Current Events and Questions
The county says "this proposal
will not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment."
Environmental check
list (SEPA) for the East Orcas water supply report
There are several issues,
errors and ommissions in the checklist. Comment period has
been extended until March 3.2006. Comments are expected
Letter to the Commissioners about the
hearing on Feb 14th, asking them to postpone action.
At the Feb 14th hearing, the council decided to have a hearing on Orcas Island March 15th at
10 at the senior center.
click here for a list of Who
to call to ask questions?
The report includes references to the
formation of "new public utility
districts", and "the merger of Eastsound Water Users Association and
Eastsound Sewer and Water District."
Once the committee's report is adopted by the county, it is used by the
state in determining water issues, and will guide how our tax dollars
are spent.
Estimates reported to the BOCC in 2004
estimated the cost of developing storage at $13,000,000.
This did not include funds to pay for the Rosario water rights. These
costs will probably be paid for with public funds.
- How much water is needed for Eastsound and Rosario
development?
- What water right modifications decisions being made
in the spring
of 2006 (more than one billion gallons per year)?
- Will so much water be drawn from Cascade Creek that
it will stop flowing in the summer? What
would the
affects be to the habitat?
- How will estuarine wetlands and near shore habitat
be
affected?
- Do these changes affect me if I am not in
Eastsound? Or if I'm on
a private well system?
- Who does water in Mountain Lake and Cascade Lake
belong to? What
can it be used for?
- How are the public interests and
habitat protected during the
change of a water right?
- Are there protected species in the affected
habitats?
- What studies need to be done, and who will pay for
them?
- Will the $500,000+ funds being spent each year on
watershed
planning answer
the critical questions?.
- How significant is the double counting in existing
watershed
studies?
- Why are expert reports of protected species in our
habitat not
included in current county reports?
- Why not make data and reports available on the web
to avoid
duplicate studies using your tax money?
- How would sharing the results of stream flow
studies save tax
dollars and prevent flooding on county roads?
- Were the meetings of the East Orcas Water Supply
Committee over
the past two years "public meetings?"
No public meetings were
ever held on Orcas Island after the committee was formed!
- What does any of this have to do with an island
wide water
district?
- Who is going to pay for Eastsound Sewer and Water
to buy the
Rosario water rights?
- What is an Hydraulic Project Application (HPA)?
When is one
needed?
- Introduction to water law, excerpts from the Dept.
of Ecology.
- How did the committee respond to the state wide
drought of 2005?
- More questions? Something to add to the agenda? Or
better yet,
answers? Please send them to:
A brief answer will be added below for each question, but in the mean
time,
please check the bibliography:
www.olgawater.com/docs
One Proposed solution!
- How much
water is needed for Eastsound and
Rosario development?
The
San
Juan County Surface
Water Storage Assessment states on page 10 that the goal for
Eastsound development is about 100 million gallons per year, or about
307 acre ft/yr. (One one acre of water, 1 foot deep is 325,850 gallons
of water) As an engineer, I would support seeking an additional 20%
capacity to allow for uncertainties, as long as it could be done
with attention to the habitat. But 5 times, or 10 times the need is
excessive.
The current focus is exclusively on Eastsound and Rosario. We should
pay close attention to other areas of need, such as the Western end of
the Island. Perhaps we should consider the benefit of developing high
yield wells in the outstanding glacial deposits on the West side of the
island as shown in Fig 11 of the
Estimates
of Ground
Water Recharge by Laura A. Orr, Henry H. Bauer, and J.A. Wayenberg.
It would be tragic to spend significant amounts of money to solve
Eastsound's problem, only to realize after the fact, that water is now
needed on the West side. Developing wells on the West side, and using
the natural underground storage is certainly an option that has
technical merit worth investigating.
- What
water right
modifications decisions being
made in the spring
of 2006 (more than one billion gallons per year)?
Water right applications are processes
by the State Dept. of Ecology. A list of current applications are
updated on the web by Ecology each month at:
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wr/info/wrats/Wria_sanjuan.pdf
The total volume affected by the active applications is an astounding
1.1 BILLION gallons. (one acre ft = 325850 gallons)
- Rosario: To convert 1170 acre ft/yr withdrawn from Cascade Creek,
from hydroelectric to domestic use. Page
1; Page
2; Page
3
- Rosario To convert 61 acre ft withdrawn from Cascade Lake,
from hydroelectric to domestic use. Page
1; Page
2; Page
3
- Rosario To convert 1879 acre ft withdrawn from Cascade Lake
and Cascade Creek, from hydroelectric to domestic use. Page
1; Page
2; Page
3
- Rosario To convert 380 acre ft withdrawn from Cascade Lake,
from hydroelectric to domestic use. Page
1; Page
2; Page
3
- EWUA Raise the dam on Purdue Lake 23 ft: Page
1; Page
2; Page
3
A page with more information on the water right applications is
located:
www.olgawater.com/watershed/Water_Right_Apps_2005.html
- Will
Cascade Creek stop flowing in the summer?
