species conservation.

    Status: On July 23, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied rehearing before the entire court, leaving an adverse ruling from March in place. PLF attorneys filed a petition for certiorari on September 30, 2014. The petition was denied on January 12, 2015.

    ——————————————————————————————————————–Pacific Legal Foundation, a bit of unedited text..

    Stewart & Jasper Orchards v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    Issue: Representing several California farmers, PLF attorneys are challenging the biological opinion (BiOp) by federal agencies used to restrict water deliveries from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in order to protect the Delta smelt, a small fish listed under the Endangered Species Act. In 2012, PLF previously sought Supreme Court review of the case on a Commerce Clause challenge because smelt are in intrastate species, but the High Court denied cert. With a recent adverse ruling at the Ninth Circuit on the biological opinion, it sets up reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s TVA v. Hill decision, relied on by the Ninth Circuit to uphold the smelt BiOp. In TVA v. Hill, the court held that the protection of every endangered species is the highest priority of the federal government, regardless of the cost. The result has been a heavy-handed, top-down bureaucracy that frustrates human interests and species conservation.

    Status: On July 23, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied rehearing before the entire court, leaving an adverse ruling from March in place. PLF attorneys filed a petition for certiorari on September 30, 2014.

    The petition was denied on January 12, 2015.

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

    Complex and contradictory laws, and court decisions, and regulations have made it nearly impossible for water to flow and our communities to grow

    Indeed, a  growing number of communities across the West have become impacted by severe drought conditions,

    Washington State Declares Drought Emergency

    www.huffingtonpost.com/…/washingtondrought-e
    The Huffington Post

    May 15, 2015 – Drought isn’t just a California problem, folks. Washington Gov. Jay Inslee declared a statewide drought emergency on Friday

    ————————————————————————————————–

    How complex is this?

    The court held that the protection of EVERY ENDANGERED SPECIES is the highest priority of the federal government, REGARDLESS OF THE COST.

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

     As House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy explained, “California is enduring its worst drought in 1,200 years, and a growing number of communities across the West have become impacted by severe drought conditions.”

    This week, the House will consider a bill to address water policies in California and the West:

    What happened to this?

    Western Water and American Food Security Act (HR 2898)

    Pie N Politics In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
    Liz Bowen | February 29, 2016 at 6:42 pm | Categories: CA. Congressman Tom McClintock, Endangered Species Act, Federal gov & land grabs, Politicians & agencies, Water, Resources & Quality | URL: http://wp.me/p13fnu-6xm
    Comment See all comments

    ——————————————————-

    Dec 4, 2015

    Behind My Back | Congress Must Act on Water Issues

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/12/04/congressmust-act-on-water-issues/

    Dec 4, 2015Congress Must Act on Water Issues May 24, 2014 It takes an act of the U.S. … www.behindmyback.org/2015/02/01/high–dry-and-destitute/.

    Comment


  • Drought Forums for Tribes and Citizens

    Drought Forums for Tribes and Citizens

    Question on Drought by Keith “I asked Jeff Marti  HOW MUCH INFLUENCE DO TRIBES HAVE IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS.  Jeff Marti  said, “ABSOLUTELY NONE”!

    ————————————————————————————————

    A Question  for ECOLOGY  

    HOW MUCH INFLUENCE DO TRIBES HAVE IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS FOR COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUMS?

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

    [PDF]Tribal Consultation and Coordination Policy of the U.S. …

    Tribal Consultation and COORDINATION Policy of the U.S. Department

    of Commerce

    The Department’s mission encompasses many complex issues where cooperation

    and MUTUAL CONSIDERATION AMONG GOVERNMENTS (FEDERAL, STATE, TRIBAL, AND

    LOCAL) are essential. The Department and operating units will promote intradepartmental and interagency COORDINATION AND COOPERATION

    to assist Tribal governments in resolving issues requiring mutual effort.

    ——————————————————————————————————–

    Jeff Marti  email THE FORUM WE, ECOLOGY, RECENTLY ATTENDED IN SEQUIM WAS ORGANIZED BY THE JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBE” in “COOPERATION” with the DUNGENESS WATER USERS MANAGEMENT GROUP and included participation by LOCAL GOVERNMENTS as well.

    A Questions for ECOLOGY

    If?  Ecology attends and participates  IN  “COOPERATION” WITH THE JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBE?

    Why can’t Ecology attend and participate   IN  “COOPERATION” WITH THE CITIZENS of WA State?

    OR? did ECOLOGY ACTUALLY attend and participate  IN THE JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBE COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUM AS  REQUIRED BY THECOORDINATION” Policy of the U.S.?

    ————————————————————————————————-

    A Question for ECOLOGY

    HOW MUCH INFLUENCE DO CITIZENS HAVE IN THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS FOR PUBLIC DROUGHT FORUMS?

    Should ECOLOGY attend and participate IN COOPERATION WITH WA STATE CITIZENS?

    ————————————————————————-

    Jeff Marti, “We are still considering whether additional forums elsewhere would be APPROPRIATE” 

    —————————————————————–

    A Question for ECOLOGY

     WOULD THE ONLY “APPROPRIATE”  COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUMS,

    FOR WA STATE CITIZENS, IN EMERGENCY DROUGHT AREAS

     BE REQUIRED TO BE ORGANIZED AND REQUESTED BY GOVERNMENTS?

     FEDERAL, STATE, TRIBAL, AND LOCAL  USING INTRADEPARTMENTAL AND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND COOPERATION?

    ——————————————————————–

    A question for ECOLOGY  

    Would it be APPROPRIATE for  ECOLOGY to attend and participate IN COOPERATION WITH WA STATE CITIZENS?

    IF YOU’RE A NORMAL PERSON, YOU’D ANSWER “YES,  USUALLY it Would  be APPROPRIATE for  ECOLOGY to attend and participate IN COOPERATION WITH WA STATE CITIZENS

    HOWEVER, THE ISSUE OF COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUMS FOR TRIBES VS. COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUMS FOR CITIZENS  ISN’T THAT SIMPLE.  IT ACTUALLY BOILS DOWN TO A “VALUE JUDGMENT” OF WHAT WE WANT OUR WORLD TO LOOK LIKE.

