+menu-


  • Category Archives WA State Dept. of Ecology
  • WA DOE Amending the SMA/SMP?

    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?

    If you have questions or need assistance, please contact the Ecology shoreline planner in your region or contact Bev Huether at bev.huether@ecy.wa.gov.

     

     

     

     

     

    Behind My Back | SMP Public Comment (159)

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/01/16/3152/

    Jan 16, 2015 – SMP Public Comment (159) Clallam County Planning Commission Public … WHAT IS NOT REQUIRED BY LAW, on the backs of the already BELEAGUERED …. www.behindmyback.org/2014/03/22/2014-femas–warped-data/.

    I did attend the last two public forums

    Jan. 8, 2015 Port Angeles Public Forum

    The presentation was well done and applauded

    Jan 14, 2015 Sequim Public Forum

    Was a mini- presentation

    ———————————————————————

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

    WHAT A MESS ECOLOGY IS AMENDING THE SMP?

    WAC WAC WAC

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

    Elected Director Mary Ellen Winborn, 

    Department of Community Development

    The Draft SMP (November 2014) is now under review by the Clallam County Planning Commission (PC)

    ** Note: The Draft SMP (November 2014) is a work in progress and likely subject to further revision as the local and state SMP process moves forward.

    AFTER OVER SEVEN (7) YEARS OF A WORK IN PROGRESS IT WILL BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVISION UNDER DOE PROPOSED RULE AMENDMENTS.

    ———————————————————————————

    WHAT A MESS ECOLOGY IS AMENDING THE SMP?

    March 1, 2017 WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) is proposing rule amendments related to implementation of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)  RCW 90.58, specifically:

    • Chapter 173-18 WAC – Shoreline Management Act –Streams and Rivers Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-20 WAC – Shoreline Management Act–Lakes Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-22 WAC – Adoption of Designations of Shorelands and Wetlands Associated with Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-26 WAC- State Master Program Approval/Amendment Procedures and Master Program Guidelines
    • Chapter 173-27 WAC – Shoreline Management Permit and Enforcement Procedures

     ——————————————

    SEPTEMBER 2, 2015

    Behind My Back | Ecology’s Back “Amended Plus ” SMP WAC’S

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/09/02/ecologys-back-amended-plus-smp-wacs/SEPTEMBER 2, 2015 (Sep 2, 2015) – Ecology’s Back “Amended Plus ” SMP WAC’S This is an area of statewide concern. Ecology is “BEGINNING” rulemaking “TO AMEND …
    MARCH 1, 2015
    ECOLOGY IS BACK  WITH MORE “Amended Plus”
    —————————————————————-

    Shoreline Management | Introduction the the SMA | Washington State …www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/st_guide/intro.html

    Washington’s Shoreline Management Act was passed by the State Legislature … The Act applies to all 39 counties and more than 200 towns and cities that have …

    ————————————————————————————

    Shoreline Master Program Updates

    Cities and counties are required to update their shoreline master programs to be consistent with the guidelines according to the schedule in RCW 90.58.080, with periodic reviews thereafter. For the complete schedules, see DOE’s Shoreline Master Program Update Schedule page. For the status of individual jurisdictions, see Status of Local Shoreline Master Plans: Comprehensive Updates.

    How bad was the Clallam County WA SMP Update in 2010, 2011? 2012? 2o13? 2014? and 2015? 2016?

    On March 30, 2015 I called it a good read “FALSE NEWS”

    Behind My Back | Clallam County SMP Update

    www.behindmyback.org/2015/03/30/3370/

    Mar 30, 2015 – Clallam County SMP Update CLALLAM COUNTY VESTED CITIZENS HAVE A VOICE A GOOD READ 624 SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS MARCH …

    ———————————————————

    AFTER THE FACT CLALLAM COUNTY CITIZENS WERE INFORMED

    Any comments received after February 27 2015 will still  be part of the record that will go to the Board of County Commissioners

    The Planning Commission comment period has CLOSED.

    SMP Comments received after the Planning Commission deadline:

    NOTE:

    Any comments received after the February 27, 2015 Planning Commission deadline will still be part of the record, but will only go to the Board of County Commissioners. They are linked in this set below.

    ~~ SCROLL DOWN TO THE NEXT SECTION FOR COMMENTS SENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION ~~

    2017 Comments

    2016 Comments

    2015 Comments

    2015 Comments

    011017-EBowen 021716-PHewett 040215 – EBowen 022815 – PHewett
    011017-EBowen 040816-PHewett 041615 – PHewett 030115 – PHewett
    011917-EBowen 040816-BMcGonigel 041915- PHwewtt 030115 – PHewett
    040816-PHewett 042015 – PHewett 030115 – PHewett
    051616-PHewett 052815 _ EBowen 031315 – KSpees
    081016-PHewett 070315 – PHewett 031415 – KSpees
    090916-PHewett 070315 – PHewett 031515 – PHewett
    091016-LPerry 070315 – PHewett 031515 – KSpees
    092716-EBowen 070415 – PHewett 031815 – KSpees
    100716-EBowen 070415 – LPerry 031815 – PHewett
    101616-EBowen 080215 – PHewett 032115 – PHewett
    090215-PHewett 032115 – PHewett
    090815-PHewett 032115 – PHewett
    032115 – PHewett
    032115 – PHewett
    033015 – PHewett
    033115 – KSpees

     

    Clallam County SMP Update

    Clallam County SMP Update

    CLALLAM COUNTY VESTED CITIZENS  HAVE A  VOICE

    A GOOD READ 624 SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS

    MARCH 30, 2015 SMP PUBLIC COMMENTS INCLUDE, CLALLAM COUNTY AFFECTED VESTED SHORELINE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, INVESTMENT PROPERTY OWNERS, LOCAL BUSINESS,  THE TIMBER INDUSTRY,

    IN PART, OTHERS HAVE THEIR VOICE TOO, PAID  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES  NGO OUT OF TOWNERS, FEDERAL, STATE, AND COUNTY  AND THE TRIBES.

