"No one questioned my loyalty to the president when I was there, but there's a higher loyalty, there's a higher loyalty to the truth, it's a loyalty to the values I was raised upon, which are speaking up, which are making a positive difference."
- Scott McClellan in interview with ABC News White House Correspondent Martha Raddatz
------------------------------------------
What an appropriate and timely subject!
It reminds me of a time, several years ago, when the entire management staff of a company I worked for held a workshop designed to build teamwork and common goals.
One session in particular was an exercise that asked each participant to 'rate' a list several abstract virtues, which included integrity and loyalty among others.
I happened to be seated at a table, right next to the big boss, who took note of the fact that I had rated integrity ahead of loyalty.
He actually disagreed, because he chose to value company loyalty above all else in an employee.
I tried to explain that I felt that loyalty could be blind, that one had to be real careful of where they placed their highest allegiance and priority, that loyalty was important but there are also more important values.
I might as well have saved my breath, particularly to that individual, who happened to be my boss.
And, you know, I still believe integrity is the more valuable and lasting trait, simply because it is so closely connected to truth, upon which anything that is really important ultimately depends.
So, I am not surprised when Scott McClellan -or anyone- has the same epiphany.
Like most people, I only knew of Mr McClellan through the high visibility his office as Press Secretary to the President afforded him.
He was obviously trusted and highly paid to do as he was told.
At some point Scott realized that there were things more important than a job that required his blind and unquestioning subservience to presenting the information -not necessarily factually accurate- that he was given.
He began to feel he was being used and his personal integrity was being compromised in the process.
When the point was reached that the pain of this recognition became greater than the satisfaction of the reflected fame in which he basked, he made the decision to do something different.
While I hope the sales of his book are sufficient to provide him some measure of financial security, I'll bet the load off his conscience is worth far more!
I respect Scott for doing what he did, and for the reasons that were more important to him than blind loyalty.
We all have different circumstances and times in our lives that reveal to us at a gut level what is most important.
When, where and why this happens varies widely, but the main thing is that we reach that point, and recognize it when it comes.
Once it does happen, the courage to take appropriate action is easier to summon.
But, the memories of the pain one experiences will never completely subside.
There will be the residual guilt, the dislocations from former friends and allies, the outright ostracizing by some, the criticism and suspicions of others.
But in the end, things will settle down and a new life will supplant the old.
One constant will be the self satisfaction of resting in the peace of knowing that you did the right thing - for yourself, if no one else.
That alone can salve a lot of wounds.
-----------------------------
Friday, May 30, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Reconveyance & Park Plan: More Feedback & Other Thoughts
This will be a two-part post.
-----------------
First, Dan McShane's additional feedback to 3 critical questions is shown below.
[Again, Dan's comments are in italics and mine are in bold]
On May 27, 2008, at 7:03 PM, Dan McShane wrote:
John Watts has some more questions.
I am a little hesitant to answer them as John has editoralized my last answers saying a few were defensive and only half answers. Not all these questions can be answered completely as they are to be answered through the process of planning the park and reconveyance. I will attempt to answer them or at least provide some points to consider . As before my answers are italics:
John wrote:
For the record, here are three major concerns that have been shared with me recently by both City & County elected officials:
• Loss of revenues from DNR forestry. Even if there is no legal obligation for the County to provide replacement funds, what about moral or practical reasons for doing so? After all, our local Mt Baker School District does rely partially on these funds.
I won't attempt to start a discussion about the morals of providing funding as that would be a bit deep for me. The County is under no obligation to provide revenue to the trusts including Mt Baker School District or Bellingham School District. However, as noted before there is precedent for set aside national forest land and taxes at the federal level. Payment in lue of taxes (PLT) is provided on an annual basis via a complex formula to States and Counties with national forest land. In addition there has been since 2002 the Secure Schools Fund that provides money to timber counties based on another formula. Prior to the secure Schools Fund Act a formula was used for revenue based on past timber sales on national forest land and the fall off of sales due to spotted owl.
If you want to get into the morals of payments or non payments, do some digging into PILT, spotted owl money and the Secure Schools Funding Act. Every year the level of funding for PILT and SSFA is debated in congress. The formulas can be bizarre creating winners and losers. Overall Whatcom County has come out ahead on owl money and SSFA. All that said it is not a huge part of the County budget.
As for the practicality for some sort of payment scheme to the Mt Baker School District. Yes it would be feasible. It is not a huge sum of money, but I would caution that the forest revenue generated to the local schools is subject to some formulas that can be misleading. If I recall correctly the fiscal impact to Mt Baker will be on the order of $20,000 per year, but that is dependent on some changeable factors. It is tricky because a significant portion of the revenue that goes to the local school school districts is subtrated from another payment the schools get from the state (back to morals dictated by funding formulas!)
Some sort of compensation formula could come from the County and I believe there is some leaning toward that kind of arrangement by the administration. I do know that the City is considering that as an option for proving funding for loss revenue due to the landscape plan.
• Conservation easements for lake protection. If the reconveyance is supposed to better protect the lake than current DNR custody, where are guarantees this will in fact be the case? If the reconveyed land is to become a 'Forest Preserve', as claimed, will it be managed in the same manner as, say, the Stimpson Reserve, with mostly careful and passive uses?
The proposal is for a forest reserve park. Likely on the lines of Stimpson reserve or perhaps better. The final park plan is not done but that is the process that is taking place right now. Proponents for lake protection will likely want to weigh heavily in favor of the perk plans with the lowest impact levels.
• Prohibition of logging. Where in the law are the provisions that prohibit logging after reconveyance? It does appear that logging is still allowed in a reconveyed public park. Is that true?
There are no prohibitions from future logging. However, any future logging revenue generation must be distributed to the trusts as under DNR management and the DNR will get its management fee of 25%. (The 25% may be altered as the logging on park land may have higher management costs) The extent of logging would depend on the kind of park. I would anticipate that in some areas commercial thinning or non commercial thinning would be beneficial in some areas. Any thinning or clearing would have to be per a forest park reserve management plan. Similar programs have been taking place on local National Forest Land. As a member of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Resource Advisory Committee, we funded non commercial thinning projects to promote better forest stands in key areas of the forest and there have been a number of commercial thinning projects to do the same. The difference between commercial and non commercial depends on a combination of the size and distribution of the trees to be thinned and access.
Perhaps answers to these questions will be forthcoming soon, before the County's Park Plan is adopted -which should precede the reconveyance.
Does anyone know these answers well enough to dare explain them?
Does seem a bit daring answering John's questions. Try not to editorialize too much John.
----------------------------------
OK, Dan, but this does seem an appropriate place for a few brief comments:
• The estimate of $20K per yer to the Mt Baker School District seems low, and there are also other junior taxing districts to consider in fairness.
• Most of the Stimpson Nature reserve has a Whatcom Land Trust administered conservation easement on it, as do the Canyon Lake Community Forest, and the Olsen Estate and Anderson Properties adjacent or near Stimpson.
It is important that these new proposed park properties also have strict conservation easements on them to insure the uses intended and agreed to are followed - in perpetuity. Of course, this responsibility does not come free since there are ongoing maintenance costs to the WLT for their services in this regard.
• You seem to confirm that trees can/will be cut on the proposed Parks properties, which means that any Parks Plan adopted will need to contain limits on those provisions as part of the conservation easement(s). With these, the new Parks can be expected to benefit future generations, in perpetuity, but without them, any future reconsideration of the reconveyance could undo all -or part- of the public good intended in the first place.
See how the beginnings of a true dialogue can cut down on too much editorializing?
I appreciate Dan McShane's answers and look forward to other productive exchanges in the future.
=========================================
OK, now to Part 2:
I've had more time to reflect on the general topic of public process, and how some basic principles might be applied to the specific policy decisions that will come, regarding the Reconveyance & Park Plan.
GENERAL:
As I have previously stated, the reconveyance can be a very good idea, provided it is structured properly to insure better Reservoir protection than we currently have with DNR management.
To that end, we are all interested in the answers to these questions, which aren't yet fully known.
But, that is exactly why early public dialogue is so important!
I believe others who have expressed similar doubts, will support this basic idea, provided something like the strict principles outlined above are substantially met. This will not be helped if the County truncates due public process and rushes to an ill-conceived commitment that becomes counterproductive to what is trying to be achieved.
So, perhaps a statement of purpose might be drafted that outlines the desired objectives and clearly states the overarching guiding principles to be followed, regardless of what specifics might later evolve. Such a process would be similar to what the City & Port used in the Waterfront Futures Group visioning exercise.
A few ideas and potential elements are suggested as follows, which might readily convert into a list of 'Whereases':
• Whatcom County commits to a process will be deliberative, focused first on facts, and widely publicized to all stakeholders, with meetings televised and draft Park Plan recommendations published well before any final action is undertaken. Such a generic process can be likened to 'Baking A Cake' [see Blog dated 9/2/07]
• Like the old GE slogan, 'the quality goes in before the name goes on.' In the Petroleum & Chemical Industry there is a concept called 'Process Safety Management', which has as its intent the advance avoidance of problems and various scenarios that lead to them, by a very careful design process. The PSM lesson was learned the hard way, when the Union Carbide explosion & disaster happened in India at Bhopal. In resolving the issue of the re-starting the Olympic Pipe Line, the City sought assistance in applying PSM methodology. While the same level of danger would not be expected for Parks in the watershed, a PSM-type thought process would help insure that all contingencies have been considered in advance.
• Due diligence will be critical, much like the considerations of purchasing a home, car or any other major commitment with long-term financial implications. This is bigger, seeks to help protect the health, safety & welfare of citizens and uses public funds.
• There is value in writing things down! Memory can be fleeting and variable. Records are useful, and people like to read things at their own convenience.
• Future adherence to any reconveyance & Parks Plan adopted is essential and needs to be very carefully insured. Thomas Jefferson in his wisdom, offers two very useful observations on this point; 'the earth belongs to the living generation', and 'no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law'. To me, these statements simply state the obvious, that people will try to do what they want or need in their own time, often with little regard for what happened in history or what needs to happen in the future. That's part of human nature. The nearest thing to a perpetual law in the case of reconveyance, is a conservation easement, assigned to an outside third party to administer, like the Whatcom Land Trust.
• Our military currently operates under a controversial halfway measure called 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. That doesn't work very well, but no one seems to want to resolve the issue. While the reconveyance & Park Plan has nothing to do with sexual preference, it does need more certainty!
So, how about a policy like 'Do Ask, Do Tell'? After all, that sort of policy is exactly what will generate sort of healthy and positive dialogue most likely to result in a success. No one has all the answers yet, but questions ought to be encouraged, don't you think?
And, answers should be forthcoming in as timely manner as possible, and failing that at least acknowledged. Maybe this type of dialogue can be accumulated and recorded as a list of FAQs that everyone interested can access? Think that might be efficient?
SPECIFIC:
No firm entries yet, except the concept of relatively benign use on any Parks that are approved, and conservation easements on the preponderance of the forest lands that are reconveyed. Conservation easements to be administered by the Whatcom Land Trust. In many respects, this Reconveyance idea resembles the City's Watershed Preservation & Acquisition Ordinance passed in 2000, which also lacked all specifics at that point, but did contain a clear statement of purpose and some essential guiding principles. Over time, that program has evolved pretty much as intended and achieved some things that would not have been possible without it.
If the Reconveyance & Parks Plans can be developed in a manner similar to that described above, I believe that Whatcom County could legitimately claim it as a potentially powerful management response to the issuance of the DOE's TMDL Study.
While quantitative details are presently lacking, these can be provided once the plan is adopted and implemented.
Finally, in deference to the very substantial efforts undertaken by Conservation Northwest, I think any resulting Reconveyance & Parks Plan deserves to be called something like 'The Lake Whatcom Reservoir FOREST PRESERVE'.
Mitch, you ought to like that one!
----------------------------------
-----------------
First, Dan McShane's additional feedback to 3 critical questions is shown below.
[Again, Dan's comments are in italics and mine are in bold]
On May 27, 2008, at 7:03 PM, Dan McShane wrote:
John Watts has some more questions.
I am a little hesitant to answer them as John has editoralized my last answers saying a few were defensive and only half answers. Not all these questions can be answered completely as they are to be answered through the process of planning the park and reconveyance. I will attempt to answer them or at least provide some points to consider . As before my answers are italics:
John wrote:
For the record, here are three major concerns that have been shared with me recently by both City & County elected officials:
• Loss of revenues from DNR forestry. Even if there is no legal obligation for the County to provide replacement funds, what about moral or practical reasons for doing so? After all, our local Mt Baker School District does rely partially on these funds.
I won't attempt to start a discussion about the morals of providing funding as that would be a bit deep for me. The County is under no obligation to provide revenue to the trusts including Mt Baker School District or Bellingham School District. However, as noted before there is precedent for set aside national forest land and taxes at the federal level. Payment in lue of taxes (PLT) is provided on an annual basis via a complex formula to States and Counties with national forest land. In addition there has been since 2002 the Secure Schools Fund that provides money to timber counties based on another formula. Prior to the secure Schools Fund Act a formula was used for revenue based on past timber sales on national forest land and the fall off of sales due to spotted owl.
If you want to get into the morals of payments or non payments, do some digging into PILT, spotted owl money and the Secure Schools Funding Act. Every year the level of funding for PILT and SSFA is debated in congress. The formulas can be bizarre creating winners and losers. Overall Whatcom County has come out ahead on owl money and SSFA. All that said it is not a huge part of the County budget.
As for the practicality for some sort of payment scheme to the Mt Baker School District. Yes it would be feasible. It is not a huge sum of money, but I would caution that the forest revenue generated to the local schools is subject to some formulas that can be misleading. If I recall correctly the fiscal impact to Mt Baker will be on the order of $20,000 per year, but that is dependent on some changeable factors. It is tricky because a significant portion of the revenue that goes to the local school school districts is subtrated from another payment the schools get from the state (back to morals dictated by funding formulas!)
Some sort of compensation formula could come from the County and I believe there is some leaning toward that kind of arrangement by the administration. I do know that the City is considering that as an option for proving funding for loss revenue due to the landscape plan.
• Conservation easements for lake protection. If the reconveyance is supposed to better protect the lake than current DNR custody, where are guarantees this will in fact be the case? If the reconveyed land is to become a 'Forest Preserve', as claimed, will it be managed in the same manner as, say, the Stimpson Reserve, with mostly careful and passive uses?
The proposal is for a forest reserve park. Likely on the lines of Stimpson reserve or perhaps better. The final park plan is not done but that is the process that is taking place right now. Proponents for lake protection will likely want to weigh heavily in favor of the perk plans with the lowest impact levels.
• Prohibition of logging. Where in the law are the provisions that prohibit logging after reconveyance? It does appear that logging is still allowed in a reconveyed public park. Is that true?
There are no prohibitions from future logging. However, any future logging revenue generation must be distributed to the trusts as under DNR management and the DNR will get its management fee of 25%. (The 25% may be altered as the logging on park land may have higher management costs) The extent of logging would depend on the kind of park. I would anticipate that in some areas commercial thinning or non commercial thinning would be beneficial in some areas. Any thinning or clearing would have to be per a forest park reserve management plan. Similar programs have been taking place on local National Forest Land. As a member of the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie Resource Advisory Committee, we funded non commercial thinning projects to promote better forest stands in key areas of the forest and there have been a number of commercial thinning projects to do the same. The difference between commercial and non commercial depends on a combination of the size and distribution of the trees to be thinned and access.
Perhaps answers to these questions will be forthcoming soon, before the County's Park Plan is adopted -which should precede the reconveyance.
Does anyone know these answers well enough to dare explain them?
Does seem a bit daring answering John's questions. Try not to editorialize too much John.
----------------------------------
OK, Dan, but this does seem an appropriate place for a few brief comments:
• The estimate of $20K per yer to the Mt Baker School District seems low, and there are also other junior taxing districts to consider in fairness.
• Most of the Stimpson Nature reserve has a Whatcom Land Trust administered conservation easement on it, as do the Canyon Lake Community Forest, and the Olsen Estate and Anderson Properties adjacent or near Stimpson.
It is important that these new proposed park properties also have strict conservation easements on them to insure the uses intended and agreed to are followed - in perpetuity. Of course, this responsibility does not come free since there are ongoing maintenance costs to the WLT for their services in this regard.
• You seem to confirm that trees can/will be cut on the proposed Parks properties, which means that any Parks Plan adopted will need to contain limits on those provisions as part of the conservation easement(s). With these, the new Parks can be expected to benefit future generations, in perpetuity, but without them, any future reconsideration of the reconveyance could undo all -or part- of the public good intended in the first place.
See how the beginnings of a true dialogue can cut down on too much editorializing?
I appreciate Dan McShane's answers and look forward to other productive exchanges in the future.
=========================================
OK, now to Part 2:
I've had more time to reflect on the general topic of public process, and how some basic principles might be applied to the specific policy decisions that will come, regarding the Reconveyance & Park Plan.
GENERAL:
As I have previously stated, the reconveyance can be a very good idea, provided it is structured properly to insure better Reservoir protection than we currently have with DNR management.
To that end, we are all interested in the answers to these questions, which aren't yet fully known.
But, that is exactly why early public dialogue is so important!