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

    [PDF]Tribal Consultation and Coordination Policy of the U.S. …

    ORGANIZED BY ELECTED GOVERNMENT and TRIBES?  FEDERAL, STATE , TRIBAL, AND LOCAL USING INTRADEPARTMENTAL AND INTERAGENCY COORDINATION AND COOPERATION?

    ————————————————————————————————

    Question for ECOLOGY?

     ARE CITIZENS EQUALLY AS IMPORTANT AS TRIBES?

    IF YOU’RE A NORMALPERSON, YOU’D ANSWER , YES, CITIZENS USUALLY ARE EQUALLY AS IMPORTANT AS TRIBES .

    HOWEVER, THE ISSUE OF IMPORTANCE OF TRIBES VS. THE IMPORTANCE OF CITIZENS  ISN’T THAT SIMPLE.  IT ACTUALLY BOILS DOWN TO A “VALUE JUDGMENT” OF WHAT WE WANT OUR WORLD TO LOOK LIKE.

    Tribal Consultation and Coordination Policy of the U.S. …

    ————————————————————————————–

    A CITIZENS REQUEST FOR A COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUM

    WE CAN HOST YOUR MEETING! I’LL HANDLE EVERYTHING; DOE JUST HAS TO SHOW UP.

    The best location for a future drought meeting is Quinault. We are exactly in the middle of the west side of the Olympics; one hour for Forks citizens to drive and one hour for Aberdeen/Hoquiam citizens to drive. To hold a meeting in either Forks or Aberdeen/Hoquiam requires the other citizens to drive two hours, one way, for such a meeting.

    ——————————————————————————————-

    LAST Response from Ecology on Citizen’s  request for a Community Drought Forum

    Jeff Marti

    I hope that gives you some background on our drought process.  I also appreciate your request to hold a drought forum in the Quinault area.   I can’t confirm at this point whether a forum will be scheduled for the Quinault area, but we are considering your request.

    —————————————————————————

    JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBAL COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUM

    May 21, 2015 6:00-8:30PM Guy Cole Convention Center Sequim, WA 98382

     

    OBJECTIVES:

    • To provide information about the current drought and how it is impacting water supplies (for humans and wildlife).
    • To describe drought response to date by various entities.
    • To answer questions and hear concerns people have about the drought.
    • To let people know what they can do to try to lessen the impacts of drought.

     

    —————————————————————————–

    ANOTHER CITIZENS REQUEST FOR A COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUM ….

    Citizens are human, please  provide information about the current emergency drought and how is it  going to impact citizens water supplies?

    What is the worst case scenario? For farmers, loggers, fishermen and the tourist industry?

    What is WA State drought emergency preparedness plan for wildfires?

    Is WA State, DNR, Ecology etc. prepared for the worst?

    Citizens  want specific answers on how the drought emergency will affect their lives in the areas where they live and the local economy?

    ———————————————————————

     

    FORMAT Agenda JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBAL COMMUNITY DROUGHT FORUM

     

     

    TIME

    TOPIC

    SPEAKER

    6:00 – 6:25 1.   Welcome and Introductions

    • Drought Overview
    • Status and Response
    Michael Gallagher and Jeff MartiWA Department of Ecology
    6:25 – 6:45 2.   Water 101 and Water Supply Outlook(Snowpack, Precipitation, Streamflow) Scott PatteeNatural Resources Conservation Service
    6:45 – 7:05 3.    Fish and Wildlife Impacts/Needs During Drought Teresa ScottWA Department of Fish and Wildlife

    Scott Chitwood

    Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe

    7:05 – 7:45 4.   Wildfire Preparation/Weather Forecasts Julie Knobel and Bryan Suslick WA Department of Natural Resources

    Andrew Haner

    National Weather Service

    7:45 – 8:25 5.   PANEL DISCUSSION           Local Actions Related to Water Supplies/Drought

    • Water Users Association
    • Washington Water Trust
    • City of Sequim
    • Clallam PUD
    • Washington Department of Health
    MODERATOR:  Mike Gallagher, WADOE 

    Ben Smith

    Amanda Cronin

    David Garlington

    Tom Martin

    Ginnie Stern

    8:25 – 8:30 6.   Closing Remarks Michael Gallagher and Jeff MartiWA Department of Ecology

     

     

     


  • Drought? Piped Irrigation,Tailwater, BMP

    Drought? Piped Irrigation, Tailwater FC , BMP

    In response to three (3) questions on BMP for Dungeness drought irrigation water.

    Asked after the Sequim Community Drought Forum

    ——————————————————————–

    When we have irrigation water coming from the river into the irrigation pipes past our house and I don’t use it so it just keeps flowing down hill till someone does use it,

    but what happens if it doesn’t get used?

    Does it just dump out in the sound like the river does?

    Or is there an end to the pipe?

    —————————————————-

    Great drought questions. Complicated answer.

    —————————————————————-

    START HERE

    Dungeness River Targeted Watershed Initiative FINAL …  a 47 page report

    www.jamestowntribe.org/…/nrs/TWG_Final%20Report-compressed.pdf

    Dungeness Watershed on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington……………………………. …. NAME OF PROJECT. ….. An extensive irrigation system, which diverts river.

    snippets from the  47 page report

    A statistical evaluation of the effectiveness of best management practice BMPs from Task 2

    (i.e. IRRIGATION PIPING and septic system repairs) for remediating FECAL COLIFORM (FC) BACTERIA.

    ———————————————————————-

    Piping irrigation ditches is considered a best management practice (BMP) for water conservation by preventing conveyance losses.

    Since the water conveyance system is enclosed in a pipe, the possibility of contaminants (fecal coliform (FC)) entering the system is greatly reduced, and if the pipeline is closed at the end, there is no spilling of excess tailwater at the downstream end of the irrigation system

    Monitoring for the effectiveness of irrigation piping was problematic in the sense that downstream samples could not be collected in most cases since the source water was eliminated.

    (all used for irrigating?)

    At one downstream location, the tailwater from a bluff ditch station (IRR-3) that emptied into the Bay was monitored after piping was complete because regulations required that a stormwater conveyance ditch be reconstructed above the pipe to continue to convey runoff.

    After piping, the fecal coliform FC concentration in the stormwater runoff conveyance was not significantly different than before the piping.

