PACKET: BoCC Special Meeting-Drainage District at Fri, Sep 01, 02:00 PM

County Sources

AVCapture Page

Documents

AI Information

Drainage District No. 1 (Chimacum Drainage District) Dissolution and Status Determination

Topic Summary

The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners held a special meeting and subsequent public hearing to determine the status of Drainage District No. 1 (Chimacum Drainage District, or DD1), which has been largely inactive since 1974. The County Administrator recommended the Board consider declaring the district inactive and dissolved based on criteria outlined in RCW 36.96. The Commissioners ultimately voted unanimously to approve Resolution No. 35-23, determining that the Chimacum Drainage District is inactive pursuant to Chapter 36.96 RCW.

Key Points

  • DD1 was formed in 1919 to manage a drainage and flood control system in the Chimacum watershed.
  • The district has not collected funds since the mid-1960s and has been inactive since 1974, following the resignation of the governing board.
  • Per RCW 36.96, a special purpose district is considered "inactive" if it has not carried out its functions for five consecutive years, has failed to hold an election for seven consecutive years, or has been determined unauditable by the State Auditor. DD1 met this criteria as of May 2023.
  • The County Administrator, Mark McCauley, initially recommended the Board consider declaring the district inactive and dissolved.
  • BOCC Options Reviewed: (1) declare the district inactive and leave it in place, (2) declare the district inactive and dissolve it, (3) reactivate the district in its current form, or (4) repurpose the district to include irrigation/watershed management/improvement.
  • Commissioner Eisenhour noted that stakeholders desired more time to deliberate on the issue.
  • County Administrator McCauley shared a draft resolution with the Board.
  • The Board approved Resolution No. 35-23, determining the Chimacum Drainage District is inactive pursuant to Chapter 36.96 RCW.

Financials

  • The district has collected no funds since the mid-1960s.
  • As of December 2004, the Jefferson County treasurer reported a balance of $1,216.64 in the DD1 account.
  • The agenda request seeking initial action stated there was "no fiscal impact."

Alternatives

  • Declare inactive and leave in place (Status Quo option, initially staff's recommendation for the interim).
  • Declare inactive and dissolve it (The Auditor's initial recommendation).
  • Reactivate the district in its current form.
  • Repurpose the district to add irrigation/watershed management/improvement to its mission.

Community Input

  • Roger Short: (Address listed as Chimacum) provided testimony.
  • Jeff Chapman: (Address listed as Jefferson County) provided testimony.
  • Joe Holtrop: (Conservation District) provided testimony regarding developing a management plan (exact information should be confirmed in video).

Timeline

  • 1919: Jefferson County Drainage District #1 (DD1) formed.
  • Mid-1960: DD1 ceased collecting funds.
  • 1974: Governing board resigned, and the district went inactive again.
  • 2023-05-15: Auditor memorandum referenced RCW 36.96 and recommended consideration of dissolution.
  • 2023-09-01: Public Hearing held by BOCC.
  • 2023-09-16, 23, 30: Public hearing notice published in legal paper of record for three consecutive weeks.

Next Steps

  • Commissioner Eisenhour moved to approve RESOLUTION NO. 35-23 re: Determining the Chimacum Drainage District is inactive pursuant to chapter 36.96 RCW. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously.
  • Following the decision on inactivity, staff consultant Vivian Ericson was present to provide closing remarks and next steps, indicating that a final decision regarding dissolution or future status is pending further action/public hearing.
  • The recommendation provided in the staff packet was to "Continue to gather information regarding the district and what residents of the district wish to happen" and "Schedule another public hearing for a final decision regarding the future of the district."

Sources

  • Mark McCauley - County Administrator
  • Kate Dean - Commissioner, District 1
  • Heidi Eisenhour - Commissioner, District 2
  • Greg Brotherton - Commissioner, District 3 – Chair
  • Vivian Ericson - Peak Consultant
  • Barbara Ehrlichman (Thanked for her work)
  • RCW 36.96 (Dissolution of Inactive Special Purpose Districts)
  • Jefferson County Conservation District - Author of 2022 report on current conditions

Chimacum Drainage District: History, Conditions, and Future Management (2022 Report)

Topic Summary

A report prepared in August 2022 by the Jefferson County Conservation District and partners analyzed the history, current ecological and agricultural conditions, and potential future options for the inactive Chimacum Drainage District (DD1). The report highlights persistent flooding and drainage issues exacerbated by invasive species and beaver populations, noting that fragmented, individual landowner maintenance efforts are insufficient. It frames the debate as balancing private property rights and agricultural productivity with broader societal and ecological needs, including habitat restoration.

