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 Lake. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lake. 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, June 4, 2012
Lookout for Galbraith
The May 26 issue of the Bellingham Herald carried this story on the announcement that over 3100 acres of mostly timberland on Galbraith Mountain is for sale.
That should be no surprise, because that particular property has been for sale a long time, by various owners.
The question remains, for what purpose does this property exist, and for what price?
The current owners would no doubt like to see the property up zoned to maximize potential profits, but under the present circumstances that does not seem likely.
Instead, the major areas designated Commercial Forestry and Rural Forestry seem fit mainly for those purposes, with two main caveats; due care must be taken for any timber harvesting that impacts the Lake Whatcom watershed and/or other local streams, and road building to access the 67 potential home sites currently permissible under County zoning rules.
It would be good to just buy up the residential development rights for any new homes, since these could be removed forever as a threat to watersheds and a burden to access roads and utilities services.
More problematic is what happens to the timbered areas, much of which are still years away from harvesting. When that time comes, expect some controversy over logging operations so close to urban areas.
The idea of using this property for recreation and open space is a good one, providing funding can be found from County, City or other sources. Good luck with that, since the County has just assumed responsibility for 8700 acres of former DNR forestlands, and the City has squandered $3.5 million more than it had to purchase the entire Chuckanut Ridge property, much of which would have come free if some reasonable level of development had been allowed per legal zoning.
The WHIMPs and other local organizations greatly enjoy hiking and biking on Galbraith Mountain, since it is close by and affords nice views of our surroundings. But, to expect these private groups to maintain the area in perpetuity makes no sense, because of time and expense. It is doubtful that the owners can be relied upon to underwrite safe public use for very long; after all they obtained it from Trillium in exchange for debt. The owners own it for one reason; to make money - or at least not to lose any.
So, what to do? Your guess is as good as mine!
But, for starters, make sure the areas inside the Lake Whatcom watershed remain undeveloped.
Then, think about what makes sense, like conceiving of a parks plan that emphasizes World-Class mountain biking, hiking and viewing great scenery.
And, it could link up with the DNR property, too.
All of those things will draw people to Bellingham plus provide enjoyment for area residents.
Maybe Western Washington University has an idea or two about how to develop and maintain an Urban Forest?
Anacortes already has one around Whisper Lake and Mount Erie that could be a model.
Future sustainable harvesting of timber could help finance such an endeavor.
Then, there are other possibilities like siting the new County Jail facilities, water storage tanks, microwave towers, windmills for power generation, observation decks, and the like.
Just a few thoughts to put out there.
All this for only $16 million?
Wonder how that compares to the values the County got for 8700 acres. Oh, I forgot, the County ALREADY owned it and just took it back for the equivalent of $35 per acre. Such a deal!
The City has spent more than that for the 1500 or so acres it has acquired to protect Lake Whatcom from further harmful development, but much of that property was developable, and therefore much more valuable to owners.
The question remains, what is a reasonable true value for the 3100-plus acres of mostly forest lands on Galbraith Mtn, of which maybe 40% is actually in the Lake Whatcom watershed?
Once the residential component is subtracted, the remaining CF zoned lands are taxable at a very low rate - reflecting the time needed for timber to become mature enough to harvest.
Realistically, the current owners ought to be prepared to await that time, so that any compelling urgency to sell is reduced - or artificial. But, that's just my guess.
Maybe there's a young mountain bike aficionado out there who's just became a Facebook multi-millionaire? Know anyone like that to recruit? We could rename the property in their honor.
That should be no surprise, because that particular property has been for sale a long time, by various owners.
The question remains, for what purpose does this property exist, and for what price?
The current owners would no doubt like to see the property up zoned to maximize potential profits, but under the present circumstances that does not seem likely.
Instead, the major areas designated Commercial Forestry and Rural Forestry seem fit mainly for those purposes, with two main caveats; due care must be taken for any timber harvesting that impacts the Lake Whatcom watershed and/or other local streams, and road building to access the 67 potential home sites currently permissible under County zoning rules.
It would be good to just buy up the residential development rights for any new homes, since these could be removed forever as a threat to watersheds and a burden to access roads and utilities services.
More problematic is what happens to the timbered areas, much of which are still years away from harvesting. When that time comes, expect some controversy over logging operations so close to urban areas.
The idea of using this property for recreation and open space is a good one, providing funding can be found from County, City or other sources. Good luck with that, since the County has just assumed responsibility for 8700 acres of former DNR forestlands, and the City has squandered $3.5 million more than it had to purchase the entire Chuckanut Ridge property, much of which would have come free if some reasonable level of development had been allowed per legal zoning.
The WHIMPs and other local organizations greatly enjoy hiking and biking on Galbraith Mountain, since it is close by and affords nice views of our surroundings. But, to expect these private groups to maintain the area in perpetuity makes no sense, because of time and expense. It is doubtful that the owners can be relied upon to underwrite safe public use for very long; after all they obtained it from Trillium in exchange for debt. The owners own it for one reason; to make money - or at least not to lose any.
So, what to do? Your guess is as good as mine!
But, for starters, make sure the areas inside the Lake Whatcom watershed remain undeveloped.
Then, think about what makes sense, like conceiving of a parks plan that emphasizes World-Class mountain biking, hiking and viewing great scenery.
And, it could link up with the DNR property, too.
All of those things will draw people to Bellingham plus provide enjoyment for area residents.
Maybe Western Washington University has an idea or two about how to develop and maintain an Urban Forest?
Anacortes already has one around Whisper Lake and Mount Erie that could be a model.
Future sustainable harvesting of timber could help finance such an endeavor.
Then, there are other possibilities like siting the new County Jail facilities, water storage tanks, microwave towers, windmills for power generation, observation decks, and the like.
Just a few thoughts to put out there.
All this for only $16 million?
Wonder how that compares to the values the County got for 8700 acres. Oh, I forgot, the County ALREADY owned it and just took it back for the equivalent of $35 per acre. Such a deal!
The City has spent more than that for the 1500 or so acres it has acquired to protect Lake Whatcom from further harmful development, but much of that property was developable, and therefore much more valuable to owners.
The question remains, what is a reasonable true value for the 3100-plus acres of mostly forest lands on Galbraith Mtn, of which maybe 40% is actually in the Lake Whatcom watershed?
Once the residential component is subtracted, the remaining CF zoned lands are taxable at a very low rate - reflecting the time needed for timber to become mature enough to harvest.
Realistically, the current owners ought to be prepared to await that time, so that any compelling urgency to sell is reduced - or artificial. But, that's just my guess.
Maybe there's a young mountain bike aficionado out there who's just became a Facebook multi-millionaire? Know anyone like that to recruit? We could rename the property in their honor.
Friday, April 27, 2012
Reconveyance Decision Upcoming
Bob Simmons has posted another piece on Crosscut about an impending decision by the Whatcom County Council regarding whether over 8000 acres of steep DNR-managed timberlands upslope of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir will become designated County parklands that severely restrict future clear-cutting and its associated service-road building.
Here is the comment I posted:
Practically every objection raised has now been addressed and reasonably satisfied, except of course for those permanently mired in selfish interest or extreme ideological thinking.
The recent $500,000 contribution through the Whatcom Land Trust to the Mount Baker School District certainly keeps that jurisdiction whole from future timber harvest revenue loss.
Also, scaling back expensive early plans for extensive park development results in far less new revenue demand from the County, which helps both fiscally and in terms of avoiding adverse watershed impacts.
When this DNR reconveyance proposal first publicly surfaced in the fall of 2007, I also raised several concerns, all of which have now been satisfactorily addressed. I hope the County Council -and the new Executive- will allow this idea to go forward and become the reality most residents want and have come to expect.
It will be good for the County, good for Lake Whatcom Reservoir, and it will respect all the hard work, effort and expense it has required to proceed thus far in good faith. All that is left to do is the final approval, which only the Council can decide.
Here is the comment I posted:
This is a good idea and affordable. To mimic nature is always easier when nature is left to do the job it does. There will always be pro & con arguments, but preserving these steep slopes from clear-cutting has to be a no-brainer! Bellingham & Whatcom County are very fortunate to have such a large and pure reservoir for a drinking water supply, but until relatively recently, understanding what it takes to preserve it has been slow in coming. 1992 was the year that a joint Resolution was signed that identified known problems that need to be faced, with careful thought coupled with effective action, not just talk. Other major cities, like Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, Portland, San Francisco, Vancouver, BC, etc had long ago taken steps to ensure the safety of their water supplies, but not Bellingham -which had and has some serious catching up to do!
The Whatcom County government has been very slow in coming to terms with its water policy, and not just concerning the Lake Whatcom Reservoir. It still lacks any meaningful storm water program that has both long term goals and funding. So, this reconveyance can represent a good start, and one that is affordable and effective in mimicking nature on the very steep slopes that need to be kept stable and green, whether one calls it a park or watershed buffer; trees and native plants do the work necessary to hold unstable soil in place. And, since soil is the major source of phosphorus, keeping it out of Lake Whatcom is important if the growing problem of algae blooms is to be curtailed.
