This two-day Symposium [May 30&31] was timely and pretty well attended - at least by those folks who believe the topic is important enough to pay attention.
Here is the link to the announcement, agenda and speakers.
And, here is John Stark's article that appeared afterward in the Bellingham Herald
The discussions covered primary uses, including Agricultural; Industrial; Rural; Urban; and the big unknown, the In-Stream Flows, necessary to ensure fish can live and propagate.
It was on this last 'unknown' that the most interesting development was again revealed, in no uncertain terms; both the Lummi and Nooksack tribes have appealed -two years ago- to the Federal Government to clarify and quantify their most senior water rights. Who can blame them?
As today's Gristle pointed out, only the Feds have jurisdiction over such tribal matters, not the State of Washington; but it is critically important that WRIA-1 water rights be apportioned fairly, not only to ensure adequate In-Stream Flows, but to quantify those rights under jurisdiction of the WA State Dept of Ecology. Largely left out is the groundwater existing in aquifers, which are technically connected by hydraulic continuity, but difficult to completely quantify with the data currently available.
In mathematical terms; X - Y = Z, where X is the total amount of water available, Y is the total necessary In-Stream Flow, and Z is the amount of water available for all other uses. No one seems to know these quantities with any accuracy, or at least are not willing to share that information. But, a large amount of data have already been collected over the 7 years that the $4.5 million WRIA-1 program was fully underway, that could approximate at least the overall range of total water available -by season- in this large drainage.
Much of the uncertainty in the Symposium's title relates directly to this question of quantity, and the various sub-divisions of this quantity necessary to describe the various uses listed above. It is in the divvying up process that major conflicts will come to light, some to the detriment of those who have become accustomed to claiming water rights that either don't belong to them, or don't exist at all.
But, regardless of winners and losers, it is important to resolve this water rights problem sooner rather than later, because it will just get worse as time passes, thus creating more conflict and uncertainty.
One point deserves emphasis, while water law seems complicated, the concept of usufruct applies; that means folks have the right to use the water, not own it. There is a finite amount of water that exists on this planet, and way less than 1% is potable. Our government consists of duly elected officials, whose duty is to face difficult problems like water rights - and resolve them in a fair, transparent public process!
So, be careful of who you support for elected office. It does matter that they be held accountable!
An earlier blog is worth revisiting, at this URL.
Showing posts with label WRIA-1. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WRIA-1. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Monday, May 27, 2013
Washington State Water Law
Last Wednesday, May 22, the Bellingham City Club speaker was Tom McDonald, an experienced expert, who spoke on the subject of Washington State Water Law: Whose Water Is It Anyway? And Who Decides? And When? And Will It Be There When I Turn On The Tap?
This was a timely presentation since water law will impact upcoming decisions on who has rights to water in the 14 river-sheds in Western Washington. Water is essential for human life and is becoming more scarce and polluted as our population grows. Water will limit growth before our land supply will.
(The presentation outline is reproduced below)
Coming up next Thursday & Friday at the Hampton Inn: Water Supply: Searching for Certainty in Uncertain Times will discuss What is at risk if water issues are not resolved?
This two day symposium will focus on water supply issues including the factors influencing availability for in-stream and out-of-stream uses as well as the current status of the water supply in Whatcom County.
Monday, October 8, 2012
GPT: EIS Scoping Comment No. 15
Wasteful Water Use
The GPT Application -Section 5.13.1.2- contemplates the use of 5.33 Million gallons per day of PUD #1 water, primarily for coal dust suppression and reduction of spontaneous combustion risk.
However, there are likely better uses for this water, such as for agricultural use, in-stream flows, hydraulic well re-supply, etc.
The estimated water supply is anticipated as sufficient for all GPT terminal operations including dust suppression, plus fire suppression and safety.
GPT would make its own potable water by treatment of industrial water with a reverse-osmosis treatment system.
For comparison, this GPT water is equivalent to about one-half of the water used by the City of Bellingham per day to supply the needs of over 95,000 people.
It has been estimated that the water permits already issued in Whatcom County by DOE may amount to up to 2.5 times the water that is actually available.
In the interest of responsible water conservation -already a serious seasonal concern for the Nooksack River and its drainage- does this projected use make sense?
How much, if any, of this water will be reclaimed for re-use?
Will the storm water treatment systems be designed to recapture this spray water as runoff?
Certainly better uses of 5.33 million gallons per day can be found than spraying it on mounds of coal in an operation that might employ only about 200 people.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Local Politics: 25 Reasons?
Beware of candidates claiming their inexperience as their main virtue.
---------------------
I'm just now returning to the present after a short interlude to the past, studying ancient & medieval history.
That was interesting, but I must say we have it better these days, notwithstanding the habitual lying and dishonest posturing on political matters.
For example, I'm pleased that another local blog, Latte Republic, published a document -plus responses to it- entitled
25 REASONS WEIMER, CASKEY, MANN* & MCSHANE* HAVE FAILED THE CITIZENS OF WHATCOM COUNTY.
The original list of '25 Reasons' purports to support 4 brand new candidates for County office by trying to smear 4 other candidates, three of whom have actual experience in that office.
[Note McShane has been out of office since 2007 and Mann has never held elected office]
Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, the 25 'reasons' are bogus and don't hold water, but since several are on the subject of water, I'll get back to that.
Anyway, this particular political piece ends this way:
Please ask your friends, families and neighbors to review this list. All of these statements are factual. Make sure everyone you know understands that the current County Council has lost sight of what is important to the people of Whatcom County. The 'Gang of Four' (Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan) must be removed from office.
And finally, this admonition:
We Must Support Kathy Kershner, Mary Beth Teigrob, Michelle Luke, and Bill Knutzen!
Note that none of these favored four have any experience at all in public office, which is being touted as a virtue.
Instead, their clever handlers are speaking for them by using this poorly aimed broadside.
A fitting, and more likely result will be actually to turn the 'favored four' into political cannon fodder, a hard lesson for not being careful with the truth, or with whom you let speak for you!
This reminds of a quote nearly 60 years old: 'The GOP would do well to remember the warning of Maine Republican Margaret Chase Smith, who worried in 1950 that her party was trying to achieve victory on "the Four Horsemen of Calumny -- Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear."'
Guess we could also add simple lying and deliberate misinterpretation of facts.
----------------
Of the 25 'Reasons' several are related to important water issues, so this piece will focus on them.
1. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan advocated for, and voted to raise taxes without offsetting the net cost to the taxpayer. This has not otherwise occurred in the 14 years Executive Kremen has been in office. Carl initially advocated for more than double the increase that was finally passed by a slim Council majority.
Carl's response: This refers to the increase in the Flood Tax which amounted to less than $1/month on the average house. This small increase was needed to start to implement the Lake Whatcom stormwater plan, meet other mandated water quality issues, and shore up the flood fund that was dipping below what has historically been the level set to meet emergencies. Luckily this increase happened when it did because the January 2009 flooding required a big chunk of this emergency money.
