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.

Water: White Smoke Over Whatcom County?

Having just watched the joyful ceremonies that confirmed the election of Pope Francis I in Rome, it seems we have also experienced our own 'white smoke' event here in Bellingham.
By all early indications, the election of Pope Francis I is being viewed as a very popular choice that emphasizes humility and the communication of true caring for all humanity.
A very worthy and timely choice, indeed!
-----------------------

Today's Gristle carried this story about the likely Reconveyance vote - before actual results were known.
Last night's County Council meeting was also live-blogged by Riley Sweeney, but, again, terminated before the actual decision was made.
But, this morning The Herald finished the story complete with the final vote.

Who knew that our Whatcom County Council would also tangibly demonstrate its commitment to a higher cause than the politics of division?
Like many others I had faith that the Council would eventually come to the right decision after several years of careful deliberation, but faith is always renewed by good acts that actually come to pass.
And so it was that the long-debated DNR Reconveyance of over 8 thousand acres of forestland around the Lake Whatcom Reservoir came to pass late last night by a recorded final vote of 5 to 2.
Thank goodness for that outcome!

Now, we have added assurance that we are on the right track in preserving a precious natural resource.
And, that future policy is more likely to follow and augment this example of forward-looking leadership, greatly aided and abetted by strong follower-ship by thousands of concerned citizens.
Next, comes a focus on more enlightened land use policies and storm water regulations that support the implicit policy of preservation that underlies last night's Reconveyance decision.

More very difficult decisions will be required to address the severe water degradation challenges identified by DOE's recent TMDL Report.
That means the Lake Whatcom Watershed must be viewed and treated differently than before; no longer to be considered as either an area for affordable housing or luxury mega-home sites for the wealthy, but a place to be respected for its critical importance as our long-term drinking water source.

Fortunately, de-emphasizing development of all sorts fits the idea of allowing this watershed to more closely mimic nature, which is known to be both the most effective and least expensive way to control harmful run-off into the Reservoir. An added benefit could be that additional properties will be made reasonably available for conservation purposes, thereby achieving a further desirable 'tipping point' in public opinion and perception.

I am thankful that the Reconveyance decision has been made, because it helps guide those additional right-minded decisions that must be made in the future.
---------------------------------

10 WATER LAWS OF THE WEST

During a recent visit to San Francisco, I had the pleasure of taking an ALL course about California's 'Water Wars', a fascinating subject that also has applicability to our situation here in Whatcom County. 

With long awaited County Council vote on the 8400-acre reconveyance of DNR forest lands around the Lake Whatcom Reservoir about to happen, perhaps a little humor tinged with reality is in order. Anyway, below is reprinted a copyrighted article by Hugh Holub that can also be accessed at this website. 

10 WATER LAWS OF THE WEST

Introduction: It does not take a law degree to understand water law and policy in the western United States. Ten basic legal and historical principles govern the rights to and uses of water in the West. By understanding these ten Water Laws of the West anyone can then understand the current issues of water and its relationship to the future of the West.

I. The Law of Gravity: The First Water Law of the West is the Law of Gravity. Water runs down hill. The initial uses of water in the West involved the use of gravity to tap rivers and divert their flows into canals for delivery to farms and mines. This is also known as Newton's Law.

II. The Law of Los Angeles: The Second Water Law of the West is the original law of Los Angeles. This L.A. Law states that "water runs uphill to money". The development of energy technologies to lift water against the pull of gravity is the basis for modern Western civilization. Los Angeles pioneered the effort to defy gravity with money in the early 1900's with its Owens Valley Aqueduct. Southern California is now served with a network of pipelines and canals such as the Metropolitan Water District's Colorado River Aqueduct. Phoenix, San Francisco and Denver also utilize massive pumping and diversion systems to transport water from great distances in defiance of gravity to serve their growing urban populations.

III. The Law of Supply Creating Demand: The Third Water Law of the West, also invented by Los Angeles, is that "if you don't have the water, you won't need it." This is sometimes stated as "he who brings the water brings the people". Both are attributed to William Mulholland, a pioneer director of the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (DWP). Los Angeles and other Western cities operate on the premise that in order to assure growth of their cities, water supplies for the future must be developed well in advance of that growth. This is in contrast to the general approach in Western cities of developing freeways and other public infrastructure long after the growth has actually happened.

IV. The Law of I Got It First: The Fourth Water Law of the West, embodied in the West's surface water laws, is the doctrine of "prior appropriation" translated into "first in time is first in right". First in time for most water uses in the West were farms and mines. Instead of "first in time is first in right", we have seen the evolution of "we've got more votes than you in the state legislature" to decide who gets water.

