Reader Commentary, Anacortes American, Wednesday, April 24, 2012

BY ROSS O. BARNES
Anacortes
The City of Anacortes’ 55 million gallons per day of continuous and 11 million gallons per day of interruptible Skagit River water rights are recognized as a principal water supply resource in Skagit County that will be increasingly called on to supply the future needs and growth of Skagit County residents and businesses.

With commendable foresight, the city took advantage of temporary inexpensive funding opportunities to rebuild its water treatment plant to technological state-of-the-art and to fully exploit the hydraulic capacity of the existing water intake structure on the Skagit River. The plant is now ready to serve the needs of water customers for the next 40 years or so.

However, Anacortes officials torpedo and submerge this “good” story with other actions and statements that demonstrate they have neither the sense of responsibility nor basic intellectual honesty to be trusted as stewards of an essential public water resource.

City Council member Cynthia Richardson’s commentary on local water issues in the March 6 American is typical of the self-serving fairy story on water promulgated by City Hall that misdirects and misinforms the public on the reality of future supply and demand issues in the Anacortes water supply system.

Ms. Richardson spins an anecdotal tale of Skagit River hydrology that, although factually correct in the narrow sense, is irrelevant to the technical and legal constraints on future water supply in Skagit County.
I can discuss here only a small sample of Anacortes’ irresponsible actions and misstatements on Skagit County water supply issues.

Skagit County has projected water supply needs and preliminary water system planning to the year 2050. This Skagit County Coordinated Water System Plan (CWSP) is part of the Anacortes Comprehensive Plan, and Anacortes is legally obliged to operate its water supply system in conformity with the long-range planning horizon and policies of the CWSP.

The current CWSP was published in 1999, which predates the severe future water supply constraints introduced by the infamous Skagit Basin In-stream Flow Rule that has spawned endless controversy and litigation between “water factions” in Skagit County. Thus, the water supply projections of the CWSP must be modified by subsequent legal developments such as the In-stream Flow Rule, which is a Washington state administrative regulation, and the state Municipal Water Law of 2003.

The distribution of future population growth in Skagit County assumed by the CWSP is not supported by current comprehensive planning in Skagit County, so water demand projections are best evaluated by combining the two principal municipal water system service areas — Anacortes and Skagit PUD — to avoid speculation on where long-term urban growth will occur in the county (this is one reason for having coordinated countywide water supply planning).

Indeed, there are multiple interties between the Anacortes and PUD water systems, and PUD is a major wholesale customer of the Anacortes water system. Also, the boundary between the two water system service areas may change in the future to achieve better balance between water supply and demand.

The In-stream Flow Rule does not contemplate increasing the existing continuous Skagit Basin water rights of the Anacortes and PUD water systems to meet future demand. This fundamental restriction on future water supply was not considered by the earlier CWSP.

To quantify the magnitude of Anacortes’ irresponsible actions and misstatements, I need to discuss a few actual numbers from the CWSP and other water planning documents.

For the year 2050, the CWSP projects a potential peak water demand in the combined Anacortes/PUD service areas of 117.8 MGD against combined Anacortes/PUD continuous Skagit Basin water supply rights of 82.5 MGD — a supply deficit of 35.3 MGD, that must be met, if at all, from raw water storage reservoirs.

PUD has a raw water storage reservoir that will allow it to fully utilize its 8.3 MGD of interruptible water rights that cannot be drawn during low-flow conditions in the water source areas that coincide with the peak demand period of late summer and early fall. The 8.3 MGD is typically not available for about one-fourth of the year, which reduces the average yearly interruptible draw to 6.3 MGD and the peak demand deficit to 29 MGD versus averaged water rights.

Anacortes has no significant raw water storage capacity, so the future utility of its 11 MGD of interruptible water to meet dry season peak demand is unknown. Against this serious peak demand deficit, the CWSP projects and allocates a total of 21 MGD of industrial water use for the whole of Skagit County to the year 2050 — 16 MGD to Anacortes and 5 MGD to PUD.

But as stated above, all of this water may not actually be available, or may have to be “taken” from other users during periods of peak demand. In spite of the county water supply deficits projected in the Anacortes Comprehensive Plan, Anacortes signed a contract with Tethys Enterprises to supply up to 5.5 MGD of new industrial water out to 2050. Combined with the existing 12.9 MGD of water used by Shell and Tesoro refineries, the Tethys contract alone brings the large industrial water use in the Anacortes system to 18.4 MGD or 2.4 MGD greater than Anacortes’ projected industrial allocation in the CWSP.

The Tethys contract also uses up all of the 1 MGD of new industrial water use allocated to the rest of Skagit County through the PUD, plus another 1.4 MGD.

In summary, Anacortes (1) ignores the long-range water demand/supply forecasts of its own comprehensive water planning documents that project serious potential water supply deficits by 2050 in Skagit County, (2) contracts to give all of the projected new industrial water supply for all of Skagit County, plus more, to one new industrial customer, and (3) requires that all of that overallocated water be delivered within Anacortes city limits.

