We would like to thank all of the staff, interns, and volunteers who made this event a success:

Pat Brown, Tim Hollenbeck, Mary Jo Sanborn, Tawny Herron, Lynn Givler, Lynn Morgan-Hill, Erica Strobel, David Laws, Mary Sebens, Rowan Moore, and all of the others who contributed their time and talent.

INTRODUCTION

AGRICULTURE CAUCUS

DIKING/DRAINAGE CAUCUS

ENVIRONMENTAL CAUCUS

FISHERS CAUCUS

FORESTRY CAUCUS

LAND DEVELOPMENT CAUCUS

NON-MUNICIPAL WATER SYSTEMS CAUCUS

PRIVATE WELL OWNERS CAUCUS

WATER DISTRICTS CAUCUS

WRIA1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND CAUCUS FORMATION MEETING PARTICIPANTS

The WRIA 1 Initiating Governments – Whatcom County, Lummi Nation, City of Bellingham, Public Utilities District No. 1, and Nooksack Tribe – sponsored the WRIA1 Watershed Management Conference and Caucus Formation Meeting at Whatcom Community College in Bellingham, Washington on May 5, 1999, from 6:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.. These proceedings reflect the outcome of that meeting.

Within the next few months and years decisions will be made and plans implemented regarding the water resources of the Nooksack River Watershed and certain adjacent streams, called Water Resource Inventory Area 1 (WRIA 1). These decisions and plans, along with the Growth Management Act and projects in response to the Endangered Species Act listing for Chinook salmon, will determine the landscape, the environmental health, and the economic future of Whatcom County and surrounding areas. Agencies of federal, tribal, and state governments are authorized to make these decisions, and many of these decisions are being formulated now.

The WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project creates a local opportunity for representatives of diverse water perspectives to work together in response to Watershed Management Act (ESHB 2514, RCW 90.82) of April 1998. The law provides that if local representatives in WRIA 1 can work together; make scientifically sound assessments of the problems; collaborate to form a Planning Unit; forge agreements among affected parties; adhere to federal, tribal, state and local laws; and create a comprehensive watershed management plan and implementation strategy, then the state agencies will accept the locally determined decisions. This Watershed Management Conference and Caucus Formation Meeting launched local efforts under way to ensure the diverse water interests in Whatcom County and surrounding areas are prepared for upcoming planning.

The Project creates an opportunity for the public to participate in watershed management decision making. The public participates in this process through what is known as shared decision making. Shared decision making means that on a certain set of issues, for a defined period of time, those with the authority to make a decision and those who will be affected by that decision are empowered to jointly seek an outcome that accommodates rather than compromises the interests of all concerned.

Through this Project, Whatcom County and surrounding areas have the chance to keep watershed management decision making local and for the public to actually share in the decision making process of watershed management of the WRIA 1.

The event began with an overview of the project, presented by Bellingham Mayor Mark Asmundson and Whatcom County Executive Pete Kremen. This overview covered the organizational structure of the WRIA1 Watershed Management Project as agreed upon by the Initiating Governments (IG).

The Initiating Governments -- Whatcom County, City of Bellingham, Public Utilities District No.1, Lummi Nation, and Nooksack Tribe -- are committed to addressing water resource management issues and basing decisions on the best available science. These governments have assembled a Staff Team that is action oriented and has learned the lessons of past water resource planning efforts. The Watershed Management Act may provide the last opportunity for local decision-makers to plan and implement necessary water resource solutions.

The Caucuses provide a vehicle for all interested parties to be involved in formulating the plan for our WRIA. Participation in a caucus provides an opportunity to assist the planning process and to express a viewpoint regarding issues through the caucus representative. Water resource interests, including Fishers, Agriculture, Forestry, Environmental, Land Development, Non-municipal Water Systems, Water Districts, Diking/Drainage Districts, and Private Well Owners, will all have a representative at the Planning Unit table.

The Planning Unit will be comprised of representatives from Initiating Governments, state agencies, federal agencies, small cities, and each of the caucuses. The Planning Unit will facilitate the contribution of knowledge, technical expertise, funding, equipment and other resources and thereby contribute to the technical assessments and tasks necessary for knowledge-based decision making.