    2015 Comments

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    032115 – PHewett

    031815 – PHewett

    031815 – KSpees

    2015 Comments

    031515 – KSpees

    031515 – PHewett

    031415 – KSpees

    031315 – KSpees

    030115 – PHewett

    030115 – PHewett

    030115 – PHewett

    022815 – PHewett

    SMP Comments under review by the Planning Commission:

    2015 Comments

    022715 – ForksCity

    022715 – BrandtPtOwners

    022715 – HSmyth

    022715 – SierraClub

    022715 – CGeer

    022715 – LPhelps

    022715 – RFletcher

    022715 – KNorman

    022715 – SBruch

    022715 – RBloomer

    022715 – RBloomer

    022715 – DStahler

    022715 – MDoherty

    022715 – SBogg

    022715 – RKnapp – JKT

    022715 – BLynette

    022715 – BLynette

    022715 – RPhreaner

    022615 – JLarson

    022515 – SierraClub

    022515 – TEngel

    022515 – AMatthay

    022515 – LPhelps

    022515 – KSpees

    022415 – DeptOfInterior

    022415 – TSimpson

    022415 – TFreeman

    022415 – BLake

    022415 – JCress

    022415 – Taylors

    022415 – EGreenleaf

    022315 – GBergner

    022015 – BBrown

    022015 – GBrown

    022015 – TRief

    022015 – RAmaral

    022015 – WCook

    022015 – DKalinski

    022015 – DFrascati

    022015 – JHelpenstell

    022015 – JFletcher

    022015 – CTilden

    022615 – PABA

    022015 – GJensen

    022015 – SWikstrom

    022315 – SBonner

    022215 – JElleot

    022115 – TSage

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    022015 – KSpees

    021915 – DWahlgren

    2015 Comments

    021915 – NKoseff

    021915 – KDuff

    021915 – BVreeland

    021915 – CStrickland

    021915 – EStrickland

    021915 – GSmith

    021915 – DOE

    021915 – SGilleland

    021915 – LBowen

    021915 – HMeier

    021915 -DChong

    021915 – SAnderson

    021915 – OEC

    021915 – RHuntman

    021915 – BLynette

    021915 – CWeller

    021815 – WFlint

    021815 – SNoblin

    021815 – LNoblin

    021815 – PHewett

    021815 – KAhlburg

    021815 – EBowen

    021815 – PFreeborn

    021815 – TTaylor

    021815 – KGraves

    0218105 – GCase

    021815 – KCristion

    021815- SReed

    021815 – SLaBelle

    021815 – MGonzalez

    021815 – JAdams

    021815 – SKokrda

    021815 – KFarrell

    0211815 – MMazzie

    021815 -HKaufman

    021815 – MCrimm

    021815 – CCarlson

    021815 – SFarrall

    021815 – JWinders

    021815 – TErsland

    021815 – FWilhelm

    021815 – SPriest

    021815 – RHolbrook

    021815 – LLaw

    021815 – LHendrickson

    021815 – JMaddux

    021815 – DHagen

    021815 – MHinsdale

    021815- DWatson

    021815 – DWarriner

    021815 – DRigselie

    021815 – JBaymore

    2015 Comments

    021815 – Plauché & Carr LLP

    021815 – PHewitt

    021815 – JCollier

    021815 – JCollier

    021815 – CMiklos

    021815 – PMilliren

    021815 – RPhreaner

    021815 – BBurke

    021815 – GCrow

    021815 – CJohnson – NOTC

    021815 – CParsons – State Parks

    021815 – JMarx

    021715 – JDavidson

    021715 – RAmaral

    021715 – CGuske

    021715 – TTrohimovich – Futurewise

    021815 – DSchanfald

    021715 – Port of PA

    021715 – PMillren

    021715 – EWilladsen

    021615 – EChadd-OCA

    021315 – SLange

    021315 – CKalina

    021215 – RCrittenden

    021115 – RKaplan

    021115 – SScott

    021115 – PHewett

    020915 – RMantooth

    020615 – PRedmond

    020615 – CVonBorstel

    020515 – DHoldren

    020515 – JMichel

    020215 -DHoldren

    020515 – DHoldren

    020415 – SCahill

    020215 – CEvanoff

    013115 – MBlack

    013015 – SHall

    013015 – BConnely

    012715 – BGrad

    012715 – DGladstone

    012715 – BBoekelheide

    012715 – KWiersema

    012015 – JBettcher

    011615 – PHewitt

    011615 – ACook

    011415 – PLavelle

    011215 – PHewitt

    010915 – PHewitt

    010915 – RKnapp

    010715 – WSC

    2014 SMP Comments under review by the Planning Commission:

    2014 Comments

    122914 – MQuinn

    121614 – OCA

    111814 – PHewett

    111814 – PHewett

    111714 – PHewett

    091514 – PHewett

    081814 – PHewett

    SMP Comments on earlier drafts of the plan can found here

    Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update Public Comments (pre- 2014 )

     The comment codes are as follows:

      • A = Aquaculture
      • B = Buffers
      • CIA – Cumulative Impacts Report
      • CR = Consistency Review Report – Straits
      • G = General SMP Comment
      • G20 = General SMP Comment – Pacific Coast/WRIA 20
      • ICR = Inventory & Characterization Report – Straits
      • ICR20 = Inventory & Characterization Report – Pacific Coast/WRIA 20
      • NNL = No Net Loss
      • PPS = Public Participation Strategy
      • SED = Shoreline Environmental Designation
      • SRP – Shoreline Restoration Plan
      • SMP = Shoreline Master Prgram secondary draft (11/2012)
      • SMPdraft = Shoreline Master Program preliminary draft (3/2012)
      • V = Visioning Statement Report – Straits
      • V20 = Visioning Statement Report – Pacific Coast/WRIA 20

    To include your comments:

    Email Us

    Email Us
    To receive SMP related emails, click “Email Us” above and type “Add to Contact List” in the subject line and send.