My response: This 'increase' actually was a partial restoration of funding necessary to accomplish water related work considered vital to this entire county. Formerly, the so-called 'Flood Tax' was used to fund the WRIA1 Program [Water Resource Inventory Area #1], a comprehensive planning effort supported by 5 'Initiating Governments', Whatcom County [Lead entity], City of Bellingham, PUD #1, Lummi Nation & Nooksack Tribe and several stakeholder groups. About $4.5 million was expended in this effort over several years, before the effort was undermined by those -including the development community- who felt threatened by it; quite possibly by some of those who are still attempting to discredit water planning as a necessary task.
Whatcom County retains the serious, legal responsibility for providing water-related services, and to give these priority without providing the necessary funding would be irresponsible, thereby inviting costly legal actions the County would likely lose.
2. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan increased the taxes to pay for pet projects, one of them directly benefitting a friend and campaign advisor. This of course was for the "Shellfish Bed Inventory" portion of the designated uses for the Flood Tax increase. Geoff Menzies will assist in this work, and gain financially.
Carl's response: This again refers to the increase in the Flood Tax ($12/year for a $300,000 property). The rest of the statement is a bald faced lie. There was no money included for anything like a “shellfish bed inventory,” or anything that Geoff Menzies would have in any way been paid for. There was money for shellfish closure response plans for Birch Bay and Chuckanut Bay because the pollution in those areas have closed shellfish beds and we are required by state law (and it’s the right thing to do) to develop recovering plans in such circumstances. We also enhanced the Flood Fund with $500,000 from the REET fund. Here are the ways that money was targeted.
• Increased Flood Planning, Implementation, and Response $555,000
• Shellfish Closure Response Plans (Birch Bay and Chuckanut) $70,000
• Code revision to add appropriate Low Impact Development standards for county roads, other developments $60,000
• Design and engineering for Lake Whatcom sub-basin natural drainage retrofit - $150,000
• Stormwater Low Impact Development Pilots for existing homes (Lake Whatcom) $120,000
* CAO/Shorelines Education and Enforcement (PDS) Additional FTE $85,000
• Enhance implementation of shoreline, salmon, marine restoration, and shellfish recovery plans $50,000
• Lake Whatcom Stormwater capital projects planning and construction per Lake Whatcom Stormwater plan $390,000
• Lake Samish stormwater plan development $110,000
My response: Drayton Harbor has a terrible problem related to high levels of fecal coliform that is evidenced particularly at low tide. As a historic shellfish habitat, addressing this problem and restoring a healthy shellfish production was considered a worthwhile task of the former WRIA1 program, and remains so.
The attempt to characterize this effort as personal and political is bogus and gratuitous. In other words, a lie!
3. SKIP
4. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan are strong advocates to create a gigantic park around Lake Whatcom, rather than allowing for an environmentally, responsibly, and economically-managed (by DNR) undeveloped forested landscape to be maintained around the lake. While this removes revenue to the County, it adds a huge future cost-liability to the taxpayers with no other foreseeable reimbursement.
Carl's response: This refers to the proposal to reconvey about 8000 acres of DNR land around Lake Whatcom back to the County to set it aside as a low impact reserve. Yes some hiking will be allowed in the area, but those impacts will be minimal compared to the impacts associated with road building and logging. New studies have recently been released, and more are on the way, that show pretty clearly that logging in the watershed has a much larger impact on phosphorus loading to the Lake than previously acknowledged. While it is true that DNR does a better job than most private forest operations, in the Lake Whatcom watershed we need to get into place more stringent control on all logging if we hope to restore the lake. It should be noted that DNR recently increased their forest practice regulations, and the Dept. of Ecology has just started a huge process to address the scientific evidence which shows that the much touted Forest and Fish law is not adequate to protect water quality in general, and certainly not in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
My response: My position is clear from previous blogs, and can be briefly summarized as follows. Protection of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, the sole water supply for half of Whatcom County, is important, and minimizing development and land/vegetation disturbance is critical. To the extent the County can fund and carefully manage the reconveyance of 8400 acres of forest lands around Lake Whatcom, the proposed reconveyance may be helpful, notwithstanding the loss of revenues from timber harvests. To date, I have not seen the land use plans nor the longterm funding source that would give me confidence this will work as anticipated. But, the potential for protecting the Lake and its watershed are considerable.
5. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan led the charge to create a costly and inefficient homeowner septic inspection program. Under this scheme, the property-owners of Whatcom County pay millions per year for needless inspections, with well over 90% of the results being 'everything's fine'.
Carl's response: The state legislature passed a law requiring counties to institute a system for the inspection of septic systems. The local Health Department estimates there are 30,000 septic systems in the county, although they don’t have any records for a third of those systems. That equates to somewhere in the area of 30,000,000 gallons of human sewage in the county that no one knows where it is, or if the systems are functioning properly. What we do know is that every stream in the lowland parts of the county are failing to meet federal water quality standards for fecal coliform pollution (the measure of sewage in the water). Sophisticated DNA testing in area streams shows that this pollution is coming mainly from livestock and to a lesser degree septic systems. The regulations we passed require an initial inspection by a professional so we can get a clear baseline of where all the septics are and how well they are working. After the initial inspection most systems can then be inspected by the homeowners themselves on a regular schedule after they take a class from the Health Department. The first year of data indicates that about 5% of the systems inspected so far a failing outright, and about 20% need maintenance. If these types of numbers hold for the rest of the county it would mean somewhere in the area of 1500 systems are failing county-wide (1,500,000 gallons of human sewage), and as many as 6000 systems need maintenance to keep from failing. The cost of an inspection is between $200 - $300 which is still a bargain compared to what people in the cities pay for sewer annually. The County is working on a low cost loan program for people who need to do expensive repairs to their systems The Council has also made it clear that once the initial baseline inspections are complete we will look at the data to decide whether it makes sense to then relax the inspection interval to even further lower the cost.
My response: What is it that is so hard to understand about following State law? The County's responsibility includes public health & safety. Get serious!
6. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan came up with a scheme to remove the authority of the County Executive to veto tax increases in one of the County funds. They did this to insulate the Council from veto, and it was this very fund that a slim majority of Council members ended up increasing.
Carl's response: This is referring to the Flood Tax again, and is not at all accurate. The Flood Control Zone District (FCZD), which sets the Flood Tax level, is set up in state law as a separate municipal entity from the County. Currently the FCZD Board and the County Council are one and the same, but under statute it doesn’t necessarily have to remain that way. There was an audit finding in the 1990s that pointed out that the County was incorrectly mingling the functions and money of the FCZD with that of the County. Correcting this error has been in the works on and off for years, and the need to do this surfaced again a couple years ago. The County Prosecutor, Council, and the Executive all agreed this was needed. Part of that separation of functions was to follow state law in the operations of the FCZD, which would not allow the Executive to veto the decisions of a separate municipal entity (the FCZD), just like he is not allowed to veto the decisions of the City of Bellingham. Another example of this incorrect intermingling was that the interest off the Flood Tax was being directed into the County’s General Fund instead of accruing for Flood Fund purposes. This intermingling still has not been completely fixed, but is in the works.