Bellingham, by contrast, has focused is watershed preservation efforts on acquiring land more suitable for development, using funds from surcharges on it's water sales as purveyor. Of course, this land is more expensive; it is not often just given away! The point is, that whatever watershed land is preserved -by whatever method- it all contributes to stopping inappropriate development in this stressed and sensitive watershed. Make no mistake about the fact that development -whether housing, clear-cut logging, roads, etc- is the main culprit in degrading this wonderful water supply source! To the extent the DNR reconveyance helps, its good.It's now time for this decision to be favorably made, since the issue has been thoroughly debated for several years, during which almost $400,000 has been already spent by the County to survey and consolidate parcels into the configuration upon which the decision now rests.
Practically every objection raised has now been addressed and reasonably satisfied, except of course for those permanently mired in selfish interest or extreme ideological thinking.
The recent $500,000 contribution through the Whatcom Land Trust to the Mount Baker School District certainly keeps that jurisdiction whole from future timber harvest revenue loss.
Also, scaling back expensive early plans for extensive park development results in far less new revenue demand from the County, which helps both fiscally and in terms of avoiding adverse watershed impacts.
When this DNR reconveyance proposal first publicly surfaced in the fall of 2007, I also raised several concerns, all of which have now been satisfactorily addressed. I hope the County Council -and the new Executive- will allow this idea to go forward and become the reality most residents want and have come to expect.
It will be good for the County, good for Lake Whatcom Reservoir, and it will respect all the hard work, effort and expense it has required to proceed thus far in good faith. All that is left to do is the final approval, which only the Council can decide.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Coal: What Does Lake Whatcom, Waterfront Redevelopement & The Olympic Pipe Line Have to Do With It?
This lengthy title precedes a more lengthy blog, with lots of moving parts and a call for action.
Even if the reader does not agree with the position taken, perhaps you will appreciate the importance of the challenge we are now facing as a direct result of the Coal Terminal -and its accompanying extra trains, large seagoing vessels, unanticipated costs -without funding, and everyday inconveniences coming to pass.
---------------------------
Mysteriously, an old and forgotten Chinese fortune -from a cookie- appeared as I was cleaning out old stuff.
For some reason, I picked it up, read it and saved it for future reference.
It said: "Before the beginning of great brilliance, there must be great chaos."
Wow, that seems to fit the world we're living in, doesn't it? And why not expect great brilliance later?
Today's headlines also featured at least two lead stories containing the word 'chaos'. One pertained to the 'Occupy' movement, which now seems to be more about what people don't like, rather than what they are for; I hope that changes. The other referred to the situation in Greece, where fiscal austerity seems very necessary for that country to save itself -and maybe Europe- from a fate worse than debt. [Yes, that pun was intended]
Point is that major chaos does exist, must be dealt with skillfully and effectively, and is up to people to force their chosen leaders to help them do something about it!
Is there ever any other way? Think about it.
That intro brings me to the meat of today's subject, which I'm just gonna put out there; the proposed GPT Coal terminal has galvanized chaos in our community; what are we going to do about it?
Pout? Fulminate? Complain? Point fingers [you pick which one]? Jawbone each other? Blame our corrupted Constitution? Blame corporations? Blame organized labor? Blame the ancient & vested 'right' of railroads to ship whatever they want to anywhere without asking permission? Blame Warren Buffet, Bill Gates for being unable to curb their appetite for big profits? Blame our elected members of Congress for daring to support such a project? Blame the State government for not nixing this idea out of hand? Blame Whatcom County for having a do-nothing Executive & Council that continues to lean hard right? Blame those idiotic planners of the past for suggesting Cherry Point be a terminal site? Blame each other? Blame China? Blame big Coal? Blame history that actually sought to make Bellingham a leading west coast rail terminus? Blame God for making the waters off Cherry Point deep enough for the largest vessels afloat? Blame WTO, NAFTA and other world trade agreements for greasing the skids for -gasp- world trade? Blame the current economic situation on creating an atmosphere conducive to grabbing any new job opportunity that comes along? Blame the Obama administration for whatever comes to mind that displeases some of us? Blame the previous administration for running up the national debt from unfunded wars & rebates to the rich, then sticking to us to pay for? Blame the Founders for being business friendly? Blame the Courts for interpreting the Constitution such that corporations have now achieved actual person-hood? Blame all the big money that appears around virtually every political contest or proposed change? Blame George Washington for not living long enough to continue being our President? Hell, blame everybody else but ourselves!
Get serious, people!
We have met the enemy, and it is us!
So, how do we go about corralling this churning chunk of local chaos and turning it into energy for positive change -or in the case of GPT- no change?
Let's see; we could buy the property and turn it into a park! You know, like the City did when it splurged and went into unfunded debt on the overly densely zoned area euphemistically known as Chuckanut Ridge.
Maybe that property could be traded back to its former owners -once or twice removed- in exchange for the Cherry Point property currently owned by the same people?
And, if that weren't enough, we could sweeten the pot by agreeing to rezone their other property known as Governor Point, provide them sewer & water and waive all impact fees so they can build an exclusive marina & living spot for the very wealthy.
That ought to jump-start our local economy and create more jobs than GPT, don't you think?
What say you, wealthy owners? A deal? Where do we sign?
Experts say that just by acknowledging it, one solves half the problem. If that's true, maybe a little Resolution -but preferably an Ordinance- along the lines suggested further below, will get us to the halfway point. Of course, our erstwhile Mayor and -as he is quick to point out- the lazy and irresolute Council would have to raise the tempo of our local chaos by getting off their collective keisters and doing something to demonstrate the dire mood of the populace on this issue!
Surely, that would be no problem, would it?
Don't kid yourself, Bellinghamsters, our fearless leaders aren't fearless when it comes to this sort of thing at all!
Ask me how I know.
OK, glad you asked: here's an instant replay of a little scenario that took place over 10 years ago, regarding what everyone said they thought was important, but had done very little walking of that talk. Yes, I'm talking about the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, our public water supply that needed more than talk. Fortunately, the City Council did take action to establish the Watershed Acquisition & Preservation Ordinance, but only after a vigorous public initiative demanded it, and over the objection of the Mayor and 2 or 3 Council members that were too lazy or timid to act!
Read about it here.
That, folks, was a struggle, but one that resulted in action that was badly needed and has been pretty effective.
Something like that will be needed again, but maybe without the luxury of an actual public initiative?
Tell me, why the City Council can't -or won't- represent citizens' interests and agree to pass a simple Resolution -not even a law- that clearly states Bellingham doesn't want the GPT, all those coal trains and the enormous tangible and intangible expense this proposal will burden us with?
Could it be that without a public initiative, they just don't pay attention? Does that mean they disagree with the widely held opinion that GPT is a really bad idea? Or, just lazy, risk adverse or simply clueless?
Maybe, you, -gentle reader- will agree to tell the City Council what you would like for them to do?
And, if they resist, tell them again and again until they get the message.
Tell them individually and forcefully. Tell them publicly and privately. Tell them you mean it!
If that doesn't work, then remember that during the next election; which unfortunately, may be too late to influence the decisions that others will undoubtedly make - whether Bellingham speaks up or not.
• Tell Terry Bornemann, the longtime henchman of organized labor, that you want him to think for himself, but this time to represent your wishes, not only those of his good buddies!
• Tell Gene Knutson, longtime union laborer, populist, sound-byte quipster and sometimes unreliable idol of lazy folks, that you want him to do something that gets him off his ass, and might make him unpopular to some in his audience!
• Tell Stan Snapp to get serious about something besides Lake Whatcom and the Budget while he's still in office!
• Tell Barry Buchanan, come on, what do you really have to lose? Make a lasting statement on an important issue before you go!
• Tell Seth Fleetwood, hey, your South Hill, Edgemoor & Fairhaven constituents need you to speak up on this issue, and with unaccustomed force - that they hope you do have!
• Tell Michael Lilliquist, wrap your carefully coiffed intellect around this issue all you want, but also follow the will of most all the citizens of Bellingham, and hurry up about it!
•Tell Jack Weiss to do what he knows is the right thing and resist this GPT scourge with every ounce of his considerable energy & wit!
And while you're at it, tell our current Mayor, and our new Mayor-to-be, to lead the parade only with the full backing of citizens -we've got your back- and get the hell out of the way if the trombones goose you, or the Majorettes want to strut their stuff, which they can always do better!
And, for god sakes, don't use the predictable advice the City Attorney will surely offer to cover your ass, because what will be proposed may seem slightly outside the bounds of what some may call 'legality'!
Remind this person that she really works for you, comfortably or not.
And, bullshit to any goal-line defense by 'Legal Man', that fictitious Super Hero who loves to stall, stymie and sink any action that doesn't fit pre-ordained protocol!
