Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Planning Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State health official outlines water‑system planning rules and coordination steps for Clallam County utilities
Summary
A Department of Health regional planner reviewed water‑system planning rules, the distinction between Group A and smaller systems, TMF capacity, the coordinated water‑system plan option, and funding sources including planning and construction loans and limited federal funding windows.
Ben Majors, regional planner with the Washington State Department of Health Office of Drinking Water, told the Dungeness River Management Team that state rules require water‑system planning to document technical, managerial and financial (TMF) capacity and that larger systems must submit formal water‑system plans on a recurring schedule.
“Every single water system has three different types of capacity, technical, managerial, and financial,” Majors said in his presentation, outlining the plan components that DOH reviews: demand forecasting, hydraulic modeling, capital improvement programs and source‑water protection. He noted Group A systems (roughly those with 1,000 or more connections) must comply with detailed planning standards, while smaller Group B systems use a simpler management program.
Majors explained the department’s joint review process with Ecology: DOH forwards draft plans for Ecology review and both agencies have a 90‑day review window; DOH cannot approve a plan without Ecology’s explicit concurrence on water‑rights and related technical elements. He also described tools for counties and utilities — coordinated water‑system plans under RCW provisions, county ordinances that can set design standards or service‑area rules, and state funding programs such as planning and construction loans and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
Majors encouraged early sharing of plans across adjacent utilities to avoid duplicated investment and to consider coordinated approaches for service‑area mapping, design standards and emergency planning. He flagged competitive federal funding windows (including the WaterSMART planning and study opportunities) and said that recent increases from infrastructure programs have helped but are time‑limited.
He closed by offering DOH assistance and stressed that coordinated planning — though not mandatory — has helped other counties resolve service‑area and reliability issues.