Initially, the Planning Unit will need to decide some of its own operating procedures and protocols. The functional tasks of the first two years (approx.) will primarily concern data review, data collection and data analysis. Water quantity, water quality, instream flow, and fish habitat are the focus of this assessment. Information collected and analyzed through the assessments will provide the technical basis for the management plan. This assessment will include determining how much water is consumed for beneficial uses compared with the quantity permitted for such uses.

The Project’s structure relies on interaction among distinct work groups: the Initiating Governments – the lead parties for the WRIA1 Project; the Planning Unit – comprised of representatives from the Initiating Governments, Federal and State agencies, and caucus representatives; and Caucuses – specific Water Resource Interests. The focus of this meeting was on the formation of the Caucuses.

Barry Hill, staff administrator for the Initiating Governments, presented an overview of the communication links, such as a website and hotline. These communication links will provide the general public information on WRIA 1 Project activities such as Initiating Government, Planning Unit, and Caucus activities, the preliminary draft scope of work, and technical team activity throughout the project.

Following this overview, two hours were spent in break-out caucus sessions. Each participant attended an "open house" meeting of one of nine water resource interest caucuses. In addition, an informational meeting was held for public officials in attendance. The caucuses are: Fishers, Agriculture, Forestry, Environmental, Land Development, Non-Municipal Water Systems, Water Districts, Diking/Drainage Districts, and Private Well Owners.

These facilitated caucus break-out sessions provided an opportunity for attendees to meet with others of like mind and discuss the interests that make up each of these caucuses. The caucuses shared ideas of their issues and interests regarding watershed management, as well as engaged in a broad dialogue of the group’s organizational structure, communication, and decision making methods in preparation for participation in upcoming Planning Unit meetings

After the caucus meeting, participants returned to the plenary to hear a report from interim caucus representatives on upcoming caucus meeting dates and a schedule for the Project’s upcoming meetings.

The remainder of the proceedings contain summaries each of the nine caucus break-out sessions. These summaries include a brief caucus overview, issues and interests identified, and caucus communication and procedural framework discussed in the sessions, and the interim representative selected for each caucus as of May 5.

Members of the Agriculture Preservation Committee (APC) had been meeting since

early ’99 to respond to House Bill 2514. During these meetings members determined the APC and WRIA 1 Agriculture Caucus have identical issues to address pertaining to water and agriculture. Participants at the May 5 caucus meeting recommended folding the WRIA 1 Watershed Management Project Agriculture Caucus into the APC. The Agriculture Caucus will continue to work with existing organizations in the County, such as granges, commodities, and small farmers, to build membership and to determine caucus structure.

• Water rights at a level adequate to meet crop needs and the potential of the soil.
• Economic survival.
• Water quality issues: nitrates issues; management of manure and other wastes; pollution from pesticides, perceived or real; interest in circulating real and accurate information about what is really there.
• Compensation for private property owners if rights are removed.

• Environment in which to feel free to farm and not constantly be harassed.
• Degree of certainty for the future; certainty of water supply has everything to do with future of agriculture in Whatcom County.
• Credit farmers for habitat they have been responsible for preserving.
• Habitat enhancement without destruction to the farmer. No one-size- fits-all buffers, keep proactive, affordable, and have farmers responsible.
• Concern regarding growth management – i.e. zoning and land use planning to foster wise use of the 110,000 acres farmed in Whatcom County.
• Accurate Water Resource Inventory that identifies specific needs of farms (dairy, raspberries, and corn all have unique requirements and are seasonal).

• Desire for a workable/flexible solution in regard to water rights, transfers and spreading solutions that will allow for change and growth.
• Develop farm plans tailored to individual farms.
• Adequate funds to research efforts and innovative practices designed to address environmental problems.
• Find a balance -- a win/win situation that guarantees water supply and help the streams.
• Concern for impact on the current right-to-farm ordinance.

• Concern about keeping investments safe, farmers may rush to "get out while the getting is good."