Hell, we fought a revolution over that crap!
Now, we need to do it again, if we are to regain our rights over a ridiculously stupid project designed to enrich a very few while impoverishing the rest of us.
I have never -at least rarely- been more serious about something in my entire life!
So, without further preamble, here's a few basic points that could be the gist of a Resolution our Council needs to pass, say, by the day after elections? That would be Wednesday, November 9, so next Monday would be a good time to publicly discuss and pass this subject Resolution and post-date its effective date by 2 days. Oops! My bad, today's the deadline for packet agenda items, but there's always the requirement for a mere 24 hours notice if the Council Pres is up to it.
Title and premise could include something like the following:
Bellingham's concern relates to direct impacts likely from tripling of train traffic through its entire shoreline which will create what amounts to an almost constant nuisance and safety hazard that will affect almost 40% of Whatcom County's population and over 60% of its jobs.
Then, the customary litany of whereases [feel free to add your own, see below for comparison to Lake Whatcom]:
• nuisance & noise expected to be tripled from current levels to a projected average of one train every 48 minutes
• safety hazards at all road & trail crossings and water channels [from ships]
• expensive costs of grade crossings & grade separations
• depreciation of public & private property values along Railroad Right-of-way, also affecting current jobs, and future jobs related to waterfront redevelopment and long planned for improved public access
• endangerment of surrounding marine waters, coastlines, aquatic life and inherent exceptional scenic beauty and jobs dependent on same. [tourists, fishers, watercraft, etc]
• arbitrarily wasting the thousands of hours this community has spent in envisioning a higher and better use for over 200 acres of prime waterfront property, plus the accrued expense to date, as well as depriving the City & Port of a viable means of recouping their substantial investment and achieving their anticipated goal of a vibrant mixed use area of universal appeal and value.
You get the idea, see how easy this is?
----------------------
Now, we get to add what we want to happen, or in this case, what we don't want to happen.
Like, maybe a prohibition against trains over a certain frequency, length, weight, timing.
And, the precondition of paying for grade-separated crossings at all existing and planned traffic or trail crossings; sound walls & barriers, track & switching gear relocation and improvements.
And, secured insurance against damage from accidents, injuries, spills, excessive air particulates, etc
And, schedule assurance that AMTRAK trains will have priority access over freight between Portland, OR and Vancouver, BC, and all stops in between.
And, BNSF will assign an individual to be personally responsible for handling community concerns and resolving them on a timely, fair basis, without additional costs to the community, local businesses and property owners.
SSA, BNSF & partners will agree to share its profits from additional trains -full or empty- with Whatcom County and the City of Bellingham at a rate to be determined.
While these examples are meant to illustrate what could be demanded, a more inclusive approach could also be sought by asking the project owners & sponsors to agree to submit a proposal covering & committing to all the benefits, mitigations, infrastructure costs, dispute resolution mechanisms, insurable items, payments/penalties, job opportunities they offer our community.
Once in writing -and only then- can we have a real basis for negotiation, much like what we demanded before allowing the Olympic Pipe Line to be re-installed through City property and restarted under more stringent regulatory and management rules.
Note: That process took 18 months, and required active support from all levels of government agencies, citizens and the entire range of elected officials.
Something like that will also likely be necessary to bring the railroads under more reasonable control; this is not the 1800's, when the government opened the box that turned out to become Pandora's!
=================
{Early excerpts from the draft Watershed Acquisition Ordinance from the year 2000, which became effective on 1/1/2001]
WHEREAS, protection of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, the drinking water source for the City of Bellingham and others, is of the utmost public health importance to the citizens of Bellingham and others who obtain water from the lake; and
WHEREAS, a proven and effective method of protecting municipal water supplies, such as the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, is to acquire, for public ownership, lands within the watershed and protect them from development; and
WHEREAS, the City, County, and Water District 10 Joint Resolution No. 92-68, signed in 1992, recognized the importance of protecting Lake Whatcom and its watershed as a Reservoir and the major drinking water source for the County; and
WHEREAS, the City's Comprehensive Plan requires that before-the-fact prevention take precedence over after-the-fact mitigation or treatment; and
WHEREAS, a Citizens' Task Force of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program is currently developing criteria to prioritize land for protection, determining options for preserving & enhancing high priority lands, and mechanisms for integrating these options with identified priority areas; and
WHEREAS, preserving and enhancing the quality of our drinking water supply has been identified as the top priority for the City Council for the past three years; and
WHEREAS, recognizing that a truly comprehensive program of education, land use regulation and enforcement, monitoring, and review as well as land acquisition is essential to preserving water quality in the Lake Whatcom Reservoir; and the City Council will continue its active support and encouragement of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program with Whatcom County and Water District #10. Therefore ........
======================
CONCLUSION:
We can do something to help at least condition and cope with the GPT proposal!
In fact, we are the only ones who can - but only if we will.
Our leaders desperately need us to tell them what to do; actually, we'll probably need to command them to do it! That is because most of our elected leaders are a lot like us, they wait until they have to do something to actually do it.
Unless, of course, they want to do something - with or without our advance approval.
This is a time when we need to give our leaders advance approval to stand up for what is essential to keep Bellingham a livable, welcoming and viable community.
Long past are the days when a few robber barons -or wannabes- could take over an area and strip it of its resources, beauty and livability!
Yet, something like that could be in the offing if the current crop of robber barons get their way.
It's time, folks!
It's getting close to past the time for us to get involved, other than jawboning.
We've got to do more than talk; we've got to speak up and take the names of those willing to actively help, and those better suited to laziness and bitching!
A really good way to get started is to pick on those we allow to call themselves elected officials; the City Council & Mayor of Bellingham, the County Council & Executive of Whatcom County, the State Representatives & Senator, the Federal members of Congress.
Get their attention! All of them, and take names of what they propose and what they oppose.
Then, we will have identified not only our enemies, but our allies!
At that point, we'll know who's got our back and who's acting behind our back -to our mutual detriment.
Choose sides wisely, then work to achieve your objective!
The world won't revolve around our little problem, but if we don't find a way to fight it, it may have us revolving around it!
-------------------------------------
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Cycles & Recycles
--------------------
Here we are almost to another Earth Day on the way to Cinco de Mayo.
Left behind since the last post are April Fool's Day, IRS Day and the day Congress passed Healthcare Reform.
Before that, the Ides of March and St Patrick's Day and March Madness, amid 6 relaxing weeks in San Francisco and between here and there.
Life has been mostly good from my personal perspective, partly because I was able to largely tune out the steady din of petty -and not so petty - arguments involving politics, of which the local variety is but a relative blip on the screen.
But, our local blip has much in common with the other blips that combine to fill the screen.
The endless debate about priorities, for example.
And the continued attempts to substitute personal agendas for sound public policy.
Or, the rancor, ignorance, disingenuous rhetoric and appearance of back-room deals.
Not to mention the continuous recycling of issues and debates that never seem to be settled.
One reason I started this blog was to document some earlier discussions and perspectives on local issues.
Those 350 or so blogs are still around to read for those interested.
Just search by label, date or key words to get a crude sorting.
Or, simply allow these words to continue their repose in silent cyberspace.
Before long, I will again explore other geography and peaceful pursuits, but before I do, a few comments on the latest political cycle:
Whatcom County
* This year's Council edition is -not surprisingly- a disappointment. First, Ward Nelson's 11-month 'appointment' seemed a deliberate ploy to pack the Council with enough 'yes men' to allow new Chair 'Scheming Sam' Crawford his way in negating prior Council decisions he didn't like, plus throw a few rewards to his puppeteers.
Newbies Knutzen and Kershner are, well, acting like newbies with attitudes, and voting the way 'Scheming Sam' wants them to.
We'll need to elect Nelson's replacement later this year, and hope it is someone with a more progressive bent.
Then, keeping a close eye on 'Scheming Sam's' shenanigans, which have the appearance of being cooked up with cronies outside of Council meetings, will be a full-time job for watchers.
Bellingham
* This year's single gender Council faces unrelenting fiscal realities, which can have some useful opportunities to cut accreted frills and rethink how services can be provided more efficiently and sustainably. Not fun, but necessary every few years.
Some City issues are also being recycled, like the misguided 'Big Box' ban, adoption of the South-side Parks Plan [read 'Chuckanut Ridge'], the ongoing UGA & Annexation debate, TMDL Action Plan for the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, generating real progress in Waterfront Redevelopment, Landlord 'accountability', etc. Just a few items of perpetually unfinished business...
Washington State
Despite desperate economic hard times and draconian budget cuts, the State appears to be better off than most other states, and positioned for a more sustainable recovery.
Re-emergence of the State Income Tax question, long known as the 3rd rail of politics, is a sign that the time for rational discourse is approaching, albeit in a phased fashion.
