It baffles me. These ditches were dug in a desert or near desert climate, to farm it... In other words, so things would grow... This also feeds below ground water (aquifer(s)) which is what we bring up with well pumps. I can't see anybody thinking changing that would be a good idea unless 1 or all of 3 things would benefit them.
Zach, I don’t know how but I know why. The first piping projects were not about water quantity they were about water quality. Many of the irrigation ditches had what were called tail waters. Meaning after running through the valley, picking up all kinds of nasty stuff, unused water was then returned to the river, causing the downgrade of Dungeness Bay. If you track those piping projects there is a direct correlation to the clean up of Dungeness Bay. Great question- thanks for asking it.
Understandable worries of water quality... Its hindsight now, but rather than piping, which takes the surface and below water away from that which is already pre existing and dependent on it... Why wasn't it picked up near the end of its run, prior to being dumped back and filtered at that point? Was that ever a discussion. Its just 1 less damaging way to take care of these tail waters you mention. Another question all together is, was it really even necessary to do anything? How much did these waters adversely affect the dungeness bay? Just questions that come to mind, off the top of my head.
Zach, no strange thinking there just very good questions. First, there was a discussion in the beginning regarding the tail waters. I suggested the possibility of engineer wetlands at those tail waters (because I am a wetlands fan). However, farmers and homeowners did not share my enthusiasm for wetlands, and that proposal was dead without traction. Moving onto Dungeness Bay and the need to end tail waters....In the early 90's Dungeness Bay was downgraded by the Washington State Department of Health due to the high presence of fecal coliform. That downgrade ended up shutting down several oyster farms resulting in the loss of jobs and a food I enjoy. After much effort Dungeness Bay began to regain Dept of Health standards that resulted in the reopening (I think about 1000 acres) of tidelands to shellfish growers. Was that reopening due to piping of the irrigation ditches alone? No, but it was a major part. Many farms in the Valley did not always use best practices and as a result many pollutants washed down the ditches to the Bay (because we all know what flows downhill).
I vaguely remember bits and pieces of this, probably mostly hearsay(my vague memories, I mean)... But it does sound a bit familiar once you have laid it out. Thanks. ☺️
A. - for a lengthy amount of time farmers allowed livestock free access to the irrigation ditches, as Dept of Ecology began to crack down because of the fecal coliform in Dungeness Bay many began fencing livestock out of reach of the ditches. It was a very costly expense. Some however thought that piping was a better option. Not only did they save on fencing they started to realize they were gaining more farmland. Farmers were not the only issue. On one particular piping project it was a homeowner who had routed his septic into the ditch in an effort to put less pressure on the drainfield. Talk about gnarly - we quickly instigated a rule to our children, not to play in irrigation ditches.
Yikes on the septic reroute. I'm all for private property rights as long as you're not harming others (and, of course, if you're not a hypocrite...my previous posts about wetlands). Takes all sorts to pollute and that property owner sounds like real piece of work.
Understandable about the property owners who don't want the pipe running through their property and/or who want to keep the open irrigation ditch. I hope they come out on top on this one.
Once the pipe is buried and the irrigation water flowing through it, if the property owner wants to exercise their irrigation rights that they're taxed for, there is a cost associated with gaining access to the pipe unless, in the initial trenching, they are also running pipe to each property owner with irrigation rights?
They didn't do that in my neighborhood and it's doubtful that's happening here. In my neighborhood, if you aren't hooked into the pipe already, you have to pay for the materials, the labor and so on to connect to the nearest irrigation pipe. And you have to do the work in the irrigation off season. In some cases the irrigation pipe you need to access is over a 1000 feet away from your property boundary. This is not an inconsequential cost, running into thousands of dollars. You might also have to get neighbors' sign-off to run your irrigation access pipe along their property or under private roadways and more.
Most neighbors don't bother with it because their houses were built prior to 2012. With water mitigation alive and well (and something of a joke IMHO), more new homeowners are going to be interested in exercising the irrigation rights they purchased when they bought their lot or their post-2012-built house. This is going to get interesting.
