Lake Sutherland

WAC 173-18-090 Clallam County Streams

Clallam County streams


WAC 173-18-090

No agency filings affecting this section since 2003

Clallam County.

Streams (rivers) Continue reading

WAC 173-20-120 Clallam County lakes

WAC 173-20-120

No agency filings affecting this section since 2003

Lakes coming under purview of chapter 90.58 RCW — Clallam County lakes.

Location Section Name Area


(1) T29N-R14W 20 A/B Wentworth Lk. 53.8 R
(2) T30N-R7W 15-G Aldwell Lk. 320.8 P,R
(3) T30N-R8W 22-Q Sutherland Lk. 360.8 R
(4) T30N-R12W 9-J/K Beaver Lk. 36.3 R
(5) T30N-R13W 35-E Pleasant Lk. 486.0 R
(6) T30N-R14W 16-L Dickey Lk. 527.0 R
(7) T31N-R15W 12-W1/2 Elk Lk. 59.0 R
(8) T31N-R15W 18-E/M Seafield Lk. 22.0 R

[Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.030, 90.58.120 and 90.58.200. 85-09-043 (Order DE 85-05), § 173-20-120, filed 4/15/85; Order DE 76-16, § 173-20-120, filed 5/3/76; Order DE 72-14, § 173-20-120, filed 6/30/72.]


Submitted by Pearl Rains-Hewitt


Found on line 11/08/11

Are you increasing the set back to 50 feet? WHY?


I submit this as my comment to the proposed SED


Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

George C. Rains Sr. Estate

Member SMP Advisory Committee




Like Lake Sutherland

I thought the set back was 35 feet?

Are you increasing the set back to 50 feet? WHY?

Prohibited or discouraged use

Armoring, except when single family residence is in imminent danger.

BY Law there is NO mention of the words” imminent or danger or soft armoring”

IN FACT THE LAW STATES, SHALL PROVIDE FOR METHODS TO achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage.


Is this another WAC overstepping it’s authority and the LAW?

Read on if you are interested



Protection of single family residences


RCW 90.58.100

(6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as

construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection.


The standards shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion.


The standards shall provide a preference for permit

issuance for measures to protect single family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the

proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.

Washington state bureaucracy’s idea of “shoreline management”


Our Elected Officials


 by Pearl Rains-Hewett

Posted 9/28/2011

About 8-10 people from Lake Sutherland attended the Jan. 26, 2011 Focus Group meeting (uninvited by the County).

They had several concerns, large white boats cruising slowly around the lake taking pictures of their homes, docks and property from every angle. When residents asked who they were, they said they were from the State.


They had airplanes overhead going around and around taking  pictures of their homes and property.


They had strangers trespassing and walking all over adjoining upstream property,  throwing white tapes in their only source of drinking water. When asked who they were, they identified themselves as Dept. of Fish and Wild life. (personally involved)


They had concerns about the impending SMP 200′ set back that would make all of their homes nonconforming.


They expressed concern with selective enforcement/retaliation.


I discussed their fear with another person that attended the focus meeting.

These were not just concerned citizens, these were fearful citizens. These people were afraid of what their government was going to do to them.


I made comment  at the next  Commissioners meeting, “When citizens of the United States Of America are afraid of what their government is going to do to them, that is unacceptable to me”.

Call or write to your elected officials?


I did, 3 calls about Lake Sutherland homeowners on Jan 27, 2011, the day after the first Focus Group Meeting.

Who did I call in Olympia and leave messages for?

Steve Theringer (360) 786-7916

Senator James Hargrove (360) 786-7646

Kevin Van DeWege (360) 786-7916

Response to date April 30, 2011….ZERO.


There are 300 homes around Lake Sutherland. The problem they have been facing for several years was a rise of up to 2 feet in the level of the lake. Their docks were under water and their beach front property was flooded. The problem was a log jam in the outlet at  Indian Creek. They tried to remove the jam in small boats with chainsaws, ropes, tugging and pulling to no avail.


It took them a few years to get help from Clallam County, the DOE and WFDW.


I found this on line  WA State RCW 90.24.010 to help  LAKE SUTHERLAND property owners with one of their problems.

I gave copies to a Lake Sutherland homeowner at the public SMP meeting held at the Senior Center and sat in on a group discussion on Lake Sutherland.


RCW 90.24.010

Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions.

Ten or more owners of real property abutting on a lake may petition the superior court of the county in which the lake is situated, for an order to provide for the regulation of the outflow of the lake in order to maintain a certain water level therein. If there are fewer than ten owners, a majority of the owners abutting on a lake may petition the superior court for such an order. The court, after notice to the department of fish and wildlife and a hearing, is authorized to make an order fixing the water level thereof and directing the department of ecology to regulate the outflow therefrom in accordance with the purposes described in the petition. This section shall not apply to any lake or reservoir used for the storage of water for irrigation or other beneficial purposes, or to lakes navigable from the sea.

[1999 c 162 § 1; 1985 c 398 § 28; 1959 c 258 § 1; 1939 c 107 § 2; RRS § 7388-1.]Notes:

     Effective date — 1985 c 398: “Sections 28 through 30 of this act shall take effect January 1, 1986.” [1985 c 398 § 31.]

Lake and beach management districts: Chapter 36.61 RCW.