    Further analysis examined the impact of piping on tailwater discharge into Dungeness Bay,

    comparing data before and after the piping at three marine monitoring sites located near the freshwater bluff ditch sites. While this was statistically significant,

    it has little meaning from a water quality improvement standpoint.

    A number of benefits of irrigation piping can clearly be demonstrated such as water conservation, reduced ditch maintenance and efficient water delivery,

    However, the empirical evidence of reduction in fecal coliform FC was not clearly apparent from this study.

    —————————————————————-

    Expanded snippets, the full 47 page report is online

    Dungeness River Targeted Watershed Initiative FINAL …

    www.jamestowntribe.org/…/nrs/TWG_Final%20Report-compressed.pdf

    Dungeness Watershed on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington……………………………. …. NAME OF PROJECT. ….. An extensive irrigation system, which diverts river.

    Effectiveness Monitoring of Fecal Coliform Bacteria and Nutrients in the Dungeness Watershed, Washington

    Battelle PNWD-4054-3

    Pacific Northwest Division

    Richland, Washington 99352

    Prepared for:

    Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe in fulfillment of Task 3 (Effectiveness Monitoring Study) of the Dungeness River Watershed Final Work plan for the EPA Targeted Watershed Grant Program (2004)

    October 2009

     This study was conducted as part of an Environmental Protection Agency EPA Targeted Watershed Grant awarded to the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe in 2004 that focused surface water cleanup efforts in the lower Dungeness Watershed and Dungeness Bay in Washington State

     http://www.jamestowntribe.org/programs/nrs/FINAL_EM_RPT%28Oct_09%29v_2.pdf

    Piping irrigation ditches is considered a best management practice (BMP) for water conservation by preventing conveyance losses.

    Since the water conveyance system is enclosed in a pipe, the possibility of contaminants entering the system is greatly reduced, and if the pipeline is closed at the end, there is no spilling of excess tailwater at the downstream end of the irrigation system

    Monitoring for the effectiveness of irrigation piping was problematic in the sense that downstream samples could not be collected in most cases since the source water was eliminated. Median concentrations from the two upstream stations were 10 and 128 CFU/100 ml.

    At one downstream location, the tailwater from a bluff ditch station (IRR-3) that emptied into the Bay was monitored after piping was complete because regulations required that a stormwater conveyance ditch be reconstructed above the pipe to continue to convey runoff.

    After piping, the fecal coliform FC concentration in the stormwater runoff conveyance was not significantly different than before the piping.

    Further analysis examined the impact of piping on tailwater discharge into Dungeness Bay,

    comparing data before and after the piping at three marine monitoring sites located near the freshwater bluff ditch sites.

    One marine station, DOH-110 was significantly different before and after piping. However, the geometric mean at this site before piping

    was 7 CFU/100 ml and after the piping was 4 CFU/100 ml. While this was statistically significant, it has little meaning from a water quality improvement standpoint.

    A number of benefits of irrigation piping can clearly be demonstrated such as water conservation, reduced ditch maintenance and efficient water delivery, however the empirical evidence of reduction in fecal coliform FC was not clearly apparent from this study.

    In the case where an irrigation ditch was piped to eliminate tailwater, but the piped ditch closely coupled the path of a stormwater runoff conveyance into the Bay, the benefits were reduced.

    However, the potential source of contamination to this ditch is from a much smaller geographic area than prior to piping when several miles of open irrigation ditch led to this discharge location

    A statistical evaluation of the effectiveness of BMPs from Task 2(i.e. irrigation piping and septic system repairs)for remediating fecal coliform bacteria. The my core mediation best management practice BMP effectiveness is discussed in a separate report (Thomas et al. 2009)

    The overall results of this study have not shown an improvement in surface water quality with respect to fecal coliform bacteria in the Dungeness watershed or Dungeness Bay within the last 10 years. However, water quality conditions have not declined within the watershed either.

    This is notable when considering the population within the  Dungeness watershed has steadily increased during this time period.

    ————————————————————————-

    In fact, asking your three short questions was the prelude to the following.

    Finding the answer was a bit more complicated. It took several hours of research going from one website to another.

    However, it was time well spent, in connecting the dots, many vital failures of public notification shall now become open, transparent and someone must be held accountable.

    In one of the following documents the FAILURE OF DUE PROCESS, failure of legal requirements for public notification of public meetings was mentioned and what remedial actions must be taken to comply with the WA State Public Meeting Act.

    This documented information of PUBLIC MEETINGS without legal, public notification, participation and public comment  SPANS A VERY LONG PERIOD IN TIME.

     ————————————————————————————-

    The more “We the People” know and can document, the better. Another chapter in the book of revelations by Pearl Revere

    ———————————————————————–

    I found this.. I did not research it,  It was mentioned briefly at the Drought Forum, But who knew why?

    2015 Emergency Drought affect on More Creek Water users?

    Technical Memorandum – Clallam County

    www.clallam.net/environment/…/SSA_Memo_Final.pdf

    Clallam County

    “Morse Creek is the largest of the independent drainages to salt water between the Dun- …. of 3,800′. It is the westernmost stream influenced directly by Dungeness area irrigation ….. Since 2000 the piping of many reaches of irrigation ditch has re- ….. Thus, the occurrence of baseflow in this reach expands and contracts up-.

    —————————————————————————-

     2015 Dungeness Watershed (7) irrigation systems

    More images for irrigation systems in the dungeness watershed

    one diagram shows two pipeline that end dumping into the bay

    ————————————————————

    Minutes – January 13, 2015 – Clallam CD

    www.clallamcd.org/storage/dist-business/…/Minutes2015-0113.pdf

    Jan 13, 2015 – Ben Smith informed the Board that the Water Users Association (WUA), … The WUA has not drafted a proposal yet, but wanted to see first if the …

    ——————————————————————–

    Minutes – January 13, 2015 – Clallam CD

    www.clallamcd.org/storage/dist-business/…/Minutes2015-0113.pdf

    Jan 13, 2015 – Interlocal Agreement with Clallam County for Pollution Identification & Correction (PIC) Planning…PIC Implementation I … finalizing the contract after removing Addendum A (relating to co-location of offices). … DUNGENESS IRRIGATION DISTRICT DITCH PIPING PROIECT’ in the amount of$l,0| 1.19. … Ben Smith informed the Board that the Water Users Association (WUA), …

    ———————————————————————————–

    Dungeness River Targeted Watershed Initiative FINAL …

    www.jamestowntribe.org/…/nrs/TWG_Final%20Report-compressed.pdf

    Dungeness Watershed on the Olympic Peninsula, Washington……………………………. …. NAME OF PROJECT. ….. AN EXTENSIVE IRRIGATION SYSTEM, WHICH DIVERTS RIVER.

