Kittitas County approves condemnation authority to build Whiskey Creek siphon, after property-owner concerns

The Kittitas County Board of Commissioners voted to adopt Resolution 2025-194 authorizing the county to acquire right-of-way and temporary construction easements on two parcels (962710 and 962712) to construct a siphon under the Ellensburg Water Company town ditch on Whiskey Creek. The motion passed after a staff presentation, one public comment from the property owner and brief board discussion.

Josh Fredrickson, Public Works, told the board the condemnation authority is being considered under RTW 8.08 0.01 and that the siphon project has been on the Flood Control Zone District capital improvement plan since about 2020. The county seeks two temporary construction easements and a permanent right-of-way totaling about 24,501 square feet across the two parcels to allow construction of the siphon and placement of two 48-inch underground pipes that would allow the Ellensburg Water Company to continue controlled spillage from the canal to Whiskey Creek.

Fredrickson said the project is intended to increase conveyance capacity along Whiskey Creek and reduce the stack-up of water caused in part by a restrictor plate installed at a Bender Road bridge. That restriction, he said, has contributed to seasonal flooding and occasional road closures on Bender Road, which he said carries roughly 2,600 vehicles per day. Anderson Perry, an engineering firm contracted for design, provided project plans and comparable siphon examples used in the packet.

Michael Pearson, personal representative for the David T. Pearson Estate and a property owner affected by the proposed acquisitions, told the board he was not opposed but raised multiple concerns in his written comment and in his three-minute oral statement. Pearson said beneficiaries of the estate must sign any sale under a TEDRA agreement and asked for contractual assurances that construction would not damage land, alter the channel, lower the water table or cause excessive erosion. He also said the appraiser told him they did not understand the engineering and that the estate had not received full project drawings; he requested more time to resolve those issues.

Stephanie Hartzell of the Prosecutor’s Office responded to a public question about appraisal scope, explaining that the appraiser’s role is to evaluate the project, its impacts and property value and that appraisers consult the project team if they need technical input. Josh Fredrickson said he had spoken with the appraiser extensively and that the appraiser trusted the engineering.

Following brief comments expressing trust in the process and the appraiser, a board member moved to approve Resolution 2025-194. The motion was seconded and the board voted in favor; the chair announced the motion passed.

The record includes two written public comments submitted by the property owner and an email described by staff; those were entered into the record. The county staff said it has made offers to acquire the parcels, engaged an appraiser in June, and told the board the county’s most recent offer exceeded the appraised value.