And then Anacortes complains that increasing numbers of Skagit County residents and their government representatives are antagonistic to Anacortes’ shortsighted actions and continuous misstatements with respect to county water supply issues that will affect everyone and every business and community in Skagit County.

A more detailed discussion of the quantitative water supply and demand projections for Skagit County, including graphical presentations, can be found at www.evergreenislands.org under the title City of Anacortes Petition to Modify UGA Boundary, posted January 29, 2013.

Editor’s note: After receiving Mr. Barnes’ letter, the American asked Public Works Director Fred Buckenmeyer for a city perspective on future water supplies

URL: https://goanacortes.com/letters/entry/letters_april_24_2013

TETHYS ENTERPRISES, INC.

1. Why did the City Council negotiate and sign the Tethys Water Service Agreement in secret?

2. Why did the Mayor submit the initial urban growth area application to Skagit County without City Council review and approval?

3. Why did the City submit the revised urban growth area application to Skagit County without City Council review and approval?

4. Why did the City propose a “zoning swap” for Samish land without a written agreement from the Samish?

5. Why has the City stifled public participation at every step in the process?

2011 ANACORTES WATER SYSTEM PLAN

1. Why was no public hearing held for the 2011 Anacortes Water System Plan when it’s an integral part of the Anacortes Comprehensive Plan?
2. On December 7, 2001, why did the City voluntarily relinquish 9.7 million gallons per day (mgd) of its water rights?
3. The Anacortes Water System Plan specifies 3.4 mgd for future industrial use, but Tethys will require an additional 5.5 mgd.  Why wasn’t the additional need for 2.1 mgd accounted for? 
4. Was the 2.1 mgd unaccounted because the 5.5 mgd exceeds the Skagit Coordinated Water Plan’s allocation by 2.4 mgd, a serious violation of Anacortes comprehensive planning policies?

2013 SWINOMISH PIPELINE EASEMENT CONTRACT

1. In the pipeline easement contract with the Swinomish, the Swinomish 2.8 mgd perpetual water allocation was increased by 200,000 gallons per day. Why didn’t the City ask the Skagit River Flow Management Committee to sign onto the increase as required by the agreements of the 1996 Memorandum of Agreement?
2. Why weren’t the citizens of Anacortes allowed to publicly comment on the loss of 200,000 gallons per day of their future water supply?

1996 MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

1. Why did the City oppose the County’s request to add a committee member to represent our rural landowners and a committee member to represent our farmers?
2. How much money has the City spent on multiple water rights litigations, and how much of that money came out of taxpayers’ pockets?
3. Why is the City pilfering the additional 2.4 mgd industrial water required for Tethys from Skagit PUD’s meager 5 mgd allocation of industrial water?

ANACORTES CITY BRIEFINGS – SPECIAL EDITION

1. Why did the article entitled “City, County, State and Tribal governments mark 30 years of cooperative water planning” factually misrepresent the contentious water right litigations over the last decade and still underway?
2. Since climate change will significantly increase the duration of low flows in the Skagit River, further endangering our salmon, why did the article entitled, “Climate change and the river” make deceptive statements such as “annual flows in the river will remain about the same” and “climate change will bring less snow, the same amount of rain, and same average annual flow in the Skagit River?”
3. Why did the article, “How much Skagit River water does City use?” use a deceptive apples-to-oranges comparison between Anacortes water rights and Skagit River average flows.
4. Why has the City initiated a statewide campaign to disseminate this deceptive information?

I presented the following comments to the Anacortes City Council both verbally at the Citizens Hearings portion of the February 18 City Council meeting and in a letter to the City Council dated February 25.

In general my comments (my spoken comments are emphasized) were as follows:

Good evening,-

My name is Tom Glade, and I reside at 210 Mansfield Ct, Anacortes.  I’m speaking this evening on the behalf of Evergreen Islands.

I’d like to read you some direct quotes from Washington state and City of Anacortes official documents.  I’ll be brief and I ask the Council to allow me the courtesy of speaking freely without interruption.

 The laws^[1] of Washington State requires the following:

After preparing the comprehensive plan, or successive parts thereof, as the case may be, the planning agency shall hold at least one public hearing on the comprehensive plan or successive part. Notice of the time, place, and purpose of such public hearing shall be given as provided by ordinance and including at least one publication in a newspaper of general circulation delivered in the code city and in the official gazette, if any, of the code city, at least ten days prior to the date of the hearing. Continued hearings may be held at the discretion of the planning agency but no additional notices need be published.

More...

January 29, 2013

Ross O. Barnes, Ph.D.