I believe others who have expressed similar doubts, will support this basic idea, provided something like the strict principles outlined above are substantially met. This will not be helped if the County truncates due public process and rushes to an ill-conceived commitment that becomes counterproductive to what is trying to be achieved.
So, perhaps a statement of purpose might be drafted that outlines the desired objectives and clearly states the overarching guiding principles to be followed, regardless of what specifics might later evolve. Such a process would be similar to what the City & Port used in the Waterfront Futures Group visioning exercise.
A few ideas and potential elements are suggested as follows, which might readily convert into a list of 'Whereases':
• Whatcom County commits to a process will be deliberative, focused first on facts, and widely publicized to all stakeholders, with meetings televised and draft Park Plan recommendations published well before any final action is undertaken. Such a generic process can be likened to 'Baking A Cake' [see Blog dated 9/2/07]
• Like the old GE slogan, 'the quality goes in before the name goes on.' In the Petroleum & Chemical Industry there is a concept called 'Process Safety Management', which has as its intent the advance avoidance of problems and various scenarios that lead to them, by a very careful design process. The PSM lesson was learned the hard way, when the Union Carbide explosion & disaster happened in India at Bhopal. In resolving the issue of the re-starting the Olympic Pipe Line, the City sought assistance in applying PSM methodology. While the same level of danger would not be expected for Parks in the watershed, a PSM-type thought process would help insure that all contingencies have been considered in advance.
• Due diligence will be critical, much like the considerations of purchasing a home, car or any other major commitment with long-term financial implications. This is bigger, seeks to help protect the health, safety & welfare of citizens and uses public funds.
• There is value in writing things down! Memory can be fleeting and variable. Records are useful, and people like to read things at their own convenience.
• Future adherence to any reconveyance & Parks Plan adopted is essential and needs to be very carefully insured. Thomas Jefferson in his wisdom, offers two very useful observations on this point; 'the earth belongs to the living generation', and 'no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law'. To me, these statements simply state the obvious, that people will try to do what they want or need in their own time, often with little regard for what happened in history or what needs to happen in the future. That's part of human nature. The nearest thing to a perpetual law in the case of reconveyance, is a conservation easement, assigned to an outside third party to administer, like the Whatcom Land Trust.
• Our military currently operates under a controversial halfway measure called 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'. That doesn't work very well, but no one seems to want to resolve the issue. While the reconveyance & Park Plan has nothing to do with sexual preference, it does need more certainty!
So, how about a policy like 'Do Ask, Do Tell'? After all, that sort of policy is exactly what will generate sort of healthy and positive dialogue most likely to result in a success. No one has all the answers yet, but questions ought to be encouraged, don't you think?
And, answers should be forthcoming in as timely manner as possible, and failing that at least acknowledged. Maybe this type of dialogue can be accumulated and recorded as a list of FAQs that everyone interested can access? Think that might be efficient?
SPECIFIC:
No firm entries yet, except the concept of relatively benign use on any Parks that are approved, and conservation easements on the preponderance of the forest lands that are reconveyed. Conservation easements to be administered by the Whatcom Land Trust. In many respects, this Reconveyance idea resembles the City's Watershed Preservation & Acquisition Ordinance passed in 2000, which also lacked all specifics at that point, but did contain a clear statement of purpose and some essential guiding principles. Over time, that program has evolved pretty much as intended and achieved some things that would not have been possible without it.
If the Reconveyance & Parks Plans can be developed in a manner similar to that described above, I believe that Whatcom County could legitimately claim it as a potentially powerful management response to the issuance of the DOE's TMDL Study.
While quantitative details are presently lacking, these can be provided once the plan is adopted and implemented.
Finally, in deference to the very substantial efforts undertaken by Conservation Northwest, I think any resulting Reconveyance & Parks Plan deserves to be called something like 'The Lake Whatcom Reservoir FOREST PRESERVE'.
Mitch, you ought to like that one!
----------------------------------
Monday, May 26, 2008
Lake Whatcom: DNR Reconveyance & Park Plan Questions
-----------------------------
"Sometimes it's easier to understand things than it is to figure them out"
-Casey Stengel
Maybe we can add: 'or explain them?'
-----------------------------
It never ceases to amaze me how simple questions that consider the potential down side risks and consequences of public proposals can be so unwelcome! After all, every proposal has its pros & cons which ought to be explored thoroughly before important decisions are made.
Isn't a process including a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis supposed to be valuable?
As one who has served in elected public office, I learned how important it is to seriously listen to every citizen's concern. Without carefully listening to these concerns, how can reasonable responses ever be made?
The more good questions are asked, the more good answers are generated, and that process consistently makes for better results.
So it is with the DNR Reconveyance issue and the related proposal to create an extensive new public park system in the watershed of our municipal water supply.
This reconveyance can ONLY take place if an approved Park Plan is in place.
To date, I haven't seen this Park Plan in any sort of finished form that takes into account the serious concerns already expressed.
I know the County has appointed a 'stakeholders' group to consider the proposal and make recommendations to the Executive; that a presentation to the County Council is planned for July 2008, as well as a Public Hearing.
I also believe that the 10-person 'stakeholders' group appointed by Pete Kremen contains more members that have already expressed support for the idea than those who have questioned it, which is somewhat troubling.
Not that I doubt the sincerity of anyone, or their dedication to the important task they have accepted.
No, my main concern is that the group may be given all of the reasons that support the idea and only few of its drawbacks.
Also, that the time frame assigned simply is too short to generate the kind of information that will truly inform the decisions that are to come soon. Is the deadline for action artificial?
Do those seem like legitimate concerns to you?
But this proposal has some unique characteristics as well; not only is it targeted for the Lake Whatcom watershed, but it also seems to be on an unusually fast-track. with substantial cost implications -often problematic for the County.
Any of these characteristics should scream for caution!
That is why I intend to keep asking questions until the public -and I, as a concerned citizen - receive reasonably complete and factual answers.
And, readers should know, these aren't just my questions. They reflect similar concerns for others as well, including several currently elected officials.
For example, at the meeting Dan McShane's earlier response referenced, six people attended, including 3 current members of either the County or City Councils. While that 1-hour meeting did supply some answers I hadn't heard before, it also left others either unasked, or substantially unanswered.
I mention this in response to yet another 'questioning of my questions' from an employee -Mr Seth Cool- of Conservation Northwest [the entity that seems to have more information available to it than the County does, at least on the reconveyance question].
Since Mr Cool was also present at the 9/14/07, along with Lisa McShane, myself and 3 others, he should know exactly what was discussed, and what was not.
So, with that in mind, you tell me whether recent communication excerpt shown below- from Mr Cool and forwarded to me by others- provides any more useful answers, aside from providing the URL to the Northwest Conservation website which only touts the virtues of a 'Forest Preserve':
Now I might be wrong, but it seems to me that Mr Cool is once again ducking direct questions that he either doesn't know or doesn't want to answer.
Maybe Mr Cool's assignment to Pete's 'stakeholder' advisory group will educate him better about the Park Plan, at which time more concrete answers will hopefully be forthcoming.
One can only hope!
-----------------------------
For the record, here are three major concerns that have been shared with me recently by both City & County elected officials:
Perhaps answers to these questions will be forthcoming soon, before the County's Park Plan is adopted -which should precede the reconveyance.
Does anyone know these answers well enough to dare explain them?
---------------------------------
Some final comments:
1. My BLOGS touching on this subject were published on the following dates, and remain in the active archive:
9/11/07 -October Surprise
9/12/07 -Feedback from 9/11
9/14/07 -Meeting with Lisa McShane
9/21/07 -Pete's announcement
9/25/07 -McShane Campaign announcement
10/4/07 -Mitch's Koolaid
10/19/07 -ICT Concerns with Park Plan
11/4/07 -Spoonerisms
5/9/08 -Unanswered Questions
5/10/08 -Convergence of 3 issues
5/16/08 -Dan McShane's answers
2. The ICT Concerns with the County Parks Plan reported on 10/19/07 are very substantial!
Excerpts from this blog is partially reproduced below:
For those who aren't familiar with the 'ICT', it is the acronym for 'Inter-jurisdictional Coordinating Team', a small group of staff members from both City and County that meets regularly to discuss the Lake Whatcom Management Program [LWMP] and specifically those actions that are being planned and actually worked on.
Under the current LWMP, the County Executive & the Mayor assign people to this duty, most whom have been involved with Reservoir issues for some time.
That does sometimes help institutional memory.
But, ICT discussions are not open to the public, nor are elected officials -other than Exec & Mayor- welcomed.
ICT meeting that occurred sometime in April 2006, when a Draft County Park Plan was made available for review to members of the ICT.
It turns out the ICT met with both Mike McFarland [County Parks Director] and Paul Leuthold [City Parks Director] and discussed its unfavorable evaluation of planning for more intense recreational use of the watershed.
The ICT was assured that both the Whatcom County Regional Park Plan [Lake Whatcom], and the Draft Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan were weighted towards watershed friendly activities and that a public process would accompany any proposal for building facilities or major improvements.
But, the ICT's concerns were not assuaged by these verbal assurances.
Instead, the ICT questioned why such non-compatible uses (as listed below) would even be included in the Park Plan, if they weren't going to be proposed.
------------------
That sounds like a pretty good question to me, that gets right to the heart of the matter!
Because the ICT meetings aren't public, and detailed minutes are not required, there appears to be no written record that can confirm this particular dialogue.
But, members of the ICT do recall both the questions and the responses given.
And, the ICT did develop a summary in May 2006 upon which their comments were based.
Essentially the ICT's comments were lumped in two categories:
1) Proposals the ICT felt should be removed from the Park Plan because they were not compatible with transportation objectives
2) Proposals that increased build-out, stormwater generation, erosion potential, and other high impact land use.
For example park facilities (day lodge probably similar to Samish Park) at the end of North Shore that will become an attraction and increase transportation.
Or, the RV Park option at the South end of Basin 3.
Or, 6 more boat launch ramps
Or, encouragement of retail activities on the lake.
The ICT concluded these are all great ideas for a lake that is primarily a recreation facility.
Anyone would love to have trails and water based facilities for kayaks and canoes, and trails to hike that connect with regional trails.
But someday, we will need to declare that drinking water protection is a much more important undertaking!
And, how well we succeed at achieving that primary goal will determine the future of our community!
The basic irony is that if such a Park does get built and enjoys great success, that very success will also create even bigger challenges as peoople flock here to play in our Water Supply watershed!
These serious concerns remain unacknowledged by the County, in its haste to gain an election Surprise.
------------------
The County Council was briefed [on the Parks Plan] early this year, but that briefing did not include the proposed Lake Whatcom Park.
Yet, the information that was shown to me last month at Conservation Northwest seemed far in excess of what the Council has seen
-----------------------------
"Sometimes it's easier to understand things than it is to figure them out"
-Casey Stengel
Maybe we can add: 'or explain them?'
-----------------------------
It never ceases to amaze me how simple questions that consider the potential down side risks and consequences of public proposals can be so unwelcome! After all, every proposal has its pros & cons which ought to be explored thoroughly before important decisions are made.
Isn't a process including a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis supposed to be valuable?
As one who has served in elected public office, I learned how important it is to seriously listen to every citizen's concern. Without carefully listening to these concerns, how can reasonable responses ever be made?
The more good questions are asked, the more good answers are generated, and that process consistently makes for better results.
So it is with the DNR Reconveyance issue and the related proposal to create an extensive new public park system in the watershed of our municipal water supply.
This reconveyance can ONLY take place if an approved Park Plan is in place.
To date, I haven't seen this Park Plan in any sort of finished form that takes into account the serious concerns already expressed.
I know the County has appointed a 'stakeholders' group to consider the proposal and make recommendations to the Executive; that a presentation to the County Council is planned for July 2008, as well as a Public Hearing.
I also believe that the 10-person 'stakeholders' group appointed by Pete Kremen contains more members that have already expressed support for the idea than those who have questioned it, which is somewhat troubling.
Not that I doubt the sincerity of anyone, or their dedication to the important task they have accepted.
No, my main concern is that the group may be given all of the reasons that support the idea and only few of its drawbacks.
Also, that the time frame assigned simply is too short to generate the kind of information that will truly inform the decisions that are to come soon. Is the deadline for action artificial?
Do those seem like legitimate concerns to you?
But this proposal has some unique characteristics as well; not only is it targeted for the Lake Whatcom watershed, but it also seems to be on an unusually fast-track. with substantial cost implications -often problematic for the County.
Any of these characteristics should scream for caution!
That is why I intend to keep asking questions until the public -and I, as a concerned citizen - receive reasonably complete and factual answers.
And, readers should know, these aren't just my questions. They reflect similar concerns for others as well, including several currently elected officials.
For example, at the meeting Dan McShane's earlier response referenced, six people attended, including 3 current members of either the County or City Councils. While that 1-hour meeting did supply some answers I hadn't heard before, it also left others either unasked, or substantially unanswered.
I mention this in response to yet another 'questioning of my questions' from an employee -Mr Seth Cool- of Conservation Northwest [the entity that seems to have more information available to it than the County does, at least on the reconveyance question].
Since Mr Cool was also present at the 9/14/07, along with Lisa McShane, myself and 3 others, he should know exactly what was discussed, and what was not.
So, with that in mind, you tell me whether recent communication excerpt shown below- from Mr Cool and forwarded to me by others- provides any more useful answers, aside from providing the URL to the Northwest Conservation website which only touts the virtues of a 'Forest Preserve':
I find John Watt’s blog post odd and riddled with long dead rumors – I was personally at a meeting where he and others were briefed about reconveyance last fall and a former city councilman ought to know who to call to get answers.----------------------------
But, since most citizens don’t have John’s experience in tracking down bureaucracy’s paper trail, I’ve put together a couple web pages about reconveyance.
Note the links at the top - The “Frequently Asked Questions” page is a summary, and the “documents and resources” page is full of source document: http://www.conservationnw.org/oldgrowth/lake-whatcom-reconveyance
Now I might be wrong, but it seems to me that Mr Cool is once again ducking direct questions that he either doesn't know or doesn't want to answer.
Maybe Mr Cool's assignment to Pete's 'stakeholder' advisory group will educate him better about the Park Plan, at which time more concrete answers will hopefully be forthcoming.
One can only hope!
-----------------------------
For the record, here are three major concerns that have been shared with me recently by both City & County elected officials:
• Loss of revenues from DNR forestry. Even if there is no legal obligation for the County to provide replacement funds, what about moral or practical reasons for doing so? After all, our local Mt Baker School District does rely partially on these funds.
• Conservation easements for lake protection. If the reconveyance is supposed to better protect the lake than current DNR custody, where are guarantees this will in fact be the case? If the reconveyed land is to become a 'Forest Preserve', as claimed, will it be managed in the same manner as, say, the Stimpson Reserve, with mostly careful and passive uses?
• Prohibition of logging. Where in the law are the provisions that prohibit logging after reconveyance? It does appear that logging is still allowed in a reconveyed public park. Is that true?
Perhaps answers to these questions will be forthcoming soon, before the County's Park Plan is adopted -which should precede the reconveyance.
Does anyone know these answers well enough to dare explain them?
---------------------------------
Some final comments:
1. My BLOGS touching on this subject were published on the following dates, and remain in the active archive:
9/11/07 -October Surprise
9/12/07 -Feedback from 9/11
9/14/07 -Meeting with Lisa McShane
9/21/07 -Pete's announcement
9/25/07 -McShane Campaign announcement
10/4/07 -Mitch's Koolaid
10/19/07 -ICT Concerns with Park Plan
11/4/07 -Spoonerisms
5/9/08 -Unanswered Questions
5/10/08 -Convergence of 3 issues
5/16/08 -Dan McShane's answers
2. The ICT Concerns with the County Parks Plan reported on 10/19/07 are very substantial!
Excerpts from this blog is partially reproduced below:
For those who aren't familiar with the 'ICT', it is the acronym for 'Inter-jurisdictional Coordinating Team', a small group of staff members from both City and County that meets regularly to discuss the Lake Whatcom Management Program [LWMP] and specifically those actions that are being planned and actually worked on.
Under the current LWMP, the County Executive & the Mayor assign people to this duty, most whom have been involved with Reservoir issues for some time.
That does sometimes help institutional memory.
But, ICT discussions are not open to the public, nor are elected officials -other than Exec & Mayor- welcomed.
ICT meeting that occurred sometime in April 2006, when a Draft County Park Plan was made available for review to members of the ICT.
It turns out the ICT met with both Mike McFarland [County Parks Director] and Paul Leuthold [City Parks Director] and discussed its unfavorable evaluation of planning for more intense recreational use of the watershed.
The ICT was assured that both the Whatcom County Regional Park Plan [Lake Whatcom], and the Draft Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan were weighted towards watershed friendly activities and that a public process would accompany any proposal for building facilities or major improvements.
But, the ICT's concerns were not assuaged by these verbal assurances.
Instead, the ICT questioned why such non-compatible uses (as listed below) would even be included in the Park Plan, if they weren't going to be proposed.
------------------
That sounds like a pretty good question to me, that gets right to the heart of the matter!
Because the ICT meetings aren't public, and detailed minutes are not required, there appears to be no written record that can confirm this particular dialogue.