As for water mitigation, the joke is that if my house was built before 2012, without irrigation but off my well, I can support a pool, a water feature, a sprinkler system for my lawn and garden AND run my well water as long as and as often as I want. I can use as much water as I damn well please. My poor neighbor, "Joe", who built his home in 2016 and is drawing off the same aquifer, is metered. Sure he can do the same as I do but he had to pay for the privilege of having a meter AND he is supposed to limit how much water he uses. So if he does what I do in this case, he goes way over his water limit. He can't buy more. We're all on the same aquifer but Joe drew the short straw by coming late to the game. His best option is to pay for the labor and materials to connect to the irrigation system. And even that is limited.
And by golly, the irrigation water and the well water all comes from the same source one way or another. hoo-rah.
Jeff, nice meeting you in person at the BOCC meeting Tuesday. As we discussed briefly I have a few bullet points regarding irrigation piping.
- There is a lot of discussion about wells going dry. Several of these piping projects have also been accompanied by something called aquifer recharge - I believe there are 4 or 5 of these sights. These sights are designed to put water is a former irrigation ditch and allow that to seep to the aquifer. It's only done if the river is at a certain CFS level. The CCD should have a map of where these recharge sites are located. The SPTIA piping project mentioned in this article may have a plan for an aquifer recharge site. I am not fully sure, I have been out of the loop for a bit. It would surprise me if it doesn't.
- Many farmers resisted piping projects in the beginning (change is hard), but I think a majority now are understanding the benefits, one of which is a pressurized system which allows them to irrigate their fields without expensive pumps and electric bills. This also has benefited many homeowners who are hooked up to those piped systems that no longer need to use pumps for irrigation purposes. Another benefit to the farmers has been increased land use for farming. Large farms with irrigation ditches running through their property have discovered that if you pipe it you just gained a lot of ground to farm. Some small homeowners have also enjoyed that benefit.
- One last point - while I understand the individual land owners who like the idea of the sound of running water in their backyard and enjoy the historic use of the ditches - they treat it as a creek rather than an irrigation ditch. If it were a creek they would not enjoy the setbacks required by county, state and federal agencies. I realize this last point may bring out the ire in some - it is just my opinion, but it's based on my desire for clean water for everyone to enjoy and for which I have worked for 32 years to ensure, mostly as a volunteer for the CCD, sitting on the board.
Meeting you and your wife was a highlight, thanks for your public comment... your area of expertise fascinates me and you explain things in a way that makes sense to me.
Yes, I found the CCD aquifer recharge map. Talking to the Smiths, it sounds like the irrigation companies would be tasked with sending certain amounts of water to certain recharge sites based on a formula that was hard for me to grasp the first time around.
When the Agnew District piped our ditch in the 1990s, it was pretty nice to irrigate without that noisy pump. Our well ended up going dry and we had to pay to hook up to PUD water. Over the next decade, all the trees died near that lined the ditch.
I'm excited to see what "rolls downhill" this week... I have a guess :)
Jeff, Sorry to hear about your well and trees. Aquifer recharge was late to the game for one reason and one reason only - Department of Ecology. Back in the 90's (I believe) Graysmarsh sued the Dept of Ecology over some of these piping projects and was successful in getting a zone of impact (Graysmarsh was concerned Gierin Creek would be affected). Graysmarsh was successful in settling with DOE and I believe they have final say in projects done in that zone. The CCD asked Graysmarsh about a project within the zone and their wildlife biologist at the time suggested aquifer recharge somewhere in that zone. The DOE - after their butt kicking by Graysmarsh, scoffed at the idea and said absolutely not. Fast forward a couple of years some wells started to be affected and suddenly the DOE progressive thinkers had this great idea - aquifer recharge!
Funny how alluvium is left out of the conversation as if you could perpetually farm without it. They did not make the ditch system just for water. They developed a mineral replenishing process so the land would not get farmed out. The tribe whined about bacteria but that could have been controlled by chlorine dioxide. They want the alluvium to flood the valley so they could get the land back. They want the Dungeness spit to be connected to the mainland again. They just aren't going to be honest about anything regarding the Dungeness.
