Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Water Stewardship topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents urge Clallam County to form water advisory body as local water supply concerns mount

3760154 · June 3, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Multiple residents and speakers asked the board to create a county water advisory committee or board to coordinate expertise and prepare for worsening water supply and quality challenges; commenters said existing regional nonprofits and consortia dominate decisions and local oversight is needed.

A series of public commenters on June 3 asked the Clallam County Board of Commissioners to create a county water advisory committee or board to coordinate planning, consolidate expertise and provide transparent local oversight as water-supply and water-quality concerns increase.

Janine Blaylock urged the board to use its authority to create a Clallam County Water Advisory Committee, noting the Charter Review Commission’s consideration of a water steward and saying that process may be too slow or uncertain. Blaylock suggested the advisory body could include hydrologists, Clallam PUD, cities, tribal representatives, irrigators, irrigation districts, local water providers and at-large citizens and could address water supply, water quality, systems at risk and conservation.

Ray Hesselbach and others echoed the call, saying climate change and population pressures make proactive county planning necessary. Multiple commenters criticized existing decision-making arrangements and named regional nonprofits and consortia (described in testimony as “CERN,” NODC and others) as dominant voices in water policy; some callers said those groups’ decisions lack transparency.

Commissioners did not take formal action to create such a committee at the June 3 meeting; the public-made proposals were presented as requests for the board’s consideration.