But, members of the ICT do recall both the questions and the responses given.
And, the ICT did develop a summary in May 2006 upon which their comments were based.
Essentially the ICT's comments were lumped in two categories:
1) Proposals the ICT felt should be removed from the Park Plan because they were not compatible with transportation objectives
2) Proposals that increased build-out, stormwater generation, erosion potential, and other high impact land use.
For example park facilities (day lodge probably similar to Samish Park) at the end of North Shore that will become an attraction and increase transportation.
Or, the RV Park option at the South end of Basin 3.
Or, 6 more boat launch ramps
Or, encouragement of retail activities on the lake.
The ICT concluded these are all great ideas for a lake that is primarily a recreation facility.
Anyone would love to have trails and water based facilities for kayaks and canoes, and trails to hike that connect with regional trails.
But someday, we will need to declare that drinking water protection is a much more important undertaking!
And, how well we succeed at achieving that primary goal will determine the future of our community!
The basic irony is that if such a Park does get built and enjoys great success, that very success will also create even bigger challenges as peoople flock here to play in our Water Supply watershed!
These serious concerns remain unacknowledged by the County, in its haste to gain an election Surprise.
------------------
The County Council was briefed [on the Parks Plan] early this year, but that briefing did not include the proposed Lake Whatcom Park.
Yet, the information that was shown to me last month at Conservation Northwest seemed far in excess of what the Council has seen
-----------------------------
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Lake Whatcom: Potential Moratorium Actions
The previous Blog suggested some additional actions that may be considered under Bellingham's Moratorium.
Here are some specific ideas that were left incomplete from the adoption of the Silver Beach Ordinance, better known now as BMC 16.80 -Lake Whatcom Reservoir Regulatory Chapter.
---------------------------------------------
Readers may recall the 28 categories listed below, some of which had multiple IDEAS for consideration.
21 of these IDEAS were 'AGREED TO' by the Task Force.
This summarizes the 30 remaining potential actions that the City could decide to consider again.
Some of this is dated material which may have already been addressed, and the list is probably not as comprehensive as it could become, but it is a starting point that can be built on.
[Note: A complete listing is contained in the Task Force Minutes which appears in my 12/4/07 Blog]
Category 1. SCIENCE (1)
#1- Perhaps the community can now agree that the SCIENCE proves there is a problem!
Category 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION (3)
It has already been AGREED1 that PIE efforts should be expanded, and AGREED2 that they should have a high priority.
#2- Perhaps the community can now also agree that these efforts can have a significant influence in solving watershed problems?
Category 3. MORATORIUM (1)
#3- Now that the TMDL Study has been released, perhaps the community can understand that a moratorium is needed for the purpose of a strong management response to DOE's warning?
Category 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (1)
#4- Perhaps the community will now understand why the Comp Plan needs to have strong policy language on the Reservoir protection issue?
Note that stronger language has already been incorporated into our Comp Plan, but additional strengthening may be desirable.
Category 5. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (1)
#5- Perhaps the ENTIRE Silver Beach neighborhood will now better understand its crucial role in Reservoir protection?
Note that strong efforts to update the Silver Beach NH Plan were undertaken by the Neighborhood Association in 2007, but these were largely thwarted by those still in denial that the Reservoir faces serious challenges that will require the best efforts of all citizens to mitigate.
Neighborhood Plans are also part of the Comprehensive Plan and should represent what is considered important to each neighborhood.
Category 6. DENSITY/MINIMUM LOT SIZE (2)
It has already been AGREED3 that minimum lot size is needed.
#6- Perhaps the community can now consider whether lot consolidations should be allowed.
Category 7. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDRs) (1)
It has already been AGREED4 that TDRs are a useful concept, but implementation has been poor.
Now it is time to make this mechanism work the way it can, by designating sufficient RECEIVING areas.
Category 8. BUILDING SETBACKS & PARKING REQUIREMENTS (2)
It has already been AGREED5 to reduce setbacks.
#7- Tandem parking was also considered and has been subsequently allowed in some instances.
Category 9. PERMITTED/CONDITIONAL USES (4)
It has already been AGREED6 to reduce livestock uses.
#8- Perhaps its time to consider whether to further restrict or expand permitted uses.
#9- Perhaps its time to consider whether to further restrict or expand conditional uses.
#10- Perhaps its time to consider whether to further restrict or expand permitted ADUs.
Category 10. SUBDIVISION CODE (1)
It has already been AGREED7 to allow careful cluster development.
Category 11. STREET STANDARDS (4)
It has already been AGREED8 to allow narrower ROWs on thru streets & cul-de-sacs.
It has already been AGREED9 to allow narrower ROWs on Full Standard streets.
It has already been AGREED10 to allow sidewalks on only one-side of streets.
It has already been AGREED11 to allow narrower sidewalks & the use of pervious materials.
Category 12. OPERATING ORDINANCES, SEPA, CLEARING, GRADING, STORMWATER (4)
It has already been AGREED12 to not allow filling without a permit.
It has already been AGREED13 for single lots to comply with strict stormwater regulations.
#11- Perhaps its time to consider whether more stringent SEPA reviews should be required in the watershed.
#12- Perhaps its time to consider whether to allow clearing in the watershed without a valid building permit.
Category 13. WETLAND & STREAM ORDINANCE (2)
#13- Perhaps its time to consider whether more stringent Wetland and Stream buffers should be used.
#14- Perhaps its time to consider whether more stringent Dock restrictions should be adopted.
Category 14. SHORELINE MASTER PLAN (2)
It has already been AGREED14 that residential shoreline setbacks should be increased where feasible.
#15- Perhaps its time to consider whether more stringent Bulkhead restrictions should be adopted.
Category 15. IMPERVIOUS LIMITS (1)
#16- Perhaps its time to consider whether reduced impervious limits should be adopted, with or without additional requirements.
Category 16. ADDITIONS & REMODELS (2)
#17- Perhaps its time to consider whether new impervious additions or remodels to existing homes that already exceed impervious limits should allowed.
#18- Perhaps its time to consider whether reconstruction be allowed for damage due to fire, regardless of impervious area.
Category 17. PERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS (1)
It has already been AGREED15 that having some limits on non-vegetated, pervious systems is desirable.
Category 18. TRANSFER OF IMPERVIOUS CREDITS (1)
It has already been AGREED16 that having some mechanism to earn additional impervious credits is desirable.
Category 19. FLEXIBLE INCENTIVES (1)
It has already been AGREED17 that having flexible incentives to earn additional impervious credits, while maintaining lake protection goals, is desirable.
Category 20. NATIVE VEGETATION & LANDSCAPING (2)
#19- Perhaps its time to consider whether some native vegetation or landscape requirement for single lots is desirable.
#20- Perhaps its time to consider whether some lawn area limits on single lots is desirable.
Category 21. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT (1)
#21- Perhaps its time to consider whether the use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers should be restricted.
Category 22. SEASONAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS (3)
#22- Perhaps its time to consider whether additional seasonal limits on ground disturbance would be desirable.
#23- Perhaps its time to consider whether the current earthwork exemption area of 500 sq.ft. is desirable.
#24- Perhaps its time to consider whether reconstruction due to damage should be allowed off-season.
Category 23. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES (3)
It has already been AGREED18 that requiring certification to do construction work, even in season, is desirable.
#25- Perhaps its time to consider whether construction practices with little or no probable impact should be permitted off-season.
#26- Perhaps its time to consider whether contractors that complete construction BMP course/certification can work off-season.
Category 24. FEES/ASSESSMENTS (2)
#27- Perhaps its time to consider whether all water users should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed.
#28- Perhaps its time to consider whether stormwater fees should remain on a flat rate per ERU basis.
Category 25. PUBLIC WATERSHED LAND ACQUISITION IN THE WATERSHED (4)
It has already been AGREED19 that that public land acquisition should be either an essential, or a helpful, part of lake watershed management.
It has already been AGREED20 that City money should be used for public land acquisition in the watershed.
It has already been AGREED21 that use of funding from all available sources is desirable.
#29- Perhaps its time to consider purchasing priorities again.
Category 26. ENFORCEMENT (1)
It has already been AGREED22 that enforcement should be firm, focussing on intent, and yield effective results.
Category 27. BENCHMARK/EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS (1)
#30- Perhaps its time to consider establishing better Benchmarks to evaluate the effectiveness of watershed protection efforts.
Category 28. ONGOING ADVISORY/STAKEHOLDER GROUP (1)
It has already been AGREED23 that an ongoing stakeholders group should remain empowered to advise Council on watershed issues.
======================================
All of these ideas will be helpful to some degree, but many will also be controversial and difficult to administer and enforce.
The TMDL Study should provide a good incentive to implement as many new measures as possible.
Other initiatives, like the consolidation of Water & Sewer services in the watershed, the establishment of a Joint County-City Management Team, the creation of new Stormwater entities and funding, the consideration of the DNR Reconveyance of forest lands for parks, promotion of the Watershed Stewards program, water metering, monitoring for fecal coliform at swimming areas, enforcement of watercraft rules, limitations on exempt wells, inspection of septic systems and the like should all be seen as other useful parts of the massive effort needed to preserve the Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
Time is not on our side in this endeavor, and any notion of complacency needs to be firmly ad continuously reckoned with!
Informed citizens MUST be a big part of this effort!
Good luck!
======================================
Here are some specific ideas that were left incomplete from the adoption of the Silver Beach Ordinance, better known now as BMC 16.80 -Lake Whatcom Reservoir Regulatory Chapter.
---------------------------------------------
Readers may recall the 28 categories listed below, some of which had multiple IDEAS for consideration.
21 of these IDEAS were 'AGREED TO' by the Task Force.
This summarizes the 30 remaining potential actions that the City could decide to consider again.
Some of this is dated material which may have already been addressed, and the list is probably not as comprehensive as it could become, but it is a starting point that can be built on.
[Note: A complete listing is contained in the Task Force Minutes which appears in my 12/4/07 Blog]
Category 1. SCIENCE (1)
#1- Perhaps the community can now agree that the SCIENCE proves there is a problem!
Category 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION (3)
It has already been AGREED1 that PIE efforts should be expanded, and AGREED2 that they should have a high priority.
#2- Perhaps the community can now also agree that these efforts can have a significant influence in solving watershed problems?
Category 3. MORATORIUM (1)
#3- Now that the TMDL Study has been released, perhaps the community can understand that a moratorium is needed for the purpose of a strong management response to DOE's warning?
Category 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (1)
#4- Perhaps the community will now understand why the Comp Plan needs to have strong policy language on the Reservoir protection issue?
Note that stronger language has already been incorporated into our Comp Plan, but additional strengthening may be desirable.
Category 5. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (1)
#5- Perhaps the ENTIRE Silver Beach neighborhood will now better understand its crucial role in Reservoir protection?
Note that strong efforts to update the Silver Beach NH Plan were undertaken by the Neighborhood Association in 2007, but these were largely thwarted by those still in denial that the Reservoir faces serious challenges that will require the best efforts of all citizens to mitigate.
Neighborhood Plans are also part of the Comprehensive Plan and should represent what is considered important to each neighborhood.
Category 6. DENSITY/MINIMUM LOT SIZE (2)
It has already been AGREED3 that minimum lot size is needed.
#6- Perhaps the community can now consider whether lot consolidations should be allowed.
Category 7. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDRs) (1)
It has already been AGREED4 that TDRs are a useful concept, but implementation has been poor.
Now it is time to make this mechanism work the way it can, by designating sufficient RECEIVING areas.
Category 8. BUILDING SETBACKS & PARKING REQUIREMENTS (2)
It has already been AGREED5 to reduce setbacks.
#7- Tandem parking was also considered and has been subsequently allowed in some instances.
Category 9. PERMITTED/CONDITIONAL USES (4)
It has already been AGREED6 to reduce livestock uses.
#8- Perhaps its time to consider whether to further restrict or expand permitted uses.
#9- Perhaps its time to consider whether to further restrict or expand conditional uses.
#10- Perhaps its time to consider whether to further restrict or expand permitted ADUs.
Category 10. SUBDIVISION CODE (1)
It has already been AGREED7 to allow careful cluster development.
Category 11. STREET STANDARDS (4)
It has already been AGREED8 to allow narrower ROWs on thru streets & cul-de-sacs.
It has already been AGREED9 to allow narrower ROWs on Full Standard streets.
It has already been AGREED10 to allow sidewalks on only one-side of streets.
It has already been AGREED11 to allow narrower sidewalks & the use of pervious materials.
Category 12. OPERATING ORDINANCES, SEPA, CLEARING, GRADING, STORMWATER (4)
It has already been AGREED12 to not allow filling without a permit.
It has already been AGREED13 for single lots to comply with strict stormwater regulations.
#11- Perhaps its time to consider whether more stringent SEPA reviews should be required in the watershed.
#12- Perhaps its time to consider whether to allow clearing in the watershed without a valid building permit.
Category 13. WETLAND & STREAM ORDINANCE (2)
#13- Perhaps its time to consider whether more stringent Wetland and Stream buffers should be used.
#14- Perhaps its time to consider whether more stringent Dock restrictions should be adopted.
Category 14. SHORELINE MASTER PLAN (2)
It has already been AGREED14 that residential shoreline setbacks should be increased where feasible.
#15- Perhaps its time to consider whether more stringent Bulkhead restrictions should be adopted.
Category 15. IMPERVIOUS LIMITS (1)
#16- Perhaps its time to consider whether reduced impervious limits should be adopted, with or without additional requirements.
Category 16. ADDITIONS & REMODELS (2)
#17- Perhaps its time to consider whether new impervious additions or remodels to existing homes that already exceed impervious limits should allowed.
#18- Perhaps its time to consider whether reconstruction be allowed for damage due to fire, regardless of impervious area.
Category 17. PERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS (1)
It has already been AGREED15 that having some limits on non-vegetated, pervious systems is desirable.
Category 18. TRANSFER OF IMPERVIOUS CREDITS (1)
It has already been AGREED16 that having some mechanism to earn additional impervious credits is desirable.
Category 19. FLEXIBLE INCENTIVES (1)
It has already been AGREED17 that having flexible incentives to earn additional impervious credits, while maintaining lake protection goals, is desirable.
Category 20. NATIVE VEGETATION & LANDSCAPING (2)
#19- Perhaps its time to consider whether some native vegetation or landscape requirement for single lots is desirable.
#20- Perhaps its time to consider whether some lawn area limits on single lots is desirable.
Category 21. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT (1)
#21- Perhaps its time to consider whether the use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers should be restricted.
Category 22. SEASONAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS (3)
#22- Perhaps its time to consider whether additional seasonal limits on ground disturbance would be desirable.
#23- Perhaps its time to consider whether the current earthwork exemption area of 500 sq.ft. is desirable.
#24- Perhaps its time to consider whether reconstruction due to damage should be allowed off-season.
Category 23. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES (3)
It has already been AGREED18 that requiring certification to do construction work, even in season, is desirable.
#25- Perhaps its time to consider whether construction practices with little or no probable impact should be permitted off-season.
#26- Perhaps its time to consider whether contractors that complete construction BMP course/certification can work off-season.
Category 24. FEES/ASSESSMENTS (2)
#27- Perhaps its time to consider whether all water users should pay for stormwater impact remediation in the watershed.
#28- Perhaps its time to consider whether stormwater fees should remain on a flat rate per ERU basis.
Category 25. PUBLIC WATERSHED LAND ACQUISITION IN THE WATERSHED (4)
It has already been AGREED19 that that public land acquisition should be either an essential, or a helpful, part of lake watershed management.
It has already been AGREED20 that City money should be used for public land acquisition in the watershed.
It has already been AGREED21 that use of funding from all available sources is desirable.
#29- Perhaps its time to consider purchasing priorities again.
Category 26. ENFORCEMENT (1)
It has already been AGREED22 that enforcement should be firm, focussing on intent, and yield effective results.
Category 27. BENCHMARK/EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS (1)
#30- Perhaps its time to consider establishing better Benchmarks to evaluate the effectiveness of watershed protection efforts.
Category 28. ONGOING ADVISORY/STAKEHOLDER GROUP (1)
It has already been AGREED23 that an ongoing stakeholders group should remain empowered to advise Council on watershed issues.
======================================
All of these ideas will be helpful to some degree, but many will also be controversial and difficult to administer and enforce.
The TMDL Study should provide a good incentive to implement as many new measures as possible.
Other initiatives, like the consolidation of Water & Sewer services in the watershed, the establishment of a Joint County-City Management Team, the creation of new Stormwater entities and funding, the consideration of the DNR Reconveyance of forest lands for parks, promotion of the Watershed Stewards program, water metering, monitoring for fecal coliform at swimming areas, enforcement of watercraft rules, limitations on exempt wells, inspection of septic systems and the like should all be seen as other useful parts of the massive effort needed to preserve the Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
Time is not on our side in this endeavor, and any notion of complacency needs to be firmly ad continuously reckoned with!
Informed citizens MUST be a big part of this effort!
Good luck!
======================================
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Lake Whatcom: Bellingham's Moratorium
==========================
NOTE: Correction to the estimate of potential build-out, thanks to Rebecca Craven, Policy Analyst for the Whatcom County Council:
==========================
For at least the last 10 years there have been steady calls for Bellingham and Whatcom County to enact some kind of a 'moratorium' to stop more building around Lake Whatcom.
