The Okanogan County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on June 13, 2005, with Chairman Mary Lou Peterson, Commissioner Hover, Commissioner Lampe Minutes taken by Julie Dagnon.

Hearing Started at 6:04 PM

Commissioner Peterson described the purpose of the meeting. She requested that anybody that wanted to testify or comment needed to sign in. She emphasized that no decision would be made at tonight’s meeting. The red, yellow and green flag comment time process was described.

The other two Commissioners and the districts that they represent were introduced as well.

There was a lapse in the meeting while folks waited for everybody to sign in on the testimony sheet. Commissioner Peterson read part of the introduction of the watershed to the individuals present. She also expressed, on behalf of the Board, the Board’s appreciate on the time and commitment that the Methow Basin Planning Unit put into the development of the plan.

Testimony began:

live and work in the Methow Valley; restoration biologist

Expressed frustration that there was not more public notices on tonight’s hearing; took the time today to read the plan today at the Twisp library; needed more advanced notice on the hearing tonight; there should have been an article in the paper; most people do not read the legal notices;

Commissioner Peterson requested that Julie E. Pyper provide an overview of the notices of the meeting that went out; Commissioner Peterson, as well as Commissioner Hover, also emphasized that the watershed plan took five years to develop and that the process was an open public process.

The plan as written, will have long lasting negative environmental affects; there is no question on that

There is common ground in the Methow Valley – its residents have a love for the environment.

He has provided comments on the plan before tonight’s hearing and still maintains those comments

Never seen a committee that is less response to the public than the planning unit

Only included once on the MBPU’s email notifications, in his request to Ron Perrow

Disregarded Commissioner Lampe’s notice of time

Commissioner Hover informed Lee that he only had 2 minutes remaining to testify

Lee continued: the public has been kept in the dark by the planning unit and the Board of Commissioners

Believes that a broad section of the public has been left out of

Underlying principle in the plan that wasteful irrigation is beneficial; it is not true that it is beneficial to waste water

Since 1992, the Methow Valley has been overallocated

This plan opens up the closed basins, the closed basins have been adjudicated; this would affect the adjudication rights

The plan elevates other uses of water;

The plan uses math to estimate folks use as 500 gallons were it doesn’t respect the current 5000 gallons per day

SCrampton – offered to let Lee use her time; Commissioner Peterson said that she could after everybody else testified.

Have a farm up Twisp River; farm with husband

Not completely involved in the planning process

Concerned that base flows for fish was a priority below additional development

Agriculture has to recognize flows for fish and adjust (ditches being closed); why are we allowing more kinds of development; isn’t this going to put more stress on the current agricultural system?

Also felt that water storage was the key to having enough water in the valley (not necessarily building big dams)

Pleased to see Flood Hazard planning and the drought planning was being thought of and being encouraged

Upset that the plan could adversely affect senior water rights and single and family wells; commercial development above single family use particularly in a water shortage situation

Concerned about opening closed basins – when new wells are put into closed basins they frequents affect existing wells

Concerned about mathematical calculations whereby the 5,000 gallon per day is tallied at 600 gallons per day (which suddenly makes more water available for use); we need to collect hard data, nobody really knows; using the city measures isn’t necessarily the right numbers to apply unilaterally

Live in in the Methow Valley; past MBPU member and Coordinator

Go on record as supporting the plan

The Methow Basin Planning Unit did not investigate going into closed basins and opening them up

The Planning Unit believed that they needed to live in the water budget of the Methow River district or the 1976 plan

The plan does include new uses – group domestic and industrical exempt uses (already allowed on the State level, just not in the Methow Valley

Group domestic allows for cluster homes

Important to get water for cities – where current development exists; want to keep development localized not spread out through out the Valley

There are some reaches were the 2cfs will not be used up; should move it around

Will address the details of the 2 cfs rule within a year after the BOCC adopts the plan

Promotes a more efficient use of the water – such as storage which would provide fish and people benefit

The plan was not developed in isolation by the committee

Did the Commissioners speak earlier (she arrived late) when the decision would be made?

If members of the community wanted to appeal the Commissioners’ decision, was there a process that they could?

Concerned that a proper individual EIS has not been performed

How many people knew about this meeting? She noted that Commissioner Hover’s constituents were not at the meeting. She believed that he, as well as the entire Board of Commissioners, failed at notifying people of the community.

Water makes or breaks the community

The plan does not predict or guarantee that existing water rights will not be protected

Single family should be the highest priority, not commercial

There is a reason that the closed basins are closed, that reasoning needs to be respected.