• Build support and perception of agriculture’s value in community. Education is needed about agriculture and how it works in order to mitigate negative attitudes toward farming.
• Need to know why others are concerned. Is it just about the beauty of open fields or real concern for farming as a business? Is there an honest desire for farming to work in this County?
• Heterogeneity in agricultural water use needs to be accommodated in regulations as myriad of ownership exists.
• Concern that a "use it or lose it" rule contradicts sharing and conserving. If landowners relinquish or conserve water, does it go back into streams for the fish or spread to others rights?

Agricultural Caucus meetings will be held quarterly for the next two years, the dates will be prior to the Planning Unit meetings. The caucus seeks to be inclusive – the goal is to have every farmer’s name on the list. Invitations will go out to commodities, granges, conservation districts, FSA, and small farmers. The group will establish priorities, develop inclusive membership, and distinguish how to separate the two entities of APC and WRIA 1 Agriculture Caucus. Membership criteria are still in development; members of the Agriculture caucus who are not members of the APC will not have to pay dues to benefit from their work. Group decision making will be by majority rule. A note taker from APC will keep meeting records for distribution to membership. Cookies and milk will be served at meetings.

Future meeting will be at the People’s Place at the Fairground in Lynden. APC personnel will fill out the WRIA 1 Project Caucus Application. Henry Bierlink will circulate a list of current APC activities, date and location of the next WRIA 1 Caucus meeting, and a summary of the main issues identified during this meeting. Future meetings will explore:

• How to represent the full diversity of the agricultural community in this process?
• Voluntary assessment of ourselves (acres/cows).
• Process for representative, interview for – endorsements from various groups.
• Recruitment – note taking, administrative tasks, communication, and outreach efforts.
• Increase exposure.
• Develop system for effective communication to members.
• Membership criteria or level of commitment needed for Agriculture Caucus.

It was decided that Henry Bierlink would serve as Interim Representative.

The Diking/Drainage Caucus is comprised of approximately twenty organizations, including Diking and Drainage Districts as well as Flood Control sub-zones. The Diking/Drainage Districts began open meetings in January of 1999 to address caucus development and selection of representatives for the WRIA 1 Caucus. Upon clarification from the Initiating Governments in early spring, the Flood Control sub-zones were incorporated into the caucus membership. During meetings prior to May 5 a nominating committee was formed to choose a caucus representative. The caucus intends to encourage additional groups or individuals with similar purposes to participate in caucus meetings.

• Drainage ditches need to be maintained in a clean and open condition so productive farmland can continue to be productive and allow manure to decompose aerobically resulting in no pollution.
• Maintenance of drainage ditches needs to be conducted on a timely basis so planting and harvesting can be done when necessary.
• Current dikes should be maintained to prevent flooding of protected lands.
• Districts need to be able to perform maintenance of diking, drainage, and bank protection systems in a timely, cost-effective and permitted manner. Permitting needs to be possible in a timely fashion.

• Allocation of water resources and water rights should be fair and equitable.
• Operation of diking, drainage, and sub-zone districts should utilize best management practices.
• Efforts need to be made to restore the public trust so districts are recognized as water protectors and stewards of the land.
• Rights of property owners will be affected by setbacks and habitat corridors. Will farmers be compensated for loss of the ability to keep land in production?

• If buffers are established along the ditches and revegetated with trees, maintenance ability or cleaning may be impaired.
• Permitting process should be streamlined; ideally, one application should be used for all permits and be facilitated by a single location or agency.
• Drainage districts may not have the authority to do things mandated by permit requirements (e.g. planting on private property).
• Gravel removal and bar scalping should be considered for flood hazard management; mitigation such as the construction of spawning channels could be performed in conjunction with gravel removal.

The commissioners of the special districts are in frequent contact with their constituents, the property owners within the districts. The Diking and Drainage Districts will conduct meetings to discuss the planning process and receive input as needed. Minutes of caucus and Planning Unit meetings and other relevant information will be mailed to the caucus members. The sub-zones already have regularly scheduled monthly meetings where information can be exchanged. Minutes will be distributed to their membership as well. In addition to these two groups regularly scheduled meetings, the Diking/Drainage Caucus anticipates at least two widespread mailings per year to disseminate information to all property owners within the special districts. Meeting minutes will also be posted on the WRIA 1 Project Internet site, once available.