    SMP Comments (pre 2014)

    date (mmddyy)- name/agency (first initial & last name ex. JDoe)
    comment code (G; ICR; etc., see above).

    The SMP Update comments below are listed in reverse chronological order.

    2013 Comments

    October 2013

    September 2013:

    August 2013:

    July 2013:

    June 2013:

    May 2013:

    April 2013:

    March 2013:

    February 2013:

    January 2013

     

    2012 Comments

    December 2012:

    November 2012:

    October 2012:

    September 2012:

    August 2012:

    July 2012:

    June 2012:

    May 2012:

    April 2012:

    March 2012:

    February 2012:

    January 2012:

     

    2009-2011 Comments

    December 2011:

    November 2011:

    October 2011:

    September 2011:

    August 2011:

    July 2011:

    June 2011:

    May 2011:

    April 2011:

    March 2011:

    February 2011:

    January 2011:

    SMP Comments 2009-2010

    2010:

    2009:

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

     CLICK ON CLALLAM COUNTY LINK….

    Clallam County Southwest Under way

    Department of Community Development

    Photo - Mary Ellen Winborn

    Mary Ellen Winborn,
    Director

    The Clallam County Department of Community Development is responsible for comprehensive planning, zoning, and processing of development and building permits.

    Our mission is to promote public safety, a healthy environment, and a strong local economy, and to provide courteous, timely, and efficient service to the public.

    Hours: Mon-Fri 8:00-4:30.

    Courthouse Hours and Holidays.

    Contact Us

     

    Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Update

    Shorelines in Clallam County are protected by the Washington State Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and by the Clallam County SMP (see links below).  This website provides SMP Update information and links to local and state shoreline-related materials.

    Shoreline Permits are issued by the Clallam County Department of Community Development Planning Division.
    For information regarding shoreline permits or shoreline exemptions, please call 360-565-2616.

    Many of our documents are in portable document format (PDF), and some are very large.

    Clallam County Shoreline Master Program Update : November 2014 NEW draft

    Current SMP Comments

    Comments under review by Planning Commission

    Comments

    Click above to send us your comment~

    The Draft SMP (November 2014) is now under review by the Clallam County Planning Commission (PC)
    NOTE:  The Planning Commission comment period has CLOSED.

    Any comments received after February 27 will still  be part of the record that will go to the Board of County Commissioners.

    Final steps:

    The Planning Commission will submit a recommended Final Draft SMP to the Board of Clallam County Commissioners (BOCC) for adoption.

    The BOCC will hold a public hearing(s) on the PC recommendation.

    The County adopted SMP will be submitted to the Washington Department of Ecology for additional public review and state approval.

    ** Note: The Draft SMP (November 2014) is a work in progress and likely subject to further revision as the local and state SMP process moves forward.

    Email Us MailGuy

    To receive information regarding the SMP Update,
    click “Email Us“to the left.
    Type “Add to Contact List” in subject line.Or call:  360-417-2563

    Shoreline Master Program
    SMP

    SMP Presentations &

    Related Events:

     

    Upcoming Planning Commission Worksessions and meeting minutes

     

    Living with the Coast Workshop

    backArrow Back to SMP Home Page  

    Content Updated May 5, 2015

     

    ————————————————————————-

    It was hell for private shoreline property owners that sat as members of the SMP Advisory Committee. AND AS YOU CAN SEE ABOVE IT STILL IS.

    PDF]Shoreline Management Plan (SMP) Please read this … – Clallam County

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/636_LPerry.pdf
    Jul 4, 2015 – The SMP Advisory Committee that represent the 3300 Clallam .... Recording means the filing of a document(s) for recordation with the … as mitigation and wetland modified for approved land use activities ….. Trouve à http://www.clallam.net/. … ePub(iPone/iPad/iPod) FB2(Android,PC) PDF MOBI(Kindle) …
    ————————————————————————–

    How bad was the Clallam County WA SMP Update

    Sep 2, 2015?

    www.clallam.net/LandUse/documents/638_PHewett.pdf
    Sep 2, 2015 – Chapter 173-20 WAC -SMA–Lakes Constituting Shorelines of the State … Chapter 173-27 WAC -Shoreline Management Permit and …

    ————————————————————-

    And, March 1, 2017 ECOLOGY IS BACK  WITH MORE “Amended Plus”

    March 1, 2017 WA STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY (DOE) is proposing rule amendments related to implementation of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)  RCW 90.58,

     specifically:

    ————————————————————————–

    —– Original Message —–From: Ballard, Laura (ECY)

    To: ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK@LISTSERV.WA.GOV

    Sent: Friday, March 03, 2017 1:34 PM

    Subject: The following proposed rule was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser

    The following proposed rule was filed with the Office of the Code Reviser:

    March 1, 2017 Ecology is proposing rule amendments related to implementation of the Shoreline Management Act (SMA) RCW 90.58, specifically:

     

    • Chapter 173-18 WAC – Shoreline Management Act –Streams and Rivers Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-20 WAC – Shoreline Management Act–Lakes Constituting Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-22 WAC – Adoption of Designations of Shorelands and Wetlands Associated with Shorelines of the State
    • Chapter 173-26 WAC- State Master Program Approval/Amendment Procedures and Master Program Guidelines
    • Chapter 173-27 WAC – Shoreline Management Permit and Enforcement Procedures

    For more information: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/rules/1506ov.html

    To join or leave ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK click here:

    http://listserv.wa.gov/cgi-bin/wa?A0=ECOLOGY-WAC-TRACK

    Thank you for using WACTrack.

    Have a good day!


  • Ecology’s Back “Amended Plus ” SMP WAC’S

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

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

    ALL WA STATE VESTED PRIVATE SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNERS

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

    ——————————————————–

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

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

    WE WILL CONSULT WITH INTERESTED TRIBES.

    ECOLOGY STATES

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

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

    —————————————————————-

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

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

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

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

    September 2, 2015
    Rule preproposal

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

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

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

    RULEMAKING IS NECESSARY TO:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    WE WILL CONSULT WITH INTERESTED TRIBES.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


  • 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

     


  • 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?

