[A - "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner" by Samuel Taylor Coleridge: "Water, water, every where, Nor any drop to drink."]
When I first moved to McCleary in 1990, I remember discovering with dismay that the average annual rainfall was 44 inches - more than twice as much as Seattle, my former home. At the time of my move, McCleary was surrounded by wide expanses of second-growth trees [B], some more than 30 years old.
[B - Just prior to moving to McCleary the hill East of town had been denuded. It's now a housing development called "Evergreen Heights", although not a single tree remains.]
The town is situated on what was a swamp in the early 1900s. The East Fork of Wildcat Creek (a tributary of Cloquallum Creek which feeds the Chehalis River) cuts through the North part of the city limits and meanders South and West through the westernmost portion of the city limits. Sam's Canal, dug in the 1920s, meanders South through town, until it cuts West just past City Hall. Just over the hill from Evergreen Heights lies a small pond with a beaver dam. Southwest of the City is a small lake and Southeast of the City lies the Mox-Chehalis Creek. The West Fork of the Wildcat Creek runs along the Northwest border of town and enters Cloquallum Creek. The City is surrounded with small wetlands.
With all the greenery, water features, and typically plentiful rainfall, it looks like water can be found in abundance. Well, maybe that's true, but what "kind" of water? And for how long?
The drinking water for McCleary is supplied by the Wildcat Creek Aquifer (click for map), a "sole source aquifer", which supplies water for the three city wells, in addition to a quantity of wells both inside and outside the City Limits, and a private water system. The bulk of the aquifer's "Generalized Wellfield Recharge Area" (click for map) lies North of the City limits, under the control of Grays Harbor County. [C]
[C - Grays Harbor County is not regulated by the Growth Management Act. A City Council member adds: "Also, because our area seems less restrictive to the developers, an attitude of ‘McCleary is ripe for the picking' seems to be the theme song."]
At the present time there is no formal agreement between the City of McCleary and Grays Harbor County to control development over the Wildcat Creek Aquifer. A recent article in the East County News, "County approves rezone for McCleary development" (click for article) is an example. Although the aquifer is not mentioned in the article, the McCleary City Administrator submitted SEPA Comments for the case. In his letter, the City Administrator explains the vulnerability of the aquifer, and that "the most numerous potential threats are individual residential septic systems".
While the rezone discussed in the article will only increase the residential density by nine home sites, the City Administrator's letter points to something of greater concern:
"In addition to this rezone application, there is a lot of new building and proposed development taking place outside of the City limits in the aquifer recharge area. These include proposals from [two individuals] which will or have created 12 additional building sites."
And, according to a Planner in the Grays Harbor County Planning Department, an application has been submitted to rezone a 63-acre "family homestead" to Rural Residential. According to a Council member, this "... could mean 60-plus homes and several other larger pieces are being worked on in order to subdivide and make smaller lots - perhaps upwards of 100 or more homes. All over the aquifer area."
The Director of Public Services of Grays Harbor County, and his subordinate, the Director of the Planning and Building Division, as well as the aforementioned Planner each stated "rezones are considered on a case-by-case basis". Of great concern here is the issue that, on a case-by-case basis, any individual request for a rezone might not appear to be a particular threat to the aquifer. But who considers the aggregate effect of the residential development ... and when?
Developers have stringent guidelines before developing property, like the "Environmental Checklist" delineated in WAC 197-11-960. For example, developers of a project inside McCleary's city limits were required to include a hydrogeologic assessment, pest management and aquifer protection covenants to be recorded on the plat, installation of ground water monitoring wells, and educational materials to be provided to new home buyers regarding the need to protect the aquifer from contaminants.