A Steering Committee will meet regularly (frequency is still being decided) to exchange input from their constituencies. Steering committee members have been selected to represent twelve of the twenty-one Diking and Drainage Districts and Flood Control sub-zones. The group plans to use consensus and, lacking that, majority vote, for reaching agreement internally. If material differences arise, special meetings may be arranged.

Concerns were raise regarding the budget needed for the caucus to function, and how much will be available for operation of the caucus from the Initiating Governments. A proposal will be made to the Initiating Governments. Anticipated costs include photocopying and postage, given the caucus’ goal to assure that everyone has the access to informational paperwork pre- and post-meetings.

Participants also raised questions regarding the WRIA 1 Project’s other caucuses. They included:

• Whether or not each caucus will be able to review minutes and work of other caucuses?
• Will a facilitator be available for caucus meetings?
• Will staff be available to facilitate caucus meetings and share information regarding the project?

It was decided that Art Anderson would serve as Interim Representative.

The Environmental caucus membership is comprised of both representatives from area environmental groups and individual citizens. Members of the environmental community have been meeting to develop the caucus since January, 1999. Major environmental organizations in Whatcom County were contacted on numerous occasions to invite participants and assure their knowledge of the WRIA 1 Project. More than 30 people have attended these meetings. First time participants at the May 5 conference who have an interest in continuing involvement in the environmental caucus were invited to attend future meetings.

• Preserve, protect, and restore the natural features of our watersheds.
• Assure adequate supplies of clean water for the region’s ecological and human health.
• Support sustainable stewardship of our shared natural resources with management practices grounded in the best available science.
• The group measures its commitment in generations rather than years.

• Desire to harness the energy of the business community.
• Issues pertaining to health and water quality of the watershed.
• Desire to restore ecological integrity of the watershed.
• Ensure a sustainable environment.
• Desire to maintain a high quality of life.
• Restore salmon habitat.
• Development needs to be planned with focus on sustainability not just growth for growth’s sake.
• Need to get more people involved in decision making about natural resources.
• Conservation of water usage by all water users – now and in the future.
• Desire for swimable, fishable waters for critters and people.
• Maximize government efficiency and efficacy.
• Effective environmental public education needs to be inclusive and address children.
• Preserve biodiversity – the microenvironments and what lives in them.
• Present alternative ways for water usage to industry (recycling, etc.).
• Extend planning horizons for seven generations.
• Reverence for what we can’t create. Treat the natural world with reverence for God’s creation.
• Need to clarify the term "conservation."
• Prevent "Lynnwoodization" of our community by climaxing the built environment.
• Good planning with good follow-through, including the enforcement of existing laws and plans, as well as new ones.
• Protect Lake Whatcom from further degradation.
• Concern that this process based on "junk science." Base the process on sound science, but also common sense.
• What is junk science? It is the County using flat maps, with nothing coordinated – politically motivated decisions.
• Can you trust the data and data collection?
• Are we going to use science or politics?
• Interested in multi-interest caucus, bringing together divergent interests rather than separating them these caucuses, i.e. bridge between the agriculture, environmental, forestry, and other resource-based caucuses.

• Influence political process – accountability of government agencies.

Caucus communication has taken place at the caucus meetings and via e-mail and regular mail with all members. The representative will serve as the point of contact for the caucus, and will only speak regarding specific Environmental Caucus positions after the caucus has discussed those positions. If consensus within the caucus can not be reached, the representative will strive to adequately represent both the majority position and all minority positions held by the environmental caucus.

Discussions of the Planning Unit topics will be communicated to the caucus by mail and e-mail. The group intends to hold caucus meetings after every Planning Unit meeting which will serve as the prime opportunity for members to discuss progress. The group has tried very hard to involve people. The have an inclusive process. If people want to be regularly involved, they can become part of the steering committee.

It was decided that Carl Weimer would serve as Interim Representative.