    ————————————————————————–

    November 12, 2014 APPROVED Meeting Notes Dungeness …

    home.olympus.net/~dungenesswc/docs/…/2014-11%20notes.pdf

    Nov 12, 2014 – Jennifer Bond, Clallam Conservation District … I. Introductions/Review Agenda/Review & Approve October DRMT Draft … District, provided an update presentation on the PIC (Pollution. Identification and Correction) Plan project status. …. Will look at opportunities for revising program in ways that would …

    —————————————————————————-

    October 23, 2014 – Clallam CD

    www.clallamcd.org/storage/…/agenda…/20141023_PIC_Agenda__Notes…

    Oct 23, 2014 – AGENDA. Pollution Identification & Correction Planning Meeting … Bond (CCD), Matt Heins (CCD), Stephanie Zurenko (DOE), Ivan … Jennifer and Andy gave a presentation on the draft PIC plan to the … Hansi also briefed the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe’s Natural Resources Committee on the status of the.

    ——————————————————————-

    My first Google search diagramhttps://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=2015+dungeness+watershed+%287%29+irrigation+systems+diagram

    —————————————————————————-

    Documented questions on irrigation water

    —– Original Message —–

    From: “diane <

    To: “pearl hewett” <phew@wavecable.com>

    Sent: Monday, May 25, 2015 3:56 PM

    Subject: Re: Citizen Review on Our Drought Forum

    Pearl please forgive the silliness of my question.

    When we have irrigation water coming from the river into the irrigation pipes past our house and I don’t use it so it just keeps flowing down hill till someone does use it, but what happens if it doesn’t get used? Does it just dump out in the sound like the river does? Or is there an end to the pipe? OK that is my question for today.

    ——————————————————————–

    Diane,

    Please forgive me for MY DOCUMENTED, convoluted extremely complex and difficult to follow intricately folded, twisted, coiled, complicated, sometimes, depends, on usually, or not, response to your (3) DROUGHT irrigation water questions.

    Pearl

     


  • Citizen Review on Our Drought Forum

    Citizen Review on Our Drought Forum

    This is the full unedited comment.

    Sequim/Dungeness community listens to drought concerns

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

    Sequim, WA – The Water Drought Forum was held in the Guy Cole Center at Carrie Blake Park Thursday, May 21, 2015 to a crowd of approximately 250 people, there to ask questions about their concerns. Instead, according to several people who attended, they were treated to a “dog-and-pony show” for the first two hours of the evening.

    Scott Chitwood, Dungeness River Management (DRMT) Chairman, opened the meeting and announced, Here’s “what we may expect…may happen this summer.” Chitwood was former Natural Resource Director for Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe. He complimented Shawn Hines, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe representative, for her work on water interests.

    To see photos of the slideshow presentations, click here.

    About half-way through, almost half the crowd had left in disgust and/or boredom, when one slideshow presentation after another was made by various activists and federal agency representatives – many of which repeated the same information, showed the same graphs and charts, and some included photos from eastern Washington. Several speakers reminded the audience that they could go to Google search for the information. A break was not offered, during the two and a half hour meeting.

    The general theme was that we are facing a drought in the Sequim-Dungeness Valley due to an off year of snow. Washington’s “Drought Trigger” was defined as “less than 75% of normal water supply, plus “hardship” = “Drought.” Despite the fact that rainfall has equaled or exceeded previous years, and the aquifer itself has water, the “experts” were telling the crowd that the snowmelt, based on models, was 75% of “normal” and “may” cause a “drought”. (Interestingly, the definition of “drought” in the Miriam-Webster dictionary reads: “a period of dryness especially when prolonged; specifically : one that causes extensive damage to crops or prevents their successful growth.”)

    Mike Gallagher, Department of Ecology (DOE), facilitated the meeting. He showed slides and explained, “what the plans are for water shortage.” He then asked for questions from the audience. Before any answers were given to the questions asked, however, the agency representatives, for the next approximate 1-1/2 hours, presented various slideshows, with explanations about snowfall – much of the information overlapping.

    Several of the unanswered questions included Pearl Rains Hewett, Port Angeles resident, who asked, “what about drought for the Elwha River in Port Angeles?” She declared that 25,000 people are affected from the Elwha River to Morse Creek. “That drought system should be part of this forum” she stated Several people asked about wells, water distribution, and storage. “With no water storage, what will we do?” asked one woman.

    Nobody was asked to give their name or address, while asking questions, so there apparently will not be a record of comments.

    Mary Bell, a longtime Sequim farmer, asked about water availability and irrigation, for animals.

    A woman asked, if they are addressing snow pack at 6500 feet.

    “We have to look ‘ahead of time’ – what will it look like?” said Drought Coordinator Jeff Marti representing the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE). He told the attendees that from 500 – one million salmon are “expected” to arrive this year, and there are no storage reservoirs. “What will happen?” he said.

    Marti said “drought” was defined by Department of Ecology (DOE) as when a snowpack is less than 75% of normal of water supply plus hardship. He admitted that the precipitation (rainfall) was mostly normal. He said that “experts” from WSAC (Ecology’s Water Supply Availability Committee) including “climate experts” like NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and others decide whether an area is above or below the 75%. EWEC (Ecology’s Executive Water Emergency Committee (Policy), the Dept. of Agriculture, Fish & Wildlife, Conservation Commission and others at the State determine the “policy” that a “hardship” exists. The recommendation goes to the governor, who then declares a drought.

    The Washington Water Trust (WWT) is buying up water rights on a “temporary” basis for “low value” crops like hay and alfalfa. They are expecting funding from the Legislature to buy up more fairly soon.

    Marti said that even from March, there will be “pretty extreme conditions.” The Olympic Peninsula, along with Walla Walla, Wenatchee and others are expecting a “hardship”, especially since there is no water storage available. The result of “hardship” caused a shutdown of irrigation in Yakima as of May.