So the alluvium came back to the Dungeness in spades. One of the tributaries got too high for the fish to make it through. They were trapped and easy picking for the birds. Eventually the tribe allegedly took a tractor in to clear alluvium out of a Dungeness tributary. That's right, the same alluvium they wanted to raise the river to create the flooding conditions, interfered with the migration of the fish. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out a river in a rain shadow is going to have exaggerated low flows. The whole debacle started at the Elwha Dam removal. That was when they read their reasons for removing the dam to the public. Then the first thing that said was stormwater and sediment (alluvium) good and they needed it, then on the same time period it was bad and was killing young char. I was like wait a minute you said you needed it. (Dungeness says they needed it. In fact "we" need every bit of stormwater and sediment)). By the time they were done, every reason they gave for dam removal was not accomplished. Then they go to Jimmycomelately and do the same thing. In other words, idiots were given millions of dollars to jump from one foot to the other and lie to the public. Now what you are seeing is public officials lying about the agencies where these wonderful public policies were developed. There is a long list of public officials in our county that are not fit for office, Tharinger, Chapman, Dougherty, 30 years of Port Angeles City council, 10 years of Clallam County Council. 30 years of Jefferson County Council, all either ICLEI charter members or just caught lying so much they need to fing another line of work.
I have a stupid question…..there are a lot of farmers I see in Sequim, Agnew areas, how are they going to irrigate their fields & crops? Are they going to pay more & get less water? I can’t understand why land owners would give up their water rights, something doesn’t sound right there because most people who buy property with those rights wanted them to begin with. 100 miles of piping would involve a lot of land owners and reading this article makes it sound as though all those land owners were in agreement……that is so hard to believe that many are in agreement, whoa!
I've heard (not verified) that the assessments weren't being mailed out and consequently people didn't pay them. In arrears, those water shares were given to other people. That doesn't quite answer your question. I think you asked the question on the right forum... we have the best subscribers here.
The farmers will probably have to install high pressure hydrants or piping on their farms, to pipe the water that they have rights to in order to keep watering their fields. I don't know who funds it but I would guess the farmers? Just like private property owners will have to pay for labor, materials and such to connect to the pressurized irrigation pripe. No one gives up their irrigation rights simply because piping is being put in. Instead there's a cost associated with connecting to the piped irrigation water and that cost is to bring irrigation water to your property (time, labor, materials). That cost wasn't there when it was an open irrigation ditch. A lot of homeowners choose not to connect to the pressurized system because they don't need to (their wells are not under mitigation because their houses were built pre-2012). See my previous post about the water mitigation impact on why a homeowner with a post-2012 house may want to connect to the irrigation system. Assessments can show up on your property tax bill making it relatively easy to pay it.
I've heard (but haven't verified) that it's up to the property owner to install the connection. I think it's strange that a property owner is allowed to connect to a pressurized pipeline with whatever means they choose, instead of some sort of standardized connection. I assume the least expensive, homemade connections could be rather "creative" and I hope they are safe too.
Jeff, interesting article. A correction, if you don’t mind. The Clallam Conservation District is not part of County government. It is part of state government, overseen by the Washington State Conservation Commission. The CCD does receive some funds from the county in support of their conservation efforts, which are much more than irrigation efficiencies.
What is shaping up here, is an illegal takings and equal protection federal lawsuit against a state agency, county and loaned NODC employees. If you are in the floodplain or were flooded you should seek counsel.
They lied to the public. The pipes are not there to save water, the ditches were filled in to flood the "historic" floodplain. They knew the alluvium was being spread out for miles. They wanted that alluvium to go into the river so the valley would flood. Is dastardly to flood out non tribal and protect tribal. If you know anyone in the valley that has been flooded or is now in the historic flood plain, please put them in touch with me.
It baffles me. These ditches were dug in a desert or near desert climate, to farm it... In other words, so things would grow... This also feeds below ground water (aquifer(s)) which is what we bring up with well pumps. I can't see anybody thinking changing that would be a good idea unless 1 or all of 3 things would benefit them.
1. Desert
2. Money
3. Control
How did the first hard-line ever make it in?