The water rights that allow Rosario to
divert water from Cascade Creek to Cascade Lake predate the
requirements for instream flows. There is no legal requirement at this
time to leave any water in the creek, so they can divert 100% of the
stream flow, along with any fish. Often the flow in the creek is less
than the allowed water right, or the weir has not been adjusted
correctly, so all of the flow is diverted.
For as long as the elders in the
community can remember, there has been a year round flow in Cascade
Creek. The flow in the winter is quite remarkable, with a
peak day flow of 92 cubic ft
per second (CFS) during the first year of recording by DTA. The
gauging station (flow monitoring), well downstream of Rosario
diversion records the flow each day. During the rainy season there is a
rapid increase in the flow, just as you would expect. As the rainy
season ends, the flow dwindles. But it has the very unnatural
characteristic of flattening out at around 0.5 to 1 CFS. The flow stays
flat during the summer, even as the temperatures rise and the humidity
drops. This water leaking from the diversion back into the natural
stream bed is known as "return flow." Steve Boessow, Wa. State
Fish and Wildlife (DFW) warns us in his
email to the
Sounder:
"The evidence is strong enough to warrant further study and to be very cautious when making changes that might reduce or eliminate flows when they are most needed by fish."
A simple set of inexpensive tests have been proposed with guidance from
DFW to confirm (and quantify) the return flow. The proposed test has
been reviewed and endorsed by experts in the field, but the county
commissioners are following the advice of their staff, and will pursue
a 5 year study.
The commissioners
expressed
no interest in pursuing the timely, cost effective, scientifically
valid test. This is unfortunate, since the critical data is
needed to make an
informed decision for the water right applications that are scheduled
to be acted on in the spring of 2006.
If the summer flow is allowed to be shut off, sea run cutthroat, coho
and chinook salmon would be killed. The chum salmon spawn very late in
the year, the return flow in Nov/Dec, and is often the majority of the
flow in the stream in low rainfall years.
- Will estuarine
wetlands and near shore habitat
be affected?
The
fresh water supply to the estuarine wet lands as Cascade Creek
enters Buck Bay would be significantly altered. The natural and
commercial shellfish in Buck Bay would be harmed
- Do these changes
affect me if I am not in
Eastsound? Or if I'm on
a private well system?
The formation of an island wide water
district would certainly affect everyone. The formation of a water
district is a long legal process, requiring a majority vote by the
community. It does not require "pipes and pumps" to deliver water, but
it does provide a legal basis for issuing bonds, taxation, and control
of all water systems within its boundaries. The foundation of an water
district is control of the water rights. Once the foundation is set,
the rest of the plan described to the commissioners during the Jan 10,
2006 working session. A representative from Eastsound (Sewer and/or
water?) described an overall plan to bring these precious water rights
into
the public domain (held by Eastsound Sewer and Water District), then
provided to the entire island as part of an island wide district. We
get mixed signals from county employees, on one hand they reassure us
not to worry about an island wide water district, that if it happens,
it is in the distant future. But when you look at the actions and
decisions, the foundation is being set in place.
Our tax money is being used to fund studies that the state says we
should not conduct, (at a cost of more than half a million
dollars per year.) This is your tax dollars being spent. If the
purchase of the Rosario water rights includes
a district, then public funds will be used. The public will end up
paying for it in several different ways.
- Who does water
in Mountain Lake and Cascade Lake
belong to? What
can it be used for?
- How are the
public interests and habitat
protected during the
change of a water right?
The Ecology page on water
right modification describes the process used by Ecology to
understand the impacts:
"In some cases, new conditions are placed
in a water right as part of a decision to approve a change request. The
new conditions are generally aimed at ensuring that the new use of the
water right does not cause any additional impacts."
- Are there
protected species in the
affected habitats?
Yes. Chinook salmon were counted were
identified in a stream survey conducted by Fish and Wildlife in Jan
2006. Natural coho salmon and chum spawning has been documented by the
state and independent organizations several times. Sea-run
cutthroat have also been documented. The
following
are also
included in the bibliography:
- What studies
need to be done, and who will pay
for them?
Dr. Hal Beecher, Fish and Wildlife
Instream Flow Biologist Science Division Habitat Program stated to the
county health dept.
in his Sept
2002 letter:
(1) that detailed instream flow studies should not be done on
Cascade Creek (emphasis added) nor for other San Juan County
streams, and
(2) that Cascade Creek should be closed to further appropriation.
Watershed Planning Grant funds
awarded/spent through June 2005: $654,231,
concluded "little or no spawning activity" (they did not include
references from # 8 above)
Jacque Klug with the Dept of
Ecology
emphasizes no new
withdrawals from Cascade Creek in her Sept 2005 draft Memorandum
It may be frustrating to some taxpayers to see money spent on instream
flow studies when the possibility of new water sources has already been
denied by Ecology and the dept of Fish and Wildlife. There are still
questions about the summer flow in Cascade Creek that should be
investigated as part of the water right modifications, to identify the
source of the summer flow in the creek.
- Will the
$500,000+
funds being spent each year
on watershed planning answer
the critical questions.
- How significant
is the double counting in
existing watershed
studies?