Members of area fisher organizations, both commercial and recreational, have been meeting in response to House Bill 2514 since early ’99. This group has emphasized an open invitation for citizens to join this caucus and wish to ensure it will truly be representational of WRIA1 citizens with concerns for fish. Seven individuals from a variety of fishing related areas were in attendance at this meeting, and they addressed who may not yet be present in this group that will have an interest in the WRIA 1 Project. Taylor-United Oyster Farms will be invited to future meetings. A question with regard to the tribal fisher involvement in this Fisher caucus was asked of Initiating Governments staff during the May 5 meeting, the response was that their interests would be met at the tribal level of involvement in the Initiating Governments.

• Stream Flows: volume, temperature, rate, turbidity, flooding, scouring, siltation.
• Passage Blockages such as culverts.
• Water Quality: pollutants, bacteria (chloroform counts).
• Impermeable Surfaces: run-off.
• Habitat: buffer zones, how to create an ethic of stewardship.
• Impart to the Public how changes can be implemented, and how folks can be compensated
• Financial security; sustainability.

• Quality of life/lifestyle.
• Environment, water quality and health.
• Heritage – future generations.
• Sustainability.
• Balance: education, fish population.
• Recreation.
• Increased fish populations and carrying capacity.
• Fear: extinction.
• Value: Genetic diversity.
• Public education/ awareness raising re: fish.

Those meeting prior to the May 5 conference had developed a caucus structure and meeting protocol. The caucus will have 15 "seats" and was seeking 10 organization and five individual seats – recreational, commercial, etc. Only 12 seats were filled at that time. For a member to have a voting seat, 66% attendance is necessary. A quorum – greater than 50% of "seats" – and voting by proxy will be allowed. The caucus representative will be responsible to communicate the diverse views within the caucus.

The meeting schedule will be flexible and held as required. It is the goal of the caucus to hold inclusive and participatory meetings. A phone tree has been established, and new members will be added to this. Additional areas for caucus development were identified at the meeting. These include:

• How to bring in expert advice if desired.
• What process will be used to select/de-select caucus representatives.
• Will a media spokesperson be used to handle media involvement and communication?

It was decided that Kevin Majkut would serve as Interim Representative.

The Forestry Caucus is comprised of representatives from private and commercial foresters, small wood lot owners, sawmills, logging companies, and forestry resource organizations. Members of the timber community have been meeting in response to House Bill 2514 since early 1999. The caucus is still in a formation stage and seeks a diverse membership for full representation of the forestry community within the WRIA 1. The group will continue outreach to businesses, organizations and individuals with an interest in forestry.

• Stable local employment – the caucus will need to define at what level is to be considered "stable".
• Reasonable use of timberlands.
• Private property rights.
• Highest water quality with minimum regulation.
• Socially responsible water use.
• Quantitative, tested, scientific information.
• Willingness by landowners to accept science and other interests.
• Water quality protection administered to all equally.
• Keep as much land in forestry as possible, no net loss of commercial or small-scale rural forests.
• Expand forest lands.
• Forest land used at highest potential.
• Determine baseline of historic conditions; clear illustration of ambient or historic conditions.

Participants at the May 5 conference identified some components they think will be important for the success of the caucus. They strongly recommend a neutral, third-party facilitator for meeting management and feel this is an extremely important component for the success of their overall caucus development. Other procedural issues identified for future discussion include:

• Ground rules.
• Availability of IG funds to cover the expense of a facilitator.
• Membership criteria.
• Decision-making method.
• Roll of advisors or outside experts.
• Communication methods for internal caucus exchange of information.
• Communication with the media.
• Meeting protocol. Will they be open to the general public, the media?

The group will host regular open meetings to further develop the caucus structure. Outreach efforts will target under-represented groups in the caucus. The group decided it would follow up on a request for facilitation services for future meetings.

It was decided that Doug Couvelier would serve as Interim Representative.

Members of area land development industry organizations and associations have been meeting in response to House Bill 2514 since its passing in ’98 through their governmental affairs committees. By early ’99 a joint steering committee had developed communication and procedural structures and selected a representative in response to the Initiating Governments’ January 1999 request for information regarding caucus structure and membership. The open house format for the May 5, 1999 caucus formation meeting generated concern among some members that changes were being made in the WRIA 1 Project’s structure of caucuses. Areas of concern were the caucus’s autonomy to develop membership criteria and procedural structure, and that possible changes to these areas would alter the structure of the original caucus plan submitted to IG in early 1999.