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


  • Forget About Draining the Swamp

    Forget About Draining the SWAMP

    The Government alligators have taken over WA STATE WETLANDS

    When you’re up to your butt in alligators, it’s easy to forget that the initial objective was to drain the swamp.

    (idiomatic) When performing a long and complex task, and when you’ve gotten utterly immersed in secondary and tertiary unexpected tangential subtasks, it’s easy to lose sight of the initial objective. This sort of distraction can be particularly problematic if the all-consuming subtask or sub-subtask is not, after all, particularly vital to the original, primary goal, but ends up sucking up time and resources (out of all proportion to its actual importance) only because it seems so urgent.
    ————————————————————————–

    Wetland Program Plan (WPP)

    Final WPP Now Available

    In March 2015, Ecology and the Interagency Work Group finalized the state’s Wetland Program Plan. The plan is a strategic tool, developed and implemented by the state, to articulate what the state seeks to accomplish with the wetland program over time. A strategy is necessary for an effective program that protects wetlands and strives to meet the state’s goal of no net loss and an overall net gain in wetland resources.

    This plan is organized around six core elements: regulation, monitoring and assessment, voluntary restoration and protection, water quality standards, education and outreach, and sustainable financing. These elements are critical to the success of the program. This plan outlines work for a six-year timeframe and sets a longer-term vision for future actions.

    >More background information

    Download the Plan

    State Interagency Work Group

    Many agencies play a role in the protection and management of wetland resources in Washington State, in coordination with local governments and federal partners. Current state partners include the:

    Program Matrix

    During the development of the draft WPP, state agencies on the Interagency Work Group, as well as other agencies with a role in protecting and managing wetlands, were asked to identify aspects of their existing programs that fell within each of the EPA core elements.  The information was compiled into a wetland program matrix.  This matrix served as the baseline from which this plan was developed.

    >Download the Program Matrix

    If you have questions about an agency program, please contact the agency. If you have questions about the matrix in general or the Washington Wetland Program Plan, please contact the plan coordinator (see below).

    Update on Past Planning Efforts

    State Wetland Integration Strategy and Mitigation that Works Forum Report

    There were two major planning efforts in the past that provided direction and context for developing this plan: the State Wetland Integration Strategy (SWIS, 1994) and the Mitigation that Works Forum report (2008). These guiding documents have shaped the state’s wetland program and demonstrate the importance and value of long-term planning and agency coordination. We will be posting an overview of the recommendations and implementation actions of SWIS and the Making Mitigation Work Report on this web page. For each action, we will include an update on the status, current priority, and if and where it is included in the Wetland Program Plan action tables. In progress, please check back.

    Contact

    Susan Buis
    (360) 407-7653
    susan.buis@ecy.wa.gov

    ————————————————————————————————-

    This is a major policy change especially with the NEW “all wet areas are connected” science synthesis proposed by EPA.

    ————————————————————————————————–

    Meanwhile, the ABSOLUTE WETTEST PLACES IN THE CONTINENTAL United States are located in the Pacific Northwest, with Washington State’s Aberdeen Reservoir taking the top spot with an average yearly precipitation of 130.6 inches (3317mm).

    http://usatravel.about.com/od/Weather/ss/Wettest-Places-in-the-USA.htm

    SO? IF YOU LIVE IN WA STATE, THE  ABSOLUTELY WETTEST PLACES IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES? AND  YOU’VE GOT ALL OF YOUR MUD PUDDLES, CONNECTED TO ALL OF YOUR WETLANDS AND THEY ARE ALL CONNECTED TO ALL OF THE WET AREAS ON YOUR PRIVATE PROPERTY?

    WHEN ARE OUR WA STATE  ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES GOING TO START ACTING, REACTING AND OBJECTING TO THE FAIRNESS OF THE EPA WASHINGTON WETLAND PLAN FOR THE  ABSOLUTELY WETTEST PLACES IN THE CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES?

    Washington State Senate

    APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS DOCTRINE — LIMITATIONS … 42.36.080, Disqualification based on doctrine — Time limitation for raising challenge. 42.36.

    • Municipal Research and Services Center

      Feb 5, 2015 – Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs), The Appearance of Fairness Doctrine in Washington State, MRSC Report no.11 Rev., April 2011.

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

    SO? THE EPA FUNDED/GRANTED (taxpayer money) FOR THE WASHINGTON WETLAND PLAN?
    WHO IS GOING TO FUND THE ECONOMIC DISASTER THAT FOLLOWS?

    Washington State Wetland Program Plan – Access Washington

    https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/…/1406005.html
    WorkSource

    Washington State Wetland Program Plan … VIEW NOW: Acrobat PDF format (Number of pages: 115) (Publication Size: 4391KB) Core Elements Action Tables

    ———————————————————————————-

    Summary of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Quick Links

    2 USC §1501 et seq (1995)

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) was enacted to avoid imposing unfunded federal mandates on state, local, and tribal governments (SLTG), or the private sector. Most of UMRA’s provisions apply to proposed and final rules:

    • for which a general notice of proposed rule making was published, and
    • that include a Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure of funds by state, local, or tribal governments (SLTG), in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year.

    If a rule meets these conditions, the agency must:

    • Prepare a written statement that includes:
      • the legal authority for the rule,
      • a cost-benefit assessment,
      • a description of the macro-economic effects, and
      • a summary of SLTG concerns and how they were addressed.
    • Consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and select the least costly, least burdensome, or most cost-effective option that achieves the objectives of the rule, or explain why the agency did not make such a choice.
    • Consult with elected officers of SLTG (or their designated employees with authority to act on their behalf) to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of proposed rules containing significant federal intergovernmental mandates.

    Section 203 of UMRA applies to all regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Before establishing a requirement that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, §203 requires federal agencies to develop a plan to:

    • provide notice of the requirements to potentially affected small governments;
    • enable officials of small governments to provide meaningful and timely input for any proposal containing significant federal intergovernmental mandates; and
    • inform, educate, and advise small governments on compliance with the requirements.

