Commission's water committee debates 'water steward' role amid public concern over cost and authority

Clallam County's Charter Review Commission water committee presented a proposal on May 6 to create a paid county role (variously described in discussion as a "water steward," "chief water scientist," or "water resources information officer") to collect, analyze and share water data across county jurisdictions. Supporters said the county lacks centralized, current water information needed for planning; opponents raised concerns about cost, scope and possible regulatory consequences.

"This is about data. It's not about rules," said a committee chair during the panel's summary of its work. The committee described the position as intended to gather and synthesize scientific and administrative information so local agencies, utilities and residents can make informed decisions.

Public speakers at the meeting voiced strong views on both sides. A caller who identified concerns about potential county control said, "This is a far reaching amendment that could just cripple and destroy families in this county" if consolidation of small water systems followed. Jody Dotson said she opposed a government official "controlling water for somebody else," and called such an outcome "morally wrong." Several other residents told the commission they do not trust an unfunded county position or fear the role would evolve into a regulatory authority.

Committee members and invited presenters told the commission the county oversees planning that affects water but lacks a single office or position tasked with filling data gaps, coordinating studies and seeking grant funding. The draft problem statement the committee circulated cited sparse or dated water data, multiple state and local agencies with fragmented responsibilities (Department of Ecology, Department of Health, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife), and rising climate uncertainty.

Commission members emphasized the committee's stated intent is information gathering, not direct regulation. Commissioner Richards said that past county and regional efforts have lacked a central repository for water data and urged the commission to study the role further. Several commissioners recommended the committee refer the proposal as either a charter amendment (creating a permanent position) or a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to create the role administratively.

There was no vote to place a charter amendment on the ballot; the committee narrowed options to (1) proposing a charter amendment to establish a funded county position, or (2) recommending that the Board of County Commissioners establish such a position administratively. Committee chairs said they would gather further information on comparable programs in other counties and on likely costs before returning to the commission.

The committee recorded outreach and presentations from local water system operators, the public utility district, and county staff, and said it has a Zoom recording of a recent committee meeting that will be provided to staff for public posting.

The commission did not adopt any ordinance or hiring action. The discussion will continue at future meetings; the committee asked staff to assemble cost estimates and examples from other counties to inform whether the commission should recommend a charter change or a county-led implementation.