My response: It's good that some discipline has been imposed on the County in its accounting practices. Those who complain are being either ignorant or disingenuous at best! One of the reasons the County failed to continue diligent pursuit of its WRIA1 Program was the threat of legal challenge over legal use of its funds. Now, at least part of that is fixed.
7. SKIP
8. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan championed one-size-fits-all shoreline regulations which require limiting or eliminating uses, such as homes and driveways, within 150 feet of the shoreline, with no supporting evidence whatsoever that somehow this would afford environmental protection.
Carl's response: There is tons of evidence (I have it) that impervious surfaces like homes, driveways, sidewalks, etc have a significant negative impact of our shorelines, fresh water, and ultimately Puget Sound. Most all of these studies show impervious surface totals in the 5-15% range have significant impacts on water quality. Saying over and over again that there is “no evidence” doesn’t make the evidence go away, although it may make people who do not want to have to adopt reasonable stewardship practices believe it.
My response: The Shoreline Management Program recently updated by Whatcom County is considered as an excellent effort by the Dept of Ecology and others knowledgeable in such matters. By its nature, the SMP must be fair and consistent to everyone. It's very hard to teach 'supporting evidence' to those who are being paid not to learn!
9. SKIP
10. SKIP
11. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan are currently advocating and promoting an elaborate and costly stormwater-tax scheme for many areas around Bellingham and Ferndale.
Carl's response: This refers to a proposal that is being developed by the Executive’s Public Works staff to create a Stormwater Utility in the urban areas of Bellingham and Ferndale that are outside of the city limits. Much of the impetus for this is to create a dedicated funding source to address mandated water quality issues around Lake Whatcom (NPDES, TMDL). The creation of such a stormwater utility would help start to shift the cost for such programs to those that are for the most part creating the problems or will benefit from the programs (people who live in the watershed or drink the water), instead of requiring people that are not the cause of the problems, or people in Cities already paying stormwater fees, to subsidize the cleanup.
My response: Stormwater and its potentially harmful effects are well known and regulated. Not only erosion and flooding are the problem, but also chemical contamination going into our lakes, streams, estuaries and bays. The City of Bellingham had pass new stormwater rates in 2001 to support a number of mandatory program elements, including stormwater treatment -in perpetuity. The County is required to do the same, beginning with those areas adjacent to urban areas and critical water resources. Because we are all living in watersheds, there is a necessity for a cooperative effort, with each participant paying their fair share of costs.
12. through 25. SKIP
-------------------
Now, returning to the author(s) of the '25 Reasons', and the request to potential supporters of their anointed acolytes;
Please ask your friends, families and neighbors to review this list.
All of these statements are factual.
Make sure everyone you know understands that the current County Council has lost sight of what is important to the people of Whatcom County.
I hope folks do review this list, because that could be a valuable lesson in what passes for political discourse in a significant portion of our population.
But, also review the responses, and also ask a few questions of your own, because that is how the truth gets known.
I don't believe a majority of the current County Council has lost sight of what is important to the people of Whatcom County at all.
Quite the contrary!
But those who believe that all the '25 reasons' are factual, do have a problem!
Accepting any of these statements as true without questioning does not serve anyone's best interests -including those who think they might benefit from it.
Candidates with integrity and competence always need to protect those valuable traits against such temptations!
I hope they will.
-------------
---------------------
I'm just now returning to the present after a short interlude to the past, studying ancient & medieval history.
That was interesting, but I must say we have it better these days, notwithstanding the habitual lying and dishonest posturing on political matters.
For example, I'm pleased that another local blog, Latte Republic, published a document -plus responses to it- entitled
25 REASONS WEIMER, CASKEY, MANN* & MCSHANE* HAVE FAILED THE CITIZENS OF WHATCOM COUNTY.
The original list of '25 Reasons' purports to support 4 brand new candidates for County office by trying to smear 4 other candidates, three of whom have actual experience in that office.
[Note McShane has been out of office since 2007 and Mann has never held elected office]
Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, the 25 'reasons' are bogus and don't hold water, but since several are on the subject of water, I'll get back to that.
Anyway, this particular political piece ends this way:
Please ask your friends, families and neighbors to review this list. All of these statements are factual. Make sure everyone you know understands that the current County Council has lost sight of what is important to the people of Whatcom County. The 'Gang of Four' (Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan) must be removed from office.
And finally, this admonition:
We Must Support Kathy Kershner, Mary Beth Teigrob, Michelle Luke, and Bill Knutzen!
Note that none of these favored four have any experience at all in public office, which is being touted as a virtue.
Instead, their clever handlers are speaking for them by using this poorly aimed broadside.
A fitting, and more likely result will be actually to turn the 'favored four' into political cannon fodder, a hard lesson for not being careful with the truth, or with whom you let speak for you!
This reminds of a quote nearly 60 years old: 'The GOP would do well to remember the warning of Maine Republican Margaret Chase Smith, who worried in 1950 that her party was trying to achieve victory on "the Four Horsemen of Calumny -- Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear."'
Guess we could also add simple lying and deliberate misinterpretation of facts.
----------------
Of the 25 'Reasons' several are related to important water issues, so this piece will focus on them.
1. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan advocated for, and voted to raise taxes without offsetting the net cost to the taxpayer. This has not otherwise occurred in the 14 years Executive Kremen has been in office. Carl initially advocated for more than double the increase that was finally passed by a slim Council majority.
Carl's response: This refers to the increase in the Flood Tax which amounted to less than $1/month on the average house. This small increase was needed to start to implement the Lake Whatcom stormwater plan, meet other mandated water quality issues, and shore up the flood fund that was dipping below what has historically been the level set to meet emergencies. Luckily this increase happened when it did because the January 2009 flooding required a big chunk of this emergency money.
My response: This 'increase' actually was a partial restoration of funding necessary to accomplish water related work considered vital to this entire county. Formerly, the so-called 'Flood Tax' was used to fund the WRIA1 Program [Water Resource Inventory Area #1], a comprehensive planning effort supported by 5 'Initiating Governments', Whatcom County [Lead entity], City of Bellingham, PUD #1, Lummi Nation & Nooksack Tribe and several stakeholder groups. About $4.5 million was expended in this effort over several years, before the effort was undermined by those -including the development community- who felt threatened by it; quite possibly by some of those who are still attempting to discredit water planning as a necessary task.
Whatcom County retains the serious, legal responsibility for providing water-related services, and to give these priority without providing the necessary funding would be irresponsible, thereby inviting costly legal actions the County would likely lose.
2. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan increased the taxes to pay for pet projects, one of them directly benefitting a friend and campaign advisor. This of course was for the "Shellfish Bed Inventory" portion of the designated uses for the Flood Tax increase. Geoff Menzies will assist in this work, and gain financially.