A few years ago, a Commission chaired by Bill Gates, Senior, concluded that a State Income Tax would provide a fairer, more stable source of revenue, particularly if coupled with limits and reductions on other taxes.
Those conclusions have not changed, although the motivations for such a debate occurring soon have.
This Governor and the current Legislature have proven themselves under intense fire and budget pressures, so perhaps that experience can be built upon for the future.
US Congress
Hope springs eternal for the so-called Republican Party, which has acted so outrageously obstructionist since Obama was convincingly elected President on a platform of 'Big Tent' unity.
Now, they are hoping to benefit in the coming elections by voters discontent with the economy, plus the contentiousness over Healthcare Reform, etc, which they -themselves- actively promoted!
Maybe they will gain seats, but will it be worth it to a country that deserves true leadership instead of continuous acrimony, misinformation campaigns and political games of 'gotcha'?
At least the Obama supporters demonstrated their resolve in achieving tangible progress on health reform that most will come to support once they understand what will be gained!
That could be enough to encourage the so-called 'R's' to change their despicable -and failed- strategy. But don't count on it! It might be easier to just change their name, to something like the Limbaughians, or something containing the letters F-O-X.
Planet Earth
So far, our international relations in the world have noticeably improved under President Obama.
But, time will tell whether balanced diplomacy can succeed under the conditions existing today.
Having help as the world's policeman is essential, and not an option.
But, extricating ourselves from our current wars and conflicts is not an option either.
Barring a series of set-backs, Iraq now seems on its way toward a more stable and reliable government.
But, US and UN assistance will likely be necessary for some years.
Afghanistan is different, and has less prospects for stability'
It might be simpler and more effective for the US to purchase all the opium or poppy production [90% of world supply] and thereby deprive the Taliban or al Qaeda of the major source of their revenues.
This course of action would likely require use of these funds for essential infrastructure and health/education services for the benefit of the populace at large.
Keeping peace and prosperity will always be a big job, but someone's got to do it.
I hope it involves us, both domestically and internationally.
-----------------------------
Here we are almost to another Earth Day on the way to Cinco de Mayo.
Left behind since the last post are April Fool's Day, IRS Day and the day Congress passed Healthcare Reform.
Before that, the Ides of March and St Patrick's Day and March Madness, amid 6 relaxing weeks in San Francisco and between here and there.
Life has been mostly good from my personal perspective, partly because I was able to largely tune out the steady din of petty -and not so petty - arguments involving politics, of which the local variety is but a relative blip on the screen.
But, our local blip has much in common with the other blips that combine to fill the screen.
The endless debate about priorities, for example.
And the continued attempts to substitute personal agendas for sound public policy.
Or, the rancor, ignorance, disingenuous rhetoric and appearance of back-room deals.
Not to mention the continuous recycling of issues and debates that never seem to be settled.
One reason I started this blog was to document some earlier discussions and perspectives on local issues.
Those 350 or so blogs are still around to read for those interested.
Just search by label, date or key words to get a crude sorting.
Or, simply allow these words to continue their repose in silent cyberspace.
Before long, I will again explore other geography and peaceful pursuits, but before I do, a few comments on the latest political cycle:
Whatcom County
* This year's Council edition is -not surprisingly- a disappointment. First, Ward Nelson's 11-month 'appointment' seemed a deliberate ploy to pack the Council with enough 'yes men' to allow new Chair 'Scheming Sam' Crawford his way in negating prior Council decisions he didn't like, plus throw a few rewards to his puppeteers.
Newbies Knutzen and Kershner are, well, acting like newbies with attitudes, and voting the way 'Scheming Sam' wants them to.
We'll need to elect Nelson's replacement later this year, and hope it is someone with a more progressive bent.
Then, keeping a close eye on 'Scheming Sam's' shenanigans, which have the appearance of being cooked up with cronies outside of Council meetings, will be a full-time job for watchers.
Bellingham
* This year's single gender Council faces unrelenting fiscal realities, which can have some useful opportunities to cut accreted frills and rethink how services can be provided more efficiently and sustainably. Not fun, but necessary every few years.
Some City issues are also being recycled, like the misguided 'Big Box' ban, adoption of the South-side Parks Plan [read 'Chuckanut Ridge'], the ongoing UGA & Annexation debate, TMDL Action Plan for the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, generating real progress in Waterfront Redevelopment, Landlord 'accountability', etc. Just a few items of perpetually unfinished business...
Washington State
Despite desperate economic hard times and draconian budget cuts, the State appears to be better off than most other states, and positioned for a more sustainable recovery.
Re-emergence of the State Income Tax question, long known as the 3rd rail of politics, is a sign that the time for rational discourse is approaching, albeit in a phased fashion.
A few years ago, a Commission chaired by Bill Gates, Senior, concluded that a State Income Tax would provide a fairer, more stable source of revenue, particularly if coupled with limits and reductions on other taxes.
Those conclusions have not changed, although the motivations for such a debate occurring soon have.
This Governor and the current Legislature have proven themselves under intense fire and budget pressures, so perhaps that experience can be built upon for the future.
US Congress
Hope springs eternal for the so-called Republican Party, which has acted so outrageously obstructionist since Obama was convincingly elected President on a platform of 'Big Tent' unity.
Now, they are hoping to benefit in the coming elections by voters discontent with the economy, plus the contentiousness over Healthcare Reform, etc, which they -themselves- actively promoted!
Maybe they will gain seats, but will it be worth it to a country that deserves true leadership instead of continuous acrimony, misinformation campaigns and political games of 'gotcha'?
At least the Obama supporters demonstrated their resolve in achieving tangible progress on health reform that most will come to support once they understand what will be gained!
That could be enough to encourage the so-called 'R's' to change their despicable -and failed- strategy. But don't count on it! It might be easier to just change their name, to something like the Limbaughians, or something containing the letters F-O-X.
Planet Earth
So far, our international relations in the world have noticeably improved under President Obama.
But, time will tell whether balanced diplomacy can succeed under the conditions existing today.
Having help as the world's policeman is essential, and not an option.
But, extricating ourselves from our current wars and conflicts is not an option either.
Barring a series of set-backs, Iraq now seems on its way toward a more stable and reliable government.
But, US and UN assistance will likely be necessary for some years.
Afghanistan is different, and has less prospects for stability'
It might be simpler and more effective for the US to purchase all the opium or poppy production [90% of world supply] and thereby deprive the Taliban or al Qaeda of the major source of their revenues.
This course of action would likely require use of these funds for essential infrastructure and health/education services for the benefit of the populace at large.
Keeping peace and prosperity will always be a big job, but someone's got to do it.
I hope it involves us, both domestically and internationally.
-----------------------------
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Lake Whatcom: Fiddling with Phosphorus
-------------------------------
As much as I support term limits -either voluntary or mandatory- there are a few drawbacks.
Like continuity of important policies and programs, for example.
Or, ensuring that education and lessons learned about basic public safety, health and welfare are passed along to new officials charged with making important, non-partisan decisions.
But, not all incumbents are bad, just as not all newbies are good - or prepared for the challenges of public office.
Learning curves can be steep, but that difficult trajectory is not necessarily always followed - at least voluntarily.
Making things worse, often experience and knowledge are actually disparaged as undesirable 'elitism'.
That's really too bad, since that is largely an assumption based on political cynicism, but mostly because it blindly substitutes ignorance and inexperience!
-------
Kathy Kershner, a newly elected County Council member, seems to be having her first fish-bowl experience with a controversial public issue - the Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
This Herald article carried the story.
I sincerely hope this will prove to be a positive 'teachable moment' for Ms Kershner and not a reason to solidify the substitution of ideological beliefs for scientifically proven knowledge and established policy.
-------
Kershner is certainly not the only person who has experienced difficulty in understanding the growing problems with our Reservoir.
But, at least she seems to be trying, which is more than you can say for some of her peers, some whom have been in office for years.
The least we can do is to help her learn the best way we can.
In that spirit, the following points are offered, including reference to the 65 blogs labeled 'LAKE' that I have posted since July 2007.
-------
The Clean Water Act [CWA] was enacted in 1972 and amended several times since.
The Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA] was enacted in 1974 and also amended several times since.
Both Acts are intended to prevent pollution of our valuable water resources.
Both were enacted after serious, harmful pollution had already occurred, and both have been only partially successful in meeting their respective goals.
These are very important points to note, particularly because prevention of water pollution is much more desirable and cost effective than waiting for a problem to occur and then trying to clean it up.
The hope is that we learn from past mistakes and apply those lessons to preventing or at least minimizing future problems with public water supply systems.
That's simply called working smart!
-------
While the CWA and SDWA have different goals, they also are intended to compliment each other, not compete.
One way to understand their respective roles is to see how they are administered here in Washington State:
The Department of Ecology [DOE] administers the CWA.
Pertaining to Lake Whatcom, DOE is charged with keeping that water body 'fishable and swimmable'.