Zach, I don’t know how but I know why. The first piping projects were not about water quantity they were about water quality. Many of the irrigation ditches had what were called tail waters. Meaning after running through the valley, picking up all kinds of nasty stuff, unused water was then returned to the river, causing the downgrade of Dungeness Bay. If you track those piping projects there is a direct correlation to the clean up of Dungeness Bay. Great question- thanks for asking it.
Thank you for that information.
Understandable worries of water quality... Its hindsight now, but rather than piping, which takes the surface and below water away from that which is already pre existing and dependent on it... Why wasn't it picked up near the end of its run, prior to being dumped back and filtered at that point? Was that ever a discussion. Its just 1 less damaging way to take care of these tail waters you mention. Another question all together is, was it really even necessary to do anything? How much did these waters adversely affect the dungeness bay? Just questions that come to mind, off the top of my head.
Maybe I think strangely....
Zach, no strange thinking there just very good questions. First, there was a discussion in the beginning regarding the tail waters. I suggested the possibility of engineer wetlands at those tail waters (because I am a wetlands fan). However, farmers and homeowners did not share my enthusiasm for wetlands, and that proposal was dead without traction. Moving onto Dungeness Bay and the need to end tail waters....In the early 90's Dungeness Bay was downgraded by the Washington State Department of Health due to the high presence of fecal coliform. That downgrade ended up shutting down several oyster farms resulting in the loss of jobs and a food I enjoy. After much effort Dungeness Bay began to regain Dept of Health standards that resulted in the reopening (I think about 1000 acres) of tidelands to shellfish growers. Was that reopening due to piping of the irrigation ditches alone? No, but it was a major part. Many farms in the Valley did not always use best practices and as a result many pollutants washed down the ditches to the Bay (because we all know what flows downhill).
I vaguely remember bits and pieces of this, probably mostly hearsay(my vague memories, I mean)... But it does sound a bit familiar once you have laid it out. Thanks. ☺️
Fascinating stuff. I have heard that animal parts and the like would wash down the irrigation ditches. Pretty gnarly.
A. - for a lengthy amount of time farmers allowed livestock free access to the irrigation ditches, as Dept of Ecology began to crack down because of the fecal coliform in Dungeness Bay many began fencing livestock out of reach of the ditches. It was a very costly expense. Some however thought that piping was a better option. Not only did they save on fencing they started to realize they were gaining more farmland. Farmers were not the only issue. On one particular piping project it was a homeowner who had routed his septic into the ditch in an effort to put less pressure on the drainfield. Talk about gnarly - we quickly instigated a rule to our children, not to play in irrigation ditches.
Yikes on the septic reroute. I'm all for private property rights as long as you're not harming others (and, of course, if you're not a hypocrite...my previous posts about wetlands). Takes all sorts to pollute and that property owner sounds like real piece of work.
Understandable about the property owners who don't want the pipe running through their property and/or who want to keep the open irrigation ditch. I hope they come out on top on this one.
Once the pipe is buried and the irrigation water flowing through it, if the property owner wants to exercise their irrigation rights that they're taxed for, there is a cost associated with gaining access to the pipe unless, in the initial trenching, they are also running pipe to each property owner with irrigation rights?
They didn't do that in my neighborhood and it's doubtful that's happening here. In my neighborhood, if you aren't hooked into the pipe already, you have to pay for the materials, the labor and so on to connect to the nearest irrigation pipe. And you have to do the work in the irrigation off season. In some cases the irrigation pipe you need to access is over a 1000 feet away from your property boundary. This is not an inconsequential cost, running into thousands of dollars. You might also have to get neighbors' sign-off to run your irrigation access pipe along their property or under private roadways and more.
Most neighbors don't bother with it because their houses were built prior to 2012. With water mitigation alive and well (and something of a joke IMHO), more new homeowners are going to be interested in exercising the irrigation rights they purchased when they bought their lot or their post-2012-built house. This is going to get interesting.
