Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dungeness Irrigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters press county on pipeline moratorium and ditch‑piping; staff says Ecology has primary authority
Summary
Public comment speakers urged a moratorium and supplemental review for pipeline and ditch‑piping projects affecting Sequim and the Dungeness River; planning staff cautioned the county may be preempted by Department of Ecology authority and emphasized interagency agreements already in place.
During two public‑comment periods, residents urged the commission to consider a temporary moratorium on pipeline projects and tighter oversight of ditch‑piping projects that they say have reduced surface flows and harmed habitat.
Virginia Schuenbrand, who submitted written comments, told the commission the packet did not address upland habitat or climate change impacts and urged a moratorium so the county can "do the supplement and to assess the feasibility of and mitigation options for the impacts of additional pipeline projects going forward." She said existing federal and state reviews (a 2003 FEIS was cited by her) did not cover above‑ground habitat impacts.
An online commenter identified as the manager of a local conservation district (Kim Williams) argued a moratorium "will negatively impact viable agriculture and salmon recovery in the Dungeness River," stating that piping reduces diversions and is part of conservation district and irrigation district water‑saving programs. Other commenters accused restoration projects and agencies of failing to improve salmon runs and of taking actions that favor property buybacks.
In discussion, staff explained the Dungeness Water Rule (WAC 173‑518) and said many piping/tightlining projects are state‑led, grant‑funded efforts with Ecology or conservation districts as lead agencies. Staff warned that unilateral county action could have legal and practical consequences: the county may be preempted, and changing the status quo could trigger recalculation of domestic water allocations or other downstream effects. Staff said oversight, engineering standards, and liability generally rest with the irrigation districts, conservation districts, and Ecology for those types of projects.
The commission did not take any formal action; staff said they will continue to monitor the issue and provide follow‑up information requested by commissioners, including references to packet materials and legal memoranda provided by the conservation district.