Reiterate, that she was sorry that she missed the notice in the paper

The Board should consider rescheduling the meeting; please be mindful of the people when you make your decision

No comments

Questioned where legal ads were published; BOCC provided clarification

Followed the developments of the committee, primarily through JStormon and went to a few meetings

Miffed that science was ignored by the committee

Lacking science

Lacked going back into the records; early 1900s only 4 inches of rain received; Okanogan river dried up

Community should plan for a drought year not an average year

Group domestic a higher priority than domestic – not appropriate in his opinion

There is a carry capacity and limited amount of water to go around.

The wet spring is not recharging aquifers, just making things grow

Need to take into account past weather records

Been working on water issues for 12 years

Looked at irrigation ditches, volunteer time, USGS, monitoring study April – November monitored 77 wells

Unfortunately because of DOE statements people don’t trust the government

He believes that it is a pretty good plan

One item he does not agree with - 2 cfs rule, do not raise the priority commercial use to the same as ag and domestic wells. Not fair to the common person to raise the priority of the commercial use

There were a lot of scientific studies incorporated into the document; he discussed the work that USGS performed

Piping of ditches will impact people’s well

The ditches have ran for 90 years, this needs to be researched further due to the impacts on domestic people. Piping ditches is sheet foolishness; depletes underground storage

Appalled people don’t read the USGS reports and don’t want to take the information into consideration

Almost all of the water that seeps from the irrigation ditches seeps into the river providing spawning habitat and recharges domestic wells.

Believes that some running the ditches need to be better educated

2^nd set of comments on the Methow Basin Watershed Plan

Grateful by the system of water rights established in the State and County

Changes to water rights should only be made on sound through judgment

The plan would change the culture to development and commercialization

All of existing water is already taken in the valley

Farmers would need to give up water for group domestic wells

Twisp’s water charge is causing people to leave the Valley

Base flows is another word for resource protection

Look at the destruction at the Tacoma Land Company development in the lower part of the valley

Real estate does not need this rule change, it is already occurring and booming

Main concerns that people had maximum imput

Should have been a copy at the Winthrop public library

2 cfs reach limit is still undetermined; concerns about using Twisp’s numbers

Scientific information needs to consider existing water rights

Water storage is not feasible, since irrigation ditches are already piping

Would be in preference in taking a conservative approach; look into the cost that this would bring into senior water rights and domestic users

MBPU member and lives up Twisp River

Lived here for 20 years

The transportation loss of a ditch has been called illegal in court cases so hence the USGS studies to collect additional information

The ditches do store water, how much and when does it back to the river, question to get answered by the USGS

Historical, the MBPU was told that more water was stored in the ditches

Answer that question (recharge provided by ditches), seek storage needs, look at future use

USGS study describes benefit of ditches

Opening up of closed basin – we have not asked that closed basins be re-opened

Looked at single family domestic use, we do not water 5000 gallons per day year round

The estimated gallons per home, outdoors and put into a water budget to show that the water wasn’t really used as described to develop the 2 cfs rule

Home businesses as industrial, not malls and factories

Do support the plan

1976 – sat on that committee

Don’t know enough about the plan, heard about the meeting today

Support the comments that people already made about the publication of the meeting notice

PU people heroic in what they have done

People have different views

Should be a front page article; but we would still disagree on the issues in the plan

If it is true to domestic has been raised above irrigation and instream flows then it is not good; there is only so much water to go around, we need to decide what our priorities are

There are limits to group, then you have to make a difficult decision such as protecting special places such as the Methow; it would take a special character to do such

Over-allocation of resources can cause collapses of societies

Future wars will be over by water and petroleum based resources

Thank you for this final opportunity

Concerned that you felt that you had to only meet the legal advertising process

Concerned that there was not a more open public process

Have not thoroughly reviewed the plan; comments based on others

Concerned about water availability for agriculture

Plan sacrifices the Valley self subsistence

Has been a long process but recommends a little further study and public participation

Study of possible effects on senior water right holders;

Small nursery in the Methow Valley

Recognized the people that have put the numerous hours into the plan

Recently became a member of the Chewuch ditch board

Just found out about the plan; heard about the plan for many years but didn’t explore the plan in depth

An opportunity for the BOCC to make a decision for the future

Development is occurring rapidly through out the West; people are living the MV for a reason

We need to look towards the future and make decision that will preserve our natural character

What kind of development will the plan encourage or discourage; what will it do the character of the Valley

New in the Valley; 4 new families in the area

Their neighbors approached them because they are concerned about them running out of water since the 4 new families moved in

Chairman of the MBPU

Wanted to give the general philosophy about the development of the plan

Not to negatively impact existing water rights

Not going to do anything the adversely impact agriculture

Discussed the water budget (3 Million Acre feet per year)

As humans we use 3% of that

Some agencies and people want to have people shoulder 100% of the burden for 3% of the use

Shift from open irrigation ditches to closed ditches will dry the valley up

Beaver Creek adjudication judge suggested that the users in the Valley open their ditches during high flows

Take advantage of high flows for storage

Want to provide water to cities in the Methow Valley

Plan designed to manage the resource as well as we can, protect rural character and utilize existing laws and work with agencies.