Carl's response: This again refers to the increase in the Flood Tax ($12/year for a $300,000 property). The rest of the statement is a bald faced lie. There was no money included for anything like a “shellfish bed inventory,” or anything that Geoff Menzies would have in any way been paid for. There was money for shellfish closure response plans for Birch Bay and Chuckanut Bay because the pollution in those areas have closed shellfish beds and we are required by state law (and it’s the right thing to do) to develop recovering plans in such circumstances. We also enhanced the Flood Fund with $500,000 from the REET fund. Here are the ways that money was targeted.
• Increased Flood Planning, Implementation, and Response $555,000
• Shellfish Closure Response Plans (Birch Bay and Chuckanut) $70,000
• Code revision to add appropriate Low Impact Development standards for county roads, other developments $60,000
• Design and engineering for Lake Whatcom sub-basin natural drainage retrofit - $150,000
• Stormwater Low Impact Development Pilots for existing homes (Lake Whatcom) $120,000
* CAO/Shorelines Education and Enforcement (PDS) Additional FTE $85,000
• Enhance implementation of shoreline, salmon, marine restoration, and shellfish recovery plans $50,000
• Lake Whatcom Stormwater capital projects planning and construction per Lake Whatcom Stormwater plan $390,000
• Lake Samish stormwater plan development $110,000
My response: Drayton Harbor has a terrible problem related to high levels of fecal coliform that is evidenced particularly at low tide. As a historic shellfish habitat, addressing this problem and restoring a healthy shellfish production was considered a worthwhile task of the former WRIA1 program, and remains so.
The attempt to characterize this effort as personal and political is bogus and gratuitous. In other words, a lie!
3. SKIP
4. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan are strong advocates to create a gigantic park around Lake Whatcom, rather than allowing for an environmentally, responsibly, and economically-managed (by DNR) undeveloped forested landscape to be maintained around the lake. While this removes revenue to the County, it adds a huge future cost-liability to the taxpayers with no other foreseeable reimbursement.
Carl's response: This refers to the proposal to reconvey about 8000 acres of DNR land around Lake Whatcom back to the County to set it aside as a low impact reserve. Yes some hiking will be allowed in the area, but those impacts will be minimal compared to the impacts associated with road building and logging. New studies have recently been released, and more are on the way, that show pretty clearly that logging in the watershed has a much larger impact on phosphorus loading to the Lake than previously acknowledged. While it is true that DNR does a better job than most private forest operations, in the Lake Whatcom watershed we need to get into place more stringent control on all logging if we hope to restore the lake. It should be noted that DNR recently increased their forest practice regulations, and the Dept. of Ecology has just started a huge process to address the scientific evidence which shows that the much touted Forest and Fish law is not adequate to protect water quality in general, and certainly not in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
My response: My position is clear from previous blogs, and can be briefly summarized as follows. Protection of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, the sole water supply for half of Whatcom County, is important, and minimizing development and land/vegetation disturbance is critical. To the extent the County can fund and carefully manage the reconveyance of 8400 acres of forest lands around Lake Whatcom, the proposed reconveyance may be helpful, notwithstanding the loss of revenues from timber harvests. To date, I have not seen the land use plans nor the longterm funding source that would give me confidence this will work as anticipated. But, the potential for protecting the Lake and its watershed are considerable.
5. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan led the charge to create a costly and inefficient homeowner septic inspection program. Under this scheme, the property-owners of Whatcom County pay millions per year for needless inspections, with well over 90% of the results being 'everything's fine'.
Carl's response: The state legislature passed a law requiring counties to institute a system for the inspection of septic systems. The local Health Department estimates there are 30,000 septic systems in the county, although they don’t have any records for a third of those systems. That equates to somewhere in the area of 30,000,000 gallons of human sewage in the county that no one knows where it is, or if the systems are functioning properly. What we do know is that every stream in the lowland parts of the county are failing to meet federal water quality standards for fecal coliform pollution (the measure of sewage in the water). Sophisticated DNA testing in area streams shows that this pollution is coming mainly from livestock and to a lesser degree septic systems. The regulations we passed require an initial inspection by a professional so we can get a clear baseline of where all the septics are and how well they are working. After the initial inspection most systems can then be inspected by the homeowners themselves on a regular schedule after they take a class from the Health Department. The first year of data indicates that about 5% of the systems inspected so far a failing outright, and about 20% need maintenance. If these types of numbers hold for the rest of the county it would mean somewhere in the area of 1500 systems are failing county-wide (1,500,000 gallons of human sewage), and as many as 6000 systems need maintenance to keep from failing. The cost of an inspection is between $200 - $300 which is still a bargain compared to what people in the cities pay for sewer annually. The County is working on a low cost loan program for people who need to do expensive repairs to their systems The Council has also made it clear that once the initial baseline inspections are complete we will look at the data to decide whether it makes sense to then relax the inspection interval to even further lower the cost.
My response: What is it that is so hard to understand about following State law? The County's responsibility includes public health & safety. Get serious!
6. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan came up with a scheme to remove the authority of the County Executive to veto tax increases in one of the County funds. They did this to insulate the Council from veto, and it was this very fund that a slim majority of Council members ended up increasing.
Carl's response: This is referring to the Flood Tax again, and is not at all accurate. The Flood Control Zone District (FCZD), which sets the Flood Tax level, is set up in state law as a separate municipal entity from the County. Currently the FCZD Board and the County Council are one and the same, but under statute it doesn’t necessarily have to remain that way. There was an audit finding in the 1990s that pointed out that the County was incorrectly mingling the functions and money of the FCZD with that of the County. Correcting this error has been in the works on and off for years, and the need to do this surfaced again a couple years ago. The County Prosecutor, Council, and the Executive all agreed this was needed. Part of that separation of functions was to follow state law in the operations of the FCZD, which would not allow the Executive to veto the decisions of a separate municipal entity (the FCZD), just like he is not allowed to veto the decisions of the City of Bellingham. Another example of this incorrect intermingling was that the interest off the Flood Tax was being directed into the County’s General Fund instead of accruing for Flood Fund purposes. This intermingling still has not been completely fixed, but is in the works.
My response: It's good that some discipline has been imposed on the County in its accounting practices. Those who complain are being either ignorant or disingenuous at best! One of the reasons the County failed to continue diligent pursuit of its WRIA1 Program was the threat of legal challenge over legal use of its funds. Now, at least part of that is fixed.
7. SKIP
8. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan championed one-size-fits-all shoreline regulations which require limiting or eliminating uses, such as homes and driveways, within 150 feet of the shoreline, with no supporting evidence whatsoever that somehow this would afford environmental protection.
Carl's response: There is tons of evidence (I have it) that impervious surfaces like homes, driveways, sidewalks, etc have a significant negative impact of our shorelines, fresh water, and ultimately Puget Sound. Most all of these studies show impervious surface totals in the 5-15% range have significant impacts on water quality. Saying over and over again that there is “no evidence” doesn’t make the evidence go away, although it may make people who do not want to have to adopt reasonable stewardship practices believe it.