As for water mitigation, the joke is that if my house was built before 2012, without irrigation but off my well, I can support a pool, a water feature, a sprinkler system for my lawn and garden AND run my well water as long as and as often as I want. I can use as much water as I damn well please. My poor neighbor, "Joe", who built his home in 2016 and is drawing off the same aquifer, is metered. Sure he can do the same as I do but he had to pay for the privilege of having a meter AND he is supposed to limit how much water he uses. So if he does what I do in this case, he goes way over his water limit. He can't buy more. We're all on the same aquifer but Joe drew the short straw by coming late to the game. His best option is to pay for the labor and materials to connect to the irrigation system. And even that is limited.
And by golly, the irrigation water and the well water all comes from the same source one way or another. hoo-rah.
What a freaking joke.
If my well ran dry, I would dig up the pipe and drill a large hole in it to replenish the aquifer.
Jeff, nice meeting you in person at the BOCC meeting Tuesday. As we discussed briefly I have a few bullet points regarding irrigation piping.
- There is a lot of discussion about wells going dry. Several of these piping projects have also been accompanied by something called aquifer recharge - I believe there are 4 or 5 of these sights. These sights are designed to put water is a former irrigation ditch and allow that to seep to the aquifer. It's only done if the river is at a certain CFS level. The CCD should have a map of where these recharge sites are located. The SPTIA piping project mentioned in this article may have a plan for an aquifer recharge site. I am not fully sure, I have been out of the loop for a bit. It would surprise me if it doesn't.
- Many farmers resisted piping projects in the beginning (change is hard), but I think a majority now are understanding the benefits, one of which is a pressurized system which allows them to irrigate their fields without expensive pumps and electric bills. This also has benefited many homeowners who are hooked up to those piped systems that no longer need to use pumps for irrigation purposes. Another benefit to the farmers has been increased land use for farming. Large farms with irrigation ditches running through their property have discovered that if you pipe it you just gained a lot of ground to farm. Some small homeowners have also enjoyed that benefit.
- One last point - while I understand the individual land owners who like the idea of the sound of running water in their backyard and enjoy the historic use of the ditches - they treat it as a creek rather than an irrigation ditch. If it were a creek they would not enjoy the setbacks required by county, state and federal agencies. I realize this last point may bring out the ire in some - it is just my opinion, but it's based on my desire for clean water for everyone to enjoy and for which I have worked for 32 years to ensure, mostly as a volunteer for the CCD, sitting on the board.
Meeting you and your wife was a highlight, thanks for your public comment... your area of expertise fascinates me and you explain things in a way that makes sense to me.
Yes, I found the CCD aquifer recharge map. Talking to the Smiths, it sounds like the irrigation companies would be tasked with sending certain amounts of water to certain recharge sites based on a formula that was hard for me to grasp the first time around.
When the Agnew District piped our ditch in the 1990s, it was pretty nice to irrigate without that noisy pump. Our well ended up going dry and we had to pay to hook up to PUD water. Over the next decade, all the trees died near that lined the ditch.
I'm excited to see what "rolls downhill" this week... I have a guess :)
Jeff, Sorry to hear about your well and trees. Aquifer recharge was late to the game for one reason and one reason only - Department of Ecology. Back in the 90's (I believe) Graysmarsh sued the Dept of Ecology over some of these piping projects and was successful in getting a zone of impact (Graysmarsh was concerned Gierin Creek would be affected). Graysmarsh was successful in settling with DOE and I believe they have final say in projects done in that zone. The CCD asked Graysmarsh about a project within the zone and their wildlife biologist at the time suggested aquifer recharge somewhere in that zone. The DOE - after their butt kicking by Graysmarsh, scoffed at the idea and said absolutely not. Fast forward a couple of years some wells started to be affected and suddenly the DOE progressive thinkers had this great idea - aquifer recharge!
I love learning about these things, thanks Matt.
Funny how alluvium is left out of the conversation as if you could perpetually farm without it. They did not make the ditch system just for water. They developed a mineral replenishing process so the land would not get farmed out. The tribe whined about bacteria but that could have been controlled by chlorine dioxide. They want the alluvium to flood the valley so they could get the land back. They want the Dungeness spit to be connected to the mainland again. They just aren't going to be honest about anything regarding the Dungeness.