That is also an important factor in maintaining untreated raw water purity, since it represents the first line of defense in a highly recommended 'multiple barrier' system for public water supply sources.
The Department of Health [DOH] administers the SDWA.
Pertaining to Lake Whatcom, DOH is charged with making sure that treated water produced by Public Water Purveyors meets drinking water standards.
Since the 1996 SDWA Amendments, each Public Water Purveyor is required to develop and implement a SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PLAN [SWPP], with updates due to the DOH every 6 years.
Among other things, the SWPP describes existing and projected uses in the surrounding watershed and requires corrective action if reasonable protections are inadequate or threatened.
'Multiple barriers' are therefore strongly recommended to protect the raw water supply.
Hopefully, this brief explanation will help clear up some of the confusion about roles and responsibilities, as well as the interrelated nature of the CWA and SDWA standards and requirements.
Ultimately, it is up to local citizens and elected officials to take timely, wise and effective action to protect our valuable public water supply for future generations.
After all, it is the only one available to us with sufficient quantity and purity to enable optimal and cost effective use of our existing treatment, storage and distribution system.
---------
For those interested in more information about Lake Whatcom, these postings may be of particular interest:
2007:
July 28
August 8, 9, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30
September 5, 11, 30
October 2, 8, 9, 12, 19
November 2
December 4
2008:
May 11, 24
August 8
November 27
2009:
January 19
June 11, 14
July 31
----------------
As much as I support term limits -either voluntary or mandatory- there are a few drawbacks.
Like continuity of important policies and programs, for example.
Or, ensuring that education and lessons learned about basic public safety, health and welfare are passed along to new officials charged with making important, non-partisan decisions.
But, not all incumbents are bad, just as not all newbies are good - or prepared for the challenges of public office.
Learning curves can be steep, but that difficult trajectory is not necessarily always followed - at least voluntarily.
Making things worse, often experience and knowledge are actually disparaged as undesirable 'elitism'.
That's really too bad, since that is largely an assumption based on political cynicism, but mostly because it blindly substitutes ignorance and inexperience!
-------
Kathy Kershner, a newly elected County Council member, seems to be having her first fish-bowl experience with a controversial public issue - the Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
This Herald article carried the story.
I sincerely hope this will prove to be a positive 'teachable moment' for Ms Kershner and not a reason to solidify the substitution of ideological beliefs for scientifically proven knowledge and established policy.
-------
Kershner is certainly not the only person who has experienced difficulty in understanding the growing problems with our Reservoir.
But, at least she seems to be trying, which is more than you can say for some of her peers, some whom have been in office for years.
The least we can do is to help her learn the best way we can.
In that spirit, the following points are offered, including reference to the 65 blogs labeled 'LAKE' that I have posted since July 2007.
-------
The Clean Water Act [CWA] was enacted in 1972 and amended several times since.
The Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA] was enacted in 1974 and also amended several times since.
Both Acts are intended to prevent pollution of our valuable water resources.
Both were enacted after serious, harmful pollution had already occurred, and both have been only partially successful in meeting their respective goals.
These are very important points to note, particularly because prevention of water pollution is much more desirable and cost effective than waiting for a problem to occur and then trying to clean it up.
The hope is that we learn from past mistakes and apply those lessons to preventing or at least minimizing future problems with public water supply systems.
That's simply called working smart!
-------
While the CWA and SDWA have different goals, they also are intended to compliment each other, not compete.
One way to understand their respective roles is to see how they are administered here in Washington State:
The Department of Ecology [DOE] administers the CWA.
Pertaining to Lake Whatcom, DOE is charged with keeping that water body 'fishable and swimmable'.
That is also an important factor in maintaining untreated raw water purity, since it represents the first line of defense in a highly recommended 'multiple barrier' system for public water supply sources.
The Department of Health [DOH] administers the SDWA.
Pertaining to Lake Whatcom, DOH is charged with making sure that treated water produced by Public Water Purveyors meets drinking water standards.
Since the 1996 SDWA Amendments, each Public Water Purveyor is required to develop and implement a SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PLAN [SWPP], with updates due to the DOH every 6 years.
Among other things, the SWPP describes existing and projected uses in the surrounding watershed and requires corrective action if reasonable protections are inadequate or threatened.
'Multiple barriers' are therefore strongly recommended to protect the raw water supply.
Hopefully, this brief explanation will help clear up some of the confusion about roles and responsibilities, as well as the interrelated nature of the CWA and SDWA standards and requirements.
Ultimately, it is up to local citizens and elected officials to take timely, wise and effective action to protect our valuable public water supply for future generations.
After all, it is the only one available to us with sufficient quantity and purity to enable optimal and cost effective use of our existing treatment, storage and distribution system.
---------
For those interested in more information about Lake Whatcom, these postings may be of particular interest:
2007:
July 28
August 8, 9, 11, 12, 17, 18, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30
September 5, 11, 30
October 2, 8, 9, 12, 19
November 2
December 4
2008:
May 11, 24
August 8
November 27
2009:
January 19
June 11, 14
July 31
----------------
Friday, January 8, 2010
Lake Whatcom: Little Ducky Duddle's Fault?
The Ducky Duddle Song
Little ducky duddle
went wading in a puddle,
wading in a puddle quite small.
Said he "it doesn't matter
how much I splash and splatter
'cause I'm just a little ducky after all."
--------------------------
The current Weekly's GRISTLE poses some interesting background and observations about our RESERVOIR.
I recommend reading it.
Those who have followed this issue for a while know what a conundrum it is.
Even after a string of after-the-fact beneficial actions by City & County governments as well as the WA Dept of Ecology and other agencies, the rate of steady degradation of our drinking water supply has slowed slightly, but not stopped, much less reversed as the DOE has directed.
Recounting the long litany of well-intended past actions would fill a few pages and more importantly lead some into believing we've already done a lot, which lessens the need to do more.
Nothing could be less true!
Suffice to say that some of the bigger steps, like down-zong, restrictions on clearing and grading, watershed acquisition & preservation, storm-water regulations and mitigation, lake-friendly gardening & landscaping are working to some extent, but not nearly enough to actually reverse the trend of lake water degradation.
Believe me, I know how tiring it can be working on this issue! And expensive. And controversial. And frustrating.
But that is the nature of this beast.
Think of a long-term marathon race, not a 40-yard sprint -as many seem to prefer.
With that concept in mind, the new year brings in some new elected officials, who may or may not be able to do much more than has been done to benefit our Reservoir.
Time will tell, as it has up to now.
And the results are not nearly good enough.
Waiting for the DOE TMDL Study to tell us what is needed to be done is easy, because we're really good at waiting!
Actually taking the actions required is the hard part.
And its not easy to conceive of many more 'quick fixes', like the ones already put into place.
Only steady, incremental steps can be visualized that will largely depend on the voluntary efforts of enlightened watershed residents, property owners, users and concerned citizens.
Of course, government regulations, funding and enforcement are necessary to effectively support these -and prior- efforts.
Ideas like infiltration of storm-water, creating a large park & open space from former DNR forest lands, and the like do have the potential for adding more protection from pollutants rapidly entering Lake Whatcom.
But, these approaches need to be tested and evaluated for their efficacy.
As tempting as it is to wish for a 'silver bullet' to solve our Reservoir degradation problem, that is not likely.
Only the 'block & tackle' work of constant vigilance, political courage and steady effort is likely to be effective over time.
The degradation of our drinking water Reservoir has been caused primarily by unfiltered stormwater run-off, resulting from multiple acts over time; literally 'death by a thousand pin-pricks'.
Or a thousand Ducky Duddles?
That's the point; we are all Ducky Duddles, and it DOES matter how much we splash and splatter!
Under these circumstances, a quick and painless solution is not likely to occur.
Daunting as that outlook may seem, it should encourage more focused action, not less.
I hope the new elected officials will rise to this task and accept their share of accountability for Lake Whatcom.
After all, it is the drinking water source for half of the people in Whatcom County.
---------------------
Back to the Gristle's conclusion: Seth [Fleetwood], with feet on both sides of county and city water policy, chose not to step into that puddle.
Maybe that's not such a bad thing for Seth to not do, unlike Ducky Duddle?
After all, he's been there, done that and knows -first hand- the kind of irrational reaction that can be triggered by stepping into such a puddle with both feet.
Remember 'Boats Off', and the County Council's [and Seth's] unhappy experience with that?
It's intent was simply to restrict the use of older motorized watercraft that spewed 25% of their fuel directly into the water.
Doesn't that sound like a desirable thing to do?
Especially since the City's Water Treatment Plant isn't designed to remove harmful hydrocarbons?
So, it really makes no difference whether Seth volunteered for the City's Lake Whatcom Reservoir Watershed Committee -for several reasons:
(1) Unlike the County Council, the City Council Committees are 'weak' committees meant primarily to spread the early discussion workload, although these sessions are also inclusive of all other members, and all final decisions are made by the Council-As-A-Whole.