     


  • SMP Public Comment #163

    I resubmit this as my SMP Public Comment #163

    Buying and selling non-conforming homes

    SMP critical areas, setbacks, buffers, wetlands and NON-CONFORMING property.

    Previously posted SMP Public Comment #254 Wednesday, May 02, 2012 11:13 AM

    In answer to posted SMP Public Comment “so many questions”

    Why not help the 3300 shoreline private property owners?

    I have researched and documented, I have answers.

    You, Clallam County DCD have not responded to their posted question? YET?

    Pearl Rains Hewett

    —————————————————————————————-

     snippet, full text below

    What you may want to be concerned about is the decrease in value of the waterfront lots, parcels with wetlands and future non-conforming underdeveloped properties and their subsequent impact to not only you directly, but also to our tax rolls and the revenues that our county services depend upon.

    ———————————————————–

    A very brief overview of Tort Law

    The prima facie case for negligence requires:

    Duty is owed to the plaintiff by the defendant
    Breach of the Duty
    Causation: The defendant caused the harm to occur.
    Damages: The plaintiff suffers harm.

    ——————————————————————-

     General Advice: In the old days, we use to advise clients that waterfront homes and anything with a dock would appreciate at the highest rate in our market. We would say “buy waterfront, and lots of it”.

    Unfortunately, due to the Critical Area Ordinance update we have had to change what we recommend. We now must caution buyers on the purchase of waterfront lots, parcels with wetlands, and those homes or cabins that are underdeveloped and may become non-conforming should the update increase the buffers to undesirable levels and make a high percentage of the buffer “no touch”. Homes that are already developed to their highest and best use, such as a large waterfront home, with guest house and dock, in all likelihood should increase in value since you may not be able to create those improvements or have those views in the future. As those homes are already in place, you won’t be concerned over the non-conforming growth restrictions as contained in the current regulations; however, the next owner may have wanted to expand the home.

    ————————————————————
    Posted on line as SMP Public comment #254

    I would like to comment and make a suggestion on future DOE SMP questionnaires used at Clallam County Public Forums.  I suggest the following questions, in order, by priority.

    1. Are you attending this forum to find out how your private property will be affected by the proposed SMP Update?

    2. Are you concerned about the proposed marine and freshwater, critical areas, shoreline setbacks and buffer zones?

    3. Do you want to know  the percentage of your property that will become non-conforming under the proposed setbacks and buffers?

    4.Do you know the difference between grandfathered and non-conforming?

    5.Do you want to know what affect the term non-conforming will have on your property?

    6. Are you concerned about how the term non-conforming will affect your property value?

    7. Do you want more information on the mitigation process for non-conforming homes/property?

    ———————————————————————————————

    3/01/15 PLUS THIS ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

    Buying and selling DOE SMP non-conforming shoreline property?

    Documentation on policy from local lending institutions?

    RESEARCH

    1. 5/ 01/12  I spent 45 minutes being transferred, from one person to another, and finally spoke to a loan officer, at my bank(of 30 years). He was sympathetic, he used to live in Port Townsend. He had information on non-conforming loans, but no information on loans on non-conforming property. He suggested I talk with the president of my local bank branch.

    2. 5/02/12  I drove to and talked with the local bank manager. There is only one loan officer for this bank, in this area, located at the Sequim Branch.

    3. 5/02/12  I drove from PA to Sequim and the loan officer and I talked for over 30 minutes. She was very helpful. She lives on a local marine bluff.

    4. 5/03/12 called another local bank loan officer indicated she was not qualified to answer my question. I was given the bank’s Mortgage Director’s phone number.

    5. 5/04/12 Mortgage director returned my call, after a 30 minute conversation. She said only the information recorded with the auditor’s office shows up on applications for home loans.

     

    Bottom line Q’s and A’s

    I asked if she could give me anything in writing regarding the buying and selling of DOE SMP non-conforming shoreline property?

    The bank’s Mortgage Director answer was, not without writing it up, sending it to corporate headquarters and having it reviewed and approved by their attorneys.

     

    GENERIC STATEMENTS

    Home mortgages are never black and white.

    DOE SMP  setbacks and buffers ARE.

    Mitigation is always a grey area.

    Times have changed, with all of the foreclosures and bank ownership of homes, all applications for home loans are under more scrutiny.

    Appraiser’s may RED FLAG the appraisal for your home loan application.

    ————————————————————————————————

    BACK TO THE POSTED  online  SMP Public Comment #254 (full text)

    Wednesday, May 02, 2012 11:13 AM

    To: zSMP; sgrey@co.Clallam.wa.us; Miller, Sheila Roark

    Cc: Karl Spees; Jay Petersen; McEntire

    , Jim; lois Perry; marv chastain; harry bell

    Subject:

    REAL ESTATE MARKET VALUE OF NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY

     

    TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

    I submit this as my comment on the SMP Update

    Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

    George C. Rains Sr. Estate

    Member SMP Advisory Committee

     

    The good news is

    There are compliments all around for staff and consultants regarding the handling of the SMP Advisory Committee meetings.

    Thank you for compiling and disclosing the statistics on the setbacks and buffers on the marine SED  priority feeder bluffs.

     

    The bad news is

    SAN JUAN ISLAND REAL ESTATE MARKET SUMMARY (full text follows)

    Spring 2012 Issue, SMP critical areas, setbacks, buffers, wetlands and NON-CONFORMING property.

    What you may want to be concerned about is the decrease in value of the waterfront lots, parcels with wetlands and future non-conforming underdeveloped properties and their subsequent impact to not only you directly, but also to our tax rolls and the revenues that our county services depend upon.

     

     

    I would like to comment and make a suggestion on future DOE SMP questionnaires used at Clallam County Public Forums.  I suggest the following questions, in order, by priority.

