County staff seek direction on temporary payment for canal sediment removal while Whiskey Creek siphon project is delayed

Arden Thomas, Kittitas County water resources manager, asked the board for direction about a potential interlocal agreement with the Ellensburg Water Company and the Flood Control Zone District to cover sediment-removal costs associated with Whiskey Creek and the Bender Road flow constrictor and siphon project.

Thomas told commissioners the siphon project is behind schedule and property-acquisition elements remain incomplete; because of the delay a prior agreement that allowed the water company to remove sediment deposited in a canal is about to terminate (staff noted the agreement's termination date in mid‑March). The Ellensburg Water Company asked whether the county could cover sediment-removal costs for up to two years; Thomas said the anticipated cost was about $4,000 per year and that the county would cap the payment in any interlocal agreement.

"Since we are behind schedule, the Ellensburg Water Company did request exploring whether the county could cover those costs over a 2 year period. They're not large. They're about $4,000 a year and we would cap it as part of the interlocal agreement," Thomas said. Thomas added that the Flood Control Zone District had not budgeted for the cost and that funds would have to come from reserve.

Commissioners discussed whether paying the water company's sediment-removal costs could create a precedent or be interpreted as the Flood Control Zone District assuming private responsibilities. One commissioner said the county could require the property owner currently associated with the sediment issue to pay; another observed many flood-control projects produce private benefits as well as public benefits. "We could go back and say we think it should be [the property owner] and let them respond," Thomas said. Commissioner Marks commented that taxpayers paying for the private party's sediment removal was one way to view the question.

Thomas said staff wanted direction whether to pursue a short interlocal agreement to bridge the gap until the siphon project is constructed. The transcript shows commissioners expressed interest in accommodating a short-term arrangement but does not record a formal vote or final approval on an interlocal payment.

Ending: The board asked staff to continue exploring options and the potential interlocal agreement; staff will return with a recommendation or draft agreement for further consideration. No formal vote to fund sediment removal appeared in the transcript.