STC Meeting Summary

August 3, 2006

Brian Peck, Glen Connelly, Chanele Holbrook Shaw, Lee Napier, Lee Daneker, Patrick Wiltzius, Bruce Jones, Steve Craig, Jerry Louthain, Kahle Jennings, Mark Swartout, Kernen Lien.

Inchoate Water Rights

Lee Daneker reviewed his progress and discussed contract Deliverables 1 and 2 with the group. 

After reviewing the water system plan summary (Deliverable 1) with the group, the group suggested some changes to the table.  

• Move the water rights column ahead of planning period. 
• Combine first year add and mdd with last year add and mdd.
• Highlight alternating rows to improve easy of understanding for the reader.
• Map areas to show where in the basin surplus exists.

Napier distributed a copy of the draft letter to the 38 systems identified through Daneker’s work. 

The group agreed with the CBP recommendations to state in the introduction the requested action and our intentions are not to correct water system plans or WRATs database. 

The group suggested staff at Ecology and DOH be contacted and made aware that the letter and data summary sheets are forthcoming.  Copies of the letter, data summary sheets, and distribution list should also be sent to the agencies. 

Daneker reviewer Deliverable 2, Section III from his report which describes a list of options to address how surplus municipal water rights might be used to address instream flow needs.  Group comments included:

· A suggestion was made to reference website links to issue papers when referenced in the report. 

· Are there standards for water conservation?  The systems are getting more refined with each plan revision. 

· The group liked his suggested options, but wondered how readers would respond without the STC’s background.  Patrick shared his perspective and felt it was understandable for most readers.

· Formatting was suggested.  Include some subheadings and summarize the options upfront through a list/table.  Does this section need an introduction to put the work into context? 

· Circulate the draft report to the group.  Napier will circulate the next draft the week of August 10^th.  Comments should be sent back to Daneker by August 25^th. 

Discussion with Tom Loranger Regarding Water Rights and Flow Compliance

Tom briefed the group regarding Ecology’s water rights workload and procedures.  Not much activity in the basin in the recent past. He has a list of people interested in changing water right uses.  The Department intends to dedicated staff time to this area. 

The group asked a variety of situational questions of Tom regarding transfer of rights, change of use, and change of withdrawl.  This helped the group to understand Ecology’s process. 

No new applications for water rights, except for the application from Napavine.  This originally was a transfer.  They are trying to identify water rights for retirement which would all for a new right to be issued. 

DIP

Napier briefed the group regarding the changes since the last meeting. 

Comments from the group included:

• Can we show on the cover that this version is 1 of a series?
• Page 4, Step 2, softened the commitment language since the participants have not submitted letters of commitment.
• Figure 1-add a box to describe the projected workshops for objectives 6-18. 
• Page 8-Funding Disclaimer- suggested revising the language in the last sentence to describe participant who are not CBP members.
• In the individual work plans, change implementation schedule to start date. 
• Page 23, IM 3.3, Task 1 revised the language.
• Page 41, Appendix A, DIP #10-Can we revise this since an Attorney General’s Opinion was issued recently?  This DIP is part of the next phase of work.  The group will look into the impacts of the recent opinion at that time. 
• Appendix B does not include the list of invites for DIP #5. 

Napier will get the suggested changes to Kliem.  The final draft will be distributed at the August 25^th meeting.