Clallam committee keeps drafting charter language for water-resources position after public debate on costs and structure

Members of the Clallam County Charter Review Commission committee voted to continue drafting a charter amendment that would create a water-resources role or office to gather and share water data across the county.

The committee did not finalize language for the ballot; instead members agreed to keep working on a version of a draft prepared by Ron that blends a paid, professional water-scientist position with volunteer support and clearer findings explaining the county’s data gaps. Committee members said the role is intended to collect and coordinate water information — not to regulate water use.

The committee’s work matters because committee members and public commenters described large, costly water projects and gaps in basic data across the county. Public commenters and committee members cited an estimate of 466 regulated public water systems in Clallam County and noted multi‑million‑dollar projects — including references to a roughly $30,000,000 off‑channel reservoir — as examples of decisions that, committee members said, would be cheaper and better informed with improved data.

Committee members described three broad options they have discussed: (1) a single paid water‑resources professional (sometimes called a water scientist or steward) to gather and summarize data; (2) an advisory board or committee with appointed stakeholder representatives; or (3) an office model that combines a paid professional and volunteer or advisory support. Several members said they favor a professional position supported by volunteers, while others favored a formal advisory board with representatives from tribes, purveyors and county departments.

Public commenters urged different approaches. Linda Campbell of Port Angeles suggested a multi‑stakeholder committee instead of “1 person” to avoid politicization, saying, “rather than having a water specialist, which is just 1 person and is so prone to being, politicized … a group of people, a committee … which would have commission oversight, might be more effective and include all the stakeholders.” Jamie Swerner said she “100% actually, a thousand percent, support[s] better oversight of our water resources in Clallam County,” but likewise favored a transparent advisory structure that includes tribes, irrigation districts and purveyors rather than leaving input decisions solely to a steward.

Another commenter, identified as Maureen from Clallam County, asked the committee to define the position’s duties and to say how county responsibility would interact with state regulators, noting, “There are 466 water systems in Clallam County. That doesn't include the private wells.” Jamie Porter, who identified herself during public comment, reminded the group that “water rights are granted by the Washington State Department of Ecology based on their estimation of available water,” and suggested the committee check Department of Ecology material when drafting statements about water rights and availability.

Committee discussion focused on the proposal’s findings (problem statements) and on keeping the charter language narrowly tailored to create a data‑and‑coordination role rather than imply county regulatory authority. A committee member summarized the intent as a “data‑gathering position” and said the role would compile existing measurements, identify gaps and pursue grants to fill them so other agencies and purveyors could make better decisions.

Several members and commenters raised cost and scope questions. Committee members acknowledged likely salary and program costs in the tens to low hundreds of thousands of dollars annually; one public commenter said the proposal would cost “a couple $100,000” and urged the committee to show specific savings or funding plans before adding positions to county budgets. Committee members responded that they intend to develop cost estimates and possible funding arguments but left budget details for subsequent meetings.

The committee voted to continue reviewing and editing the version of Ron’s proposal as their working draft rather than present a final amendment to the Board of County Commissioners immediately. Members agreed to meet again to refine the charter language; staff said they would circulate a marked copy and a clean copy of the draft for the next meeting. The committee set a follow‑up meeting for June 5 (9 a.m.–11:30 a.m., room availability noted) and discussed preparing a status report for the commission meeting on June 9.

Public comments also included dispute over a remark made in the meeting that some listeners found offensive. Patrick Day of Sequim criticized language in the draft (paragraph 3) and called another remark inappropriate; Stephanie Day of Sequim said she found an aside offensive and asked for an apology. A committee member later apologized for how their comment was heard.

What the committee did not do: it did not adopt a final charter amendment, did not set an implementation date, and did not approve funding or a job description. The group’s next step is another committee meeting to refine the draft findings and the precise charter language and to prepare cost and scope details for later review.