My response: The Shoreline Management Program recently updated by Whatcom County is considered as an excellent effort by the Dept of Ecology and others knowledgeable in such matters. By its nature, the SMP must be fair and consistent to everyone. It's very hard to teach 'supporting evidence' to those who are being paid not to learn!
9. SKIP
10. SKIP
11. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan are currently advocating and promoting an elaborate and costly stormwater-tax scheme for many areas around Bellingham and Ferndale.
Carl's response: This refers to a proposal that is being developed by the Executive’s Public Works staff to create a Stormwater Utility in the urban areas of Bellingham and Ferndale that are outside of the city limits. Much of the impetus for this is to create a dedicated funding source to address mandated water quality issues around Lake Whatcom (NPDES, TMDL). The creation of such a stormwater utility would help start to shift the cost for such programs to those that are for the most part creating the problems or will benefit from the programs (people who live in the watershed or drink the water), instead of requiring people that are not the cause of the problems, or people in Cities already paying stormwater fees, to subsidize the cleanup.
My response: Stormwater and its potentially harmful effects are well known and regulated. Not only erosion and flooding are the problem, but also chemical contamination going into our lakes, streams, estuaries and bays. The City of Bellingham had pass new stormwater rates in 2001 to support a number of mandatory program elements, including stormwater treatment -in perpetuity. The County is required to do the same, beginning with those areas adjacent to urban areas and critical water resources. Because we are all living in watersheds, there is a necessity for a cooperative effort, with each participant paying their fair share of costs.
12. through 25. SKIP
-------------------
Now, returning to the author(s) of the '25 Reasons', and the request to potential supporters of their anointed acolytes;
Please ask your friends, families and neighbors to review this list.
All of these statements are factual.
Make sure everyone you know understands that the current County Council has lost sight of what is important to the people of Whatcom County.
I hope folks do review this list, because that could be a valuable lesson in what passes for political discourse in a significant portion of our population.
But, also review the responses, and also ask a few questions of your own, because that is how the truth gets known.
I don't believe a majority of the current County Council has lost sight of what is important to the people of Whatcom County at all.
Quite the contrary!
But those who believe that all the '25 reasons' are factual, do have a problem!
Accepting any of these statements as true without questioning does not serve anyone's best interests -including those who think they might benefit from it.
Candidates with integrity and competence always need to protect those valuable traits against such temptations!
I hope they will.
-------------
Friday, June 5, 2009
Growth Management: Choosing Our Sprawl & How To Pay For It
---------------------------
A recent article in Crosscut appears to question whether concentrating growth eliminates sprawl, or encourages it.
The answer is probably some of both, because any population increase at all just tends to squeeze us together.
Rather than ask a binary 'either, or' question -which is a false choice- we ought to simply inquire which type of sprawl is likely to be less insidious, more desirable, and less costly in the long run.
We all agree there are limits to land and water supplies, as well as limits to essential public services at affordable cost.
Remember, we were forced into funding our EMS unit, Whatcom Medic One, on a countywide basis a few years ago, to save it?
Too many intentional games get played between municipalities regarding who pays for public services and amenities; that silliness needs to end.
As far as growth is concerned, it's much better for each new development to be required to pay its full share of anticipated costs, without externalizing that burden to unsuspecting 'others'.
For example, why are there no B&O taxes or impact fees required for businesses locating outside of Bellingham?
And, why is there no agreement to consolidate the funding and management of public amenities such as Libraries, Parks and the like?
Why doesn't Whatcom County see completing the WRIA 1 [click on label below] process as absolutely necessary to plan its future land and water use?
To me, all of this means that fewer feuding fiefdoms and much better cooperation and collaboration between governmental agencies should be required.
Another example, why are separate 'planning departments' needed for County and City functions?
The same might be said for other public safety, public health, public welfare, and public utility services to varying degrees.
The severe budget difficulties that both City and County are now facing should be a clear tip-off that things, as they are, have become increasingly unsustainable.
It just doesn't hack it to react to such problems in an erratic, knee-jerk fashion that mainly serves to passing the buck to the next administration; haven't we had enough of that?
And, for services that citizens truly need, allowing them to lapse or become dysfunctional is shortsighted and irresponsible!
Here's an idea for a furlough policy: time off -without pay- for all elected executives and legislators, until they come up with viable plans to consolidate public services and adopt them!
That ought to instill a better sense of responsibility and urgency, don't you think?
It also might force some important decisions to be made that some folks would rather avoid!
That by itself might be the equivalent to term limits, who knows?
While I am glad to see several new candidates stepping up to our next local election, I hope some -or all- of them are up to this particular challenge.
And, it is a challenge!
But, hey, someone's got to do it...
---------------------------------
A recent article in Crosscut appears to question whether concentrating growth eliminates sprawl, or encourages it.
The answer is probably some of both, because any population increase at all just tends to squeeze us together.
Rather than ask a binary 'either, or' question -which is a false choice- we ought to simply inquire which type of sprawl is likely to be less insidious, more desirable, and less costly in the long run.
We all agree there are limits to land and water supplies, as well as limits to essential public services at affordable cost.
Remember, we were forced into funding our EMS unit, Whatcom Medic One, on a countywide basis a few years ago, to save it?
Too many intentional games get played between municipalities regarding who pays for public services and amenities; that silliness needs to end.
As far as growth is concerned, it's much better for each new development to be required to pay its full share of anticipated costs, without externalizing that burden to unsuspecting 'others'.
For example, why are there no B&O taxes or impact fees required for businesses locating outside of Bellingham?
And, why is there no agreement to consolidate the funding and management of public amenities such as Libraries, Parks and the like?
Why doesn't Whatcom County see completing the WRIA 1 [click on label below] process as absolutely necessary to plan its future land and water use?
To me, all of this means that fewer feuding fiefdoms and much better cooperation and collaboration between governmental agencies should be required.
Another example, why are separate 'planning departments' needed for County and City functions?
The same might be said for other public safety, public health, public welfare, and public utility services to varying degrees.
The severe budget difficulties that both City and County are now facing should be a clear tip-off that things, as they are, have become increasingly unsustainable.
It just doesn't hack it to react to such problems in an erratic, knee-jerk fashion that mainly serves to passing the buck to the next administration; haven't we had enough of that?
And, for services that citizens truly need, allowing them to lapse or become dysfunctional is shortsighted and irresponsible!
Here's an idea for a furlough policy: time off -without pay- for all elected executives and legislators, until they come up with viable plans to consolidate public services and adopt them!
That ought to instill a better sense of responsibility and urgency, don't you think?
It also might force some important decisions to be made that some folks would rather avoid!
That by itself might be the equivalent to term limits, who knows?
While I am glad to see several new candidates stepping up to our next local election, I hope some -or all- of them are up to this particular challenge.
And, it is a challenge!
But, hey, someone's got to do it...
---------------------------------
Saturday, May 23, 2009
WRIA-1: Wasted Resources or Important Asset?
