The Clallam County Charter Review Commission Water Committee on Monday, Aug. 4 voted to adopt a draft resolution recommending that the Clallam County Board of Commissioners retain a water-resources specialist and to forward a prepared recommendation to the full Charter Review Commission for submission to the county commissioners.

Why it matters: Committee members said the county lacks a central, consistent staff position to collect and analyze water data, coordinate with tribes and purveyors, and advise county policy — duties they said require dedicated expertise and could inform budgeting and planning decisions.

The committee’s discussion and vote
The committee debated how closely to reuse language from a previously proposed charter amendment that failed in an earlier vote. Committee members agreed to convert the amendment’s text into a resolution and recommendation to the board rather than seeking a new charter amendment. The group removed language that would have instructed the director of Community Development to implement the position and instead framed the paper as a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.

Member Christie (member, Charter Review Commission Water Committee) moved to approve the original amendment language reworked as a recommendation; the motion was seconded and adopted by voice vote. Later in the meeting committee members moved to submit the finalized resolution to the full Charter Review Commission for transmission to the board; that motion also passed on a voice vote.

What the recommendation contains
The draft resolution asks that the county "retain a water-resources specialist" and includes provisions spelling out hiring and procurement approaches, and a recommended job description describing knowledge, skills and abilities for the position. Committee members said the draft hews closely to language they had used previously in the failed charter amendment, with formatting and phrasing adjusted so the document could be adopted as the committee’s formal recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners.

Advisory committee versus ad hoc committee
Committee members discussed but declined to add a separate freshwater advisory board into the recommendation. Some members said an existing ad hoc committee could serve as an ongoing advisory body if needed, and that creating a new advisory board could complicate the process. The committee agreed to let the Board of County Commissioners decide whether to create a standing advisory body when they consider the recommendation.

Budget timing and next steps
Members noted the county budget process as the practical next gate for the proposal: committee participants said the preliminary county budget is expected in the coming months and that, if the commissioners do not include funding, the committee could resurrect a charter amendment or pursue further steps later in the year. The committee agreed to transmit the resolution to the full Charter Review Commission and to monitor the Board of County Commissioners’ response; members said they would provide follow-up input if requested by the board.

Public participation and documents
No members of the public attended on Zoom during the meeting, and committee members referenced a cover letter and a written letter from Susan Fitch that had been circulated to committee members. Participants said they had exchanged draft language by email during the meeting and that the final formatting would be cleaned up before submission.

Ending
The committee voted to submit the draft resolution to the full Charter Review Commission for transmission to the Board of County Commissioners and agreed to monitor whether the commissioners include the position in the county budget. The committee did not adopt new advisory-board language and left the decision about implementation and oversight to the board.