(2) Given the make-up of City Council, there is comparatively less resistance to considering, passing and funding programs to benefit Lake Whatcom. Seth does not need to be on this committee to stay informed or contribute ideas.
{My last 2 years I elected to not serve on this committee, because I thought others needed to become more involved.]
(3) Seth DID pick the Parks & Recreation Committee, whose activities he is familiar and comfortable with.
And, it's possible that Seth MAY use that position to help promote the County's proposed Reconveyance of 8400 acres of DNR forestlands to create a large park and open space in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
Some have already characterized this as a potential 'home run' for the Reservoir, and it could be, provided a careful, low impact plan is adopted -along with the long term funding to adequately manage it.
But, I remain a skeptic until I see those critical elements in place.
-----------------------
Seth has served us pretty well while a part of the County Council.
And, I suspect he will continue in that vein while on the City Council.
No one should doubt that Seth's new job will prove more comfortable to him, both in the scope of issues considered and better compatibility with his peers, not to mention a much more favorable atmosphere for being re-elected.
Of course, two years ago Seth did run for Mayor. Think he'll do that again?
Since his position is the only 2-year elected seat in the County, do you think he will support changing it to a 4-year seat?
His predecessor certainly fought that idea, but think of the possible ramifications for Seth.
By serving a 2-year term, Seth would have to pick which office he runs for in 2 years.
But, a 4-year term -on the same election cycle as Gene Knutson, Michael Lilliquist and Stan Snapp- would mean he could run for Mayor [or other office] without first relinquishing his Council seat.
Think about it.
--------------------------
Thursday, August 20, 2009
A Potpourri Of News: Port Primary & County Growth Management
---------------------
Things are happening all the time, but significant results and their reporting tend to bunch up at intervals.
That's what has happened this week.
Since I was out of pocket yesterday, here are comments on two issues of local interest:
---------------------
'In war, you can only be killed once, but in politics, many times.' - Winston Churchill
'My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on.' - John F. Kennedy
--------
Local Primary Elections
An updated Auditor's Report will be issued today, but preliminary results were posted Tuesday evening, and can be found at this URL.
KGMI and The Herald also posted summary articles at their respective links, with some commentary.
I am particularly delighted with the Port of Bellingham results, which show challengers John Blethen and Mike McAuley as leading vote-getters.
But caution must be offered since the General Election is coming, which is time the big money comes into play to attract what should be a larger turnout.
That is the race that really counts, so let's not be lulled into thinking this election is over!
BTW, I appreciate today's NWCitizen blog labeling me as 'conservative'. I take that in the best sense of the word, just as I do the word 'liberal' which has also been applied to me with some frequency.
Too often these terms are tossed off as lazy and over-simplified pejoratives, which is a disservice to everyone, especially readers.
So, I guess being called both terms may qualify me as somewhat 'balanced' in my views? Hope so.
The quotes cited above come from a Conservative and a Liberal.
------------------------
Growth Management
Both The Herald and KGMI reported on our County Executive's recommendations on Whatcom County land use, information that has been very slow in coming, at least until the County Council requested it while recognizing a real deadline is coming on December 1.
The County is over 2 years tardy in correcting and completing its Comprehensive Plan, and these recommendations -along with any Council modifications and eventual approval- are needed necessary to avoid actual State penalties, in the form of lost opportunities for grants, and possibly even fines.
Directionally, the County now seems to be on a better trajectory, at least in updating its Comp Plan under last-minute pressure. But, will this make any difference? Only time will tell.
The idea of reducing the size of Urban Growth Areas [UGAs in Govt jargon] isn't all bad, either for zoning purposes or for their eventual annexation to cities.
Often, disparate areas were lumped together without much thought it seems. One example is the Dewey Valley area which applied for annexation to Bellingham, but was rejected due to its overall size, location, disparate uses and potential fiscal impacts on the city. That particular result might have been avoided had the Dewey Valley area been more compact and easier and cheaper to serve.
I am assuming that the County's recommendations will also extend to the so-called '5-year Review Areas', which the County also designates from time to time. This designation is preliminary to an area even becoming an UGA.
It remains to be seen whether existing UGAs [county's jurisdiction] can be easily downsized without administrative, legislative or legal challenge.
Also, presumably, the respective cities would have to agree.
-----------
In the case of the Geneva and Hillsdale UGAs, I believe the City of Bellingham might agree to a change in designation, but only after an in-depth discussion about whether equal or better protections to Lake Whatcom could result.
Years ago, when the decision was made to include Geneva and Hillsdale as UGAs, there were clear pluses AND minuses involved, but in the end they were designated UGAs.
Now, with more stringent land use regulations -especially STORMWATER requirements- and the fact that significant buildout, facilitated by the independently operated Water District, and restrictive land preservation acquisitions and easements, have occurred may change these weighting factors.
Also, there is the little matter of compliance with mitigating and remedial requirements of the TMDL Study issued by the Dept of Ecology.
Of particular concern are those areas with Geneva and Hillsdale that are unusually susceptible to runoff from upslope development, either in the UGA or in unincorporated areas -like Squalicum Mountain, Toad Lake and Galbraith/Lookout Mountain.
The net effect of downsizing county controlled UGAs may include the following;
• general reduction in areas zoned for high density use of any type- could be positive, unless buildable land supply reduction unduly increases prices.
• gradual slowing of growth and development, either real or perceived -could be positive, unless concurrency of housing and transportation infrastructure is thrown more out of balance.
• more unincorporated land retained, whether for agricultural, forest, open space -could be positive, unless more sporadic county rezoning and low density development occurs [already a known problem].
• appearance of compliance with GMA guidelines - a definite positive.
• a likely net reduction in county annual revenues from development, but also longer retention time of lands in county jurisdiction.
-------
Regarding the proportion of countywide growth to be accommodated by the City of Bellingham, the debate between 38% and 42% probably brackets the best number available.
And since actual growth rates and land absorption are only known from history, why quibble?
A 1.4% long term growth rate is likely OK; but 2.something is excessive.
This seems to be largely about asserting more control over another jurisdiction than is necessary or justified.
The County is charged with the responsibility of countywide planning, with the cities part of that plan.
The individual cities certainly know their history of growth, limitations and expectations better than the County ever could.
So, just make these elements fit!
From the report it appears that some cities prefer more projected growth than does Bellingham.
And, the estimated numbers are not so big as to be impossible to change around a little and still total the amount approved.
Why not do this?
[Alternatively, the County might want to reconsider supporting the Waterfront Redevelopment, which itself might accommodate the difference between County & City preferences. Here, I know the County's EDI [Economic Development Incentive] funds are not supposed to go for 'residential development', but is a dense mixed use redevelopment of a blighted area and expected to create hundreds of new jobs, intended to be included in this definition?]
----------------------------------
'All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions.' - Adlai E. Stevenson
'Society, community, family are all conserving institutions. They try to maintain stability, and to prevent, or at least to slow down, change. But the organization of the post-capitalist society of organizations is a destabilizer. Because its function is to put knowledge to work -- on tools, processes, and products; on work; on knowledge itself -- it must be organized for constant change. - PETER F. DRUCKER
-----------------------------------
Things are happening all the time, but significant results and their reporting tend to bunch up at intervals.
That's what has happened this week.
Since I was out of pocket yesterday, here are comments on two issues of local interest:
---------------------
'In war, you can only be killed once, but in politics, many times.' - Winston Churchill
'My experience in government is that when things are non-controversial and beautifully coordinated, there is not much going on.' - John F. Kennedy
--------
Local Primary Elections
An updated Auditor's Report will be issued today, but preliminary results were posted Tuesday evening, and can be found at this URL.
KGMI and The Herald also posted summary articles at their respective links, with some commentary.
I am particularly delighted with the Port of Bellingham results, which show challengers John Blethen and Mike McAuley as leading vote-getters.
But caution must be offered since the General Election is coming, which is time the big money comes into play to attract what should be a larger turnout.
That is the race that really counts, so let's not be lulled into thinking this election is over!
BTW, I appreciate today's NWCitizen blog labeling me as 'conservative'. I take that in the best sense of the word, just as I do the word 'liberal' which has also been applied to me with some frequency.
Too often these terms are tossed off as lazy and over-simplified pejoratives, which is a disservice to everyone, especially readers.
So, I guess being called both terms may qualify me as somewhat 'balanced' in my views? Hope so.
The quotes cited above come from a Conservative and a Liberal.
------------------------
Growth Management
Both The Herald and KGMI reported on our County Executive's recommendations on Whatcom County land use, information that has been very slow in coming, at least until the County Council requested it while recognizing a real deadline is coming on December 1.
The County is over 2 years tardy in correcting and completing its Comprehensive Plan, and these recommendations -along with any Council modifications and eventual approval- are needed necessary to avoid actual State penalties, in the form of lost opportunities for grants, and possibly even fines.