Of course, any action either the City or the County takes can only technically apply to lands under its respective jurisdiction, unless other jurisdictions adopt similar steps voluntarily.
About 2% of this watershed actually falls within City Limits, with Whatcom County having jurisdiction over 96% and Skagit County accounting for the remaining 2%.
Since its Watershed Acquistion Ordinance first took effect in 2001, the City has been able to purchase several critical parcels outside its limits which have increased its overall control to about 5% of the watershed.
Back in 1999, when DOE first placed Lake Whatcom on its 303 (d) list, instead of enacting a moratorium, the City Council fortunately had the sufficient 5 votes to enact an Emergency Interim Ordinance, which had the effect of a temporary moratorium on clearing, grading and development in its portion of the watershed.
Unfortunately, Whatcom County's experience was much more problematic and painful. Its actions, regardless of how well-intended, actually served to exacerbate the development situation before new regulations could go into effect.
Even now, after several extensions, the County's 'temporary' moratorium remains just that -temporary!
In 1999, the City's 'Silver Beach Ordinance' did impose more stringent regulations which addressed 4 critical issues; density, allowed uses, impervious surface limits, and seasonal limits on construction activities that impact naturally vegetated land.
Together, these 4 elements represented then -as they do now- the factors considered most critical in regulating growth that can already -legally- happen.
Were these steps sufficient? That answer has to be 'no'.
But these were the ones that could be taken at the time, and they do represent a good part of the issues which Whatcom County faces as well.
What else could the City have done?
Glad you asked! Here's my take of the answer:
The City's Citizen's Task Force looked hard at how the Silver Beach Ordinance could be strengthened and made more fair and flexible.
In its determinations, some 53 ideas in 28 different categories were identified.
Of these, 23 ideas received unanimous or nearly unanimous support, and were forwarded to staff for incorporation into the final ordinance. In turn, both the Planning Commission and City Council gave the revised ordinance their unanimous approval.
These actions now reside in the Bellingham Municipal Code as Title 16 - Environment; Chapter 16.80 - Lake Whatcom Reservoir Regulatory Chapter.
You can find it on the City's website and read it for yourself.
What was left out of that Ordinance which can now be reconsidered?
Answer: a number of things, most which are also more controversial!
The best examples will likely include those categories and ideas which the 1999 Task Force identified and considered.
For those who don't want to wade through my lengthy blog of 12/4/07, below is a brief synopsis of the 28 different categories and 53 distinct (ideas), 23 of which were incorporated into BMC 16.80.
Additionally, there were others that attracted separate action, like the new Street Standard, Shoreline Management Program and Comprehensive and Neighborhood Plans.
Category 1. SCIENCE (1)
Category 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION (3)
Category 3. MORATORIUM (1)
Category 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (1)
Category 5. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (1)
Category 6. DENSITY/MINIMUM LOT SIZE (2)
Category 7. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDRs) (1)
Category 8. BUILDING SETBACKS & PARKING REQUIREMENTS (2)
Category 9. PERMITTED/CONDITIONAL USES (4)
Category 10. SUBDIVISION CODE (1)
Category 11. STREET STANDARDS (4)
Category 12. OPERATING ORDINANCES, SEPA, CLEARING, GRADING, STORMWATER (4)
Category 13. WETLAND & STREAM ORDINANCE (2)
Category 14. SHORELINE MASTER PLAN (2)
Category 15. IMPERVIOUS LIMITS (1)
Category 16. ADDITIONS & REMODELS (2)
Category 17. PERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS (1)
Category 18. TRANSFER OF IMPERVIOUS CREDITS (1)
Category 19. FLEXIBLE INCENTIVES (1)
Category 20. NATIVE VEGETATION & LANDSCAPING (2)
Category 21. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT (1)
Category 22. SEASONAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS (3)
Category 23. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES (3)
Category 24. FEES/ASSESSMENTS (2)
Category 25. PUBLIC WATERSHED LAND ACQUISITION IN THE WATERSHED (4)
Category 26. ENFORCEMENT (1)
Category 27. BENCHMARK/EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS (1)
Category 28. ONGOING ADVISORY/STAKEHOLDER GROUP (1)
--------------------------------
It might be instructive to recall how truly divisive the word 'moratorium' was in those days.
So, here's the way the Task Force split among the alternatives considered on that issue:
Category 3. MORATORIUM.
(2) A1. There should be a moratorium on virtually all watershed construction forever
(7) B1. There should be a moratorium until a Total Maximum Daily Load study is completed
(2) C1. There should be a moratorium on single family construction until ordinances are revised
(0) D1. There should be a moratorium on subdivisions only; lots of adequate size could be built
(6) E1. No moratorium is necessary, current protection efforts are underway and evolving
CONCLUSION: Split opinion and no action.
Note 7 votes simply put this option off until the TMDL was issued!
That's now, folks.
=================
Also, it might be instructive to analyze exactly what amount and type of new development remains
to be addressed within the City's portion of the watershed.
Here's what the City's Planning Department advises:
"Our estimated residential capacity in the city's portion of the watershed (not including land area that drains into Whatcom Creek) is 132 potential units of which 105 are single lots with the balance on 10 lots that could accommodate more than one unit if maximum development happened.
The numbers are based upon lot size, so the 10 lots contain at least twice the minimum lot size for a single family."
That's somewhat more than I would have guessed since 10 years ago the estimate was about 140 in total, and since that time the minimum buildable lot size has been changed to 13,300 SF for a 2000 SF impervious footprint.
Also, the City has purchased several lots in the vicinity of Silver Beach School, and some homeowners have availed themselves of the provision that additional footprint can be acquired by transferring credits from other lots in this neighborhood.
But, if 132 is the answer, that still represents a good opportunity for up-front mitigation of future potential harmful effects.
By comparison, the most recent number from the County's watershed area is 3208, which might accommodate up to 15,000 more people.
Please explain why the County can't -or won't- do more about that?
After all, the TMDL ought to provide some incentive -and cover- for them, too?
======================
From COB website:
Lake Whatcom Watershed Moratorium
A recent draft report from the WA Department of Ecology and another from Western Washington University have provided additional evidence that the health of Lake Whatcom, the drinking water source for some 91,000 people, remains threatened by various by-products of development in the watershed.
On May 19, the Bellingham City Council approved an emergency ordinance establishing a four-month moratorium on divisions of land and building permits within the Lake Whatcom Watershed. In accordance with State law, the Council will conduct a public hearing on the moratorium within the next 60 days.
Notice of the public hearing will be posted on the City's website and advertised in the local media.
------------------------------------------------------
I invite all those interested to review the former Task Force Minutes posted on 12/4/07, then suggest which ideas can be extended further, and which are now ripe for action.
Quite apart from the characterization I have heard, that this moratorium is mostly symbolic, there are some good things that can now get done to good effect.
Some may prefer to hit home runs than singles and sacrifices, because that's where the quick fame lies.
But the reality of our current situation is that it will take a continuity of selfless team effort to keep 'saving the stick' for the next batter!
If we can't meaningfully use the TMDL issuance to take additional decisive action, when can we do it?
One other thing; it's always easier to eat oatmeal that has already been grown, harvested, processed and cooked by someone else.
Why not learn something and try to avoid re-inventing the same wheel?
It's also easier to point fingers and discount the actions taken by another entity, than to take effective action yourself!
The Silver Beach Ordinance, while imperfect, did blaze a good trail that ought to be followed better than it was.
That is why I've bothered to document the Task Force's work so carefully; because it can provide the solid foundation needed to make continuous progress on preserving the Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
So build on it!
And don't lose sight of what we are trying to accomplish for those who will come after us.
------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Correction to the estimate of potential build-out, thanks to Rebecca Craven, Policy Analyst for the Whatcom County Council:
“One of the projects I’ve been working on with PDS staff is a thorough parcel analysis of potentially developable and partially developed lots in the portion of the watershed under the County’s jurisdiction.
We recently reported our preliminary results to the Council’s Natural Resources Committee.
PDS staff has coordinated its efforts with COB staff, and while their numbers are still slightly different from each other (for reasons I’m happy to explain if you want that much detail), neither staff estimate is close to the 3208 you reference in your blog entry.
The estimates are ~2200 potential units, which at a population density of 2.1 persons per household as used in the COB land supply analysis, works out to a potential population increase of about 4620.”
==========================
For at least the last 10 years there have been steady calls for Bellingham and Whatcom County to enact some kind of a 'moratorium' to stop more building around Lake Whatcom.
Of course, any action either the City or the County takes can only technically apply to lands under its respective jurisdiction, unless other jurisdictions adopt similar steps voluntarily.
About 2% of this watershed actually falls within City Limits, with Whatcom County having jurisdiction over 96% and Skagit County accounting for the remaining 2%.
Since its Watershed Acquistion Ordinance first took effect in 2001, the City has been able to purchase several critical parcels outside its limits which have increased its overall control to about 5% of the watershed.
Back in 1999, when DOE first placed Lake Whatcom on its 303 (d) list, instead of enacting a moratorium, the City Council fortunately had the sufficient 5 votes to enact an Emergency Interim Ordinance, which had the effect of a temporary moratorium on clearing, grading and development in its portion of the watershed.
Unfortunately, Whatcom County's experience was much more problematic and painful. Its actions, regardless of how well-intended, actually served to exacerbate the development situation before new regulations could go into effect.
Even now, after several extensions, the County's 'temporary' moratorium remains just that -temporary!
In 1999, the City's 'Silver Beach Ordinance' did impose more stringent regulations which addressed 4 critical issues; density, allowed uses, impervious surface limits, and seasonal limits on construction activities that impact naturally vegetated land.
Together, these 4 elements represented then -as they do now- the factors considered most critical in regulating growth that can already -legally- happen.
Were these steps sufficient? That answer has to be 'no'.
But these were the ones that could be taken at the time, and they do represent a good part of the issues which Whatcom County faces as well.
What else could the City have done?
Glad you asked! Here's my take of the answer:
The City's Citizen's Task Force looked hard at how the Silver Beach Ordinance could be strengthened and made more fair and flexible.
In its determinations, some 53 ideas in 28 different categories were identified.
Of these, 23 ideas received unanimous or nearly unanimous support, and were forwarded to staff for incorporation into the final ordinance. In turn, both the Planning Commission and City Council gave the revised ordinance their unanimous approval.
These actions now reside in the Bellingham Municipal Code as Title 16 - Environment; Chapter 16.80 - Lake Whatcom Reservoir Regulatory Chapter.
You can find it on the City's website and read it for yourself.
What was left out of that Ordinance which can now be reconsidered?
Answer: a number of things, most which are also more controversial!
The best examples will likely include those categories and ideas which the 1999 Task Force identified and considered.
For those who don't want to wade through my lengthy blog of 12/4/07, below is a brief synopsis of the 28 different categories and 53 distinct (ideas), 23 of which were incorporated into BMC 16.80.
Additionally, there were others that attracted separate action, like the new Street Standard, Shoreline Management Program and Comprehensive and Neighborhood Plans.
Category 1. SCIENCE (1)
Category 2. PUBLIC EDUCATION (3)
Category 3. MORATORIUM (1)
Category 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (1)
Category 5. NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN (1)
Category 6. DENSITY/MINIMUM LOT SIZE (2)
Category 7. TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDRs) (1)
Category 8. BUILDING SETBACKS & PARKING REQUIREMENTS (2)
Category 9. PERMITTED/CONDITIONAL USES (4)
Category 10. SUBDIVISION CODE (1)
Category 11. STREET STANDARDS (4)
Category 12. OPERATING ORDINANCES, SEPA, CLEARING, GRADING, STORMWATER (4)
Category 13. WETLAND & STREAM ORDINANCE (2)
Category 14. SHORELINE MASTER PLAN (2)
Category 15. IMPERVIOUS LIMITS (1)
Category 16. ADDITIONS & REMODELS (2)
Category 17. PERVIOUS SURFACE LIMITS (1)
Category 18. TRANSFER OF IMPERVIOUS CREDITS (1)
Category 19. FLEXIBLE INCENTIVES (1)
Category 20. NATIVE VEGETATION & LANDSCAPING (2)
Category 21. VEGETATION MANAGEMENT (1)
Category 22. SEASONAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS (3)
Category 23. CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES (3)
Category 24. FEES/ASSESSMENTS (2)
Category 25. PUBLIC WATERSHED LAND ACQUISITION IN THE WATERSHED (4)
Category 26. ENFORCEMENT (1)
Category 27. BENCHMARK/EFFECTIVENESS OF ACTIONS (1)
Category 28. ONGOING ADVISORY/STAKEHOLDER GROUP (1)
--------------------------------
It might be instructive to recall how truly divisive the word 'moratorium' was in those days.
So, here's the way the Task Force split among the alternatives considered on that issue:
Category 3. MORATORIUM.
(2) A1. There should be a moratorium on virtually all watershed construction forever
(7) B1. There should be a moratorium until a Total Maximum Daily Load study is completed
(2) C1. There should be a moratorium on single family construction until ordinances are revised
(0) D1. There should be a moratorium on subdivisions only; lots of adequate size could be built
(6) E1. No moratorium is necessary, current protection efforts are underway and evolving
CONCLUSION: Split opinion and no action.
Note 7 votes simply put this option off until the TMDL was issued!
That's now, folks.
=================
Also, it might be instructive to analyze exactly what amount and type of new development remains
to be addressed within the City's portion of the watershed.
Here's what the City's Planning Department advises:
"Our estimated residential capacity in the city's portion of the watershed (not including land area that drains into Whatcom Creek) is 132 potential units of which 105 are single lots with the balance on 10 lots that could accommodate more than one unit if maximum development happened.
The numbers are based upon lot size, so the 10 lots contain at least twice the minimum lot size for a single family."
That's somewhat more than I would have guessed since 10 years ago the estimate was about 140 in total, and since that time the minimum buildable lot size has been changed to 13,300 SF for a 2000 SF impervious footprint.
Also, the City has purchased several lots in the vicinity of Silver Beach School, and some homeowners have availed themselves of the provision that additional footprint can be acquired by transferring credits from other lots in this neighborhood.
But, if 132 is the answer, that still represents a good opportunity for up-front mitigation of future potential harmful effects.
By comparison, the most recent number from the County's watershed area is 3208, which might accommodate up to 15,000 more people.
Please explain why the County can't -or won't- do more about that?
After all, the TMDL ought to provide some incentive -and cover- for them, too?
======================
From COB website:
Lake Whatcom Watershed Moratorium
A recent draft report from the WA Department of Ecology and another from Western Washington University have provided additional evidence that the health of Lake Whatcom, the drinking water source for some 91,000 people, remains threatened by various by-products of development in the watershed.
On May 19, the Bellingham City Council approved an emergency ordinance establishing a four-month moratorium on divisions of land and building permits within the Lake Whatcom Watershed. In accordance with State law, the Council will conduct a public hearing on the moratorium within the next 60 days.
Notice of the public hearing will be posted on the City's website and advertised in the local media.
------------------------------------------------------
I invite all those interested to review the former Task Force Minutes posted on 12/4/07, then suggest which ideas can be extended further, and which are now ripe for action.
Quite apart from the characterization I have heard, that this moratorium is mostly symbolic, there are some good things that can now get done to good effect.
Some may prefer to hit home runs than singles and sacrifices, because that's where the quick fame lies.
But the reality of our current situation is that it will take a continuity of selfless team effort to keep 'saving the stick' for the next batter!
If we can't meaningfully use the TMDL issuance to take additional decisive action, when can we do it?
One other thing; it's always easier to eat oatmeal that has already been grown, harvested, processed and cooked by someone else.
Why not learn something and try to avoid re-inventing the same wheel?
It's also easier to point fingers and discount the actions taken by another entity, than to take effective action yourself!
The Silver Beach Ordinance, while imperfect, did blaze a good trail that ought to be followed better than it was.
That is why I've bothered to document the Task Force's work so carefully; because it can provide the solid foundation needed to make continuous progress on preserving the Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
So build on it!
And don't lose sight of what we are trying to accomplish for those who will come after us.
------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Myanmar: Remind You of Anything?
The tragic situation now playing out in the low-lying areas in the south of what was formerly Burma –now Myanmar- have unfortunate similarities to the Katrina tragedy that inundated and still plagues New Orleans.
In both cases, the humanitarian response of the respective governments involved were far less than what could have been reasonably expected.
No government, no matter how powerful or advanced, can accurately predict or completely counter the vagaries of nature, legally called Force Majeure.
But better efforts ought to have be expected in both cases than what we have seen!
Maybe its not fair to compare these two unfortunate incidents, but they do have similarities that are obvious.
The Bush administration was as totally unprepared for hurricane Katrina as Myanmar was for its disastrous cyclone.
The paranoid ruling junta in Myanmar seems to care much more about denying the obvious and holding onto power than addressing the problem that is seriously harming many thousands of its people.
Likewise, it is no surprise that the Bush administration, which prides itself on the notion that less government –not more- is ideologically and logistically unequipped to handle legitimate emergencies.