Both the Director of Public Services and Director of the Planning and Building Division suggested that the City could extend its water and sewer services to the rural area being inundated with new development without being annexed to the City. However the "City of McCleary Water System Plan" states (page 1-12): "1.7.5 Annexation Policy - Annexation is required to obtain water service." [emphasis added] Does this indicate that these two County employees are not aware of the annexation requirement? [D] Or is it understood that the "Water System Plan" is just that, a plan - meant to be a guideline, but not necessarily followed to the letter? To add to the confusion, the City Administrator's letter regarding the proposed rezone, states: "The McCleary Comprehensive Plan states that the City of McCleary will consider extending water and sewer service outside the City limits on a case by case basis." [E]
[D - A McCleary City Council member asks, "Is this requirement of annexation legal?"]
[E - Why does the Comprehensive Plan differ from the Water System Plan, regarding annexation for utility service? Which is the ultimate controller, or are both considered "plans", and therefore not a governing authority? On 3/14/2005 the City Administrator responded to some of these questions: "Whenever there is a conflict among plans, resolutions or ordinances, the most recent one adopted has precedence. In terms of strength, an ordinance is like a law, a resolution is a policy and a plan is a guideline."]
Evidently the lack of a binding agreement between the City and County will be addressed in the future, in terms of a mandate by the State of Washington, that all "critical areas" be mapped and "regulated". However, Grays Harbor County has until some time in 2007 to complete this task. How much property over the sole-source aquifer and its recharge area can and will be rezoned and subdivided in the next two years? (The Director of Grays Harbor Public Services stated that property owners have the right to develop their property, and that cities need to grow, just like businesses, to pay their bills.) And who's monitoring all those new developments in the meantime?
The "Aquifer Study" recommends a number of actions for the City to take to protect the sole-source aquifer. HartCrowser, the author of the Aquifer Study, augmented their recommendations in a 2003 letter to the City. Some of the recommendations have been acted upon, and some have not. Some are in the control of the City of McCleary, and some are not. For example, in the unincorporated area situated over the aquifer, McCleary's drinking water is dependent upon the quality of the wells and septic tanks, as well as the cooperation of the residents and any businesses, industries or other commercial enterprises located in the area. And despite the identified potential sources of contamination, there are numerous "cottage industries" in the vicinity of the aquifer which engage in such practices as automotive repair. While the automotive industry is regulated in terms of its handling of contaminants, only conscience and self-responsibility govern what people do "behind closed doors".
Recommendations in both the Aquifer Study and the 2003 letter include education of landowners and tenants regarding: (1) managing household hazardous waste issues, (2) sensitive nature of the aquifer and appropriate methods for chemical handling and disposal, (3) appropriate maintenance of septic systems and avoidance or minimal use of lawn chemicals. Since at least 1999, the City has published an "Annual Drinking Water Quality Report" (click for 2004 newsletter), which includes information about the importance of protecting the aquifer, and information about contaminants. However, the report is only distributed once a year, and then only to existing customers of City utilities, which includes the residents of Grays Harbor County who live over the aquifer. Education is a good thing; however, it doesn't ensure compliance.
Whose job is it to continually monitor the myriad wells, septic tanks, homeowners and tenants to ensure adequate measures are taken to protect the aquifer? The City of McCleary has a small police force, and their jurisdiction is the City Limits. Other possible agency oversight might come from the Grays Harbor Sheriff, the Washington State Department of Health, and/or the Washington State Department of Ecology. In the context of "Education", the Aquifer Study mentions:
"Initiate a public outreach and educational program concerning the water supply and potential means of contamination. The Washington State Department of Health will likely require such a program and it will be one of the most immediately effective measures for preventing future problems, since most of the recharge areas for the wellfield are located outside the City Limits, and therefore beyond the City's ability to directly control without interagency coordination. These programs are also especially effective for managing household hazardous waste issues." [emphasis added]
Further, Washington State RCW 90.54.140 says:
"... protection of ground water aquifers which are the sole drinking water source for a given jurisdiction shall be of the uppermost priority of the state department of ecology, department of social and health services, and all local government agencies with jurisdiction over such areas." [emphasis added]
And several sections of RCW 43.21C.110, "Content of state environmental policy act rules", address the issue of multiple agencies working together to protect the environment. So the customers and users of water from the Wildcat Creek Aquifer should feel well protected, right? [F]
[F - As this paper was being written, the author was informed that the Grays Harbor Public Utility District is in the process of filling in a wetland on the West side of McCleary. Although this activity is taking place outside the Wellhead Recharge Area, it is within the boundaries of the aquifer. This is yet another governmental agency controlling land with a possible impact on the aquifer, with no apparent legal commitment to protect the quality of the water supply.]