    Marti discussed WRIA (Water Resource Inventory Area), “as insiders call it,” he said. He mentioned 3 to 5 percent, in the Olympics, as a ‘dreadful state’.
    Olympic Peninsula fisheries and impacts on small communities, without any storage, is a concern. He stated that 48-62 percent of watersheds in the state are affected. That is 85 percent of the state, determined Marti.

    He said there is an interactive map online and said that the WRIA (map) shows the Dungeness basin. He stated that snow melt was at 4000 feet.

    Others who promoted the same basic message included Scott Pattee, Water Supply “specialist” from the USDA [U.S. Dept. of Agriculture] and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). “This is an anomalous year,” he said. It is “potentially” one of the worst forecast years ever, he added. He said “deep wells” will not be affected. He said he gets to go into the mountains to see the snowpack, riding on snowmobiles and in helicopters – a “tough” job, he laughed.

    WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife Teresa Scott is the “drought coordinator”, who said she works closely with Ecology. She explained all the aspects about how a low river flow might hurt the fish. They are looking at water access for fish and “enforcement”, and “all the rest of it.” The fish hatcheries will have to go “find and net” the fish when they don’t come back to the fisheries, she said. They will be using aerators and oxygen pumps to help the fish. “We go into streams and move rocks, so the fish can get through,” she said. They built flumes in eastern Washington to help with fish passage. “We’ll see wetland dry up in summer,” she said.

    Chitwood asked “What are we going to do to get fish to their spawning grounds? We’re going to monitor them.” He talked about sand bags in key positions to deepen the channels.

    Bryan Suslick, Dept of Natural Resources, reiterated that the rainfall has been near normal, but not the snowpack. “It ‘looks like’ it ‘might be’ an early start to the fall rain season,” he said. All predictions are done through computer modeling. He advocated for the fire-wise program, which Andy Haner of NOAA National Weather Service from Seattle reviewed.

    After approximately 1-1/2 hours of slideshows and presentations (from 6:15 -8 p.m.), a panel set up to make statements and answer questions from the remaining approximate 90 people in the audience.

    Local farmer Ben Smith, Maple View Farms and president of the Dungeness Water Users Association, said when the river gets to 120cfs, an “action plan” will go into effect, and the community will be asked to reduce or eliminate watering their yards. “As irrigators, we are being as efficient as we can,” he said. Surges have been done in the past, but not sure of the effectiveness. “We are committed to exploring all options,” he said.

    Amanda Cronin, Project Manager with WWT [Washington Water Trust] is working with irrigators. The WWT is holding a “reverse auction” with taxpayers’ (Ecology grant) money, with the seven irrigation districts and companies in a volunteer program to pay irrigators not to irrigate. Preliminarily, there have been 28 bids from 15 landowners to be paid for not irrigating; so far, 21 of the bids have been accepted from 13 of the landowners, she said. That’s 800 acres that won’t be irrigated, according to Cronin.
    She explained regulations for senior rights/water rights. Temporary transfer of water rights, public education, funding assistance for public entities, and grant programs ‘would be in place’.

    There are Senior and Junior users. “Senior users have priority. In a drought, we have a duty to protect Senior users,” affirmed Cronin. She continued, “We can give an order to shut off which has impacts to Junior users.” She spoke of many fish problems relating to water availability for fish. “We have to step up enforcement, when we have people trying to catch them,” she announced. Many people left the building during and after her presentation.

    Chitwood said they are going to monitor what the challenge looks like. He talked about minimum flow in the river. “We are going to do whatever we can do to get from point A to point B,” he said. He prefers sand bags, rather than hauling fish to safely. He talked about sand bags in key positions to deepen the channels. “We can use volunteers, give me a call,” he said.

    A panel representing several entities, joined Ben Smith who represents the irrigators. Smith is president of the Dungeness Water Users Association and is also a dairy farmer, at Maple View Farms, in Sequim.

    Amanda Cronin WWT and David Garlington a City of Sequim representative joined three more panel members, at the table. It was stated that the City of Sequim, Irrigators, Tribes, DRMT and PUD (Public Utility District) were working together to address water supply.
    Cronin, from Seattle said she had worked on various water issues since 2008. She said there are volunteer irrigators who would not irrigate from August 15 to September 15th, with commercial crops five acres or more. There are 28 bids from 15 owners. She said 13 owners were accepted. It would include approximately 800 acres. “Whether that water will be available, we will see what happens,” she said.

    Garlington spoke about using less water such as lawn watering, and capturing storm water runoff in storage or infiltration. He also discussed putting a deeper well near the river. He said when later questioned that 2.5 percent of the water is used by the City of Sequim.

    An audience member asked Smith how it would be determined to shut off the irrigation ditches. Smith answered, “40 CFS. We agreed to take no more than 60 CFS left in the river.”

    When asked about flowers and lawns, Smith answered that very little is used for lawns. Eighty percent of the state is used for irrigation, according to what the Irrigation Ditch Company supplied. “We are committed to exploring all options….we will get things done. I am optimistic,” said Smith.

    A question was directed to Cronin about money from DOE. One of the panel members responded that “It is from taxpayers to the legislature.” He said he expected they would release it soon.

    Cronin said that they are looking for storage near River Road. The amount is $32,000,000 for only that reservoir, according to Cronin.

    A question was posed by former Clallam County resident, Ron Suslick. He said it was $56,000,000 seven years ago. He asked, “What did you do with it?” A facilitator answered, “Probably used it.”

    Cronin answered a question that Washington Water Trust is “pretty much a group.”
    Questioned about well safety, it was noted by one facilitator that wells below 20 feet could be a problem and that wells near a river were less likely to go dry.
    [Note: Panel members were gathered at the front and randomly answered questions and names were not mentioned, at that time.]

    When questions were asked about the status of ground water, the attendees were told, “we are at the high end of the normal now.” The City, Port Williams, and River Road are normal, in that they are from a deeper aquifer.

    When the bulldozers were mentioned for removing gravel to better accommodate fish, one community member reminded them there would be bulldozers for moving the dike. The answer from the front entourage was, “the dike is moved back to create more wetlands.”

    Diane Hood mentioned wells going dry. Holes in pipes were also questioned.
    Smith said “that option was discussed.”