---------------------------
Last night's PBS Newshour included a segment which hit home - literally.
It was a film documentary about 'Salmon Wars', which specifically addressed two historic salmon rivers in Washington State;
the Skagit and the Nisqually, just north of Olympia.
One is a success story, but the other isn't.
In both cases fear and distrust between stakeholders was a significant obstacle.
Fortunately, in the Nisqually's case, farmers, timber interests and fishing advocates -including native tribes- came together and forged a compromise that has a chance of working to restore some salmon runs, especially in estuarine areas.
And, unfortunately, Skagit stakeholders are still bickering in denial and distrust -which will ultimately help no one, including salmon.
Check out what the short documentary by Pulitzer Prize winner Hedrick Smith has to say.
He tells it in straight and understandable language.
-------------
Meanwhile, our own Nooksack River is suffering from a whimpy lack of effort, and resembles more Skagit-like characteristics.
That is because Whatcom County hasn't finished the important business that it initiated over 10 years ago, to major fanfare.
That business was/is the comprehensive planning effort called WRIA-1, for Water Resource Inventory Area no. 1.
More on this below, but first here's the PBS URL information.
-----------------
You can access the PBS program segment at;
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/newshour_index.html
Then search for 'Salmon Wars'
Hedrick Smith, the recent correspondent for Frontline's "Poisoned Waters" project, reports on cultural collisions in Washington State over salmon fishing.
Or, search PBS website under 'poisoned waters'
Or, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
Or, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gsearch.html?q=poisoned+waters&x=9&y=14
-----------------
Now, back to the Nooksack and its stalled WRIA-1 process:
About $4.5 million was spent on WRIA-1 Phase 1 work before the political pressure became so adverse it stalled the project, thereby adding unnecessary expense and delay, as well as unwanted discomfort to key local politicos.
That is where this unfinished business still sits to this day.
Expensive shelf art, using public funds!
How smart is that?
This sorry result is certainly not the professed goal of local politicians - some of whom are still in office, including our illustrious, Teflon-coated Executive.
Too bad the current administration is not seriously attempting completion of this critical effort, preferring instead to just 'kick that ball down the road' and stick a future administration with an even more difficult job!
REMIND you of anything?
Anyway, WRIA-1's 'Initiating Governments' numbered 5, of which Whatcom County was unquestionably the 'lead agency'.
The other prime participants were the City of Bellingham, The Lummi Nation, The Nooksack Tribe and Public Utility District [PUD] 1.
It's too bad these sponsors weren't called 'Initiating AND COMPLETING Governments', and that Whatcom County hasn't been up to fulfilling it's State-mandated LEAD agency role.
But, hey, if we citizens don't hold some elected feet to the fire, they can be counted upon to slide through the line of least resistance -kinda like Newton's Law.
--------------
More details for those interested in WRIA-1 are available from several government websites; Whatcom County, Washington State and the US Government:
http://wria1project.whatcomcounty.org/
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/apps/watersheds/wriapages/01.html
http://wa.water.usgs.gov/projects/wria01/
http://www.pudwhatcom.org/WRIAMOcover.htm
--------------
But, the main point of this posting is simply to REMIND that we do have serious unfinished business, plus maybe INFORM a few folks who remain blissfully unaware of such matters.
To those who may to prefer to think the Nooksack River is mainly there to provide a leg of next Sunday's Ski to Sea Race, I have news for you; it serves critically important economic, social and ecological functions that are irreplaceable in nature.
Did you know that our countywide growth will be limited by water supply, not land supply?
Did you know that keeping resources - like water - clean is easier and much less expensive than any other alternative?
And, did you know that if you don't speak up and demand action, none will likely occur?
Finally, do you realize that the last 'increase' in County Flood Tax does not begin to even RESTORE adequate funding for critical work like WRIA-1?
Please keep that in mind when you hear spurious complaints about 'taxes'.
It was a good thing that the County Council -acting as the Flood Control Board- finally decided to take this particular matter into its own hands, which did require excluding our Executive from the process!
Now, it's time our elected leaders demonstrate more of the foresight, fiscal responsibility and courage that benefits everyone, including future generations...
---------------
My two previous posts on WRIA-1 can be found in Hamstertalk Archives, at:
Important County Water Programs Funding: Decision ... Lake, Stormwater, WRIA-1 5/11/08
WRIA-1: Whatcom County's Unfinished Water Business... Lake, WRIA-1 9/30/07
---------------
Last night's PBS Newshour included a segment which hit home - literally.
It was a film documentary about 'Salmon Wars', which specifically addressed two historic salmon rivers in Washington State;
the Skagit and the Nisqually, just north of Olympia.
One is a success story, but the other isn't.
In both cases fear and distrust between stakeholders was a significant obstacle.
Fortunately, in the Nisqually's case, farmers, timber interests and fishing advocates -including native tribes- came together and forged a compromise that has a chance of working to restore some salmon runs, especially in estuarine areas.
And, unfortunately, Skagit stakeholders are still bickering in denial and distrust -which will ultimately help no one, including salmon.
Check out what the short documentary by Pulitzer Prize winner Hedrick Smith has to say.
He tells it in straight and understandable language.
-------------
Meanwhile, our own Nooksack River is suffering from a whimpy lack of effort, and resembles more Skagit-like characteristics.
That is because Whatcom County hasn't finished the important business that it initiated over 10 years ago, to major fanfare.
That business was/is the comprehensive planning effort called WRIA-1, for Water Resource Inventory Area no. 1.
More on this below, but first here's the PBS URL information.
-----------------
You can access the PBS program segment at;
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/newshour_index.html
Then search for 'Salmon Wars'
Hedrick Smith, the recent correspondent for Frontline's "Poisoned Waters" project, reports on cultural collisions in Washington State over salmon fishing.
Or, search PBS website under 'poisoned waters'
Or, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
Or, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gsearch.html?q=poisoned+waters&x=9&y=14
-----------------
Now, back to the Nooksack and its stalled WRIA-1 process:
About $4.5 million was spent on WRIA-1 Phase 1 work before the political pressure became so adverse it stalled the project, thereby adding unnecessary expense and delay, as well as unwanted discomfort to key local politicos.
That is where this unfinished business still sits to this day.
Expensive shelf art, using public funds!
How smart is that?
This sorry result is certainly not the professed goal of local politicians - some of whom are still in office, including our illustrious, Teflon-coated Executive.
Too bad the current administration is not seriously attempting completion of this critical effort, preferring instead to just 'kick that ball down the road' and stick a future administration with an even more difficult job!
REMIND you of anything?
Anyway, WRIA-1's 'Initiating Governments' numbered 5, of which Whatcom County was unquestionably the 'lead agency'.
The other prime participants were the City of Bellingham, The Lummi Nation, The Nooksack Tribe and Public Utility District [PUD] 1.
It's too bad these sponsors weren't called 'Initiating AND COMPLETING Governments', and that Whatcom County hasn't been up to fulfilling it's State-mandated LEAD agency role.