1004 – 7th Street #202

Anacortes, WA 98221

Phone: (360) 293-7023

To: Commissioner Ken Dahlstedt

      Commissioner Sharon Dillon

      Commissioner Ron Wesen

      Dale Pernula, Director, Planning & Development Services

      William Honea, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney

cc: Gary Christensen, Manager, Planning & Development Services

RE: PL12-0258 – CITY OF ANACORTES PETITION TO MODIFY UGA BOUNDARY

I am submitting these comments on behalf of myself and Evergreen Islands as a partial response to the City of Anacortes petition #PL12-0258 to modify the Anacortes UGA boundary.  Other comments will also be submitted separately on various aspects of the same petition.  We ask that these comments be placed on the record of the Skagit County Board of Commissioners docketing hearing on PL12-0258.  We also ask that these comments be forwarded to the GMA Steering Committee for their deliberations on a PL12-0258 docketing recommendation to the Skagit County Commissioners.  We are also submitting these comments to Skagit County Planning & Development Services to assist the department in making their docketing recommendation to the Commissioners.  A hard copy will be submitted for the formal record. 

We request that the Skagit County Board of Commissioners reject PL12-0258 for docketing for the reasons stated here below.

SCC 14.08.020 (7) (b) (i) requires that a "detailed development proposal that is consistent with the applicable designation criteria" be submitted with any petition that includes a rezone proposal.  PL12-0258 is such a petition.  That which is required to be submitted as part of a petition is subject to review and comment during deliberations on that petition (Exhibit 1 - November 8, 2012, letter from Gerald Steel to Skagit County Commissioners). 

The detailed development proposal attached to PL12-0258 is commonly known as the Tethys development proposal as specified in the response to Section 3, question 1of the petition.

The Tethys development proposal will implement a water service agreement (contract) between the City of Anacortes and Tethys Enterprises, Inc. (Exhibit 2).  As discussed below, this water service agreement violates the comprehensive plans of the City of Anacortes and Skagit County.  Any action amending a comprehensive plan to facilitate the Tethys development proposal and water service agreement is subject to appeal for said violation.

TETHYS WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT EXCEEDS INDUSTRIAL WATER ALLOCATIONS IN CITY OF ANACORTES AND SKAGIT COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLANS IN THE CONTEXT OF PROJECTED WATER SUPPLY DEFICITS FOR SKAGIT COUNTY

More...

This post is the fifth installment of a series on the City of Anacortes’s problematic application to expand its urban growth area (UGA).  While the UGA Expansion will adversely impact the environments of Padilla Bay and Turners Bay, this post addresses only the “likely significant adverse impacts” of the UGA Expansion on the March’s Point Heronry and Padilla Bay.

When Skagit County considers the City of Anacortes’s UGA Expansion application, the County’s SEPA decision-maker must realize that, for a project of this size and scope, a Determination of Significance is required.  The County must insist on an extensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – a statement which addresses the significant adverse impacts that the UGA expansion will have not only on Skagit County but also on the rest of the state as well.

Photo credit: Jon

More...

(Since Dr. Barnes’s comments are technical, the editor has added brief headings have been included to aid the reader.  The additional headings are bold text enclosed in parentheses.)

TO:
Mayor Dean Maxwell,
Anacortes City Council

COMMENTS ON ANACORTES' 7/31/12 UGA EXPANSION APPLICATION INCORPORATING TETHYS' DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL - 8/20/12

(Tongue in Cheek)
Once again I applaud Mayor Maxwell and the Anacortes Chamber of Commerce for seeking good wage jobs for Anacortes.  I urge the Council to move this application on to the county where I am sure it will receive the attention and action it deserves.  I have a few observations and questions that if considered may make this application even more deserving. 
(Note: all references to Skagit County Code SCC 14.08.020 and 14.16.170 (7)(e)can be found in Appendix D)

More...

This post is the fourth installment of a series on the City of Anacortes’s problematic application to expand its urban growth area (UGA). This post touches on the enormous size of a 5 million-gallon-a-day (MGD) bottling facility, the economic impacts and transportation nightmares resulting from a development on this scale.

Comprehending the Scale of Bottling 5 Million Gallons of Water

In his September 2010 e-mail to Phil Bastien, a Tethys Enterprises, Steve Winter, another Tethys Enterprises principal, Mr. Bastien conveyed his concerns regarding the Anacortes/Tethys Water Service Agreement’s requirement that ” The water is treated and packaged on the Property in units or containers of a size no greater than ten (10) gallons.” In his e-mail, Mr. Bastien, in an effort to illustrate the scale, writes (emphasis added),

• Once again the scope of what is required to use 5 MGD is not understood by those who think up the possible loopholes to restrictions on container size when proposing packaging restrictions. To use 10 gallon bags and consume the 5 MGD of water we have available, it would require 500,000 bags per day. That's 20,833 bags per hour or 347 bags per minute or 6 per second assuming a 24 hour day with no breaks. You can't do that with a garden hose or even a fire hose and a couple of guys. It would require a specialized high speed line that doesn't exist and specialized material handling equipment to manage basically body bags of water weighing 80 pounds.
• No standard pallet or other transport system could be used so special containers would have to be created at hug cost and be returnable to be practical. It would take over 670 rail cars every day on 7 miles of track to ship the 40 million pounds of water in 10 gallon bags. That means you would need over a weeks' worth of shipping packages in stock, stored in a monstrous warehouse or on 4,700 rail cards in a yard requiring 47 miles of track. Then, on the other end, they would have to figure out how to manage 500,000 eighty pound bags of water and return the containers within a few days.

More...