Everything being relative, the US is still far better able to respond to such awful tragedies than an impoverished 3rd world country.
But the similarities of incompetent leadership and its unwillingness to respond to legitimate humanitarian emergencies is palpable!
While Bush’s puny and belated response to Katrina far exceeds Myanmar’s response, this is to be expected considering the relative wealth and power of the two countries.
But the US’s parsimony did seem largely attributable to partisan, ideological doctrine that consistently fails to consider every US citizen as important, notwithstanding need.
Isn’t it ironic that the same administration will go to extreme lengths to justify an unnecessary, idiotic war that costs every citizen dearly without their consent, and virtually destroys US viability in the world at a time it has never been so valuable!
Myanmar’s response has been atrocious, but curiously more understandable, because of its abject poverty, isolation and –get this- the basic illegitimacy of its government.
How I hate seeing such an obvious comparison between two countries that ought to be seen in much different lights!
It makes me wonder if it isn’t time to consider mandating simple competency in higher leadership roles.
Of course, in the US this can already be accomplished by the voters – if they paid attention.
In Myanmar –like Iraq- it’s not so simple, and should not be expected to be so.
Despite the inherent difficulties of implementing –and maintaining- competency requirements upon our leaders, maybe it is an idea whose time has come.
For starters we should at least expect more aptitude and less attitude.
After all, we’ve got much to gain and so little to lose!
In both cases, the humanitarian response of the respective governments involved were far less than what could have been reasonably expected.
No government, no matter how powerful or advanced, can accurately predict or completely counter the vagaries of nature, legally called Force Majeure.
But better efforts ought to have be expected in both cases than what we have seen!
Maybe its not fair to compare these two unfortunate incidents, but they do have similarities that are obvious.
The Bush administration was as totally unprepared for hurricane Katrina as Myanmar was for its disastrous cyclone.
The paranoid ruling junta in Myanmar seems to care much more about denying the obvious and holding onto power than addressing the problem that is seriously harming many thousands of its people.
Likewise, it is no surprise that the Bush administration, which prides itself on the notion that less government –not more- is ideologically and logistically unequipped to handle legitimate emergencies.
Everything being relative, the US is still far better able to respond to such awful tragedies than an impoverished 3rd world country.
But the similarities of incompetent leadership and its unwillingness to respond to legitimate humanitarian emergencies is palpable!
While Bush’s puny and belated response to Katrina far exceeds Myanmar’s response, this is to be expected considering the relative wealth and power of the two countries.
But the US’s parsimony did seem largely attributable to partisan, ideological doctrine that consistently fails to consider every US citizen as important, notwithstanding need.
Isn’t it ironic that the same administration will go to extreme lengths to justify an unnecessary, idiotic war that costs every citizen dearly without their consent, and virtually destroys US viability in the world at a time it has never been so valuable!
Myanmar’s response has been atrocious, but curiously more understandable, because of its abject poverty, isolation and –get this- the basic illegitimacy of its government.
How I hate seeing such an obvious comparison between two countries that ought to be seen in much different lights!
It makes me wonder if it isn’t time to consider mandating simple competency in higher leadership roles.
Of course, in the US this can already be accomplished by the voters – if they paid attention.
In Myanmar –like Iraq- it’s not so simple, and should not be expected to be so.
Despite the inherent difficulties of implementing –and maintaining- competency requirements upon our leaders, maybe it is an idea whose time has come.
For starters we should at least expect more aptitude and less attitude.
After all, we’ve got much to gain and so little to lose!
Friday, May 16, 2008
Lake Whatcom: People For Lake Whatcom Meeting & Some Reconveyance Answers
=======================================
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT
The People for Lake Whatcom Coalition (PFLW) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) local grassroots organization formed for the purpose of advocating, educating, and taking action to protect, preserve and clean up Lake Whatcom, the primary drinking water source for our community.
PFLW will sponsor an informal meeting with Dr. Robin Matthews, Director of the Institute for Watershed Studies at Western Washington University to present the latest information on water quality in Lake Whatcom.
Meeting Details:
When: Wednesday May 21st
Time: 6:00 to 8:00 PM
Where: Garden Street Family Center (Brigid Collins Bldg) Conference Room (upstairs)
1231 N. Garden Street
The PFLW Board of Directors cordially invites citizens interested in learning about the current status of Lake Whatcom to attend.
Dr. Matthews will be giving a 30 minute presentation, after which an informal roundtable discussion and question, and answer period will follow.
=======================================
Dialogue on Reconveyance:
Some folks decided to ask former County Councilman Dan McShane if he would respond to the questions I posted earlier.
I'm pleased to say he did respond with the information below.
Some of the answers are either partial or questions in themselves, while other comments seem a little more defensive or personal in nature.
But opening any sort of a more candid dialogue on this subject is essentially a good idea, don't you think?
Dan agreed to my publishing his answers, which are in italics following my questions in bold.
---------------------
I was directed towards questions posted by John Watts on a blog regarding the reconveyance.
While I know this group has supported reconveyance, I thought it might be helpful to provide some answers to John's questions.
A few prefaces before the Q and A.
John indicates that he has not "heard any credible answers to most of the example questions listed below".
I do know John met with Lisa McShane last September. I do not know what his specific questions were then. I would hope he found her answers credible.
Whether he finds mine credible or you the reader of this is beyond my control.
I have a very clear memory of the public comment meeting for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding the Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan.
The overwhelming majority of citizens commented that they preferred no more clear cut harvests in the watershed.
I very specifically recall John Watts making an outstanding plea to choose an alternative that would stop timber harvests on state trust lands in the watershed.
That meeting had a big impact on me.
I and other Landscape Planning Committee members pushed hard to get the protections we could, but it was no where near the level of protection advocated by the overwhelming majority of the public that testified including John Watts.
Shortly after the Landscape Plan was adopted (after Whatcom County filed a law suite to force adoption), the limited protections of the plan were threatened.
One threat was the law suite attempting to strike down the plan filed by Skagit County and the Mount Baker School District with support by other timber counties and the timber industry.
In addition, Conservation Northwest through Freedom of Information requests discovered that the DNR was actively negotiating with a private timber/development company to trade the watershed lands so that the lands would become private land and would not be subject to the Landscape Plan.
The publicity stopped the negotiations.
I felt the Landscape Plan and the protections it provided might have a short shelf life and the Landscape Plan did not go any where near the level of protection our citizens wanted including John Watts.
In February 2006 I approached the County Executive with the idea of reconveyance.
This was not a new idea.
The County had contemplated this very action in the early 1990s, but political climate shifts and personnel shifts in the early to mid 1990s really precluded moving forward at that time.
The best approach was to get DNR on board as the reconveyance would be smoother and better with their help versus objections.
We did not want to blind side them.
The Council approved the budget for this undertaking in October 2006.
Ultimately the DNR agreed to be a cooperative partner in August 2007.
Where we are now is the public process for the park plan and the public process for approval of that plan by Whatcom County and the State Board of Natural Resources.
I hope the answers to the questions helps, and I plead with any of you to ask more if you want to know anything.
Even if you approve of the reconveyance, you should be able to answer questions such as these given that is this group's position to support reconveyance as long as the park plan meets criteria that are protective of the lake.
---------------------------------------
John Watts's stuff: (my answers in italics)
Now that I've figured out how to post a comment on NW Citizen and have the time, I've done so.
These were the comments [#9] I made earlier today on the May 2 article about 'Pete's Park Plan':
John Watts // Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:26 am
Debates on this subject are always good, but before locking into any position a few questions still need to be answered.
So far, I haven't heard credible answers to most of the example questions listed below:
1. Conceding that Parks are certainly fun, won't a large Lake Whatcom Park attract people from all around?
All the lands currently being considered for reconveyance are public lands and the DNR is mandated to further develop recreational activities on public lands.
A bill was passed last state legislative session funding plans for increasing recreational opportunities on state trust lands.
Blanchard Mountain is typical example of attraction to state trust lands.
I for one have frequently taken hikes and ridden my bike on DNR managed land in the watershed and I have a few favorite camp sites on DNR managed land on the Olympic Peninsula when I work over there.
Public access well might be greater under DNR management as an additional 20 miles or more of roads will be added under DNR plan thus potentially making access to larger areas much easier than at present.
Would the impacts of more visitors, their vehicles, boats, horses and dogs be positive for the health of the Reservoir?
This will depend on the specifics of the park plan.
Yes, there may be more visitors to a few limited areas.
But greater vehicle use if more likely under the DNR management with added road miles than under a low impact park plan.
I do not think people will be using boats on the reconvayed land.
Horses and dogs are already definitely an issue on the existing DNR managed land.
I have routinely seen both on my trips up Stewart Mountain.
Just look at what happens with boat trailers every year at Bloedel-Donovan and tell me how that is beneficial.
There won't be any increase boat access from reconveyed land.
Also, wouldn't some clearing, logging and creation of impervious surfaces be directly associated with development of Park facilities?
The level of clearing and park facilities development will depend on the park plan.
The proposed plan is for minimal parking improvements mostly at existing parking areas or at areas outside the watershed.
The level of impervious areas under a low impact forest preserve park will be significantly less than the approximately 30 additional acres of impervious surfaces created under the Landscape Plan by road construction.
Clearing and logging under the landscape plan will greatly exceed clearing and logging in a forest preserve park.
Once again, the DNR under their own recreational management depending on State funding could add recreational facilities in the watershed.
How about more restroom facilities, garbage receptacles and re-fueling stations?
Development by any name is still development, isn't it?
Currently there are no rest room facilities or garbage collection on the DNR managed land that I am aware of.
Gas stations are banned in the County portion of the watershed (there is a grandfathered station in Sudden Valley).
Yes, rest rooms and garbage receptacles are park developments.
2. Is the fact that the DNR continues to chafe at and resist the more stringent 'harvesting' of timber requirements of the Landscape Plan that was so painstakenly worked out over several years -at the UNANIMOUS direction of our State Legislature- sufficient reason for eliminating it?
There is no proposal to eliminate the Landscape Plan by Whatcom County.
No one at the County has ever suggested this and the County has emphatically stated that the landscape Plan stays.
Is this a matter to be simply administratively dismissed and forgotten?
See above.
Does the secrecy and surprise introduction of the so-called 'Reconveyance' Plan suggest complicity with local officials?
I am unsure what complicity action is being suggested here.
If John is suggesting getting rid of the landscape plan, that is not happening.
What secrecy and surprise?
Wouldn't private forestry owners and managers also be glad to see the DNR Landscape Plan gone?
I suppose they would be, but there are actually some significant advantages to public lands being managed for environmental purposes.
Examples would be if spotted owl habitat or marbled murlet habitat increases on public land by not harvesting, the pressure under endangered species listings on private land could be diminished.
3. Can the significant revenues from DNR 'harvesting' [logging] be permanently lost, without the income streams for Schools and other State trusts coming from some other source?
Yes they can be lost.
Under reconveyance, the County is under no obligation to provide revenue.
This is similar to City purchased land in the watershed.
These lands are public and are not taxed.
I ma sure that we would all find it highly objectionable if the City was required to pay taxes to the County and State for City purchased lands in the watershed or for city purchased greenways parks.
Why would the County agree to tax its own park land?
A further note is there already has been lost revenue on these trust lands due to the Landscape Plan.
The DNR has claimed the lost revenue is about 50%.
There has been no obligation to make up these lost revenues.
Is the County willing and able to make up these funds -in perpetuity? If so, what method is intended, and in what amount?
The only reason to do so would be to ease any burden to say perhaps a local school district.
Has the City of Bellingham offered to do this on its park lands?
That said at the federal level there is some precedent under national forest lands under the Secure Schools Act and under the Payment in lue of Taxes (PLT).
Both of these programs are discretionary and are annually debated in congress.
4. In addition to replacing the anticipated LOST revenue from DNR 'harvests', won't the creation, development, operation and maintenance of a large new Park require ADDITIONAL public funding?
Yes parks do need funding. However, there is no obligation to replace the revenue.
How much will be needed and for what purpose?
Estimated cost of the reconveyance per the October 2006 budget was $300,000.
This is for required survey work and minor help with negotiations with the DNR.
I believe that operations and maintenance is estimated at $150,000/year and capitol outlays at similar level subject to variability depending on the overall county park planning priorities.
From where will the County obtain such funding?
Funding sources will vary with a mix of general fund, conservation futures funds and real estate excise tax (REET).
Grants may be possible and inter fund transfers from other agencies are possible.
Will this funding be stable and long-term in nature?
The level of funding needed is well within county budgets and represents a very tiny portion of the County budget. Conservation Futures funds are very stable and REET has a very large reserve at the present time and I do not anticipate it will be greatly impacted.
To what priority would these new funds be assigned?
Priority – too big a question – but Lake Whatcom has been a priority for County spending out of several funds and I would hope that it remains so.
Would new Park funds subtract from the funding needed or available for other purposes, like Lake Whatcom water quality protection?
Not likely, but I am sure some will make that claim.
The park will have no impact on the Flood tax and very minimal impact on the Road fund.
These are the two fund sources used for lake protection efforts.
An argument could be made that it would save lots of money on park acquisition costs as we are getting approximately 7,000 to 8,000 acres at very little cost.
How much would 8,000 acres of watershed land cost to buy from the private land holdings in the watershed?
Can future County Administrations and Councils be expected to continue supporting the Park Plan far into the future?
These lands are required to remain park land.
As to the commitment to a particular park plan, there can be no sure thing.
However, I think some agreements can be asked for to ensure that the park remains a low impact forest reserve park.
This would be a great issue for the Councils to hammer out in an interlocal agreement.
Perhaps some revenue contribution from the City to support forest protection of the watershed in exchange for a commitment from the County limiting the park to a forest preserve type park.
5. What other 'unintended consequences' might occur as a result of the Park Plan moving ahead?
Well, put on your thinking caps, I can't think of any.
But fear of consequences should not kill a forest reserve park in our drinking watershed.
Which properties would be traded and who might gain or lose from such trades?
What about adjacent properties?
The only trades that can take place are between trust lands.
Under the law, there can be no winners or losers.
The trades must be timber value for timber value.
The values must be equal.
Some adjustment can be made for blocking lands together to reduce management costs.
If the Park Plan were to fail for any reason, what would be the fate of the lands involved?
As noted above the land can only be used for park land.
If the County at some future date decides it no longer wants to support a forest preserve park in the watershed, the DNR would take back management of the lands for timber.
Would they revert to DNR, and if so, would the Landscape Plan again apply?
The Landscape plan would apply.
Would they become private forest lands, which are restricted by the Landscape Plan?
No. Unless of course the DNR exchanges the forest board lands out of the watershed.
Remember that the forest board lands in the watershed were obtained by a land exchange in the early 1990s.
==================================================
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT
The People for Lake Whatcom Coalition (PFLW) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) local grassroots organization formed for the purpose of advocating, educating, and taking action to protect, preserve and clean up Lake Whatcom, the primary drinking water source for our community.
PFLW will sponsor an informal meeting with Dr. Robin Matthews, Director of the Institute for Watershed Studies at Western Washington University to present the latest information on water quality in Lake Whatcom.
Meeting Details:
When: Wednesday May 21st
Time: 6:00 to 8:00 PM
Where: Garden Street Family Center (Brigid Collins Bldg) Conference Room (upstairs)
1231 N. Garden Street
The PFLW Board of Directors cordially invites citizens interested in learning about the current status of Lake Whatcom to attend.
Dr. Matthews will be giving a 30 minute presentation, after which an informal roundtable discussion and question, and answer period will follow.
=======================================
Dialogue on Reconveyance:
Some folks decided to ask former County Councilman Dan McShane if he would respond to the questions I posted earlier.
I'm pleased to say he did respond with the information below.
Some of the answers are either partial or questions in themselves, while other comments seem a little more defensive or personal in nature.
But opening any sort of a more candid dialogue on this subject is essentially a good idea, don't you think?
Dan agreed to my publishing his answers, which are in italics following my questions in bold.
---------------------
I was directed towards questions posted by John Watts on a blog regarding the reconveyance.
While I know this group has supported reconveyance, I thought it might be helpful to provide some answers to John's questions.
A few prefaces before the Q and A.
John indicates that he has not "heard any credible answers to most of the example questions listed below".
I do know John met with Lisa McShane last September. I do not know what his specific questions were then. I would hope he found her answers credible.
Whether he finds mine credible or you the reader of this is beyond my control.
I have a very clear memory of the public comment meeting for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding the Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan.
The overwhelming majority of citizens commented that they preferred no more clear cut harvests in the watershed.
I very specifically recall John Watts making an outstanding plea to choose an alternative that would stop timber harvests on state trust lands in the watershed.
That meeting had a big impact on me.
I and other Landscape Planning Committee members pushed hard to get the protections we could, but it was no where near the level of protection advocated by the overwhelming majority of the public that testified including John Watts.
Shortly after the Landscape Plan was adopted (after Whatcom County filed a law suite to force adoption), the limited protections of the plan were threatened.
One threat was the law suite attempting to strike down the plan filed by Skagit County and the Mount Baker School District with support by other timber counties and the timber industry.
In addition, Conservation Northwest through Freedom of Information requests discovered that the DNR was actively negotiating with a private timber/development company to trade the watershed lands so that the lands would become private land and would not be subject to the Landscape Plan.
