County weighs focusing on upgrade projects as reservoir construction funding remains uncertain

Clallam County staff told the board that funding paths for targeted upgrading improvements to irrigation and diversion infrastructure (head gate automation, H1 lateral piping and related work) are clearer than the path to build a new reservoir. Staff recommended asking the Washington State Department of Ecology to reassign a portion of construction dollars from existing Ecology streamflow restoration awards to serve as the county match for upgrading work, while also applying for a new Ecology grant if required.

Staff said the county currently has several relevant grants: a Bureau of Reclamation WaterSMART award for parts of the head‑gate and automation work (project total ~ $2.4 million with a roughly 25% county match), two Ecology streamflow restoration grants (the 2019 award with approximately $803,000 remaining), and an NRCS award (about $2.6 million) to pipe approximately 6,000 feet of open ditch for the Highland Irrigation District. Staff cautioned that the NRCS contracts are pending legal review and that specific contract language tying funding to federal requirements has raised legal concerns that warrant formal review before signing.

The reservoir construction itself faces multiple funding and technical hurdles. Staff said additional geotechnical and seismic work is needed to move from concept to a final design and estimated roughly $500,000 or more would be required for the extra borings and geotechnical exploration needed to reach a robust 60% design. Ecology staff have suggested a no‑cost time extension for the 2019 streamflow grant to allow the county to progress to a refreshed 30% design; Ecology also urged that the county consider applying for a new streamflow restoration grant as part of resetting the schedule.

FEMA hazard‑mitigation funding was discussed but staff characterized it as uncertain: FEMA now requires a different benefit‑cost analysis that emphasizes quantifiable potable‑water benefits, which could require a consultant study estimated at $25,000–$40,000. Staff said that cost would be reimbursable only if the county reached Phase 1 of FEMA funding and that achieving the required quantitative demonstration of potable‑water benefits is challenging with available data.

Stakeholder concerns — notably from the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe and Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife — center on fish impacts and fish‑screen location. Staff said Fish & Wildlife has largely supported head‑gate improvements, but the tribe has requested a feasibility study into relocating fish screens; staff estimated a feasibility study could cost tens of thousands of dollars and that full relocation could be a multi‑million‑dollar project. Staff emphasized that head‑gate improvements can proceed as an independent set of upgrades if stakeholders can reach sufficient agreement and that NEPA/permit processes for any construction would address mitigation requirements if reservoir construction advances.

Ending: The county will pursue options to secure Ecology flexibility for match funds, continue stakeholder engagement (including possible public meetings at 30% design), and await Washington EMD feedback on a revised approach for FEMA benefit‑cost analysis before committing to major reservoir construction expenditures.