    At the close of the meeting, a question was asked how much the water trust has spent on water storage. Cronin said the water trust sold certificates. The amount collected so far is approximately $100,000., she said, spent mitigating the Dungeness water rights acquisition projects. “All money goes back, “she announced. She said it was not going to storage. “Generally the Dungeness Restoration Project.” said Cronin.

    This is the full unedited report by Lois.

    ——————————————————————-

    The following is  additional documented information

    —————————————————————————————-

    Community Drought Forum

    May 21, 2015

    6:00-8:30PM

    Guy Cole Convention Center

    202 North Blake Avenue, Sequim, WA 98382

     

    OBJECTIVES:

    • To provide information about the current drought and how it is impacting water supplies (for humans and wildlife).
    • To describe drought response to date by various entities.
    • To answer questions and hear concerns people have about the drought.
    • To let people know what they can do to try to lessen the impacts of drought.

     

    TIME

    TOPIC

    SPEAKER

    6:00 – 6:25 1.   Welcome and Introductions

    • Drought Overview
    • Status and Response
    Michael Gallagher and Jeff MartiWA Department of Ecology
    6:25 – 6:45 2.   Water 101 and Water Supply Outlook(Snowpack, Precipitation, Streamflow) Scott PatteeNatural Resources Conservation Service
    6:45 – 7:05 3.    Fish and Wildlife Impacts/Needs During Drought Teresa ScottWA Department of Fish and WildlifeScott ChitwoodJamestown S’Klallam Tribe
    7:05 – 7:45 4.   Wildfire Preparation/Weather Forecasts Julie Knobel and Bryan Suslick WA Department of Natural ResourcesAndrew Haner National Weather Service
    7:45 – 8:25 5.   PANEL DISCUSSION           Local Actions Related to Water Supplies/Drought

    • Water Users Association
    • Washington Water Trust
    • City of Sequim
    • Clallam PUD
    • Washington Department of Health
    MODERATOR:  Mike Gallagher, WADOE Ben SmithAmanda CroninDavid Garlington

    Tom Martin

    Ginnie Stern

    8:25 – 8:30 6.   Closing Remarks Michael Gallagher and Jeff MartiWA Department of Ecology

     

     

     


  • 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

     


  • 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


  • Ecology’s WA State Drought Response?

    Ecology’s WA State Drought Response?

    Washington Drought 2015 | Washington State Department …

    www.ecy.wa.gov/drought/

    4 days ago – Ecology in drought response for almost half of Washington … 2015 Yakima River Basin Emergency Drought Authorization – Junior water right … an emergency drought authorization in 2005 (or the new property owner if county …

    Last revised: May 11, 2015

    Current Conditions:
    ECOLOGY IN DROUGHT RESPONSE FOR ALMOST HALF OF WASHINGTON

    STATUS: CURRENTLY, 24 OF WASHINGTON’S RIVER BASINS ARE IN A DECLARED DROUGHT EMERGENCY. THIS COVERS 44 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL AREA OF THE STATE.
    >> For information about the process and timeline of events, see Drought declaration process.

    ————————————————————————

    Friday, April 17, 2015

    OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) – Citing projections that say this summer will have the least snowmelt in 64 years, GOV. JAY INSLEE ON FRIDAY EXPANDED THE STATE’S MONTH-OLD DROUGHT EMERGENCY DECLARATION TO COVER 44 PERCENT OF THE STATE.

    Inslee’s announcement more than doubles the number of Washington watershed areas officially considered to be suffering from drought.

    In March, the governor identified 11 watersheds as drought-afflicted – six west of the Cascades and five on the east side. Thirteen more river basins were added Friday to the drought list.

    • There are 62 (WRIA’S) Watersheds in WA State  (complete list below)
    •  24 OF 62 WASHINGTON’S RIVER BASINS ARE IN A DECLARED DROUGHT EMERGENCY

    ———————————————————————————

    Images for Washington watershed drought counties

    ——————————————————————————–

    What can you expect from your  WA State Elected Representatives?

    •  Sequim Gazette  ·  Mar 18, 2015

    DOE OFFICIALS ALREADY HAVE A REQUEST INTO THE LEGISLATURE FOR $9 MILLION FOR DROUGHT RELIEF, Dan Partridge, communications manager for DOE’s Water Resources Program, said.

    As of April 17, Ecology’s request for a $9 million drought relief appropriation was still pending in the Legislature.

    ————————————————————————————

    There are 62 (WRIA’S) Watersheds in WA State

     24 OF 62 WASHINGTON’S RIVER BASINS ARE IN A DECLARED DROUGHT EMERGENCY

    HOW ARE THINGS GOING IN YOUR DROUGHT EMERGENCY COUNTY?

    WHAT IS ECOLOGY’S  RESPONSE TO YOUR WA STATE DROUGHT WATERSHED?

    THIS IS ECOLOGY’S FIRST  DROUGHT RESPONSE, FOR  CLALLAM COUNTY watershed…..

    2015 Dungeness Dry Year Leasing Program FAQs … (full text below)

    —————————————————————

    The local inside story..

    AMANDA CRONIN, WASHINGTON WATER TRUST

    REPORTS THE 2015 DUNGENESS DRY  YEAR LEASING PROGRAM  TO THE DUNGENESS RIVER MANAGEMENT TEAM (DMRT) DRAFT Meeting Notes April 8, 2015

    full text of meeting below

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

    My question and comment

    April 8, 2015 (DMRT) Team Members/Alternates

    IN ATTENDANCE:

    ELECTED DCD DIRECTOR Mary Ellen Winborn, Clallam County

    Cathy Lear, Clallam County EMPLOYEE (alt)

     WHO KNEW? Who reports the Drought Year Leasing Program to the affected CITIZENS in Clallam County?

    WHO KNEW? Who reports the Drought Year Leasing Program to OUR Clallam County  Commissioners?

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

    THE DRY YEAR LEASING PROGRAM Amanda described and REPORTS TO THE(DMRT)  IS ACTUALLY BEING

    FUNDED FROM THE 2012 LEGISLATURE PROVISO FOR DUNGENESS WATER PROJECTS.

    THESE PROVISO FUNDS WILL PAY IRRIGATORS NOT TO WATER FROM AUGUST 15-SEPTEMBER 15

    2015 Dungeness Dry Year Leasing Program

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

    My questions and comment for clarification  to the DROUGHT affected  CITIZENS in Clallam County

     WHO KNEW?

