Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLog165 J]IID~ JUN 1 0 2004 Hi Folks, June 10,2004 JEFFERSON COUNTY oeD I recently submitted comments on the Draft Supplemental EIS for the Port Ludlow Resort Plan Revision. First let me paste in my previous email because I have not receiv~d notice of receipt, and Al Scalf, director of Community Development has acknowledged he recently "lost" substantiating documents from a separate communication. i Notice of an extension has been received so I want to augment my letter with the following; Paragraph 3 on page 3-17 beginning with "The North Aquifer" makes claims that are not documented, as well as excluding mention of the current clear cut logging operations, which DNR can validate as a type 4 conversion. A big percentage of the watershed is being denuded as well as prepared for development. This oversight alone is sufficient to require a new DEIS. The following paragraph (paragraph 4) is similarly flawed because there is neither proof nor documentation to support these claims. My claims that this information is not accurate should be perceived as equally valid unless there is documented proof of statements presented. How can I respond to claims that appear erroneous unless I have real information to respond to? I take your invitation to offer comments as a sincere desire to improve the development process. Don't insult the public with gobbledygook. 3.2.2.3. Mitigating Measures Same complaint here, lets see the data! 3.2.2.4. Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Come on! Do not accept this statement. It will institutionalize stealing of water. And my final comment concerns 3.2.2.2 Environmental Impacts Grandiose claims are made about the water rights of Olympic Water and Sewer inc. but a few questions I directed to DOE about the OWS combined allotment returned the following email: Larry, These three are under Olympic Water & Sewer: (37) GZ-Z9104 Applicant submitted a new application for 50 gpm. (Pending approval) (47) CGZ-Z154Z Applicant submitted a change application on Certificate GZ-Z154Z to add a well. (Pending approval) (48) CGZ-Z1543 Applicant submitted a change application on Certificate GZ-Z1543 to add a well. (Pending approval) In effect there are no current water rights available to pledge to this project. Maybe they are in transition. But there are rumors of bankruptcy withinPLA and granting any further build out on hopes and unsubstantiated claims of abundant water rights for this company is totally irresponsible. It appears we are being conned. Until legal documentation is offered to substantiate all claims contained in this document it is merely an attempt to coerce the County into granting developmental rights that mayor may not be deserved. I suggest you start this entire process over. Sincerely, Larry Lawson (See bottom of endnote 1 for address etc.) JUN ,10 20M d JEFFERSON COUNTY OeD LOG 'TEM #.llt ~ Page~ ~_of~ Subject: comments and requests Date: May 28,20041 :09:26 PM PDT To: developmentreview@co.jefferson.wa.us JUN 1 0 20lM JEFFERSON COUNTY DeD To whom it may concern, I request that you start this entire process over in order to include pertinent information that has been excluded. Dealing with drinking water there was a reference to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement from the early 90's but the document does not seem to be at hand, and is probably superseded anyway. Statements of water rights are claimed but not verified nor is there a County provided document showing essential figures of the total volume of drinking water granted to all local users by DOE or allowed by Jefferson County through historical usage. To reply to this current DEIS the public needs to know of the total water allocated currently, via the vehicles of water rights and historical usage. We also need to know what the total available sustainable usage is in each of the referenced aquifers, and the actual recharge rate. It is not ethical and perhaps not even legal to have the company selling the water to customers doing the verifications of aquifer health and recharge. Shouldn't this be a County responsibility? Even in the abbreviated version included within this DEIS one footnote is missing. I question why there is a lack of open information provided in useful format when the document is offered to the public for serious comment? This is our home and these issues concern our future health and well-being. The public finds ourselves in a vulnerable situation when our County does not advocate for our community essentials. Water being one of the most precious. Hearing only the focused concerns of a developer should not be the primary purpose of a Government which is responsible to all of its citizens. But based on the previous DEIS process my impression is that the County actually advocated for the allocation of public resources into private use, / #ji;~TEM / Page_~~ __of~ including our water, without concern for long term conservation. My cautions about the previous developer abnegating their stated responsibility to maintain public services is quite substantiated by the need to create a local drainage district. Shoddy development causes the people of this County to pay for these oversights in the future. A PUD is a tax supported venture to unravel the disasters of poor planning. The requests by the proponent 'may be valid and supportable but it seems the least the County can do is require that all of their claims are proven and documented. In fact the County should be responsible to the public to assure a continued supply of healthy drinking water and even now be using an unbiased third party to assure the level of water available in our aquifers. It only makes logical sense to know what the limits of our public resources actually are, before we approve utilization. Allowing a corporation to have access to water may be taking it from current users, and the information provided in this public DEIS is not adequate to sustain the proponent's requests. Also, the County is our only agency able to manage oversight of all events likely to effect future quality of environmental health. But even today (May 28,2004) there is a clear cut logging operation in progress on top of the north aquifer, but no mention is made about the effect on recharge into the future from this event or other types of further development. As stated above, this process needs to be started over with clear and useful information so that all of us in this County are able to understand what resources we are allocating to who, and how future public use will be sustained. Citizens should not feel forced to take legal action to protect our future health. The County should be the public agency protecting our public resources. Thank you for the invitation to respond by email. Sincerely, ~ Larry Lawson rcJ- 10140 Oak Bay Road Port Ludlow W A 98365 3604379143 JUN 10 _ JEFFERSON COUNTY DCD LO~TEM / #--I /) , Page G LI of .J/.