     

    1. Are you attending this forum to find out how your private property will be affected by the proposed SMP Update?

    2. Are you concerned about the proposed marine and freshwater, critical areas, shoreline setbacks and buffer zones?

    3. Do you want to know  the percentage of your property that will become non-conforming under the proposed setbacks and buffers?

    4.Do you know the difference between grandfathered and non-conforming?

    5.Do you want to know what affect the term non-conforming will have on your property?

    6. Are you concerned about how the term non-conforming will affect your property value?

    7. Do you want more information on the mitigation process for non-conforming homes/property?

     

    SAN JUAN ISLAND REAL ESTATE MARKET SUMMARY

    Merri Ann Simonson

    Managing Broker

    Sales Manager

    simonson@sanjuanislands.com

    General Advice: In the old days, we use to advise clients that waterfront homes and anything with a dock would appreciate at the highest rate in our market. We would say “buy waterfront, and lots of it”.

    Unfortunately, due to the Critical Area Ordinance update we have had to change what we recommend. We now must caution buyers on the purchase of waterfront lots, parcels with wetlands, and those homes or cabins that are underdeveloped and may become non-conforming should the update increase the buffers to undesirable levels and make a high percentage of the buffer “no touch”. Homes that are already developed to their highest and best use, such as a large waterfront home, with guest house and dock, in all likelihood should increase in value since you may not be able to create those improvements or have those views in the future. As those homes are already in place, you won’t be concerned over the non-conforming growth restrictions as contained in the current regulations; however, the next owner may have wanted to expand the home. What you may want to be concerned about is the decrease in value of the waterfront lots, parcels with wetlands and future non-conforming underdeveloped properties and their subsequent impact to not only you directly, but also to our tax rolls and the revenues that our county services depend upon.

    Spring 2012 Issue

    Real Estate News—Page Two

     

     

     

     

     


  • AG Request on Instream Flow

    NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION  (complete text below)

     QUESTION(S):

    Does RCW 90.82.080 obligate the Department of Ecology to undertake rulemaking to amend an instream flow rule if a LOCAL PLANNING UNIT VOTES TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS TO AN EXISTING INSTREAM FLOW RULE? 

    Obligate,  by definition, bind or compel (someone), especially legally or morally.

    The full text of is below, RCW 98.82.080 INSTREAM FLOW COMPONENT –  RULES- REPORT

    —————————————————————————————————

    SECTION V – ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES  THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD

    snippet 3.The Attorneys General of Washington State is elected by popular vote. As the chief attorney for the state, the Attorneys General advises the Governor and state agencies on legal matters, but operates independently of the Governor. Local County and City prosecutors operate independently of the Attorney General’s office.

    ——————————————————————————-

    This is my comment

    It’s not complicated, it’s just another WA State legal conundrum on ECOLOGY’S WATER RULES

    And, it appears to me, that the Attorney General is on a fishing expedition so he can advise the Governor and state agencies on legal matters (like lawsuits)

    ———————————————————————————————–

     THE WORDING IN RCW 90.82.080 IS CONFUSING.

     (it only address’s the “SHALL NOT BE” modified)

    THE QUESTION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL  IS  ON “SHALL  BE” obligated, to be MODIFIED UNDER THIS CHAPTER.

    THE INSTREAMFLOW, ON THE SKAGIT and DUNGENESS RIVERS, HAS ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED BY RULE.

     IS THE  The AG’s question POINTLESS? …  UNTIL WHEN? SOME  LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT by a recorded unanimous vote “REQUEST” the department TO MODIFY THOSE FLOWS, the minimum instream flows

    Then legal question then  becomes,

    Does the DOE have the legal authority UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY, to “DENY THE REQUEST” of THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT, TO MODIFY THOSE FLOWS?

    IF THE  DOE is “NOT” legally AUTHORIZED,UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY,  to “DENY THE REQUEST” of THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT.

    Then, yes, under the terms and conditions of RCW 90.82.080 DOE  should be obligated to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

     And, the DOE is obligated to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

      ——————————————————————————————-

      ” IF” the members of LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES REQUEST THE PLANNING UNIT to modify instream flows and unanimous approval of the decision to modify such flow IS  ACHIEVED, THEN THE INSTREAM FLOWS SHALL BE MODIFIED UNDER THIS SECTION;

    THE is DOE obligate to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

     ———————————————————————-

    The legal question is still,

    Does the DOE have the legal authority UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY, to “DENY THE REQUEST” of THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT, TO MODIFY THOSE FLOWS?

     IF THE  DOE is “NOT” legally AUTHORIZED UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY,  to “DENY THE REQUEST” of THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT.

     Then, yes, under the terms and conditions of RCW 90.82.080 DOE  should be obligated to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

     And, the DOE is obligated to conduct rulemaking to address the vote.

    ——————————————————————————————-

     IF THE  DOE is “NOT” legally AUTHORIZED  to “DENY THE REQUEST” ?

     WHO IS LEGALLY AUTHORIZED AND BOUND  UNDER THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT POLICY,  TO DENY THE TRIBAL REQUEST?

    Washington State/Tribal Government-to-Government Implementation Guidelines

    SECTION V – ROLES & RESPONSIBILITIES,  snippet

    2. State Agency Directors: THE CENTENNIAL ACCORD calls for each state agency to develop a plan to implement the government-to-government policy. “Each agency will establish a documented plan of accountability and may establish more detailed implementation procedures in subsequent agreements between tribes and the particular agency.” Some agency directors report directly to the Governor’s office, while some report to an appointed board or commission.

    3. Attorneys General Office: The Attorneys General of Washington State is elected by popular vote. As the chief attorney for the state, the Attorneys General advises the Governor and state agencies on legal matters, but operates independently of the Governor. Local County and City prosecutors operate independently of the Attorney General’s office.

     ———————————————————————————————-

    complete text of


     NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION

    QUESTION(S):

    Does RCW 90.82.080 obligate the Department of Ecology to undertake rulemaking to amend an instream flow rule if a LOCAL PLANNING UNIT VOTES TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS TO AN EXISTING INSTREAM FLOW RULE? 


