Charter Review Commission urges county to study a water-resources specialist role; commissioners ask for wider internal review
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The Charter Review Commission recommended the county consider creating a water-resources specialist (or consultant) to gather and share scientific data across departments and stakeholders; commissioners asked for internal review by DCD, Environmental Health, WSU extension and others before public outreach.
The Charter Review Commission forwarded a recommendation to the Board of Commissioners on Sept. 22 proposing a county-funded water-resources specialist position (or consultant) to consolidate scientific data, advise partners and help coordinate water-related planning.
Paul, chair of the Charter Review Commission subcommittee on water issues, described the rationale after the commission received citizen proposals for a "water steward". The subcommittee considered many models and concluded that a science-focused specialist could collect data, identify gaps and serve as a neutral resource for cities, water purveyors, fisheries and tribal partners. The recommendation stopped short of proposing regulatory authority; it emphasizes information, coordination and technical assistance.
Commissioners and county staff raised concerns about overlap with existing programs, duplication of effort and funding. Commissioner comments noted that Environmental Health is already statutorily allocated under the Board of Health (and must be separate), that the county is in the middle of an update to the comprehensive plan, and that several existing efforts (streamkeeper programs, watershed planning, Dungeness River management) already provide data and coordination in parts of the county.
County staff and commissioners requested internal review by the Department of Community Development, Environmental Health, WSU extension and other relevant departments, and suggested waiting for any additional recommendations from the Charter Review Commission before scheduling public outreach. Several commissioners favored exploring alternatives (in-house position vs. contract consultant vs. advisory committee) and identifying potential funding sources before moving forward.
The Board asked staff to return with internal recommendations, funding options and an assessment of overlap with current monitoring programs and watershed plans before committing to public outreach or pursuing a formal ballot measure.