The publicity stopped the negotiations.
I felt the Landscape Plan and the protections it provided might have a short shelf life and the Landscape Plan did not go any where near the level of protection our citizens wanted including John Watts.
In February 2006 I approached the County Executive with the idea of reconveyance.
This was not a new idea.
The County had contemplated this very action in the early 1990s, but political climate shifts and personnel shifts in the early to mid 1990s really precluded moving forward at that time.
The best approach was to get DNR on board as the reconveyance would be smoother and better with their help versus objections.
We did not want to blind side them.
The Council approved the budget for this undertaking in October 2006.
Ultimately the DNR agreed to be a cooperative partner in August 2007.
Where we are now is the public process for the park plan and the public process for approval of that plan by Whatcom County and the State Board of Natural Resources.
I hope the answers to the questions helps, and I plead with any of you to ask more if you want to know anything.
Even if you approve of the reconveyance, you should be able to answer questions such as these given that is this group's position to support reconveyance as long as the park plan meets criteria that are protective of the lake.
---------------------------------------
John Watts's stuff: (my answers in italics)
Now that I've figured out how to post a comment on NW Citizen and have the time, I've done so.
These were the comments [#9] I made earlier today on the May 2 article about 'Pete's Park Plan':
John Watts // Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:26 am
Debates on this subject are always good, but before locking into any position a few questions still need to be answered.
So far, I haven't heard credible answers to most of the example questions listed below:
1. Conceding that Parks are certainly fun, won't a large Lake Whatcom Park attract people from all around?
All the lands currently being considered for reconveyance are public lands and the DNR is mandated to further develop recreational activities on public lands.
A bill was passed last state legislative session funding plans for increasing recreational opportunities on state trust lands.
Blanchard Mountain is typical example of attraction to state trust lands.
I for one have frequently taken hikes and ridden my bike on DNR managed land in the watershed and I have a few favorite camp sites on DNR managed land on the Olympic Peninsula when I work over there.
Public access well might be greater under DNR management as an additional 20 miles or more of roads will be added under DNR plan thus potentially making access to larger areas much easier than at present.
Would the impacts of more visitors, their vehicles, boats, horses and dogs be positive for the health of the Reservoir?
This will depend on the specifics of the park plan.
Yes, there may be more visitors to a few limited areas.
But greater vehicle use if more likely under the DNR management with added road miles than under a low impact park plan.
I do not think people will be using boats on the reconvayed land.
Horses and dogs are already definitely an issue on the existing DNR managed land.
I have routinely seen both on my trips up Stewart Mountain.
Just look at what happens with boat trailers every year at Bloedel-Donovan and tell me how that is beneficial.
There won't be any increase boat access from reconveyed land.
Also, wouldn't some clearing, logging and creation of impervious surfaces be directly associated with development of Park facilities?
The level of clearing and park facilities development will depend on the park plan.
The proposed plan is for minimal parking improvements mostly at existing parking areas or at areas outside the watershed.
The level of impervious areas under a low impact forest preserve park will be significantly less than the approximately 30 additional acres of impervious surfaces created under the Landscape Plan by road construction.
Clearing and logging under the landscape plan will greatly exceed clearing and logging in a forest preserve park.
Once again, the DNR under their own recreational management depending on State funding could add recreational facilities in the watershed.
How about more restroom facilities, garbage receptacles and re-fueling stations?
Development by any name is still development, isn't it?
Currently there are no rest room facilities or garbage collection on the DNR managed land that I am aware of.
Gas stations are banned in the County portion of the watershed (there is a grandfathered station in Sudden Valley).
Yes, rest rooms and garbage receptacles are park developments.
2. Is the fact that the DNR continues to chafe at and resist the more stringent 'harvesting' of timber requirements of the Landscape Plan that was so painstakenly worked out over several years -at the UNANIMOUS direction of our State Legislature- sufficient reason for eliminating it?
There is no proposal to eliminate the Landscape Plan by Whatcom County.
No one at the County has ever suggested this and the County has emphatically stated that the landscape Plan stays.
Is this a matter to be simply administratively dismissed and forgotten?
See above.
Does the secrecy and surprise introduction of the so-called 'Reconveyance' Plan suggest complicity with local officials?
I am unsure what complicity action is being suggested here.
If John is suggesting getting rid of the landscape plan, that is not happening.
What secrecy and surprise?
Wouldn't private forestry owners and managers also be glad to see the DNR Landscape Plan gone?
I suppose they would be, but there are actually some significant advantages to public lands being managed for environmental purposes.
Examples would be if spotted owl habitat or marbled murlet habitat increases on public land by not harvesting, the pressure under endangered species listings on private land could be diminished.
3. Can the significant revenues from DNR 'harvesting' [logging] be permanently lost, without the income streams for Schools and other State trusts coming from some other source?
Yes they can be lost.
Under reconveyance, the County is under no obligation to provide revenue.
This is similar to City purchased land in the watershed.
These lands are public and are not taxed.
I ma sure that we would all find it highly objectionable if the City was required to pay taxes to the County and State for City purchased lands in the watershed or for city purchased greenways parks.
Why would the County agree to tax its own park land?
A further note is there already has been lost revenue on these trust lands due to the Landscape Plan.
The DNR has claimed the lost revenue is about 50%.
There has been no obligation to make up these lost revenues.
Is the County willing and able to make up these funds -in perpetuity? If so, what method is intended, and in what amount?
The only reason to do so would be to ease any burden to say perhaps a local school district.
Has the City of Bellingham offered to do this on its park lands?
That said at the federal level there is some precedent under national forest lands under the Secure Schools Act and under the Payment in lue of Taxes (PLT).
Both of these programs are discretionary and are annually debated in congress.
4. In addition to replacing the anticipated LOST revenue from DNR 'harvests', won't the creation, development, operation and maintenance of a large new Park require ADDITIONAL public funding?
Yes parks do need funding. However, there is no obligation to replace the revenue.
How much will be needed and for what purpose?
Estimated cost of the reconveyance per the October 2006 budget was $300,000.
This is for required survey work and minor help with negotiations with the DNR.
I believe that operations and maintenance is estimated at $150,000/year and capitol outlays at similar level subject to variability depending on the overall county park planning priorities.
From where will the County obtain such funding?
Funding sources will vary with a mix of general fund, conservation futures funds and real estate excise tax (REET).
Grants may be possible and inter fund transfers from other agencies are possible.
Will this funding be stable and long-term in nature?
The level of funding needed is well within county budgets and represents a very tiny portion of the County budget. Conservation Futures funds are very stable and REET has a very large reserve at the present time and I do not anticipate it will be greatly impacted.
To what priority would these new funds be assigned?
Priority – too big a question – but Lake Whatcom has been a priority for County spending out of several funds and I would hope that it remains so.
Would new Park funds subtract from the funding needed or available for other purposes, like Lake Whatcom water quality protection?
Not likely, but I am sure some will make that claim.
The park will have no impact on the Flood tax and very minimal impact on the Road fund.
These are the two fund sources used for lake protection efforts.
An argument could be made that it would save lots of money on park acquisition costs as we are getting approximately 7,000 to 8,000 acres at very little cost.
How much would 8,000 acres of watershed land cost to buy from the private land holdings in the watershed?
Can future County Administrations and Councils be expected to continue supporting the Park Plan far into the future?
These lands are required to remain park land.
As to the commitment to a particular park plan, there can be no sure thing.
However, I think some agreements can be asked for to ensure that the park remains a low impact forest reserve park.
This would be a great issue for the Councils to hammer out in an interlocal agreement.
Perhaps some revenue contribution from the City to support forest protection of the watershed in exchange for a commitment from the County limiting the park to a forest preserve type park.
5. What other 'unintended consequences' might occur as a result of the Park Plan moving ahead?
Well, put on your thinking caps, I can't think of any.
But fear of consequences should not kill a forest reserve park in our drinking watershed.
Which properties would be traded and who might gain or lose from such trades?
What about adjacent properties?
The only trades that can take place are between trust lands.
Under the law, there can be no winners or losers.
The trades must be timber value for timber value.
The values must be equal.
Some adjustment can be made for blocking lands together to reduce management costs.
If the Park Plan were to fail for any reason, what would be the fate of the lands involved?
As noted above the land can only be used for park land.
If the County at some future date decides it no longer wants to support a forest preserve park in the watershed, the DNR would take back management of the lands for timber.
Would they revert to DNR, and if so, would the Landscape Plan again apply?
The Landscape plan would apply.
Would they become private forest lands, which are restricted by the Landscape Plan?
No. Unless of course the DNR exchanges the forest board lands out of the watershed.
Remember that the forest board lands in the watershed were obtained by a land exchange in the early 1990s.
==================================================
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Important County Water Programs Funding: Decision Alert!
----------------------------------------------------------
The Whatcom County Council will be taking action next Tuesday, May 13th on funding an entire spectrum of water programs that are essential to citizens.
Many of these programs are already legal obligations that must be acted upon by the Council and Administration.
Others represent a range of essential needs, both current and anticipated, which would greatly benefit from prudent action, rather than more expensive -and less effective- postponed action.
The Council is fortunate to have already had extensive briefings on this subject from its well-trained professional staff, in particular the County's Public Works Assistant Director, Jon Hutchings.
Mr. Hutchings has brought new energy and dedication to his duties in summarizing the extensive range of water programs the County has considered or undertaken, prioritizing them and estimating their respective costs over the next 20 years.
As with any program real progress can only be achieved if -and only if- actual funding commitments are made!
Otherwise, all the talk and resources spent in determining what is needed is mainly wasted effort.
But, just trying to describe all of the programs needed and how they would be implemented in a single public session is a challenge, which is why the Council members have already had extensive discussions about why the various programs are needed as well as relevant information about them.
The meeting on Tuesday is basically the decision time for approving the incorporation of anticipated program costs into the County's budget for the next 2 years.
The time is now to call your County officials and ask them to approve water project funding!
----------------------------------------------------------
Below is a synopsis of the six basic options being considered, with each choice containing several distinct programs that together represent a 'LEVEL OF SERVICE' ['LOS].
Each successive LOS progressively adds programs to the previous LOS, until LOS #6 contains all of the water programs considered necessary.
Note, the Level of Service #3 is sufficient to meet the County's strict legal obligations, and as such probably should represent the MINIMUM funding to be approved.
But, there are other programs known to be important, too, and have already been 'approved' without funding.
Many of these have been on the “To Do” list for years, including protecting drinking water, salmon, Lake Whatcom, shellfish, water for farming, and reducing stormwater pollution and flood hazards, among many others.
Other programs may also become mandatory, making it prudent or critical to also consider funding them now.
These are included in LOS #4, #5 and #6.
If the Council should decide to provide funding for ALL of the already 'approved' water projects, they will vote for Level of Service #6.
LOS #6 is what I recommend, but this would likely require 5 Council votes to override any veto by the County Executive.
The higher the LOS, the better! That is the reason citizens can make a difference by contacting County officials and allowing their voices to be heard.
Currently, County expenditures on these water programs is exceeding its revenues, and it is still not meeting its legal obligations.
Unacceptable! This already been allowed to become a problem that must be fixed!
----------------------------------------------------------
Here are basic descriptions of the Level of Service (LOS) options being given to County Council, along with tax implications:
LOS #1 - This level of service actually decreases the amount that would be spent on water programs to help balance the Flood Fund budget which has been spending more than it is bringing in for the past few years (approximately $43/year on a home valued at $300,000).
LOS #2 - This level of service would increase the county-wide Flood Tax by about $14/year on a $300,000 home (total $57/year) to maintain services pretty much at the current level of spending. In other words not moving the hundreds of projects forward or addressing Lake Whatcom.
LOS #3 - At this level of service the County would be able to meet our legal obligations to come into compliance with stormwater and NPDES permits, and start some planning for stormwater outside of the Lake Whatcom watershed. This could be accomplished by creating a Stormwater Utility in areas developed to urban densities outside of the city limits (Mainly around Bellingham and Ferndale) and charging people in those areas $120/year in stormwater fees.
LOS #4 - At this level of service the County would start chipping away at many of the important projects in the existing plans. We would move beyond just legal obligations to start addressing land acquisition to protect water, restoration of shorelines, low impact development regulations, enhanced efforts in shellfish protection districts and marine resource areas, and increase flood hazard reduction projects. This would be accomplished by increasing the county-wide Flood Tax by $33/year over current levels on a $300,000 house (total of $76/year), and charging the $120/ year fee in the new stormwater utility area.
LOS #5 - At this level of service the County would accelerate implementation of all of the above, plus be able to increase culvert replacement for salmon, and support in-stream flow setting activities and monitoring. This would be accomplished by increasing the county-wide Flood Tax by $56/year over current levels on a $300,000 house (total of $99/year), and charging the $120/year fee in the new stormwater utility area.
LOS #6 - At this level of service the County would be able to accomplish most everything in all of the approved plans over the next 20 years. This would be accomplished by increasing the county-wide Flood Tax by $107/year over current levels on a $300,000 house (total of $150/year), and charging the $120/year fee in the new stormwater utility area.
----------------------------------------------------------
As can be seen above, for the County to even meet its legal obligations at almost any LOS, taxes will likely need to be raised.
Of course, some in County government think this idea to be so unpopular, they can't find the courage to risk making that kind of decision.
Instead of exercising their elected duty, they wish to bring the matter to another consolidated 'vote'.
There is nothing wrong with another 'vote', except the Council has already 'voted' to put these projects on the 'TO DO' List, but conveniently forgotten to FUND them!
But, now is when the rubber meets the road, and now is the time some seem very willing to renege on their former 'commitments'.
The County's reluctance to actually fund what has already been considered necessary and prudent presages at least a couple of problems, not the least of which is it could further delay any action on water projects because County budget deadlines are near at hand.
Also, any 'vote' to not adequately increase funding will mean the County won’t even meet its legal obligations, on plans that have already been approved by County Council and have been vetted by the community!
Just to put this in perspective, Whatcom County right now has over 40 'approved' water plans, which include more than 400 'approved' tasks, which would require more than $250 million dollars to implement over the next 20 years!
If the Council does not approve an enhanced level of service in the next few weeks they will not be included in the budget, and the programs will once again become "shelf-art.”
Such an outcome would be irresponsible!
So. be advised! On Tuesday May 12 at 10am, the County Council will meet in Council chambers and be asked to decide on what level of service will be funded.
Please contact your elected County Officials [e-addresses below] and tell them why you care about water issues in Whatcom County and suggest which level of service you support:
County Council Members:
Seth Fleetwood sfleetwo@co.whatcom.wa.us
Ward Nelson lordward@aol.com
Bob Kelly rkelly@co.whatcom.wa.us
Laurie Caskey-Schreiber lcaskeys@co.whatcom.wa.us
Sam Crawford campfam@comcast.net or scrawfor@co.whatcom.wa.us
Carl Weimer cweimer@co.whatcom.wa.us
Barbara Brenner bbrenner@co.whatcom.wa.us
County Executive:
Pete Kremen pkremen@co.whatcom.wa.us
Public Works Assistant Director:
Jon Hutchings JHutchin@co.whatcom.wa.us
----------------------------------------------------------
The Whatcom County Council will be taking action next Tuesday, May 13th on funding an entire spectrum of water programs that are essential to citizens.
Many of these programs are already legal obligations that must be acted upon by the Council and Administration.
Others represent a range of essential needs, both current and anticipated, which would greatly benefit from prudent action, rather than more expensive -and less effective- postponed action.
The Council is fortunate to have already had extensive briefings on this subject from its well-trained professional staff, in particular the County's Public Works Assistant Director, Jon Hutchings.
Mr. Hutchings has brought new energy and dedication to his duties in summarizing the extensive range of water programs the County has considered or undertaken, prioritizing them and estimating their respective costs over the next 20 years.
As with any program real progress can only be achieved if -and only if- actual funding commitments are made!
Otherwise, all the talk and resources spent in determining what is needed is mainly wasted effort.
But, just trying to describe all of the programs needed and how they would be implemented in a single public session is a challenge, which is why the Council members have already had extensive discussions about why the various programs are needed as well as relevant information about them.
The meeting on Tuesday is basically the decision time for approving the incorporation of anticipated program costs into the County's budget for the next 2 years.
The time is now to call your County officials and ask them to approve water project funding!
----------------------------------------------------------
Below is a synopsis of the six basic options being considered, with each choice containing several distinct programs that together represent a 'LEVEL OF SERVICE' ['LOS].
Each successive LOS progressively adds programs to the previous LOS, until LOS #6 contains all of the water programs considered necessary.
Note, the Level of Service #3 is sufficient to meet the County's strict legal obligations, and as such probably should represent the MINIMUM funding to be approved.
But, there are other programs known to be important, too, and have already been 'approved' without funding.
Many of these have been on the “To Do” list for years, including protecting drinking water, salmon, Lake Whatcom, shellfish, water for farming, and reducing stormwater pollution and flood hazards, among many others.
Other programs may also become mandatory, making it prudent or critical to also consider funding them now.
These are included in LOS #4, #5 and #6.
If the Council should decide to provide funding for ALL of the already 'approved' water projects, they will vote for Level of Service #6.