Key Points

  • DD1 was formed in 1919 for drainage and flood control but has been inactive since 1974.
  • Ongoing flooding and drainage issues have persisted and worsened due to chronic noxious weed infestations (primarily reed canarygrass), increasing beaver populations, and lack of comprehensive maintenance.
  • Inactive periods have forced maintenance responsibilities onto individual landowners, resulting in inconsistent, inefficient, and sometimes ineffective efforts, leading to disputes and regulatory conflicts.
  • Many watershed landowners are interested in reactivating DD1 to comprehensively address maintenance and explore habitat improvements, as both farmland and habitat are currently performing below their potential.
  • Watershed Characterization: The Chimacum watershed is 37 square miles. The primary waterways are West Chimacum Creek (WCC, 80% flow) and East Chimacum Creek (ECC). Both streams are low to very low gradient through farmland reaches.
  • Soil Conditions: Valley bottom soils are hydric (organic peats and mucks), poorly drained, and considered prime farmland (USDA Class II) if properly drained. Cultivation leads to settling of up to one inch or more per year if the water table is below 30 inches.
  • Early drainage work (1920s) included straightening and channelizing WCC and ECC, reducing total channel length by about 25%. WCC has about 7 miles of channelized stream; ECC has almost the entire 5.5 miles channelized.
  • Historical Management Failure: A 1955 USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) exam indicated drainage maintenance had been inadequate following the initial 1920s infrastructure work; the district was nearly "bankrupted" by unstable economic conditions, poor management, and lack of maintenance.

Financials

  • Whatcom County Comparison (2022 Preliminary Analysis): Budgets for comparable drainage districts ranged from an average of about $2 to $8 per acre of district land. Total annual assessments collected ranged from $2,000 to $20,000.
  • Chimacum DD1: Comprises 7,526 acres under 387 separate ownerships (as of 2022).
  • Cost Sharing: A 2020 reed canarygrass removal project sponsored by the Conservation District cleared five miles of stream channel at a total cost of $62,500 (excluding project management).
  • Funding Sources: Grants or other revenue sources will be necessary for larger projects. Funding for the initial management plan could potentially be covered by grants.
  • Fixed Operational Costs (If Reactivated):
    • Public Official Bond: $75 per official annually.
    • Audit Officer Bond: $175 annually.
    • State Audit (every three years): Generally costs less than $1,000.
    • DD1 election expenses (reimbursable to County Auditor).

Alternatives

  • Reactivation/Repurposing: If reactivated, the district could add irrigation/watershed management to its mission. This would require a local vote to elect officers and impose property tax assessments.
  • Dissolution/Suspension: The County Legislative Authority can dissolve the district after a public hearing if it meets inactivity criteria (RCW 36.96), or suspend operations to allow for future reactivation (RCW 85.38.220).
  • Land Management (Wetland Reserve Program): The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service can offer financial assistance and compensation for taking marginal farmland out of production for wetland restoration.

Community Input

  • Landowners have expressed interest in reactivating DD1 to improve drainage and habitat.
  • Landowner accounts noted that beaver and ditch maintenance was inconsistent, forcing individual farmers to undertake maintenance work (Source: Short letter, Rubin interviews).

Timeline

  • 1950s: Reed canarygrass introduced; invades waterways.
  • 1975-Present: Drainage system maintenance performed by individual landowners.
  • 1980s & 1990s: Many miles of stream fencing installed; initial riparian forest restoration begins (willow/cottonwood planting).
  • Mid-1980s: Chimacum Creek summer chum go extinct (reintroduced 1996).
  • 2009-12-31: Quilcene-Snow watershed water resources management program rule (WAC 173-517) adopted, curtailing new water uses in Chimacum sub-basin without mitigation.
  • 2020: Conservation District cost-shared funding for landowners to remove reed canarygrass from five miles of stream channel.
  • 2022 (Spring): Approximately 3,000 acres of actively farmed land within DD1 boundaries.

Next Steps

  • If reactivated, the district should prioritize preparing a management plan in collaboration with regulatory agencies, tribes, salmon recovery organizations, and agricultural interests (per Section 6).
  • If the district is reactivated, the governing body must be appointed as in a newly created special district (RCW 85.38.220).
  • If the district is suspended, the county legislative authority must accept responsibility for operation and maintenance of drainage/flood control improvements during the suspension period (RCW 85.38.220).

Sources

  • Jefferson County Conservation District (Lead Preparer)
  • Jefferson Land Trust (Contributor)
  • Jefferson County Environmental Public Health (Contributor)
  • North Olympic Salmon Coalition (Contributor)
  • Mark McCauley - County Administrator
  • Griffith Short - Author of 1973 letter to Port Townsend Leader
  • Marcus Larsen - DD1 Chair (1956)
  • Gilbert Binsfield - JCSCD Chair (1956)
  • John Boulton - Long-time conservation district supervisor
  • P. Bahls and J. Rubin (1996) - Authors of Chimacum Watershed Coho Salmon Restoration Assessment

Generated On: 2025-11-06 17:04:42.314162-08:00 By: google/gemini-2.5-flash-preview-09-2025 running on https://openrouter.ai/api/v1/