But, hey, if we citizens don't hold some elected feet to the fire, they can be counted upon to slide through the line of least resistance -kinda like Newton's Law.
--------------
More details for those interested in WRIA-1 are available from several government websites; Whatcom County, Washington State and the US Government:
http://wria1project.whatcomcounty.org/
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/apps/watersheds/wriapages/01.html
http://wa.water.usgs.gov/projects/wria01/
http://www.pudwhatcom.org/WRIAMOcover.htm
--------------
But, the main point of this posting is simply to REMIND that we do have serious unfinished business, plus maybe INFORM a few folks who remain blissfully unaware of such matters.
To those who may to prefer to think the Nooksack River is mainly there to provide a leg of next Sunday's Ski to Sea Race, I have news for you; it serves critically important economic, social and ecological functions that are irreplaceable in nature.
Did you know that our countywide growth will be limited by water supply, not land supply?
Did you know that keeping resources - like water - clean is easier and much less expensive than any other alternative?
And, did you know that if you don't speak up and demand action, none will likely occur?
Finally, do you realize that the last 'increase' in County Flood Tax does not begin to even RESTORE adequate funding for critical work like WRIA-1?
Please keep that in mind when you hear spurious complaints about 'taxes'.
It was a good thing that the County Council -acting as the Flood Control Board- finally decided to take this particular matter into its own hands, which did require excluding our Executive from the process!
Now, it's time our elected leaders demonstrate more of the foresight, fiscal responsibility and courage that benefits everyone, including future generations...
---------------
My two previous posts on WRIA-1 can be found in Hamstertalk Archives, at:
Important County Water Programs Funding: Decision ... Lake, Stormwater, WRIA-1 5/11/08
WRIA-1: Whatcom County's Unfinished Water Business... Lake, WRIA-1 9/30/07
---------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------
Sunday, September 30, 2007
WRIA-1: Whatcom County's Unfinished Water Business
'We'll know the price of water when the well runs dry' - Ben Franklin
------------------------
Most people probably don't know what WRIA-1 stands for, but that's OK with Whatcom County's current administration.
It stands for 'Water Resource Inventory Area Number 1', legalese for describing a contiguous stream course and its tributaries which together make up a definite drainage basin, or a well-defined portion of one.
Washington State has identified 63 of these WRIA's and numbered them sequentially, starting at the upper left hand corner of our state map.
That would be us, and the River in question the Nooksack, its main branches and smaller tributaries.
Of interest is the fact that Lake Whatcom is only counted in WRIA-1 because of the man-made diversion that helps resupply it from the Middle Fork of the Nooksack.
Also, the area around Blaine is excluded because its drainage doesn'tempty directly into the Nooksack system.
Why is knowing about all this stuff important?
Several reasons come to mind, including things like water quantity, water quality, adequate in-stream flows to support salmon and other aquatic life, and identifying and preserving habitat for fish and other wildlife.
All of these things work together, and each must not be considered in isolation of the others to sustain a healthy ecosystem that benefits everyone.
Ah, but there is a danger in knowing too much about this subject!
If one knows that problems have impacted this delicate balance, and these are still happening -unchecked- then there will be pressure to stop poor practices and re-think what makes sense.
There are some interests who don't want to go there!
You know the type.
The '3-D' crowd.
That defines the 3 stages of resistance to change;
first, deny its needed,
next, decry suggested corrective action will work, be fair, or be too expensive,
and when that fails, delay any corrective action for as long as possible.
That's what has happened with WRIA-1.
The program is stalled out with most of its funding gone, key staff missing and little impetus being shown to re-start the effort, despite the fact that the first phases have already costs Whatcom County taxpayers almost $4.5 million over several years!
Why do you imagine this has happened?
WRIA-1 seemed to have everything going for it upon its inception several years ago.
Of course, WRIA-1 was not the first time this work was undertaken.
Other efforts, through the Council of Governments, had tried and lost steam too.
The WRIA-1 effort got legs for a few reasons.
One was State Legislation related to salmon.
Another was the Department of Ecology was finally nudged into action to correct its lack of backbone in awarding water rights.
It seems over time, the DOE had awarded about 2.5 times more water rights than could possible exist!
Water rights is too big a subject to cover in this writing - or maybe any writing that most folks would read.
Suffice to say that water rights has been one of those 'third rails' of politics that elected officials and bureaucrats just don't want much to do with!
So, it doesn't get dealt with, and that's the problem.
It is the old question of which interests like things just as they are, against those who are in touch with the reality that things can't continue to remain as they seem.
Bottom line is in Whatcom County we will run out of water before we run out of land!
There, I said the unthinkable.
Believe it or not, it's true.
Beginning to get the picture now?
A lack of available water restricts the use of land.
And, it doesn't make any difference what the use is.
Agriculture, for example, because that's easy.
Development in the form of cities, farms, businesses all require water for drinking, firefighting, lawn watering, bathing, washing, cooking and recreation
All that adds up fast.
Then, there is the special problem of so-called 'exempt wells', which essentially means going through the charade of petitioning for a well to pump groundwater -whether it exists or not- to irrigate land, including lawns.
Bingo! That is the key to regulating sprawl.
By what logic can any agency continue to grant water rights that don't exist, to every applicant for an 'exempt well'?
Answer: there is no logic, only bureaucratic inertia and ineptitude, backed up by a monumental lack of political will!
OK, so now you understand a little more about what has stopped work on a big governmental project that you had had never heard about before.
Want to hear just a little more?
If so, read below the dotted line.
-------------------------
WRIA-1 was supposed to be the shining example of how such a process was to proceed.
It was set up as a stakeholder's process, where all interested parties had a place at the table.
The idea was to systematically develop a consensual agreement on water matters that would stand the test of time.
Compromise was an essential element.
Avoiding the protracted legal battles that typify most other such programs was another major incentive.
Basically, the idea was to make the WRIA-1 process so attractive to every interest, so that all would be drawn into hammering out agreements they could live with.
That attraction had to be stronger than just staying away from the process.
It was the proverbial carrot and stick approach.
And it took time.
God, did it take time!
Because time usually equates to money, using too much time took too much money.
Some people knew that would -or could- happen, and used it to stall out the program.
But, that tactic would not have worked had there been more political will exerted by the leaders.
Who were these leaders, you might ask?
They were the heads of the so-called 5 'Initiating Governments', including Whatcom County, the City of Bellingham, Public Utility District No. 1, The Lummi Nation, and the Nooksack Tribe.
The two tribes were there by their agreement, to have input and oversight to the process without necessarily committing to any outcomes that might not have been seen in their best interests.
But, the tribes participation was critical, because they hold senior water rights.
And they did actively participate.
Bellingham was there as the largest population center, and as the entity with the next senior water rights.
Whatcom County and PUD-1 were there because they were the two governmental entities with countywide jurisdiction.
Whatcom County was the lead agency because Washington State Law says that counties are the governments which hold that right.