    The legislators gave how much  taxpayers money for funding the PROVISO FOR DUNGENESS WATER PROJECTS

    USING THOSE PROVISO FUNDS WILL PAY IRRIGATORS NOT TO WATER FROM AUGUST 15-SEPTEMBER 15?

     The Drought Year Leasing Program? WHICH WILL PROVIDE $200,000 of taxpayer’s dollars TO IRRIGATION DISTRICT OR COMPANY MEMBERS FOR NOT IRRIGATING, CONTRACTS WILL BE DIRECTLY WITH THE IRRIGATORS?

     WHO KNEW?

    FIRST THE IRRIGATION DISTRICTS GETS PAID FOR THEIR WATER RIGHTS?

    THEN THE IRRIGATION /DISTRICTS/ IRRIGATORS GET CONTRACTS AND ARE PAID DIRECTLY FOR NOT IRRIGATING FROM AUGUST 15-SEPTEMBER 15?

     (DMRT) Meeting Notes April 8, 2015

    AMANDA CRONIN, WASHINGTON WATER TRUST  SAID “SINCE WE DON’T KNOW IF THERE WILL BE ANY WATER ANYWAY. I.E., PARTICIPANTS (IRRIGATION DISTRICTS) WILL STILL GET PAID, WHETHER THERE IS WATER TO CONSERVE OR NOT”

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

    THE DROUGHT DESIGNATION BY THE GOVERNOR TRIGGERED THE RELEASE OF DROUGHT EMERGENCY FUNDS.

     HOWEVER the dry year leasing program Amanda described IS ACTUALLY BEING FUNDED FROM THE 2012 LEGISLATURE PROVISO FOR DUNGENESS WATER PROJECTS. THESE PROVISO FUNDS WILL PAY IRRIGATORS NOT TO WATER FROM AUGUST 15-SEPTEMBER 15

    ————————————————————————————————-

     Full text from the Dungeness River Management Team (DRMT) Meeting Notes April 8, 2015

    Dungeness River Audubon Center, Sequim, WA

    Drought Year Leasing Program (AMANDA CRONIN, WASHINGTON WATER TRUST)

    Amanda Cronin reminded the group about previous water leasing programs – one led by the Water Trust in 2009, plus Ecology’s programs from 2001, and 2003-2005. WASHINGTON WATER TRUST WILL MANAGE THE CURRENT PROGRAM, WHICH WILL PROVIDE $200,000 TO IRRIGATION DISTRICT OR COMPANY MEMBERS FOR NOT IRRIGATING. Washington Water Trust has sent solicitation to irrigators, who must respond with bids by 4/15. Funds will go to the lowest bids first, up to a capped amount. This has been found to be the most efficient process. No max price, paying out on a per acre basis. CONTRACTS WILL BE DIRECTLY WITH THE IRRIGATORS.

     Eligibility: must have irrigated 5 acres or more by 2014; member of WUA; no crop limitations, i.e. can be any commercial crop or grass, as long as long as it was irrigated previously; permission from irrigation company or district. Another condition is that they can’t irrigate with another source.

     Scott and Amanda reviewed the process by which the leasing program came about. The drought designation by the GOVERNOR triggered the release of drought emergency funds. However the dry year leasing program Amanda described IS ACTUALLY BEING FUNDED FROM THE 2012 LEGISLATURE PROVISO FOR DUNGENESS WATER PROJECTS. THESE PROVISO FUNDS WILL PAY IRRIGATORS NOT TO WATER FROM AUGUST 15-SEPTEMBER 15 (last month of irrigation season), subject to the eligibility conditions.

      Expect good participation from the irrigators, especially the last two weeks of the irrigation season, SINCE WE DON’T KNOW IF THERE WILL BE ANY WATER ANYWAY. I.E., PARTICIPANTS WILL STILL GET PAID, WHETHER THERE IS WATER TO CONSERVE OR NOT.

     WWT WILL BE MONITORING FOR COMPLIANCE; there were no compliance issues in 2009.

     Ann Soule asked what the irrigators will be giving up by participating? Amanda responded that it equates to a cutting; they will have two instead of three – but also depends on what is being grown.

     Audience question: The lowest bid will be accepted, up to the cap amount? What is the price per acre estimate? In 2009, the average price was $86/acre, with nine participants, and 2.2 cfs conserved. In 2003-2005, average price was $150/acre, with a few more participants and 10 cfs saved. Price depends on nature of crop. Not sure yet what will be offered. An estimate will be made of how much water is being saved by not irrigating. Will use the WA Irrigation Guide to help estimate how much water is needed per crop. Again, not paying for the quantity of water; based on average use.

     In 2009, had $100,000 and spent $32,000. In 2003-2005, spent $200,000.

     Judy Larson asked how did the change go from 2 to 10 cfs saved? Amanda said that in 2003-2005 the duration was 45 days, instead of 30 days, plus more acreage was enrolled.

     Robert Brown asked about enforcement. Amanda reiterated that the Trust will visit all properties, also working with the ditch riders; wouldn’t get paid if caught watering.

     ANN SOULE asked if there was a way to estimate if less water is being diverted at those times.

    Amanda said since it’s not a normal year, predictions will be high. Would need to figure out how to translate that information for an extreme drought year.

    Amanda reminded group about the 1998 Memorandum of Understanding between WUA and Ecology, a landmark agreement which stipulated that no more than 50% of the flow as measured at USGS gage could be diverted. In 2012, the irrigators and Ecology renegotiated, and the MOU was replaced with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which kept the 50% rule and added a requirement for leaving a minimum of 60cfs in the river at all times. The irrigators had been voluntarily abiding by the 60cfs minimum, but made it official in the MOA. This sort of agreement is not common in many places of the state; very forward-thinking of the WUA.

     Scott said the first trigger, then, is when the river is at 120 cfs (50% of that flow is 60cfs). When the flow is below 120 cfs, can’t divert anymore. Will need a drought plan. Scott asked what the action date is for the leases.

    Amanda said the irrigators will get paid, regardless of whether there is water or not.

    Scott asked  the lease rates would get discounted in that case – so that the limited amount of funding could go further.

    Amanda said not able to do that this year; commitment has already been made to the irrigators.