LOS #6 is what I recommend, but this would likely require 5 Council votes to override any veto by the County Executive.
The higher the LOS, the better! That is the reason citizens can make a difference by contacting County officials and allowing their voices to be heard.
Currently, County expenditures on these water programs is exceeding its revenues, and it is still not meeting its legal obligations.
Unacceptable! This already been allowed to become a problem that must be fixed!
----------------------------------------------------------
Here are basic descriptions of the Level of Service (LOS) options being given to County Council, along with tax implications:
LOS #1 - This level of service actually decreases the amount that would be spent on water programs to help balance the Flood Fund budget which has been spending more than it is bringing in for the past few years (approximately $43/year on a home valued at $300,000).
LOS #2 - This level of service would increase the county-wide Flood Tax by about $14/year on a $300,000 home (total $57/year) to maintain services pretty much at the current level of spending. In other words not moving the hundreds of projects forward or addressing Lake Whatcom.
LOS #3 - At this level of service the County would be able to meet our legal obligations to come into compliance with stormwater and NPDES permits, and start some planning for stormwater outside of the Lake Whatcom watershed. This could be accomplished by creating a Stormwater Utility in areas developed to urban densities outside of the city limits (Mainly around Bellingham and Ferndale) and charging people in those areas $120/year in stormwater fees.
LOS #4 - At this level of service the County would start chipping away at many of the important projects in the existing plans. We would move beyond just legal obligations to start addressing land acquisition to protect water, restoration of shorelines, low impact development regulations, enhanced efforts in shellfish protection districts and marine resource areas, and increase flood hazard reduction projects. This would be accomplished by increasing the county-wide Flood Tax by $33/year over current levels on a $300,000 house (total of $76/year), and charging the $120/ year fee in the new stormwater utility area.
LOS #5 - At this level of service the County would accelerate implementation of all of the above, plus be able to increase culvert replacement for salmon, and support in-stream flow setting activities and monitoring. This would be accomplished by increasing the county-wide Flood Tax by $56/year over current levels on a $300,000 house (total of $99/year), and charging the $120/year fee in the new stormwater utility area.
LOS #6 - At this level of service the County would be able to accomplish most everything in all of the approved plans over the next 20 years. This would be accomplished by increasing the county-wide Flood Tax by $107/year over current levels on a $300,000 house (total of $150/year), and charging the $120/year fee in the new stormwater utility area.
----------------------------------------------------------
As can be seen above, for the County to even meet its legal obligations at almost any LOS, taxes will likely need to be raised.
Of course, some in County government think this idea to be so unpopular, they can't find the courage to risk making that kind of decision.
Instead of exercising their elected duty, they wish to bring the matter to another consolidated 'vote'.
There is nothing wrong with another 'vote', except the Council has already 'voted' to put these projects on the 'TO DO' List, but conveniently forgotten to FUND them!
But, now is when the rubber meets the road, and now is the time some seem very willing to renege on their former 'commitments'.
The County's reluctance to actually fund what has already been considered necessary and prudent presages at least a couple of problems, not the least of which is it could further delay any action on water projects because County budget deadlines are near at hand.
Also, any 'vote' to not adequately increase funding will mean the County won’t even meet its legal obligations, on plans that have already been approved by County Council and have been vetted by the community!
Just to put this in perspective, Whatcom County right now has over 40 'approved' water plans, which include more than 400 'approved' tasks, which would require more than $250 million dollars to implement over the next 20 years!
If the Council does not approve an enhanced level of service in the next few weeks they will not be included in the budget, and the programs will once again become "shelf-art.”
Such an outcome would be irresponsible!
So. be advised! On Tuesday May 12 at 10am, the County Council will meet in Council chambers and be asked to decide on what level of service will be funded.
Please contact your elected County Officials [e-addresses below] and tell them why you care about water issues in Whatcom County and suggest which level of service you support:
County Council Members:
Seth Fleetwood sfleetwo@co.whatcom.wa.us
Ward Nelson lordward@aol.com
Bob Kelly rkelly@co.whatcom.wa.us
Laurie Caskey-Schreiber lcaskeys@co.whatcom.wa.us
Sam Crawford campfam@comcast.net or scrawfor@co.whatcom.wa.us
Carl Weimer cweimer@co.whatcom.wa.us
Barbara Brenner bbrenner@co.whatcom.wa.us
County Executive:
Pete Kremen pkremen@co.whatcom.wa.us
Public Works Assistant Director:
Jon Hutchings JHutchin@co.whatcom.wa.us
----------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Lake Whatcom: A Convergence of 3 Issues
Those good folks who have long hoped for actions that might lead to a long-term solution toward preserving our drinking water source now have reason for renewed hope!
That said, while initiatives now under consideration have promise, they are coming forward only after considerable delay during which water degradation has continued at an accelerating pace.
But, often that is the way significant changes come about; after things get discernibly worse and new representatives are elected that reflect widespread community concern.
Three developments now under active consideration have as their focus the protection of our Reservoir.
[To those still in denial, get used to the idea that Lake Whatcom represents the water supply source for half of Whatcom County, and that the name 'Reservoir' fits it by definition]
As someone who has focused on, studied and participated in policies and programs concerned with Lake Whatcom, I strongly welcome each of the three issues which form the subject of this posting, which are:
• The issuance of the Department of Ecology's [DOE] TMDL Study [Total Maximum Daily Load]
• The proposed consolidation of Water & Sewer services between the City of Bellingham [COB] and the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District [LWW&SD]
• The proposed Reconveyance of Department of Natural Resources [DNR] forest lands [over 8,000 acres] to Whatcom County for use in a Public Park Plan.
While none of these issues & proposals represent any sort of 'Silver Bullet', all can -or could- become aids to important steps in the direction of long-term, effective Watershed protection.
-------------------------------------------
Yesterday, I was asked to comment on each of these three issues by an involved citizen, which I did over the phone.
I greatly appreciated that call because it tangibly demonstrated a new wave of interested support for preserving Lake Whatcom using every credible means available.
It is so essential to have more and more citizens aware and involved, as well as to have them interested in the history of recent efforts.
Knowing what works and what doesn't work so well means that 'wheels' don't need to be reinvented so often, and that's working smart.
So, here's a synopsis of my views on each of these 3 subjects - in their overall order of importance:
-------------------------------------------
• DOE TMDL - Believe it! It has taken 10 years for this report to issue, but it does provide a solid scientific backing for taking the essential local actions that will be required. Despite The legal and political cover the TMDL provides, the hard part lies ahead, as it always has. The DOE had up to 15 years to issue the TMDL, so thank goodness it only took them 10! Unfortunately, the explosive new growth during those 10 years in the Lake Whatcom Watershed has greatly exacerbated the situation we must now face. We know that from the monitoring done before and during that period. No one should have the illusion that reducing the Phosphorus load going into Lake Whatcom daily will be easy. It will take time and resources to even slow down and stop even accelerating the rate of pollutants entering the Reservoir via each sub-watershed and stream. After that, there will be more hard work to do in actually reversing the pollutant load. I don't envy those in office this task! That is why concerned citizens are so important. Do not let inertia or delaying tactics make this problem worse! Time is not on our side.
-------------------------------------------
• Consolidation of Water & Sewer Services - I believe this can be a strong step in the right direction. Any analysis of Pros & Cons objectively taken will likely demonstrate substantial economic, environmental and social advantages that benefit the community as a whole. It has taken a long time to arrive at serious consideration of this consolidation, but it seems to be an idea who's time has come. Thanks to the last City elections, we now have a Mayor and Council who are willing to undertake bold new actions that can help protect as well as stabilize service rates fairly. Most Watershed Protection Manuals I've read advocate a single responsibility in charge of these services, especially around a critically valuable and sensitive watershed.
Should this happen, it should not be viewed as a universal panacea, but as a way to gain more reliable services and consistency in offering services, as well as more equity among rate-payers.
-------------------------------------------
• Reconveyance of DNR Forests to Whatcom County for Parks - I still must be convinced that this will be a better idea than what we have now. It sounds good -almost too good to be true! My instincts tell me to be very careful about approving this proposal, despite the vocal proponents - many of whom are quite credible. But, without more clearly communicated factual information to assess, I must remain a skeptic. It seems to me that this proposal may promise more than it can reasonably deliver, and that -at best- threats to Lake Whatcom water quality are no worse than they are now under State DNR control.
The DOE TMDL seems to imply the same conclusion, but maybe I'm wrong about that. This issue has a long history, some of which has been clouded in secrecy -intentionally or unintentionally. That worries me and makes me suspicious of motives.
I have written several blogs on this subject, since first airing it last September as a potential October 'Surprise' tactic during local elections. That tactic undoubtedly initiated my skepticism, and I tended to view the idea as someone's multiplex agenda masquerading as a benefit to Lake Whatcom. Since then, I have obtained more information, but certainly not enough to completely assuage my skepticism.
These constitute the root of my concerns:
1. Costs and their fuzziness, including the substantial loss of DNR revenues from logging
2. Suitability of new uses to be promoted or allowed within the watershed
3. Sustainability issues with County oversight instead of State predictability
4. Unintentional -or hidden- consequences involving land use that may exacerbate the Reservoir's problems
5. Trustworthiness of the County Administration, which continues stonewalling tactics, including stacking an appointed advisory committee with advocates.
6. DNR's real motives, like eliminating the 'Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan'
In short, there are a raft of unanswered questions, which ought to be answered before any version of this proposal is approved.
-------------------------------------------
To sum up:
- The DOE TMDL is critically important as it represents a scientific basis for local governments -and citizens- to make decisions on how to implement changes to development standards and practices, as well as life-style changes necessary to preserve the water quality in our Municipal Water Supply Reservoir.
- The consolidation of water & sewer services within the Lake Whatcom Reservoir represents a very good idea, with multiple potential benefits to citizens and rate-payers alike, that will accrue far into the future.
- The DNR Reconveyance Scheme carries the promise of more watershed protection, but not the certainty of it. Considerably more up-front due diligence is required before this Parks Plan is ripe for approval.
From this observer's present standpoint, the BEST watershed protection we can expect from this proposal is roughly equivalent to what we have now!
What this says to me is that there must be other powerful motivations for this to happen besides protecting Lake Whatcom.
Sorry, but Missouri Mule attitudes can be valuable at times.
Just 'show me'!
-------------------------------------------
That said, while initiatives now under consideration have promise, they are coming forward only after considerable delay during which water degradation has continued at an accelerating pace.
But, often that is the way significant changes come about; after things get discernibly worse and new representatives are elected that reflect widespread community concern.
Three developments now under active consideration have as their focus the protection of our Reservoir.
[To those still in denial, get used to the idea that Lake Whatcom represents the water supply source for half of Whatcom County, and that the name 'Reservoir' fits it by definition]
As someone who has focused on, studied and participated in policies and programs concerned with Lake Whatcom, I strongly welcome each of the three issues which form the subject of this posting, which are:
• The issuance of the Department of Ecology's [DOE] TMDL Study [Total Maximum Daily Load]
• The proposed consolidation of Water & Sewer services between the City of Bellingham [COB] and the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District [LWW&SD]
• The proposed Reconveyance of Department of Natural Resources [DNR] forest lands [over 8,000 acres] to Whatcom County for use in a Public Park Plan.
While none of these issues & proposals represent any sort of 'Silver Bullet', all can -or could- become aids to important steps in the direction of long-term, effective Watershed protection.
-------------------------------------------
Yesterday, I was asked to comment on each of these three issues by an involved citizen, which I did over the phone.
I greatly appreciated that call because it tangibly demonstrated a new wave of interested support for preserving Lake Whatcom using every credible means available.
It is so essential to have more and more citizens aware and involved, as well as to have them interested in the history of recent efforts.
Knowing what works and what doesn't work so well means that 'wheels' don't need to be reinvented so often, and that's working smart.
So, here's a synopsis of my views on each of these 3 subjects - in their overall order of importance:
-------------------------------------------
• DOE TMDL - Believe it! It has taken 10 years for this report to issue, but it does provide a solid scientific backing for taking the essential local actions that will be required. Despite The legal and political cover the TMDL provides, the hard part lies ahead, as it always has. The DOE had up to 15 years to issue the TMDL, so thank goodness it only took them 10! Unfortunately, the explosive new growth during those 10 years in the Lake Whatcom Watershed has greatly exacerbated the situation we must now face. We know that from the monitoring done before and during that period. No one should have the illusion that reducing the Phosphorus load going into Lake Whatcom daily will be easy. It will take time and resources to even slow down and stop even accelerating the rate of pollutants entering the Reservoir via each sub-watershed and stream. After that, there will be more hard work to do in actually reversing the pollutant load. I don't envy those in office this task! That is why concerned citizens are so important. Do not let inertia or delaying tactics make this problem worse! Time is not on our side.
-------------------------------------------
• Consolidation of Water & Sewer Services - I believe this can be a strong step in the right direction. Any analysis of Pros & Cons objectively taken will likely demonstrate substantial economic, environmental and social advantages that benefit the community as a whole. It has taken a long time to arrive at serious consideration of this consolidation, but it seems to be an idea who's time has come. Thanks to the last City elections, we now have a Mayor and Council who are willing to undertake bold new actions that can help protect as well as stabilize service rates fairly. Most Watershed Protection Manuals I've read advocate a single responsibility in charge of these services, especially around a critically valuable and sensitive watershed.
Should this happen, it should not be viewed as a universal panacea, but as a way to gain more reliable services and consistency in offering services, as well as more equity among rate-payers.
-------------------------------------------
• Reconveyance of DNR Forests to Whatcom County for Parks - I still must be convinced that this will be a better idea than what we have now. It sounds good -almost too good to be true! My instincts tell me to be very careful about approving this proposal, despite the vocal proponents - many of whom are quite credible. But, without more clearly communicated factual information to assess, I must remain a skeptic. It seems to me that this proposal may promise more than it can reasonably deliver, and that -at best- threats to Lake Whatcom water quality are no worse than they are now under State DNR control.
The DOE TMDL seems to imply the same conclusion, but maybe I'm wrong about that. This issue has a long history, some of which has been clouded in secrecy -intentionally or unintentionally. That worries me and makes me suspicious of motives.
I have written several blogs on this subject, since first airing it last September as a potential October 'Surprise' tactic during local elections. That tactic undoubtedly initiated my skepticism, and I tended to view the idea as someone's multiplex agenda masquerading as a benefit to Lake Whatcom. Since then, I have obtained more information, but certainly not enough to completely assuage my skepticism.
These constitute the root of my concerns:
1. Costs and their fuzziness, including the substantial loss of DNR revenues from logging
2. Suitability of new uses to be promoted or allowed within the watershed
3. Sustainability issues with County oversight instead of State predictability
4. Unintentional -or hidden- consequences involving land use that may exacerbate the Reservoir's problems
5. Trustworthiness of the County Administration, which continues stonewalling tactics, including stacking an appointed advisory committee with advocates.
6. DNR's real motives, like eliminating the 'Lake Whatcom Landscape Plan'
In short, there are a raft of unanswered questions, which ought to be answered before any version of this proposal is approved.
-------------------------------------------
To sum up:
- The DOE TMDL is critically important as it represents a scientific basis for local governments -and citizens- to make decisions on how to implement changes to development standards and practices, as well as life-style changes necessary to preserve the water quality in our Municipal Water Supply Reservoir.
- The consolidation of water & sewer services within the Lake Whatcom Reservoir represents a very good idea, with multiple potential benefits to citizens and rate-payers alike, that will accrue far into the future.
- The DNR Reconveyance Scheme carries the promise of more watershed protection, but not the certainty of it. Considerably more up-front due diligence is required before this Parks Plan is ripe for approval.
From this observer's present standpoint, the BEST watershed protection we can expect from this proposal is roughly equivalent to what we have now!
What this says to me is that there must be other powerful motivations for this to happen besides protecting Lake Whatcom.
Sorry, but Missouri Mule attitudes can be valuable at times.
Just 'show me'!
-------------------------------------------
Friday, May 9, 2008
Lake Whatcom: Reconveyance & Park Plan -A Few Unanswered Questions
---------------------------------
Now that I've figured out how to post a comment on NW Citizen and have the time, I've done so.
These were the comments [#9] I made earlier today on the May 2 article about 'Pete's Park Plan':
John Watts // Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:26 am
Debates on this subject are always good, but before locking into any position a few questions still need to be answered.
So far, I haven’t heard credible answers to most of the example questions listed below:
1. Conceding that Parks are certainly fun, won’t a large Lake Whatcom Park attract people from all around?
Would the impacts of more visitors, their vehicles, boats, horses and dogs be positive for the health of the Reservoir?
Just look at what happens with boat trailers every year at Bloedel-Donovan and tell me how that is beneficial.
Also, wouldn’t some clearing, logging and creation of impervious surfaces be directly associated with development of Park facilities?
How about more restroom facilities, garbage receptacles and re-fueling stations?
Development by any name is still development, isn’t it?
2. Is the fact that the DNR continues to chafe at and resist the more stringent ‘harvesting’ of timber requirements of the Landscape Plan that was so painstakenly worked out over several years -at the UNANIMOUS direction of our State Legislature- sufficient reason for eliminating it?