The following is a list of issues and interests generated by all participants present:

• Hope that all can buy a home and live in a place that is to your suiting.
• Development vs. environment; find a balance and work together.
• Quality of life.
• Permanent employment, affordable housing, and home ownership are vital elements of a strong community.
• Rational, effective, and fair system for development. We have too much regulation and tax spending on parklands, etc.
• Balanced approach to water problems; water to meet needs of everyone in Whatcom County.
• Answers need to have common sense.
• Maintain perspective on community.
• 13 goals of Growth Management Act need to be administered equally.
• Make Whatcom County a place where children can find family wage job.
• Preservation of wilderness but not at a cost that makes it unaffordable to live in Whatcom County.
• Concern that special interests drive review of projects and inhibit development.
• Fisheries: too much focus on habitation without discussion on harvest. We’re over fishing.
• Respect different points of view.
• Recognition that open space and preservation of environment are not necessarily inconsistent with increasing value of residential property.
• We have a need for quality/affordable jobs.
• We need to be friendly to entrepreneurs.
• Incentives for business development – a good reason to settle water issues.
• Recognition that our location suggests that we will grow.
• Cooperation and desire that all will listen, hear, and be heard.
• Need for people who are qualified to give technical support regarding water availability and allocation recommendations.

The concepts of inclusiveness from other sectors of the community and the recommendation that caucus decision-making be by consensus were presented during this open house caucus meeting. The land development participants that had previous involvement with WRIA 1 activities were operating with the understanding that this caucus would reflect the view of the development industry, as previously described by the Initiating Governments. A key concern was how the caucus be a more pure reflection of land development interest; possible membership criteria were discussed as a way to assure this. Participants explored who was not present that may also share a land development perspective in regard to watershed management planning. Possible groups include:

• Chamber of commerce;
• EDC Economic development;
• Educators, kindergarten and up;
• Port of Bellingham;
• Anyone willing to contribute to process;
• Developers who are not a part of the local association that have an interest, i.e. contractors;
• Citizens;

• Quantification professionals.

Future meetings of this group will address the central issues of what criteria will be drafted for land development caucus membership and who constitutes this group. These, along with group decision making structure, communication, and outreach for wider participation will be addressed at future meetings.

It was decided that Kathy Bovenkamp would serve as Interim Representative.

The Non-Municipal Water Systems Caucus is comprised of all 350 water systems in the WRIA 1. Members of area water associations and systems hosted a meeting on March 3, 1999 for all 350 water systems to inform them of the WRIA 1 Project and to develop a steering committee for the caucus. The Steering Committee is comprised of 8 water system representatives. They have developed a mission statement for this caucus and are in the process of forming a non-profit organization to address the structural and financial needs of this caucus. All 350 systems were notified of this May 5, 1999 meeting by the Steering Committee.

• Aquifers – desire to be involved in this area of discussion.
• County needs updated information on the mailing list of the group.
• What scientific theories underlie research?
• General concern about the concept and science behind hydraulic continuity and the affect of removing ground water and the net return flow.
• Input into zoning in a timely way (coordination with cities).
• Maintain independence of non-municipal water systems to serve their customers.
• How will the management process will work?
• Will the government use the information provided and accept results?
• Desire to be in on decision making.
• Are not expecting to get exactly what they want.
• Need to know that their efforts will be worthwhile.
• Concern about technical data, how will it be organized and who will compile it?
• Want government to truly listen/consider the science.
• Desire to access more water for existing associations.
• Worried about political bias.
• Very concerned about the results of this project – frustrated in dealing with government.

• Good faith use and sharing of information throughout the process.
• Very interested in and willing to participate.

Open meetings for non-municipal water systems members have been held to develop the caucus. Participants at the May 5 meeting were updated on the work of the Steering Committee whose members are: Washington Associated Water System; Judy Slotemaker – Pole Road Water Association; Tom Schoen – Deer Creek; Doug Campbell – Sandy Point Improvement Company; Kelly McWilliams – Chuckanut Trails; Daryl Johnson – Old Settlers; John Harding –Hemi; and Joan Sharbino – Maple Falls Water Coop.