     Audience: What if bid comes in on the higher side; any drought relief for that bidder, such as Ecology’s drought relief funds? AN ECOLOGY REPRESENTATIVE SAID THE REQUEST TO LEGISLATURE IS $9 MILLION, but specific decisions about allocation haven’t been made yet.

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

    •  Sequim Gazette  ·  Mar 18, 2015

    DOE OFFICIALS ALREADY HAVE A REQUEST INTO THE LEGISLATURE FOR $9 MILLION FOR DROUGHT RELIEF, Dan Partridge, communications manager for DOE’s Water Resources Program, said.

    As of April 17, Ecology’s request for a $9 million drought relief appropriation was still pending in the Legislature.

    ————————————————————————————-

    WHO KNEW? Who reports the Drought Year Leasing Program to the affected CITIZENS in Clallam County?

    Complete list of the DMRT TEAM MEMBERS/ALTERNATES IN ATTENDANCE:

    Dungeness River Management Team DRAFT Meeting Notes April 8, 2015

    Dungeness River Audubon Center, Sequim, WA

    TEAM MEMBERS/ALTERNATES IN ATTENDANCE:

    Scott Chitwood, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe

    Judy Larson, Protect the Peninsula’s Future

    Robert Brown, Dungeness Beach Association

    Shawn Hines, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe (alt)

    Cathy Lear, Clallam County (alt)

    Robert Beebe, Riverside Property Owner

    Don Hatler, Sports Fisheries

    Mary Ellen Winborn, Clallam County

    Ann Soule, City of Sequim

    Matt Heins, Estuary-Tidelands/Riverside Property Owners

    Michele Canale, North Olympic Land Trust

    Marc McHenry, U.S. Forest Service (advisory)

    Others in Attendance:

    Robert Knapp, Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe

    —————————————————————-

    Document online

    2015 Dungeness Dry Year Leasing Program FAQs …

    www.washingtonwatertrust.org/2015-dungeness-dryyearleasing

    To be eligible for the 2015 Dry Year Leasing Program, you must be an active irrigator in one of the seven irrigation districts and companies in the Dungeness …

    Who is eligible?

    To be eligible for the 2015 Dry Year Leasing Program, you must be an active irrigator in one of the seven irrigation districts and companies in the Dungeness Valley:

    • Agnew Irrigation District
    • Clallam Irrigation Association
    • Cline Irrigation District
    • Dungeness Irrigation District
    • Dungeness Irrigation Group
    • Highland Irrigation District
    • Sequim Prairie Tri-Irrigation Company

    In addition, irrigators must have irrigated hay, silage, pasture, turf or other commercial crop on at least 5 acres or more between August 15th and September 15th in 2014 to be eligible to participate in the 2015 Dungeness Dry Year Leasing Program. Irrigators may own or lease the ground they enroll in the 2015 Dry Year Leasing Program. If the ground is leased, permission to participate in the leasing program is required.

    When are bids due?

    Bids will be reviewed if postmarked no later than April 15, 2015, and mailed to:

    Washington Water Trust

    Attn: Dungeness Leasing Program

    1530 Westlake Ave N, Suite 400

    Seattle, WA 98109

    When will irrigators be notified if bids are accepted or not?

    Bidders will be notified if bids were accepted by letters, mailed by Monday April 30th.

    Why do I need permission from the landowner?

    Permission (a signature) from the landowner is required to ensure that the acres accepted into the 2015 leasing program will not be irrigated during August 15-September 15 lease period from any source (ditch, well, etc.), and to confirm that there is a lease agreement with the landowner and the irrigator for the 2015 season. WWT does not need information related to the terms of your land lease agreement.

    How much funding is available for 2015 leases?

    Ecology has allocated $200,000 for the Dungeness 2015 Dry Year Leasing Program. Eligible and accepted bids will be funded until those funds are exhausted.

    Is there a reserve price?

    WWT and Ecology have not established a reserve price (a price per/acre above which they will not pay) for bids. However, bids viewed as too high will not be accepted.

    How will compliance monitoring occur?

    WWT will seek the review of each eligible bid with the respective District or Company. WWT will sign a Monitoring Memorandum of Understanding with irrigation districts and companies. Accepted bids will be formalized with Forbearance Agreements, signed by each leasing participant, which will include language allowing WWT to access the property to confirm that enrolled acres are not being irrigated. WWT will visit the leased acreage 1 week prior to the leasing period, during the first week and again during the last week to ensure compliance.

    If I participate in program, when will checks be issued?

    WWT anticipates that checks will be issued by November 15, 2015.

    Will I jeopardize or relinquish my water rights by not using them if I participate in this program?

    Relinquishment of water rights is triggered for non-use of water rights if non-use occurs for 5 consecutive years. This program is for the last thirty days of the 2015 irrigation season, so it will not contribute to the relinquishment of the leased water rights.

    Where can I get more information about the 2015 Dry Year Leasing Program?

    Please contact Amanda Cronin, 206.914.9282, amanda@washingtonwatertrust.org, or Jason Hatch, 360.328.3166, jhatch@washingtonwatertrust.org.

    —————————————————————————————————————————————–

    What can you expect from your elected WA State Representatives?

    • Mar 18, 2015  DOE OFFICIALS REQUESTED  $9 MILLION FROM THE LEGISLATURE FOR DROUGHT RELIEF

    As of April 17, Ecology’s request for a $9 million drought relief appropriation was still pending in the Legislature.

    ——————————————————————

    What can THE 24 DECLARED DROUGHT EMERGENCY WATERSHEDS expect from WA State ECOLOGY?

    2015 Dungeness Dry Year Leasing Program FAQs …

    The DROUGHT RELIEF game is the same just change the name?

    2015 Yakima Dry Year Leasing Program FAQs … (not quite there, yet)

    —————————————————————————————-

    Search begins for water in the Yakima Basin | April 2015 News

    www.ecy.wa.gov › Ecology home › News

    Apr 1, 2015 – Workshops explain ECOLOGY LEASING PROGRAM to support streamflows … irrigators to keep streams from going dry in the upper Yakima River Basin. .

    ———————————————————————————-

    What can you expect from your LOCAL county elected representative?

    WHO KNEW?  WHO KNOWS? WHO REPORTS? the Drought Year Leasing Program to the affected  citizens in YOUR County?

    WHO KNEW?  WHO KNOWS? WHO REPORTS? the Drought Year Leasing Program to YOUR County  Commissioners?

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