Clallam County forum exposes sharp split over proposed water resource specialist

A public forum held by the Clallam County Charter Review Commission drew a sharply divided response to a recommendation to hire a water resources specialist and to new procedures for county responses to state and federal land acquisitions.

Jake Segars, District 3, said he opposes adding the specialist to the charter on budgetary grounds, arguing recent county actions and pending changes to senior-exemption standards could strain finances.“I oppose the water resource specialist, primarily from a budgetary standpoint,” Segars said, citing an assessor’s warning about potential increases in senior-exemption applications.

Several residents said the position would duplicate work already done by state agencies, public utilities and conservation partners and could create new regulatory burdens. One commenter, who identified herself as Maureen, said she feared the county would use its authority to reallocate private water rights and force small systems into costly group systems. “You’re going to obtain [water rights] for yourself at my cost,” she said, accusing county officials of prioritizing development and consolidation over local landowners’ interests.

Other participants urged a different approach. Renee said she supports the position, calling water “our number one resource” and suggesting an extra staff member could help coordinate long-running planning needs. “It sounds like maybe an extra body would help resolve that issue,” she said, while adding she was unsure whether the Department of Community Development is the right home for the role.

Miss Henderson, a participant who was active in the charter-review process, said the survey results did not show broad public demand for the steward and argued cost and duplication counseled against creating a new county position. “People didn’t want this position… the cost is just too high,” she said, referencing a survey that generated public comment during the Charter Review meetings.

Speakers also pointed to prior planning work: commenters recalled Region 20 water-management plans from the late 1980s and 2010 that they say were never implemented and noted the county previously received federal grants for regional water efforts. Several urged the county to invest instead in monitoring and data—gauging stations and expanded StreamKeepers sampling—rather than create a new regulatory office.

The moderator and a commissioner who spoke at the meeting emphasized that the Charter Review Commission’s ethics recommendation will be advanced to the November ballot and that any charter change would require voter approval. The commission’s recommendation explicitly included hiring a specialist and offered job-description guidance, but county officials said alternatives remain on the table: repurposing existing staff, improving interagency coordination, or asking the county public utility district or other purveyors to take a greater role.

The forum produced no formal vote on the matter. Organizers invited written comments and scheduled follow-up meetings, including a SWIM session in Port Angeles. The commission said public input will inform how it proceeds and whether the recommendation should be advanced to voters or implemented through other means.