The group has developed a mission statement:

The caucus will have a chair, and a decision-making method has not been selected at this time. Meeting protocol will include these ground rules: good faith, courtesy and professionalism throughout the process. Meetings will be open to the 350+ water systems in the WRIA 1; they will be closed to the public. Getting correct information out to media and members is very important to the group. Judy Slotemaker and an assistant will handle communication and outreach; e-mail and fax numbers for all caucus members are needed. Newsletters and WRIA 1 website are additional outreach possibilities.

The financial needs of the caucus are being addressed through the formation of a not-for-profit association called the Whatcom Water Systems Caucus. This entity will handle accounting system, logo, etc. So far, $625 has been collected, and the Steering Committee estimates $21,000 and in-kind support for space and computer is needed for the group. This will cover caucus structure and support services, which include: part-time staff, plus representative (10 hours per week clerical); phone line; web site; and hall rental.

It was decided that Tom Schoen would serve as Interim Representative.

The Private Well Owners Caucus faces unique challenges in forming an inclusive and representative constituency. Potential members of this group have no pre-existing context for relationship, agency, or organizational affiliation. Participants expressed this concern along with the geographical obstacle of identifying and contacting private well owners to form a caucus. The following questions were asked of the group, with responses listed.

• How do we define the Private Well Owners Caucus, and who will be represented here?

• Wells not used for commercial purposes.

• Wells drawing under 5000 gallons per day.
• Under ½ acre commercial, garden irrigation.
• Single family residences of 2 houses or less.
• Exempt wells.
• No employees served by the well.
• Non-commercial/hobby farm use of a private well.
• Is there an overlap with the non-municipal water supply caucus?
• Where will public water domain go?

This caucus needs clarification from the Initiating Governments regarding the placement among the caucuses of the public water supply domain, some of which may draw from private wells. This group of water users needs representation in the process, but it is unclear whether they fit in this caucus or the Non-municipal Water Systems Caucus.

• How will water right exemptions be affected?
• Will level of use/discharge change under exemption?
• Concern for hydraulic continuity – which is a legal, not technical, term.
• How closely will this process be tied to existing guidelines?
• Private well water quality issues.
• Data collection is needed regarding this caucus’ water use amounts and locations.

• Retain ability of "right to draw."
• Conservation efforts of private land.
• Will this project consider the Canadian area of the WRIA 1?
• Fear of loss of personal water.
• Need to educate people about relationship between aquifer/watershed/well.
• Concern that private wells may be unfairly blamed for loss of in-stream flow.
• Need for IG to consider how this caucus’ data needs could be budgeted into the draft Scope of Work activities.

• Concern that meters on wells and tax follow.

The group identified the following key areas of concern: outreach to the approximately 32,000 private well owners in Whatcom County and funding for caucus development, education, and data collection. One suggestion was to dovetail these activities with IG data collection efforts. Access to maps indicating the location of wells since 1991 would assist the group in outreach efforts. In the meantime, the caucus will rely on a peer group development approach with each person informing others and bringing them to future meetings.

The caucus’ procedural framework will be developed at future meetings and will address: ground rules, decision-making structure, membership, communications, and press communication agreements. A timeline of caucus priorities will be developed to guide the group’s process and encourage participation. Meetings will be held monthly in county locations, and facilitation services are desired during the formation stage of the caucus. An immediate need for the caucus is a record keeper, and in the future, speakers from agencies such as DOE or the Health Department may be beneficial for educational purposes. At the next meeting the group was to prioritize and discuss the top five items on the list of concerns and review the draft Scope of Work. Future meeting information will be posted on the WRIA 1 Project website and hotline.

It was decided that Mary Raines would serve as Interim Representative.

The Whatcom Water Districts Caucus (WWDC) members constitute representatives from all nine water districts in Whatcom County. WWDC has been meeting for approximately two and one-half years to discuss regional water issues. Members of the WWDC provide services to over 36% of the voters in unincorporated Whatcom County. Members, as units of government organized under RCW 57, are governed by boards of commissioners elected for six year terms, and are subject to laws pertaining to governmental entities, such as public disclosure statutes, including the Open Public Meetings Act.