                                       WASHINGTON ATTORNEY GENERAL

    The Washington Attorney General issues formal published opinions in response to requests by the heads of state agencies, state legislators, and county prosecuting attorneys.  When it appears that individuals outside the Attorney General’s Office have information or expertise that will assist in the preparation of a particular opinion, a summary of that opinion request will be published in the state register.  If you are interested in commenting on this opinion request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office of your interest by March 11, 2015.  This is not the due date by which comments must be received.  However, if you do not notify the Attorney General’s Office of your interest in commenting on this opinion request by this date, the opinion may be issued before your comments have been received.  You may notify the Attorney General’s Office of your intention to comment by e-mail to jeff.even@atg.wa.gov or by writing to the Office of the Attorney General, Solicitor General Division, Attention Jeff Even, Deputy Solicitor General, PO Box 40100, Olympia, Washington 98504-0100.  When you notify the office of your intention to comment, you may be provided with a copy of the opinion request in which you are interested, information about the Attorney General’s Opinion process, information on how to submit your comments, and a due date by which your comments must be received to ensure that they are fully considered.

    The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request(s):

                                                      Opinion Docket No. 15-02-03-Ericksen 

    Request by Doug Ericksen, Senator, District 42

    QUESTION(S):

    Does RCW 90.82.080 obligate the Department of Ecology to undertake rulemaking to amend an instream flow rule if a local planning unit votes to recommend amendments to an existing instream flow rule? 

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

    COMPLETE TEXT OF RCW 98.82.080

    INSTREAM FLOW COMPONENT –  RULES- REPORT

    (1)(a) If the initiating governments choose, by majority vote, to include an instream flow component, it shall be accomplished in the following manner:

    THE HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY RULE

    (i) If minimum instream flows HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADOPTED BY RULE for a stream within the management area,

    “UNLESS” the members of the LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES ON THE PLANNING UNIT by a recorded unanimous vote REQUEST the department TO MODIFY THOSE FLOWS, the minimum instream flows

    SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED UNDER THIS CHAPTER.

    ” IF” the members of LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND TRIBES REQUEST THE PLANNING UNIT to modify instream flows

    and unanimous approval of the decision to modify such flow IS NOT ACHIEVED, THEN THE INSTREAM FLOWS

    SHALL NOT BE MODIFIED UNDER THIS SECTION;

    —————————————————————————–

    THIS SECTION OF RCW 90.82.080 DOES NOT APPLY TO THE  NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OPINION

    QUESTION(S):

    Does RCW 90.82.080 obligate the Department of Ecology to undertake rulemaking to amend an instream flow rule if a LOCAL PLANNING UNIT VOTES TO RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS TO AN EXISTING INSTREAM FLOW RULE? 

    (But it is VERY interesting read)

    THE HAVE NOT BEEN ADOPTED BY minimum streamflows RULE

    (ii) If minimum streamflows HAVE NOT been adopted by rule for a stream within the management area, setting the minimum instream flows

    SHALL BE A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN THE DEPARTMENT AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING UNIT.

    The department must attempt to achieve consensus and approval among the members of the planning unit regarding the minimum flows to be adopted by the department.

    APPROVAL IS ACHIEVED IF ALL GOVERNMENT MEMBERS AND TRIBES THAT HAVE BEEN INVITED AND ACCEPTED on the planning unit present for a recorded vote UNANIMOUSLY VOTE TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS,

    AND

     ALL NONGOVERNMENTAL MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING UNIT PRESENT FOR THE RECORDED VOTE, “BY A MAJORITY”, VOTE TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSED MINIMUM INSTREAM FLOWS.

    (b) The department shall undertake rule making to adopt flows under (a) of this subsection. The department MAY adopt the rules either by the regular rules adoption process provided in chapter 34.05 RCW, the expedited rules adoption process as set forth in RCW 34.05.353,

    OR THROUGH A RULES ADOPTION PROCESS THAT USES PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NOTICE PROVIDED BY THE COUNTY LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE.

     Such rules do not constitute significant legislative rules as defined in RCW 34.05.328,

    and do not require the preparation of small business economic impact statements.

    (c) If approval is not achieved within four years of the date the planning unit first receives funds from the department for conducting watershed assessments under RCW 90.82.040,

    the department may promptly initiate rule making under chapter 34.05 RCW to establish flows for those streams and shall have two additional years to establish the instream flows for those streams for which approval is not achieved.

    (2)(a) Notwithstanding RCW 90.03.345, minimum instream flows set under this section for rivers or streams that do not have existing minimum instream flow levels set by rule of the department shall have a priority date of two years after funding is first received from the department under RCW 90.82.040, unless determined otherwise by a unanimous vote of the members of the planning unit but in no instance may it be later than the effective date of the rule adopting such flow.

    (b) Any increase to an existing minimum instream flow set by rule of the department shall have a priority date of two years after funding is first received for planning in the WRIA or multi-WRIA area from the department under RCW 90.82.040 and the priority date of the portion of the minimum instream flow previously established by rule shall retain its priority date as established under RCW 90.03.345.

    (c) Any existing minimum instream flow set by rule of the department that is reduced shall retain its original date of priority as established by RCW 90.03.345 for the revised amount of the minimum instream flow level.

    (3) Before setting minimum instream flows under this section, the department shall engage in government-to-government consultation with affected tribes in the management area regarding the setting of such flows.

    (4) Nothing in this chapter either: (a) Affects the department’s authority to establish flow requirements or other conditions under RCW 90.48.260 or the federal clean water act (33 U.S.C. Sec. 1251 et seq.) for the licensing or relicensing of a hydroelectric power project under the federal power act (16 U.S.C. Sec. 791 et seq.); or (b) affects or impairs existing instream flow requirements and other conditions in a current license for a hydroelectric power project licensed under the federal power act.

    (5) If the planning unit is unable to obtain unanimity under subsection (1) of this section, the department MAY adopt rules setting such flows.