The volume of water double counted is
probably over 600 acre ft. To put this in perspective, this is about
twice as much water as needed for the long term development plan. In
the
San
Juan County Surface Water Assessment report Table 2-2 (pg 5)
"Average Monthly Discharge Cascade Creek, June 2003 through March 2004"
assumes that the Rosario diversion is operating at 100.0% capacity
every single day, and none of the water leaks back into the stream.
Most of the year, the diversion leaks so bad that all of the water
returns to Cascade Creek. This water is counted again downstream by the
flow gauging station and
added
to the total again.
A very simple set of tests could quantify this, and make the existing
studies more valuable by understanding the real flow, as opposed to an
idealistic model that is contradicted by casual observation of the
diversion ditch.
I look forward to simple, scientific tests being conducted to quantify
the return flow.
- Why are expert
reports of protected species in
our habitat not
included in current county reports?
Good question. I can only speculate.
- Why not make
data and reports available on the
web to avoid
duplicate studies using your tax money?
Another good question. I am trying to
do this with an on line bibliography, but it would be beneficial to the
community if this were actively
supported by county employees. Meeting schedules, agendas and minutes
should be available on line. Mailing lists should be supported by the
county for
citizens to receive notifications of upcoming events on subjects of
interest (while protecting individual addresses). We the taxpayers fund
the studies the county initiates.
Nearly all documents are created electronically these days. By default
all reports we are paying for should be available on the web. There is
an outstanding report on sea water intrusion that we paid for. If you
knew it exists, you would have to ask the county to make a copy
for you, and mail it to you for a small cost. Or you could
click on this link for a
free online copy from the OWU web site. OWU has been kind enough to
support this effort, but it should be done by the county every time.
Other branches of the county need this data too.
- How would
sharing the results of stream flow
studies save tax
dollars and prevent flooding on county roads?
The
county
public works dept
should be able to find the instream flow data to better understand the
design criteria when replacing the failing culvert as Cascade Creek
flows under Point Lawrence Rd. There was severe flooding in Jan 2005:
The county public works dept is able to obtain stream flow
data and other studies from the OWU web site. They should be able to
get the data from the county web site. The engineers were quite
surprised by the peak flows already documented. They were prepared to
fund a study on the stream width, but that too has already been
completed and is included in the OWU bibliography.
- Were the
meetings of the East Orcas Water
Supply Committee over
the past two years "public meetings?" How is this significant?
These meetings were supposed to be part
of a public process to gather information from the community. The
initial meeting was announced in the Sounder in Jan 2004 (?), but
subsequent meeting were announced only to a list of a few dozen people
by email. The sounder regularly notified after the publication
deadline. This was brought to the attention of the committee on several
occasions during the process, but the position of the chairman was that
it would be disruptive to involve the public.
The committee itself has no governing authority, but as soon as the
commissioners approve the report, it has real authority. You probably
do not want to miss the public review process of the report. The long
term affects are substantial.
A
draft copy of the report is available on the county site, and
several objections submitted to the
County Council (was BOCC) by Sandy Taylor are available here.
- What
does any
of this have to do with an island
wide water
district?
It has been suggested that the
appropriation of the water rights is the foundation of an island wide
water district.
- Who is going to
pay for Eastsound Sewer and
Water to buy the
Rosario water rights?
That is a good question,
please let me know and I will add your comments here.
- What is an
Hydraulic Project Application (HPA)?
When is one
needed?
- Introduction to
water
law, excerpts
from the Dept. of Ecology
The State Ecology
water
right information page states:
"The waters of Washington State collectively belong to the public and
cannot be owned by any one individual or group."
Water use of any sort is subject to the "first in time, first in right"
clause. (Junior water right holders do not get water if there until
senior rights are satisfied.)
Ecology explanation of
"Use it or Lose it"
"Put simply, a water right may be wholly or partially lost through
extended periods of non-use."
Protection from relinquishment is granted under several circumstances,
such as municipal water suppliers and hydroelectric utility companies.
Hydroelectric utility companies also have the
rights of
eminent domain under RCW 90.16.040
RCW
90.14.160,170
and 180 explicitly includes
adjudicated water rights as subject to
relinquishment if not put to continuous beneficial use.
The water right for the diversion from Cascade Creek is "specifically
subject to relinquishment" from non use, with
reminder of this on the
certificate itself. Can modifications of use be made ignoring this
statement by the Assistant Director of Ecology?
A 360 page "
Introduction
to Water Law", by the state attorney general.
- How did the
committee respond to the state wide drought of 2005?
A detailed plan to
conserve over 6 months drinking water was not give more than 4
minutes consideration. The plan would have preserved hundreds of acre
ft of water in Mountain Lake and protected Rosario's water rights.
- More
questions?
Or better yet,
answers?
These pages are intended to include relevant public information
for the benefit of those who care about these remarkable watersheds on
Orcas Island. The ideas and opinions presented here do not
necessarily
represent the
policies, procedures or opinions of Olga Water Users Inc. or it's
board. My thanks to Olga Water Users for allowing this to be posted
under their web site.
I hope this information useful to assist the community in making
informed
decisions.
If you have information to add, or corrections, please call Sandy
Taylor at 376 3815.
Or email:
updated 2/7/2006