In a worst case scenario, if the aquifer were seriously contaminated, what are McCleary's options? One, no doubt very expensive, might be to pipe water from the City of Elma. Another might be to abandon one or more of the three City wells and drill a new well at the North edge of the aquifer, with its attendant pipeline(s). Yet another option might be to draw water from the beaver pond just over the hill. [G]
[G - Shades of Mulholland, Owens River and the City of Los Angeles!]
One of the most interesting tidbits "uncovered" in researching this paper is the City Administrator's comment that grants are plentiful for cleaning up a problem with water. However, the only financial assistance available to preserve the existing quality of a water source is loans. Given the knowledge that it's extremely difficult to clean up water once it's fouled, this is an interesting statement about the "wisdom" of the governmental agencies empowered to help protect our water.
The future of the Wildcat Creek Aquifer, and therefore a clean water supply for McCleary, seems to be up for grabs. Recommended education is infrequent and sketchy. Preventing contamination by residents and non-regulated cottage businesses is voluntary. Coordination between local government agencies is desired, but laws and ordinances mandating that coordination are absent, at least until 2007. And even with that coordination, the philosophies of the "powers that be" lean toward more development and growth – the dominant mindset of our culture – viewing each development individually ... apparently seldom considering the aggregate effect of growth on our water supply.
Small towns legislators and planning councils, often volunteers (McCleary Council members are paid $50 a month, and McCleary's Mayor is paid $200 a month), are unaware of the complexity of environmental issues, and how human action contributes to the production or diminution of the water supply. As such, they may tend to rubber stamp their decisions in conformance with recommendations of staff and/or advisors. Also these groups tend not to have served for long periods of time, and therefore are unaware of past laws and regulations, or the reasons for such legislation, in order to keep abreast of current events and how they "should" be shaped by existing legislation.
Apparently our best options are to:
Or, in the words of Winston Churchill:
" Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never -- in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."
– U.K. Prime Minister Winston Churchill, October 29, 1941, at Harrow School.
Many of the "expanses of trees" around McCleary in 1990 are gone now. We "timber country" folks are used to clearcuts. However, I don't believe most people are aware of the water-drawing properties of trees, so they aren't aware that not only are the trees gone from the surface, but the root systems are now defunct as well. According to Thom Hartmann, author of Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight:
"A ... tree will draw water up through its roots and release it into the atmosphere as water vapor during its lifetime. While it may seem that this would deplete the soil of water, actually the reverse is true: trees draw water into the soil, the first step in a complex cycle which prevents land from becoming desert."
Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight, Thom Hartmann, Three Rivers Press, New York, New York, 1999. Excerpt about the water "function" of trees: "The Root System 'Water Pump' " http://www.thomhartmann.com/deathof.shtml.
Another development – an RV park – is in the works, at the South end of town, outside the aquifer boundary. Although it won't directly impact the aquifer, the transient residents will be drawing additional water from McCleary's supply.
Are the Grays Harbor PUD Commissioners aware of what's going regarding filling the wetland West of town? What steps has the PUD done to protect our aquifer? Does the PUD have copies of McCleary's Aquifer Study, Water System Plan and Comprehensive Plan? Is the PUD required to do any form of environmental impact statement when they make changes to ground surfaces, "plant" poles, etc.?