    (6) The department shall report annually to the appropriate legislative standing committees on the progress of instream flows being set under this chapter, as well as progress toward setting instream flows in those watersheds not being planned under this chapter. The report shall be made by December 1, 2003, and by December 1st of each subsequent year.

    [2003 1st sp.s. c 4 § 4; 1998 c 247 § 4.]

    Notes:

         Findings — 2003 1st sp.s. c 4: See note following RCW 90.82.040.

     


  • Water Out of DOE Control?

    Who’s in and Who’s out  of Water  Power?

    NEWS FLASH January 15, 2015 ECOLOGY’S WATER RULERS  document in a letter, that, THEY ARE POWER-LESS, RULE-LESS, TOOL-LESS,  INEFFECTIVE? AND INADEQUATE?

     “Under current law, Ecology has no rule making tools that would allow us to adequately protect instream resources and effectively make water available for new year-round consumptive uses in the Skagit Basin.”

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

    WHY IS WA STATE ECOLOGY (DOE) POWERLESS?

    IT’S COMPLICATED, GREAT QUESTION, GLAD YOU ASKED

    I once received a response from WA STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL, BOB FERGUSON

    The response, ABOUT WATER, was ? IT’S COMPLICATED

    COMPLICATED by definition,  difficult to understand, deal with, or explain

    1. A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD BE INCAPABLE OF  UNDERSTANDING THE DIFFICULTY OF IT?

    2. That the issues of the problems are too difficult to deal with?

    3. That the issues of the problems are too difficult to explain?

     I MUST BE A  REALLY UNREASONABLE PERSON (I posted this in response)

    Everything is too Complicated

    Posted on February 17, 2014 12:57 pm by Pearl Rains Hewett

    —————————————————————————————

    HOW COMPLICATED ARE THE IN’S AND OUT’S OF WATER CONTROL?

    This short form IS NOT in chronological order

    The individual States own all of their water?

    BUT THE  FEDS CONTROL all of the  water?

    Congress Acts? The Clean Water Act

    The Clean Water Act was linked  to,  the Endangered Species Act,

    Which in turn, was  linked to the Boldt decision,

    Which in turn, was  linked to first right of WATER for tribes,

    Which in turn was  linked to the  taking of WATER  FOR FISH BEFORE PEOPLE,

    Which in turn was  linked to the feds giving ownership of the water to the individual states

    Which in turn was  linked to Ecology’s state water rulers

    Which in turn was  linked to Ecology’s taking of water from a multitude of private property owners.

    Which in turn was  linked to a multitude of objections, appeals,  lawsuits, and repeals.

    Which in turn was  linked to  Ecology letter, January 15, 2015,  in  response to the Petition to Repeal the 2001 Instream Flow Rule

     Which in turn was  linked to  Ecology letter “Under current law, Ecology has no rule making tools that would allow us to adequately protect instream resources and effectively make water available for new year-round consumptive uses in the Skagit Basin.”

    Which in turn was  linked to  the Jan 17, 2015 posting of The Ins and Outs of Water Control

    Which in turn was  linked to  the NEWS FLASH on ECOLOGY’S WATER RULERS  document in a letter, that, THEY ARE POWER-LESS, RULE-LESS, TOOL-LESS,  INEFFECTIVE? AND INADEQUATE?

    ——————————————————————-

    (I wouldn’t even support a man in that condition) Sorry, I just can’t help myself

    ———————————————————————————————

    WHO HAS THE POWER TO CONTROL ALL WATER?

    MOTHER NATURE…

    ———————————————————-

    IT’S COMPLICATED

    WHO? WHEN? WHERE? WHY? AND WHAT? IS  REALLY  IN CONTROL? AND CONTROLLING AMERICA’S WATER?   OUR ELECTED CONGRESS? GOVERNING?, THE APPOINTED, GOVERNMENT AGENCY, TRIBAL TREATY? THE TRIBES? THE FISH? THE EPA? SUPPORTED BY THE NGO SELFIES, AKA WATER WITCHES?

    ————————————————————————

    I HAVE A REALLY BIG PROBLEM WITH ECOLOGY AND OUR WA STATE LEGISLATORS

    THEY LEGISLATED THE POWER TO ECOLOGY TO RULE AND TAKE OUR WATER

    which in turn was  linked to Ecology’s state water rulers

    which in turn was  linked to Ecology’s taking of water from a multitude of private property owners.

    AND THE ALL POWERFUL ECOLOGY HAS RUN AMOK EVER SINCE,  RULING, AND TAKING, AND TAKING, AND RESTRICTING, AND DENYING US WATER

    which in turn was  linked to a multitude of objections, appeals,  lawsuits, and repeals.

    AND WHAT HAVE OUR ELECTED WA STATE LEGISLATORS DONE TO CORRECT THE WATER DEBACLE  THEY LEGISLATED?

    AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE

    Which in turn was  linked to  the Jan 17, 2015 posting of The In’s and Out’s of Water Control

    documentation below

    BACK TO THE TOP

    From: Zachary Barborinas

    To: Skagit Watershed

    Sent: Friday, January 16, 2015 2:29 PM

    Subject: Skagit Watershed: Ecology Petition Denied

    The Department of Ecology has responded to the Petition to Repeal the 2001 Instream Flow Rule. Not surprisingly, they have denied the request (see attached). Ecology agrees that a plain reading of the rule only requires mitigation at the main stem gauge, but as expected, cautions such a reading could result in litigation.  And perhaps my favorite part of their response:

    “Under current law, Ecology has no rule making tools that would allow us to adequately protect instream resources and effectively make water available for new year-round consumptive uses in the Skagit Basin.”

    Once again, the Legislature must engage this situation since the managers of our water cannot find a solution in the third largest watershed on the west coast.  The Petitioners will be meeting in the days ahead to discuss their next step.

    Have a good weekend.

    Regards,

    Zachary J. Barborinas

    Just Water Alliance

    www.justwateralliance.org