So the alluvium came back to the Dungeness in spades. One of the tributaries got too high for the fish to make it through. They were trapped and easy picking for the birds. Eventually the tribe allegedly took a tractor in to clear alluvium out of a Dungeness tributary. That's right, the same alluvium they wanted to raise the river to create the flooding conditions, interfered with the migration of the fish. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out a river in a rain shadow is going to have exaggerated low flows. The whole debacle started at the Elwha Dam removal. That was when they read their reasons for removing the dam to the public. Then the first thing that said was stormwater and sediment (alluvium) good and they needed it, then on the same time period it was bad and was killing young char. I was like wait a minute you said you needed it. (Dungeness says they needed it. In fact "we" need every bit of stormwater and sediment)). By the time they were done, every reason they gave for dam removal was not accomplished. Then they go to Jimmycomelately and do the same thing. In other words, idiots were given millions of dollars to jump from one foot to the other and lie to the public. Now what you are seeing is public officials lying about the agencies where these wonderful public policies were developed. There is a long list of public officials in our county that are not fit for office, Tharinger, Chapman, Dougherty, 30 years of Port Angeles City council, 10 years of Clallam County Council. 30 years of Jefferson County Council, all either ICLEI charter members or just caught lying so much they need to fing another line of work.
Wow, I don't know how you keep it all straight. Thank you John.
I have a stupid question…..there are a lot of farmers I see in Sequim, Agnew areas, how are they going to irrigate their fields & crops? Are they going to pay more & get less water? I can’t understand why land owners would give up their water rights, something doesn’t sound right there because most people who buy property with those rights wanted them to begin with. 100 miles of piping would involve a lot of land owners and reading this article makes it sound as though all those land owners were in agreement……that is so hard to believe that many are in agreement, whoa!
I've heard (not verified) that the assessments weren't being mailed out and consequently people didn't pay them. In arrears, those water shares were given to other people. That doesn't quite answer your question. I think you asked the question on the right forum... we have the best subscribers here.
How are they going to perpetually farm without the alluvium to enrich the soil?
The farmers will probably have to install high pressure hydrants or piping on their farms, to pipe the water that they have rights to in order to keep watering their fields. I don't know who funds it but I would guess the farmers? Just like private property owners will have to pay for labor, materials and such to connect to the pressurized irrigation pripe. No one gives up their irrigation rights simply because piping is being put in. Instead there's a cost associated with connecting to the piped irrigation water and that cost is to bring irrigation water to your property (time, labor, materials). That cost wasn't there when it was an open irrigation ditch. A lot of homeowners choose not to connect to the pressurized system because they don't need to (their wells are not under mitigation because their houses were built pre-2012). See my previous post about the water mitigation impact on why a homeowner with a post-2012 house may want to connect to the irrigation system. Assessments can show up on your property tax bill making it relatively easy to pay it.
I've heard (but haven't verified) that it's up to the property owner to install the connection. I think it's strange that a property owner is allowed to connect to a pressurized pipeline with whatever means they choose, instead of some sort of standardized connection. I assume the least expensive, homemade connections could be rather "creative" and I hope they are safe too.
Jeff, interesting article. A correction, if you don’t mind. The Clallam Conservation District is not part of County government. It is part of state government, overseen by the Washington State Conservation Commission. The CCD does receive some funds from the county in support of their conservation efforts, which are much more than irrigation efficiencies.
Thanks for pointing that out, Matt. I've edited it for accuracy, and I appreciate you pointing it out.
I will connect them all to the North Olympic Development Council and ICLEI on Tuesday.
What is shaping up here, is an illegal takings and equal protection federal lawsuit against a state agency, county and loaned NODC employees. If you are in the floodplain or were flooded you should seek counsel.
I know I would. And have advised friends as well.
They lied to the public. The pipes are not there to save water, the ditches were filled in to flood the "historic" floodplain. They knew the alluvium was being spread out for miles. They wanted that alluvium to go into the river so the valley would flood. Is dastardly to flood out non tribal and protect tribal. If you know anyone in the valley that has been flooded or is now in the historic flood plain, please put them in touch with me.
Wow. I have wondered.
Thank you Jeff - just a pet peeve of mine.