Shelter Bay considering tapping Tribe for water supply

The Town of La Conner’s decision to install a single 16-inch pipe when it replaces the broken water main along La Conner Whitney Road this year provides excess capacity of 18 million gallons annually beyond what the Shelter Bay Community uses. The Community may decide it doesn’t want water from the Town at all.

Board of Directors President Anne Hays told the Weekly News that its March 2 response to the Town “stated the community is talking with the Swinomish Tribe to provide water from their system, which is much closer to the Community and can tie into our system at a higher location to deliver domestic pressure and flows, as well as, fire flows to the entire community.”

She told the Weekly News “We want to give as much notice as possible when we will switch water supply from the Town to the Tribe, once that determination has been made by the Board of Directors – with the Community’s input. We have given assurances to the town that if and when we have a memorandum of understanding with Tribe, we will notify the Town, and further that we commit to giving at least a year’s notice, if when a date to switch purveyors is determined.”

In a March 12 email to the Weekly News, Hays wrote “Shelter Bay will be sending a letter to the Town of La Conner requesting formal negotiations pursuant to Section 9.3 of our Water Supply agreement.”

A February 22 memorandum from Hays to the Town followed a meeting between the parties that morning. Hays wrote to “confirm my understanding of the take-aways from the meeting.” Her second and third points sought clarification on receiving Town water and payment of costs on the water main replacement. Hays inquiry also stated payments would cover “the actual years it remains on the system, estimated to be between three and five years.”

As the Weekly News reported earlier, throughout February the Town sought an agreement with the Shelter Bay board for Phase I cost-share planning to replace the broken water main. The board did not decide at its February 14 meeting and did not meet repeated requests by the Town to decide by February 28. That day Mayor Ramon Hayes sent a letter to Hays that the Town “will replace the failing water lines with a single, 16” pipe, adequate to serve the needs of the Town and Shelter Bay” and that Shelter Bay’s share of 43 percent would be extended over the term of any debt issued to pay for the project.

He stressed the need to “proceed immediately to safeguard the water supply for all those who rely on the Town’s water system.”

Hays, through the Commu-nity’s lawyer, replied March 2. The Town’s March 6 response, reiterating its position that it was proceeding with the 16-inch line as “the most cost-effective solution,” was signed by Scott Thomas, town administrator and attorney.

Thomas told the Town Council in his administrator’s report at the February 27 town council meeting that Shelter Bay’s infrastructure is not adequate for fire suppression. He explained, “Our agreement with them is on a perpetuity basis and can only be terminated if the Town is unable to supply water. The Town has been providing potable water and has the ability to supply for fire suppression, after a meter size increase.”

Mayor Hayes believes Shelter Bay has an inaccurate analysis of the capacity of the Town to supply water for fire flow. “The issue falls with them, not with the town’s capacity to supply water,” he said. Shelter Bay’s existing internal infrastructure cannot meet the community’s need for fire flow, he said. “The contract states very clearly that if we cannot supply then they can seek an alternative water supply. We are not anywhere near there yet,” he stated. He noted “We have a contract. It is a very good contract. A lot of terms came at their request.”

Shelter Bay has been researching the Swinomish Utility Authority as their water purveyor. In its January 31 town hall meeting, John Koch’s presentation focused on creating capacity to provide fire flow. Fire flow, the ability of a water system to provide a quantity of water for fire-protection purposes in a 30-minute period, in excess of that required for other purposes, is a central concern for Shelter Bay.

In his presentation, Koch emphasized that the Community does not have fire flow capacity and that a primary decision before the board is infrastructure expansion to provide it. He offered a slide stating: “If Yes, the most cost-effective choice is to go with SUA.” Koch is on the Community’s facility committee. He is an environmental engineer with over 40 years of experience in water systems.

Hays referenced the Water Supply Agreement’s Section 9.3, which addresses future improvements. Section 11 defines the term length: “This contract shall remain in force in perpetuity or until such date as the parties shall mutually agree to terminate it.” It seems likely that negotiations initiated by Shelter Bay will address termination.

Hays has expressed concern that the “not-possible threat of the Town terminating our water agreement would unnecessarily spark fear for some in our community.” She stressed that the “Town cannot unilaterally terminate the community’s water supply.”

Shelter Bay’s leadership seems unaware that its consideration of switching to the SUA is a unilateral action toward termination of the agreement.

Mayor Hayes has noted that Shelter Bay’s research into an alternative water purveyor violates the agreement term of “perpetuity.”

Board President Hays, in her email to the Weekly News, repeated, “Shelter Bay has enjoyed a positive and mutually beneficial relationship with the Town of La Conner for decades. We are respectful of the Town’s desire for our commitment regarding our wholesale water needs.”