So, those were the main players.
But, there were many others.
State agencies of several acronyms, DOE, WDFW, DNR, etc
Professional staff from County, City, PUD-1, the Tribes
Facilitators
Caucuses representing several interest groups, but that's another story.
That's probably enough boilerplate for now.
Maybe too much for some?
--------------------
Bottom line is, after such an auspicious start, WRIA-1 has essentially died -at least gone into deep hibernation.
What was once the shining example of what could be accomplished in the State of Washington has become just another rather dull subject that some would relegate to dim history.
What had shown such promise as a comprehensive tool to help plan our future, has become a mountain of shelf art, collecting dust somewhere in the bowels of a County building.
What had been a stellar professional staff, assembled at great expense and with great hopes, has been depleted, reassigned and mainly forgotten for the hard work they accomplished.
But, the very substantial information developed is still there, waiting for the time some courageous County Executive has the impulse to touch a 'third rail' again.
When that happens, let's hope its not too late to make a useful difference1
-----------------------
------------------------
Most people probably don't know what WRIA-1 stands for, but that's OK with Whatcom County's current administration.
It stands for 'Water Resource Inventory Area Number 1', legalese for describing a contiguous stream course and its tributaries which together make up a definite drainage basin, or a well-defined portion of one.
Washington State has identified 63 of these WRIA's and numbered them sequentially, starting at the upper left hand corner of our state map.
That would be us, and the River in question the Nooksack, its main branches and smaller tributaries.
Of interest is the fact that Lake Whatcom is only counted in WRIA-1 because of the man-made diversion that helps resupply it from the Middle Fork of the Nooksack.
Also, the area around Blaine is excluded because its drainage doesn'tempty directly into the Nooksack system.
Why is knowing about all this stuff important?
Several reasons come to mind, including things like water quantity, water quality, adequate in-stream flows to support salmon and other aquatic life, and identifying and preserving habitat for fish and other wildlife.
All of these things work together, and each must not be considered in isolation of the others to sustain a healthy ecosystem that benefits everyone.
Ah, but there is a danger in knowing too much about this subject!
If one knows that problems have impacted this delicate balance, and these are still happening -unchecked- then there will be pressure to stop poor practices and re-think what makes sense.
There are some interests who don't want to go there!
You know the type.
The '3-D' crowd.
That defines the 3 stages of resistance to change;
first, deny its needed,
next, decry suggested corrective action will work, be fair, or be too expensive,
and when that fails, delay any corrective action for as long as possible.
That's what has happened with WRIA-1.
The program is stalled out with most of its funding gone, key staff missing and little impetus being shown to re-start the effort, despite the fact that the first phases have already costs Whatcom County taxpayers almost $4.5 million over several years!
Why do you imagine this has happened?
WRIA-1 seemed to have everything going for it upon its inception several years ago.
Of course, WRIA-1 was not the first time this work was undertaken.
Other efforts, through the Council of Governments, had tried and lost steam too.
The WRIA-1 effort got legs for a few reasons.
One was State Legislation related to salmon.
Another was the Department of Ecology was finally nudged into action to correct its lack of backbone in awarding water rights.
It seems over time, the DOE had awarded about 2.5 times more water rights than could possible exist!
Water rights is too big a subject to cover in this writing - or maybe any writing that most folks would read.
Suffice to say that water rights has been one of those 'third rails' of politics that elected officials and bureaucrats just don't want much to do with!
So, it doesn't get dealt with, and that's the problem.
It is the old question of which interests like things just as they are, against those who are in touch with the reality that things can't continue to remain as they seem.
Bottom line is in Whatcom County we will run out of water before we run out of land!
There, I said the unthinkable.
Believe it or not, it's true.
Beginning to get the picture now?
A lack of available water restricts the use of land.
And, it doesn't make any difference what the use is.
Agriculture, for example, because that's easy.
Development in the form of cities, farms, businesses all require water for drinking, firefighting, lawn watering, bathing, washing, cooking and recreation
All that adds up fast.
Then, there is the special problem of so-called 'exempt wells', which essentially means going through the charade of petitioning for a well to pump groundwater -whether it exists or not- to irrigate land, including lawns.
Bingo! That is the key to regulating sprawl.
By what logic can any agency continue to grant water rights that don't exist, to every applicant for an 'exempt well'?
Answer: there is no logic, only bureaucratic inertia and ineptitude, backed up by a monumental lack of political will!
OK, so now you understand a little more about what has stopped work on a big governmental project that you had had never heard about before.
Want to hear just a little more?
If so, read below the dotted line.
-------------------------
WRIA-1 was supposed to be the shining example of how such a process was to proceed.
It was set up as a stakeholder's process, where all interested parties had a place at the table.
The idea was to systematically develop a consensual agreement on water matters that would stand the test of time.
Compromise was an essential element.
Avoiding the protracted legal battles that typify most other such programs was another major incentive.
Basically, the idea was to make the WRIA-1 process so attractive to every interest, so that all would be drawn into hammering out agreements they could live with.
That attraction had to be stronger than just staying away from the process.
It was the proverbial carrot and stick approach.
And it took time.
God, did it take time!
Because time usually equates to money, using too much time took too much money.
Some people knew that would -or could- happen, and used it to stall out the program.
But, that tactic would not have worked had there been more political will exerted by the leaders.
Who were these leaders, you might ask?
They were the heads of the so-called 5 'Initiating Governments', including Whatcom County, the City of Bellingham, Public Utility District No. 1, The Lummi Nation, and the Nooksack Tribe.
The two tribes were there by their agreement, to have input and oversight to the process without necessarily committing to any outcomes that might not have been seen in their best interests.
But, the tribes participation was critical, because they hold senior water rights.
And they did actively participate.
Bellingham was there as the largest population center, and as the entity with the next senior water rights.
Whatcom County and PUD-1 were there because they were the two governmental entities with countywide jurisdiction.
Whatcom County was the lead agency because Washington State Law says that counties are the governments which hold that right.
So, those were the main players.
But, there were many others.
State agencies of several acronyms, DOE, WDFW, DNR, etc
Professional staff from County, City, PUD-1, the Tribes
Facilitators
Caucuses representing several interest groups, but that's another story.
That's probably enough boilerplate for now.
Maybe too much for some?
--------------------
Bottom line is, after such an auspicious start, WRIA-1 has essentially died -at least gone into deep hibernation.
What was once the shining example of what could be accomplished in the State of Washington has become just another rather dull subject that some would relegate to dim history.
What had shown such promise as a comprehensive tool to help plan our future, has become a mountain of shelf art, collecting dust somewhere in the bowels of a County building.
What had been a stellar professional staff, assembled at great expense and with great hopes, has been depleted, reassigned and mainly forgotten for the hard work they accomplished.
But, the very substantial information developed is still there, waiting for the time some courageous County Executive has the impulse to touch a 'third rail' again.
When that happens, let's hope its not too late to make a useful difference1
-----------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