Directionally, the County now seems to be on a better trajectory, at least in updating its Comp Plan under last-minute pressure. But, will this make any difference? Only time will tell.
The idea of reducing the size of Urban Growth Areas [UGAs in Govt jargon] isn't all bad, either for zoning purposes or for their eventual annexation to cities.
Often, disparate areas were lumped together without much thought it seems. One example is the Dewey Valley area which applied for annexation to Bellingham, but was rejected due to its overall size, location, disparate uses and potential fiscal impacts on the city. That particular result might have been avoided had the Dewey Valley area been more compact and easier and cheaper to serve.
I am assuming that the County's recommendations will also extend to the so-called '5-year Review Areas', which the County also designates from time to time. This designation is preliminary to an area even becoming an UGA.
It remains to be seen whether existing UGAs [county's jurisdiction] can be easily downsized without administrative, legislative or legal challenge.
Also, presumably, the respective cities would have to agree.
-----------
In the case of the Geneva and Hillsdale UGAs, I believe the City of Bellingham might agree to a change in designation, but only after an in-depth discussion about whether equal or better protections to Lake Whatcom could result.
Years ago, when the decision was made to include Geneva and Hillsdale as UGAs, there were clear pluses AND minuses involved, but in the end they were designated UGAs.
Now, with more stringent land use regulations -especially STORMWATER requirements- and the fact that significant buildout, facilitated by the independently operated Water District, and restrictive land preservation acquisitions and easements, have occurred may change these weighting factors.
Also, there is the little matter of compliance with mitigating and remedial requirements of the TMDL Study issued by the Dept of Ecology.
Of particular concern are those areas with Geneva and Hillsdale that are unusually susceptible to runoff from upslope development, either in the UGA or in unincorporated areas -like Squalicum Mountain, Toad Lake and Galbraith/Lookout Mountain.
The net effect of downsizing county controlled UGAs may include the following;
• general reduction in areas zoned for high density use of any type- could be positive, unless buildable land supply reduction unduly increases prices.
• gradual slowing of growth and development, either real or perceived -could be positive, unless concurrency of housing and transportation infrastructure is thrown more out of balance.
• more unincorporated land retained, whether for agricultural, forest, open space -could be positive, unless more sporadic county rezoning and low density development occurs [already a known problem].
• appearance of compliance with GMA guidelines - a definite positive.
• a likely net reduction in county annual revenues from development, but also longer retention time of lands in county jurisdiction.
-------
Regarding the proportion of countywide growth to be accommodated by the City of Bellingham, the debate between 38% and 42% probably brackets the best number available.
And since actual growth rates and land absorption are only known from history, why quibble?
A 1.4% long term growth rate is likely OK; but 2.something is excessive.
This seems to be largely about asserting more control over another jurisdiction than is necessary or justified.
The County is charged with the responsibility of countywide planning, with the cities part of that plan.
The individual cities certainly know their history of growth, limitations and expectations better than the County ever could.
So, just make these elements fit!
From the report it appears that some cities prefer more projected growth than does Bellingham.
And, the estimated numbers are not so big as to be impossible to change around a little and still total the amount approved.
Why not do this?
[Alternatively, the County might want to reconsider supporting the Waterfront Redevelopment, which itself might accommodate the difference between County & City preferences. Here, I know the County's EDI [Economic Development Incentive] funds are not supposed to go for 'residential development', but is a dense mixed use redevelopment of a blighted area and expected to create hundreds of new jobs, intended to be included in this definition?]
----------------------------------
'All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions.' - Adlai E. Stevenson
'Society, community, family are all conserving institutions. They try to maintain stability, and to prevent, or at least to slow down, change. But the organization of the post-capitalist society of organizations is a destabilizer. Because its function is to put knowledge to work -- on tools, processes, and products; on work; on knowledge itself -- it must be organized for constant change. - PETER F. DRUCKER
-----------------------------------
Saturday, August 1, 2009
August: Getting Started on the Right Foot
-----------------------
With respect to water, Canadians and Americans suffer from the same disease:
We say that it is priceless, but act as if it were absurdly cheap.
Most North Americans pay far less for their water than even just the cost of supplying it, cleaning it up and returning it to the environment.
Yet subsidizing water use is economically and ecologically disastrous.
In fact, heavy subsidization of water in the US is the cause of any water "shortages" that may exist there.
-Editorial, The Toronto Globe and Mail, 23 May 1998
-----------------------
Today is an exciting day for me since I expect my son, Tom, will arrive later this evening.
He is driving from North Carolina and enjoying seeing parts of the Country for the first time, including the State of Washington.
Right now, he's somewhere in Montana with a few miles yet to travel.
It will be fun showing Tom around this area, but that activity may slow down my blog production for a while, but who knows?
Maybe just the opposite will happen, with more short blurbs and photos.
-----------------------
I had another thought about yesterday's topic, which was preserving Lake Whatcom and our growing water treatment problem.
The idea of linking value to cost, or worth to price, ought to come into play more than it does.
Water rates, for example, only reflect the costs of treatment and distribution, by law.
Of course these costs also include the diversion system, monitoring water quality, acquiring & preserving critical watershed properties, public education, enforcement and the like, all of which are important aspects of reservoir preservation that we need to recognize aswe pay for them.
The raw reservoir [Lake] water itself is assigned no intrinsic value; thus, it's cost is ZERO!
That is because the waters of this state belongs to its citizens, not private corporations, which is as it should be.
But, that also means we, the citizens, are free to use these waters pretty much any way we choose, and that isn't always a good thing when it comes to saving good quality water for the future.
Part of the problem is that Washington State -unlike Oregon- long ago allowed mostly private ownership of its shorelines.
How does that fit with citizens being able to access and preserve their water?
I think it is a problem, and a big one that will be difficult to fix.
-------
That is why the Shoreline Management Program now being reviewed for approval by the City Council needs to be as strict as possible, including for Lake Whatcom.
Because the City's portion of the Lake is mostly already developed, or platted and vested, the shoreline buffers are almost entirely less wide than is necessary.
But, that isn't a reason the lots, property and homes that encroach upon good sense should not be deemed 'non-conforming'.
If we aren't able to communicate clearly to ALL STAKEHOLDERS that there are good reasons for having effective shoreline buffers, doesn't that represent a major lost opportunity for education?
I know some people will complain and say such an act is unwise and unenforceable -now or later- but there are others who will willingly accept the idea and learn from it.
So, I hope the Council decides to increase the buffer width for Lake Whatcom, Silver Creek and other tributaries to at least 100 feet.
I don't know what Whatcom County has settled upon, but at least match their effort.
The Shoreline Management Program has not been updated substantially for close to 20 years, and now is considered as an essential adjunct to our Growth Management Act; some say it acts as a 14th GMA goal.
So, I hope the City Council decision reflects very thoughtful care for what the SMP can do for us over time, and not simple expediency, even though that may seem simpler.
-----------
I have always been a big advocate of tap water—not because I think it harmless but because the idea of purchasing water extracted from some remote watershed and then hauled halfway round the world bothers me. Drinking bottled water relieves people of their concern about ecological threats to the river they live by or to the basins of groundwater they live over. It's the same kind of thinking that leads some to the complacent conclusion that if things on earth get bad enough, well, we'll just blast off to a space station somewhere else. - Sandra Steingraber, Having Faith, 2001
-------
I strongly agree with the above quote, because the idea of associating the water I drink with its source, care, custody and control, appeals to me.
For example, if you are out in the wilderness, what do you do for water?
Find a source of clean water and a relatively safe location to access it.
Fill a container and treat the water, either by filtering, dissolving chlorine/iodine or boiling.
Drink only this carefully treated water, except in extreme emergencies.
Why not think about using similar steps with our tap water?
A quick true story:
Years ago, a friend made his first business trip to Mexico City, being aware that 'Montezuma's Revenge' could be a problem if he weren't careful.
He checked into a modern hotel, but decided to not use the tap water for drinking or even brushing his teeth.
Instead, he purchased expensive bottled water to drink; little did he know how expensive!
He got a very bad case of 'M-R' and had to be treated medically.
Later, he found out the source was the bottled water he'd purchased; where it had come from nobody knew!
The tap water he'd avoided in the hotel was not only OK but of very good quality.
Think there may be a lesson here?
Lake Whatcom is our RESERVOIR, first and foremost!
----------------------
With respect to water, Canadians and Americans suffer from the same disease:
We say that it is priceless, but act as if it were absurdly cheap.
Most North Americans pay far less for their water than even just the cost of supplying it, cleaning it up and returning it to the environment.
Yet subsidizing water use is economically and ecologically disastrous.
In fact, heavy subsidization of water in the US is the cause of any water "shortages" that may exist there.
-Editorial, The Toronto Globe and Mail, 23 May 1998
-----------------------
Today is an exciting day for me since I expect my son, Tom, will arrive later this evening.