• Inclusion of water districts as a unit of government on the Planning Unit.
• Consideration of water district comprehensive plans during watershed planning.
• Impacts of ESA on supply and demand.
• Water supply.
• Domestic potable water source for current and future users.
• Storage options.
• Land use planning methods and its underlying assumptions as they relate to infrastructure.
• Water quality.
• New water sources.
• Water rights.

WWDC's main issue with the Initiating Government's (IG) approach to caucus formation was outlined in a letter to Pete Kremen dated April 28, 1999. WWDC has previously requested that the IGs help fund the costs our ratepayers will otherwise incur to participate in the watershed planning process. Watershed planning costs that WWDC is presently incurring, beyond in-kind contributions such as staff time and meeting space, include the cost of representation, copying and mailing. The WWDC has been told informally that legal restrictions on gifts of public funds would prevent direct transfer of monies to WWDC or reimbursement of WWDC costs. It is the belief of the WWDC that no unconstitutional gift would occur under the Washington Const. Act. VIII, ' 7, as long as the funds are used for a recognized governmental purpose, such as statutorily sanctioned watershed planning.

The WWDC, as a body composed of members from units of governments, is accustomed to working together. The May 5, 1999 caucus formation meeting included presentation of a caucus model that was better suited to a non-governmental caucus. The WWDC believe the IG's funds will be better spent to defray their direct expenses in support of the watershed planning process. WWDC members intend to continue to provide information and outreach to their constituents through regular and special board meetings, district newsletters, and citizens' advisory committees operated by the member districts. As they have in the past, WWDC will continue to make decisions on issues through consensus.

It was decided that Roger Brown would serve as Interim Representative.`

(Based on Conference Sign-in Sheets)

Ahrens, Spencer

Allaway, Jim

Almskaar, Roger

Antholt, Charles

Bader, Dave

Baumgart,Tanya

Beddill, Marian

Beech, Wayne

Bierlink, Henry

Bliss, Barbara

Blumquist, Larry

Bodtke, Michele

Bodtke, Bart

Boggs, George

Bovenkamp, Kathy

Brennen, Barbara

Buckenmeyer, FE

Burrell, Norman

Burrell, Peggy

Campbell, Doug

Carpenter, Keith

Ceisey, Juan

Chudek, Pau

Cieslar, Brian

Clothier, Bill

Couvelier, Doug

DeBoer, Albert

Dexter, Robin

Dispigno, Michael

Duewes, Peter

duPre', Robyn

Ebe, Greg

Garlick, Lois

Garlick, George

Givler, Lynne

Gervias, Bill

Gilda, Richard

Gowan, Monica

Grant, Greg

Hager, Stephanie

Henderson, Glenn

Henderson, Mark

Henshaw, Bill

Heywood, Steve

Hostetler, Tim

Hutchinson, Ellen

Jensen, Al

Jilk, Stephan

Knapp, Michael

Kotzin, MJ

Lansberry, Villene

Larson, Paul

Laws, David

Lewis, Hugh

Little, Dick

Maberry, Curt

Maberry, Marry

MacConnell, Craig

Mach, Steve

Majkut, Kevin

Maneual, Richard

Maricle, Rick

Maricle, Janet

Martin, Curtis

McKay, John

Miller, Mindy

Montfort, Don

Murphy, Mike

Pemble, Janie

Phillips, Chris

Polinder, Shein

Peterson, Dale

Peterson, Sandy

Pfundt, Neil

Raines, Mary

Reichhardt, Carl

Richards, Skip

Ruth, JC

Schumacher, Barbara

Schoen, Tom

Skeers, Dick

Slotemaker, Judy

Smith, Iain

Soicher, Alan

Stahl, Dee

Stoner, Mike

Stroebel, Erika

Thatcher, Steve

Thomas, Rio

Thomsen, Joan

Ulmstead, Paul

Unger, Terry

Vanderheyden, Jon

Vlas, Kim

Waef, Virginia

Wagter, Bill

Wambach, Curtis

Watts, John

Welch, Gene

Weston, Russel

Whitmore, Richard

Wiesen, Bob

Woodward, Chris

Zuanich, Shirley