Formulation of the MBPU – had to be property owner in the MV; excludes a broad section of the public, YN excluded

1976 plan established minimum instream flow – set on a formula and not with science particularly for the protection of fish

It will set back the environment to go back to the 1976 flows

At the beginning a fair amount of representation then diminished, do not represent the community

Committee members assumed votes of absent people; public not welcome at; not a fair process

Example: asked repeated for meeting notes, agenda and notices; if the Chairman would have kept his promise, Lee would not have had to go through the legal notices

Could not participate as a member of the public, had to wait until the end of the meeting; did not encourage public participation

Referred to the meeting 18 months ago; surprised him from the committees stand point – the plan is not complete; there are 7-8 bullets that the MBPU will look at and revisit – he read them

Responsibility for water management is vested with the WA Department of Ecology not a local Council

The plan should change if the bullets are addressed and therefore have another public hearing

Needs to protect his court case – looked at irrigation canals, at waste, looked at USGS study, an expert panel decided that that plan’s decisions on water are without merit. Should read court rulings on the USGS study – Burchard – etc.

Apologized for his reactions during his first testimony

Bill Hotell (delivered via Vicky Welch)

Supported in the priorities in the 1976 study

Did the plan incorporate the previous water studies in the Basin?

Ron Perrow summarized the information that the MBPU used during the development of the Methow Watershed plan. Chris Kauffman relayed to him that he believed it to be a slightly modified and addition to the 1976 plan.

Vick also believed that opening the ditches in the spring is a good idea

We just need better data – need to know potential usage, 5,000 gallons per day or not?

If you don’t have that data that it could impact potential existing water rights; new water rights need to be made interruptible based upon the flows at Pateros up until we see the actual usage

The proposal should address the effect on water quality, if you don’t have ground water recharge you have more of a water pollution problem

Dick Ewing read from page 18 in the Methow Watershed Plan (discussed that more data needed to be collected)

Have not heard a whole lot tonight about climate change; could have a lot of impact on the Valley

It is predicted that the Valley will become drier, but a longer warmer period, less snow pack

This climate change could dramatically affect the Valley

It’s important to be conservative in our decision making if the predictions are true

Referenced USGS tree ring study; study referenced tree ring growth

This is how they have determined that we are in drying trend in the Western US

Many places in the West are implemented GW programs because of this drying trend.

Discussed Methow geologic and substrate composition

Referenced USGS report – storage from unlined irrigation ditches

If you don’t have the recharge from ditches, could impact septic systems.

USGS defined the aquifers in the Basin, State law requires that we do not impact the quantity or quality of water in these drinking water aquifers

In the Methow Valley we are drying up these aquifers

We need to examine which irrigation canals should or should not be piped

Well drillers are laughing at the current situation – a money making situation for them

DOE said that they did not want Vern to do the groundwater study that he proposed

Feels that a lot of their plan is misunderstood

Rule change – just needs to be reviewed

Described that DOE must have additional public comment on the rule change

Expressed frustration about the regional salmon recovery plan, that is a closed process

Many processes go on without adequate public involvement and comment

Felt that since the plan was approved by the MBPU that the public process was out of the MBPU’s hands

John Hanron provided some background information on the newspaper coverage that the Methow Valley News has provided

Scanned the documents in a half hour; have a couple of questions

Why is the programmatic EIS a part of the watershed plan?

RPost provided an explanation of the development of the PEIS and the addendum development

Commissioner Hover noted that he was chided tonight for not notifying people, he asked people as to why they were not involved? Marty mentioned tonight the Upper Columbia Regional Salmon Recovery Plan, the plan will go on whether or not we are there. Become engaged in the beginning, the plan will be something that you are a part of rather than commenting on at the end. Even as frustrating and boring as it may seem sometimes, if you want your voice really heard, get involved in beginning

Thank you for coming and sharing your views with me tonight.

At some of her first meetings related to water, she could not believe the complexity and emotion, the whole reason the law was passed to have local control on the issues. Impressed with the dedication of people. Okanogan County has been involved in four watershed plans. Okanogan – in Phase II. We have a natural resource that we need to protect. We are going to face and make a decision on this resource. Every side and aspect of the community must be represented. The public is also welcome to attend and comment and discuss the planning process with the people that represent them. Because of strong emotion, it would almost tear communities apart, but because they realize that they must stay at the table to have a voice, people stay engaged. It is a huge process and undertaking and it we are finally at the point were we can have public hearing. We had the hearing in Methow so that it was more accessible that in Okanogan. We have to protect our water and use it wisely. Thank for everybody that did come.

Commissioner Hover moved to close the public hearing, Commissioner Lampe seconded; passed unanimously.

The public hearing closed at 8:11 PM.