He is driving from North Carolina and enjoying seeing parts of the Country for the first time, including the State of Washington.
Right now, he's somewhere in Montana with a few miles yet to travel.
It will be fun showing Tom around this area, but that activity may slow down my blog production for a while, but who knows?
Maybe just the opposite will happen, with more short blurbs and photos.
-----------------------
I had another thought about yesterday's topic, which was preserving Lake Whatcom and our growing water treatment problem.
The idea of linking value to cost, or worth to price, ought to come into play more than it does.
Water rates, for example, only reflect the costs of treatment and distribution, by law.
Of course these costs also include the diversion system, monitoring water quality, acquiring & preserving critical watershed properties, public education, enforcement and the like, all of which are important aspects of reservoir preservation that we need to recognize aswe pay for them.
The raw reservoir [Lake] water itself is assigned no intrinsic value; thus, it's cost is ZERO!
That is because the waters of this state belongs to its citizens, not private corporations, which is as it should be.
But, that also means we, the citizens, are free to use these waters pretty much any way we choose, and that isn't always a good thing when it comes to saving good quality water for the future.
Part of the problem is that Washington State -unlike Oregon- long ago allowed mostly private ownership of its shorelines.
How does that fit with citizens being able to access and preserve their water?
I think it is a problem, and a big one that will be difficult to fix.
-------
That is why the Shoreline Management Program now being reviewed for approval by the City Council needs to be as strict as possible, including for Lake Whatcom.
Because the City's portion of the Lake is mostly already developed, or platted and vested, the shoreline buffers are almost entirely less wide than is necessary.
But, that isn't a reason the lots, property and homes that encroach upon good sense should not be deemed 'non-conforming'.
If we aren't able to communicate clearly to ALL STAKEHOLDERS that there are good reasons for having effective shoreline buffers, doesn't that represent a major lost opportunity for education?
I know some people will complain and say such an act is unwise and unenforceable -now or later- but there are others who will willingly accept the idea and learn from it.
So, I hope the Council decides to increase the buffer width for Lake Whatcom, Silver Creek and other tributaries to at least 100 feet.
I don't know what Whatcom County has settled upon, but at least match their effort.
The Shoreline Management Program has not been updated substantially for close to 20 years, and now is considered as an essential adjunct to our Growth Management Act; some say it acts as a 14th GMA goal.
So, I hope the City Council decision reflects very thoughtful care for what the SMP can do for us over time, and not simple expediency, even though that may seem simpler.
-----------
I have always been a big advocate of tap water—not because I think it harmless but because the idea of purchasing water extracted from some remote watershed and then hauled halfway round the world bothers me. Drinking bottled water relieves people of their concern about ecological threats to the river they live by or to the basins of groundwater they live over. It's the same kind of thinking that leads some to the complacent conclusion that if things on earth get bad enough, well, we'll just blast off to a space station somewhere else. - Sandra Steingraber, Having Faith, 2001
-------
I strongly agree with the above quote, because the idea of associating the water I drink with its source, care, custody and control, appeals to me.
For example, if you are out in the wilderness, what do you do for water?
Find a source of clean water and a relatively safe location to access it.
Fill a container and treat the water, either by filtering, dissolving chlorine/iodine or boiling.
Drink only this carefully treated water, except in extreme emergencies.
Why not think about using similar steps with our tap water?
A quick true story:
Years ago, a friend made his first business trip to Mexico City, being aware that 'Montezuma's Revenge' could be a problem if he weren't careful.
He checked into a modern hotel, but decided to not use the tap water for drinking or even brushing his teeth.
Instead, he purchased expensive bottled water to drink; little did he know how expensive!
He got a very bad case of 'M-R' and had to be treated medically.
Later, he found out the source was the bottled water he'd purchased; where it had come from nobody knew!
The tap water he'd avoided in the hotel was not only OK but of very good quality.
Think there may be a lesson here?
Lake Whatcom is our RESERVOIR, first and foremost!
----------------------
Friday, July 31, 2009
Lake Whatcom: How Does Your Garden Grow?
"Whiskey is for drinking; water is for fighting over." - attributed to Mark Twain
“It is no use saying, 'We are doing our best.' You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.”
- Winston Churchill
-----------------------
Like most gardens, Mistress Mary's grew with the help of nutrients and sunshine.
But, weeds also grow with this kind of help.
And, the broadest definition of 'weed', is a plant that is unwanted or unwelcome in a place.
So it is with Lake Whatcom.
Algae are plant-like organisms with an affinity for water, especially water that has the main plant nutrients -Phosphorus, Nitrogen and Potassium- and sufficient sunlight to sustain photosynthesis.
More nutrients and sunlight usually means more rapid growth.
Bingo! Guess what's happening in our water supply reservoir?
Many residents and water rate-payers probably received an urgent automated phone message from our Mayor very recently, which advised of mandatory water use restrictions.
That's not the type of call we like, but it has become necessary, as it has several times in the past and will likely happen in the future.
One only hopes that it doesn't happen often, but don't bet against it.
Here's another report on this from today's Crosscut:
Not long ago some people noticed that the City's website had posted two announcements that seemed mutually incompatible.
One warned of increased algae levels and the possibility of future restrictions, like we now have.
The other reported that the City had received yet another award of excellence for its quality of drinking water.
In fact, Bellingham was one of only 16 cities in the US that had earned this particular honor for 10 years in a row!
That is truly commendable, whether algae is a potential threat or not!
That algae IS a serious threat -as our recent restriction proves- makes the City's achievement award even more commendable
Not to minimize the threat, mind you, but to emphasize the extra effort and expense necessary on an ongoing basis to even 'tread water' in our increasingly undersized and obsolescent water treatment plant.
The algae clogging the filters is a sure sign of nothing but increasing trouble that won't be easy or cheap to rectify.
Because inadequate treatment is unacceptable, the City must take steps to remedy this situation, and every water rate-payer will have be bear their fair share of the expense, both capital and operating.
But, that is not all.
We will eventually learn to accept drinking water with poorer taste, odor and residual impurities, too.
The City does have choices in the steps it can take.
One of the better choices is to maintain a pure raw water supply; in other words a fairly pristine Lake Whatcom.
The USEPA & WA State Dept of Ecology define this as the first line of defense, or barrier against pollution.
But, with ever increasing development growth and lake use, that option has steadily diminished, as it still is.
Other options are very likely to be much more expensive and less effective.
Like water treatment for example.
We humans know how to make pure water out of seawater, and even recycled human waste, as the Astronauts have proven!
Want to pay for that?
Hey, did you think there was a big water spigot up there in space?
Another option is simple conservation, which won't prevent the water quality and quantity problem from happening, but will delay it substantially.
A related option is to require water meters, as the City has recently gotten serious about. [see earlier blog on Water/Sewer]
Meters would encourage conservation, but mainly would assess water costs much more fairly, based on actual usage.
You don't see everyone paying the same amount for gasoline, do you?
That depends on how many gallons you use each month!
Why not water?
Maybe rather than complaining about the 'mixed message' that some have interpreted the City's website to make, we should see the conflict between short term expectations and long term adverse trends.
The City has managed to make the best out of what hand is has been dealt by past practices, many of which are outside its direct control.
Ten years ago, when I first got involved with local politics and trying to preserve Lake Whatcom, the City of Bellingham comprised about 2% of this 30,000-plus acre watershed, with the unincorporated areas of Whatcom County accounting for 96% and Skagit County the rest.
Get that picture?
Since then, various measures have been adopted, tried or financed by various jurisdictions, the sum total of which can only be termed as INEFFECTIVE.
This is the kind of game where one does not get credit for effort, actions or talk, but RESULTS.
And the kind of results that are necessary are not being seen.
Please understand that I am not defending or attacking the City or any other jurisdiction.
I am merely reporting the facts, warts and all.
Many of the actions taken or now being considered are commendable, including the City' pushing its water treatment plant to ever higher capacities and limits.
In a real sense, the water situation can be directly compared to a human health scenario, where fortunate people are healthy and free of conditions or diseases that put them at undue risk.
Others are not so fortunate, but you may never know it until too late.
Take folks with diabetes; think that puts them at higher risk by making them susceptible to all manner of threats?
You better, because it does -whether you suspect that or not!
In a similar way, the City has coped with its growing algae problem, until it is no longer treated as something that isn't discussed widely, like an embarrassing relative.
That time is obviously coming to an end.
As it ought to if we are to take the steps that have been wiser all along, but are just now becoming too big to ignore with impunity.
--------------------------------
Previous blogs have also touched on the gross lack of water planning in Whatcom County [WRIA], and the State of Washington in general -where the Doe continues to hand out well permits for water that does not exist!
What is wrong with this picture?
As has been said, 'denial is not just a river in Egypt'.
And, speaking of Egypt, the vast majority of its 83 million people either live in the Nile Valley or Delta, or very close to the Suez Canal -about 5% of its total land area.
-----------------------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