Is this a matter to be simply administratively dismissed and forgotten?
Does the secrecy and surprise introduction of the so-called ‘Reconveyance’ Plan suggest complicity with local officials?
Wouldn’t private forestry owners and managers also be glad to see the DNR Landscape Plan gone?
3. Can the significant revenues from DNR ‘harvesting’ [logging] be permanently lost, without the income streams for Schools and other State trusts coming from some other source?
Is the County willing and able to make up these funds -in perpetuity? If so, what method is intended, and in what amount?
4. In addition to replacing the anticipated LOST revenue from DNR ‘harvests’, won’t the creation, development, operation and maintenance of a large new Park require ADDITIONAL public funding?
How much will be needed and for what purpose?
From where will the County obtain such funding?
Will this funding be stable and long-term in nature?
To what priority would these new funds be assigned?
Would new Park funds subtract from the funding needed or available for other purposes, like Lake Whatcom water quality protection?
Can future County Administrations and Councils be expected to continue supporting the Park Plan far into the future?
5. What other ‘unintended consequences’ might occur as a result of the Park Plan moving ahead?
Which properties would be traded and who might gain or lose from such trades?
What about adjacent properties?
If the Park Plan were to fail for any reason, what would be the fate of the lands involved?
Would they revert to DNR, and if so, would the Landscape Plan again apply?
Would they become private forest lands, which are restricted by the Landscape Plan?
----------------
Of course, the answers to all of these questions -and there are likely more to ask- cannot now be known with quantitative certainty.
But many of them are known qualitatively!
Before embarking on a costly, poorly planned and thought out scheme like this, wouldn’t it be prudent to consider getting the best answers possible to these questions?
Like old Ben Franklin said, ‘a stitch in time saves nine’.
Now that I've figured out how to post a comment on NW Citizen and have the time, I've done so.
These were the comments [#9] I made earlier today on the May 2 article about 'Pete's Park Plan':
John Watts // Fri, May 09, 2008, 11:26 am
Debates on this subject are always good, but before locking into any position a few questions still need to be answered.
So far, I haven’t heard credible answers to most of the example questions listed below:
1. Conceding that Parks are certainly fun, won’t a large Lake Whatcom Park attract people from all around?
Would the impacts of more visitors, their vehicles, boats, horses and dogs be positive for the health of the Reservoir?
Just look at what happens with boat trailers every year at Bloedel-Donovan and tell me how that is beneficial.
Also, wouldn’t some clearing, logging and creation of impervious surfaces be directly associated with development of Park facilities?
How about more restroom facilities, garbage receptacles and re-fueling stations?
Development by any name is still development, isn’t it?
2. Is the fact that the DNR continues to chafe at and resist the more stringent ‘harvesting’ of timber requirements of the Landscape Plan that was so painstakenly worked out over several years -at the UNANIMOUS direction of our State Legislature- sufficient reason for eliminating it?
Is this a matter to be simply administratively dismissed and forgotten?
Does the secrecy and surprise introduction of the so-called ‘Reconveyance’ Plan suggest complicity with local officials?
Wouldn’t private forestry owners and managers also be glad to see the DNR Landscape Plan gone?
3. Can the significant revenues from DNR ‘harvesting’ [logging] be permanently lost, without the income streams for Schools and other State trusts coming from some other source?
Is the County willing and able to make up these funds -in perpetuity? If so, what method is intended, and in what amount?
4. In addition to replacing the anticipated LOST revenue from DNR ‘harvests’, won’t the creation, development, operation and maintenance of a large new Park require ADDITIONAL public funding?
How much will be needed and for what purpose?
From where will the County obtain such funding?
Will this funding be stable and long-term in nature?
To what priority would these new funds be assigned?
Would new Park funds subtract from the funding needed or available for other purposes, like Lake Whatcom water quality protection?
Can future County Administrations and Councils be expected to continue supporting the Park Plan far into the future?
5. What other ‘unintended consequences’ might occur as a result of the Park Plan moving ahead?
Which properties would be traded and who might gain or lose from such trades?
What about adjacent properties?
If the Park Plan were to fail for any reason, what would be the fate of the lands involved?
Would they revert to DNR, and if so, would the Landscape Plan again apply?
Would they become private forest lands, which are restricted by the Landscape Plan?
----------------
Of course, the answers to all of these questions -and there are likely more to ask- cannot now be known with quantitative certainty.
But many of them are known qualitatively!
Before embarking on a costly, poorly planned and thought out scheme like this, wouldn’t it be prudent to consider getting the best answers possible to these questions?
Like old Ben Franklin said, ‘a stitch in time saves nine’.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
Our remaining three Presidential candidates seem to be playing out another 'mexican standoff', just like the Spaghetti Western of 1966 fame. That film depicted a violent chaos as three tough hombres fought it out in seeking a fortune in Confederate gold. The 'il buono' was Blondie, played by Clint Eastwood. 'Il brutto' was played by Lee Van Cleef, as Angel Eyes. Eli Wallach played Tuco, the 'il cattivo' character. Today, those roles are being filled by Obama, Clinton and McCain, respectively.
But, this particular Presidential Campaign has persisted way longer than any Spaghetti Western! It's almost as if it has a life of its own -more like a long running series, like 'Gunsmoke'! In many respects, that’s not all bad. Issues have been discussed, voters have been inspired and candidates have revealed their personalities, styles and staying power. Those things are inherently good in nature for a democracy, warts and all.
All of this bodes well for us not getting another bush-league President, which if it happened, might well signal the great American experiment has peaked and is accelerating on a very slippery slope downward.
The idea of dynastic succession ought to be outlawed in a country that owes its existence to a loathing of tyranny imposed by those more interested in their own power trips than what is good for all citizens over the long term. But freedom is funny that way! We can choose to fall back into the very rut we were lucky to escape.
The pundits who fret and jawbone over the prolonged uncertainty of who will represent the Democrats need to get a life. Instead, they need to examine and heed what the increasingly sleepy, sheep-like public is now expressing; it's need for a real change! The American public -and maybe the World- needs hope that some things that desperately need change actually have a chance of changing. Like the mess Washington, DC has become. Like maybe valuing the truth in all things governmental, despite the Supreme Court’s decision that its OK to lie and stretch credibility if one is just acting as a political animal?
The ‘media’ -necessary as it is- has also become a big part of the problem. How tiresome to see competing ideologies and propaganda touted by fat-cat owned stations using the public’s airways!
How deceiving to read, see or hear supposed knowledgeable accounts from writers, talking heads and announcers who are being controlled like puppets by unseen people and forces we don’t know. I’m sick and tired of it, and I think many folks feel the same way.
As a country, we have continually let this stuff happen to us, until remedies seem almost impossible to expect. I say ‘almost’ because there is still some hope; but this depends on the public getting behind a leader who inspires them, is credible and willing to work hard despite the difficulties certain to come with the territory. Of the three Presidential candidates now left standing, Barack Obama is the one that clearly stands out as a potentially very effective agent of the type of change we need as a society.
I haven’t always felt that way, and neither have a boatload of people I know. Obama was just another candidate among many, a real dark horse in many –maybe most- people’s assessment. But he kept on plugging, evoking a growing support through his thoughtful and reasonable responses to the battery of questions thrown at him. He had to be considered an underdog in this race because of his relative newness on the national stage, his race, his lack of strong political base, and particularly his tendency toward a calm coolness whether under fire or trying to make a point. Every one knows that passion is valuable in any candidate, and that emotions are usually triggered by passions way before rational thought is reached. That’s the amazing thing about Obama, he keeps to the dialogue thing, you know, what the Dalai Lama talks about. He’s not without passion, but he seems to be able to translate it into a consistent conduct that people come to respect and value. He’s not flashy, but he is charismatic, and that is a trait most folks consistently like.
The North Carolina and Indiana Democratic Primary results from yesterday again favored Obama, but did not put him over the top. That will require a continuation of campaigning and the attraction of sufficient 'super-delegates' to get him nominated. That will likely happen despite all of the Clinton camp's tactics, which carry the real danger of 'poisoning the well' for the Demos in the November Elections. I certainly don't blame Billary for campaigning hard, but I do mind the negative, nasty and 'do or say anything it takes to win' conduct. She and Bill wanted this so bad that they nominated themselves for the 'il butto' role! And spent $6.4 million of their own money in the process? Easy come, easy go.
Bill Clinton used to say 'we can do better'. He was right, he can! I voted for him twice, but do not want to see him back in the White House in any role. The last time he chose to lead his 'parallel life' there he got himself impeached for lying about it. Sorry Hillary, but Bill's already served his time and doesn't deserve to occupy the White House again.
It is ironic that this election has brought forth both our first female and our first black candidates for President!
Which one is acting more Presidential?
Which one understands the true tenets of leadership the best?
Which one balances realism and optimism better?
Which is more consistently credible?
Which one offers the more thoughtful and honest questions and answers?
Which one tends to prefer passionate emotions over rational thought?
Our country is a far more complex place than it was over 200 years ago, and so is the world.
Yet, we the people still get to decide whom will become our top elected leader, indeed the world's!
There is no scripted set of qualifications other than what is clearly spelled out in our Constitution. Maybe there ought to be, but that's something that Congress and the American people must decide. For those who think the Constitution is carved in stone, think again! Only the basic premises are inviolate. That's why Amendments have been added -and subtracted. That's why we adopted a Bill of Rights. Things change over time and modifications are not only in order, but necessary.
-------------------------------------
It's time for Angel Eyes to exit, stage left.
Soon, it will be just cool Blondie against hot-tempered Tuco.
In that match, I'm picking Blondie, just like in the Spaghetti Western!
=======================================
Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.
- George Patton
A good leader takes a little more than his share of the blame, a little less than his share of the credit.
- Arnold H. Glasgow
Men make history, and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skilful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.
- Harry S. Truman
Leadership is generally defined as the capacity to make things happen that would otherwise not happen.
- Thomas E. Cronin
There are many elements to a campaign. Leadership is number one. Everything else is number two.
- Bertolt Brecht
Our world is very dishonest, and our leaders encourage dishonesty by setting bad examples- by lying, being corrupt, and using political sleight of hand to sustain power.
- Stuart Wilde
A leader, once convinced that a particular course of action is the right one, must be undaunted when the going gets tough.
- Ronald Reagan
People ask the difference between a leader and a boss. The leader leads, and the boss drives.
- Theodore Roosevelt
Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other.
- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on a section gang, a football field, in an army, or in an office.
- Dwight David Eisenhower
Leadership is based on inspiration, not domination; on cooperation, not intimidation.
- William Arthur Ward
Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.
- Peter F. Drucker
No institution can possibly survive if it needs geniuses or supermen to manage it. It must be organized in such a way as to be able to get along under a leadership composed of average human beings.
- Peter F. Drucker
Nothing so conclusively proves a man s ability to lead others as what he does from day to day to lead himself.
- Thomas Watson
All of the great leaders have had one characteristic in common: it was the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Leaders aren’t born they are made. And they are made just like anything else, through hard work. And that’s the price we’ll have to pay to achieve that goal, or any goal.
- Vince Lombardi
But, this particular Presidential Campaign has persisted way longer than any Spaghetti Western! It's almost as if it has a life of its own -more like a long running series, like 'Gunsmoke'! In many respects, that’s not all bad. Issues have been discussed, voters have been inspired and candidates have revealed their personalities, styles and staying power. Those things are inherently good in nature for a democracy, warts and all.
All of this bodes well for us not getting another bush-league President, which if it happened, might well signal the great American experiment has peaked and is accelerating on a very slippery slope downward.
The idea of dynastic succession ought to be outlawed in a country that owes its existence to a loathing of tyranny imposed by those more interested in their own power trips than what is good for all citizens over the long term. But freedom is funny that way! We can choose to fall back into the very rut we were lucky to escape.
The pundits who fret and jawbone over the prolonged uncertainty of who will represent the Democrats need to get a life. Instead, they need to examine and heed what the increasingly sleepy, sheep-like public is now expressing; it's need for a real change! The American public -and maybe the World- needs hope that some things that desperately need change actually have a chance of changing. Like the mess Washington, DC has become. Like maybe valuing the truth in all things governmental, despite the Supreme Court’s decision that its OK to lie and stretch credibility if one is just acting as a political animal?
The ‘media’ -necessary as it is- has also become a big part of the problem. How tiresome to see competing ideologies and propaganda touted by fat-cat owned stations using the public’s airways!
How deceiving to read, see or hear supposed knowledgeable accounts from writers, talking heads and announcers who are being controlled like puppets by unseen people and forces we don’t know. I’m sick and tired of it, and I think many folks feel the same way.
As a country, we have continually let this stuff happen to us, until remedies seem almost impossible to expect. I say ‘almost’ because there is still some hope; but this depends on the public getting behind a leader who inspires them, is credible and willing to work hard despite the difficulties certain to come with the territory. Of the three Presidential candidates now left standing, Barack Obama is the one that clearly stands out as a potentially very effective agent of the type of change we need as a society.
I haven’t always felt that way, and neither have a boatload of people I know. Obama was just another candidate among many, a real dark horse in many –maybe most- people’s assessment. But he kept on plugging, evoking a growing support through his thoughtful and reasonable responses to the battery of questions thrown at him. He had to be considered an underdog in this race because of his relative newness on the national stage, his race, his lack of strong political base, and particularly his tendency toward a calm coolness whether under fire or trying to make a point. Every one knows that passion is valuable in any candidate, and that emotions are usually triggered by passions way before rational thought is reached. That’s the amazing thing about Obama, he keeps to the dialogue thing, you know, what the Dalai Lama talks about. He’s not without passion, but he seems to be able to translate it into a consistent conduct that people come to respect and value. He’s not flashy, but he is charismatic, and that is a trait most folks consistently like.
The North Carolina and Indiana Democratic Primary results from yesterday again favored Obama, but did not put him over the top. That will require a continuation of campaigning and the attraction of sufficient 'super-delegates' to get him nominated. That will likely happen despite all of the Clinton camp's tactics, which carry the real danger of 'poisoning the well' for the Demos in the November Elections. I certainly don't blame Billary for campaigning hard, but I do mind the negative, nasty and 'do or say anything it takes to win' conduct. She and Bill wanted this so bad that they nominated themselves for the 'il butto' role! And spent $6.4 million of their own money in the process? Easy come, easy go.
Bill Clinton used to say 'we can do better'. He was right, he can! I voted for him twice, but do not want to see him back in the White House in any role. The last time he chose to lead his 'parallel life' there he got himself impeached for lying about it. Sorry Hillary, but Bill's already served his time and doesn't deserve to occupy the White House again.
It is ironic that this election has brought forth both our first female and our first black candidates for President!
Which one is acting more Presidential?
Which one understands the true tenets of leadership the best?
Which one balances realism and optimism better?
Which is more consistently credible?
Which one offers the more thoughtful and honest questions and answers?
Which one tends to prefer passionate emotions over rational thought?
Our country is a far more complex place than it was over 200 years ago, and so is the world.
Yet, we the people still get to decide whom will become our top elected leader, indeed the world's!
There is no scripted set of qualifications other than what is clearly spelled out in our Constitution. Maybe there ought to be, but that's something that Congress and the American people must decide. For those who think the Constitution is carved in stone, think again! Only the basic premises are inviolate. That's why Amendments have been added -and subtracted. That's why we adopted a Bill of Rights. Things change over time and modifications are not only in order, but necessary.
-------------------------------------
It's time for Angel Eyes to exit, stage left.
Soon, it will be just cool Blondie against hot-tempered Tuco.
In that match, I'm picking Blondie, just like in the Spaghetti Western!
=======================================
Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.
- George Patton
A good leader takes a little more than his share of the blame, a little less than his share of the credit.
- Arnold H. Glasgow
Men make history, and not the other way around. In periods where there is no leadership, society stands still. Progress occurs when courageous, skilful leaders seize the opportunity to change things for the better.
- Harry S. Truman
Leadership is generally defined as the capacity to make things happen that would otherwise not happen.
- Thomas E. Cronin
There are many elements to a campaign. Leadership is number one. Everything else is number two.
- Bertolt Brecht
Our world is very dishonest, and our leaders encourage dishonesty by setting bad examples- by lying, being corrupt, and using political sleight of hand to sustain power.
- Stuart Wilde
A leader, once convinced that a particular course of action is the right one, must be undaunted when the going gets tough.
- Ronald Reagan
People ask the difference between a leader and a boss. The leader leads, and the boss drives.
- Theodore Roosevelt
Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other.
- John Fitzgerald Kennedy
The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on a section gang, a football field, in an army, or in an office.
- Dwight David Eisenhower
Leadership is based on inspiration, not domination; on cooperation, not intimidation.
- William Arthur Ward
Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.
- Peter F. Drucker
No institution can possibly survive if it needs geniuses or supermen to manage it. It must be organized in such a way as to be able to get along under a leadership composed of average human beings.
- Peter F. Drucker
Nothing so conclusively proves a man s ability to lead others as what he does from day to day to lead himself.
- Thomas Watson
All of the great leaders have had one characteristic in common: it was the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership.
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Leaders aren’t born they are made. And they are made just like anything else, through hard work. And that’s the price we’ll have to pay to achieve that goal, or any goal.
- Vince Lombardi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