V. The Law of Beneficial Use: The Fifth Water law of the West is that to have a right to water it must be "beneficially" or "reasonably" used on that appurtenant land. This is only understood in the context that water left flowing in a river maintaining the survival of fish in that river and vegetation growing along side that river was not originally defined as a "beneficial" use in Western water law, whereas drowning gophers or growing rice in deserts were deemed "beneficial" uses. In recent years, environmentalists have succeeded in gaining recognition of "in-stream" beneficial uses of water and a new category of water rights is beginning to emerge to preserve flows in rivers. However this process is emerging only after most rivers and streams in the West have been dammed and dried up by diversions of the flows to the previously established beneficial uses. To fully appreciate why this happened, it must be remembered that the fish in these streams only recently were able to obtain the services of water lawyers via various environmental and conservation organizations.

VI. The Law of Worthless Land: The Sixth Water Law of the West is that without a water right or access to water, land is worthless. There is not enough water available to use all available land for all the potential beneficial uses. Thus lands with water rights or access to water have value for use, whereas land without water rights is known as the desert, with zero value except when being subjected to state and local property taxation. It is also a historic fact that farmers, ranchers and miners figured all this out about a hundred years before the average city council or environmental group, thus most Western water laws are heavily weighted in favor of using water for farming, ranching and mining. This law is also known as the "appurtenancy" rule meaning the rights to the use of water are tied to specific parcels of land, which are usually owned by farmers, ranchers or miners.

VII. The Law of Expropriation: The Seventh Water Law of the West focuses on how water (and other natural resources) are obtained for Western civilization. This Law depends on finding some fairly impoverished and unsophisticated water right holder (usually Indians, farmers, or rural communities) on the other side of the mountain a city can steal water rights from. Los Angeles pioneered this approach by buying up the Owens Valley on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada for water rights nearly 90 years ago. What we are now experiencing is not so much a water shortage, but a shortage of people on the other sides of the mountains who are willing to let their water resources be stolen from them by cities.

VIII. The Law of the Price is Right: The Eighth Water Law of the West is that there is no water shortage if the price is right. It is widely believed in city halls that the farmers will sell their water rights if the price is high enough so the farmers can go raise martinis in La Jolla instead of cotton in the Salt River Valley of Arizona, or the Imperial Valley in California. Thus when someone asks "is there enough water for Los Angeles or Phoenix to grow?" the answer is probably yes--if you don't care about how much the water will cost.

IX. The Law of Water Monopoly: The Ninth Water Law of the West is that water management in an arid environment almost always results in the creation of a water monopoly. Thus (along with the discovery of fire and religion) the first steps towards civilization included the construction of irrigation ditches and the immediate creation of some sort of bureaucracy to run the system. Not surprisingly where irrigation water monopoly civilizations rose, they lasted for thousands of years. The Westlands Irrigation District in the Central Valley of California and the Salt River Project in Arizona are merely the modern counterparts of one of humankind's most ancient of institutions--the water monopoly. Many western urban areas figured out the value of water monopoly and created enormously powerful regional agencies such as the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the Central Arizona Water Conservation District in Arizona, to do essentially the same thing--building vast networks of canals to bring water to their constituents.

X. The Law of Vanishing Civilizations: The Tenth (or Last) Water Law of the West should be called the Hohokam Law of Water and Gravity. Under this law, if there is no rain, there is no water to flow down hill. What went up--the buildings and the civilization--may crumble to dust if Mother Nature decides to hold a long drought. Lying beneath the streets of Phoenix are the ruins of the ancient Hohokam Indian metropolis that vanished prior to 1400 AD. Phoenix is the second city to be built on the same site in reliance on the erratic flows of the Salt River. Californians prayed for rain for the last six years (apparently successfully) because they didn't have enough water to flush their toilets. Many Southern Californians had been heard to ask "what do you mean this used to be a desert?"

Conclusion: The principles that govern Western water law and policy have a long and somewhat distinguished history. It should also be noted that similar arid environment ditch-dependent civilizations ultimately collapsed under extreme environmental stresses, internal political conflict, and invasion by barbarian hordes. This is worth contemplating after a six year drought with various water interests fighting over who will get water in times of future shortages while the streets of Santa Monica or Scottsdale are filled with RVs with New Jersey license plates.

GPT: EIS Scoping Comment No. 15

Wasteful Water Use

The GPT Application -Section 5.13.1.2- contemplates the use of 5.33 Million gallons per day of PUD #1 water, primarily for coal dust suppression and reduction of spontaneous combustion risk.
However, there are likely better uses for this water, such as for agricultural use, in-stream flows, hydraulic well re-supply, etc.

This amount represents almost one-third of the approximately 17 million gallons a day of PUD supplies of industrial water to other industries located at Cherry Point; just over a third of its total water rights of 53 million gallons a day. 
The estimated water supply is anticipated as sufficient for all GPT terminal operations including dust suppression, plus fire suppression and safety.
GPT would make its own potable water by treatment of industrial water with a reverse-osmosis treatment system.

For comparison, this GPT water is equivalent to about one-half of the water used by the City of Bellingham per day to supply the needs of over 95,000 people.

It has been estimated that the water permits already issued in Whatcom County by DOE may amount to up to 2.5 times the water that is actually available.
In the interest of responsible water conservation -already a serious seasonal concern for the Nooksack River and its drainage- does this projected use make sense?

How much, if any, of this water will be reclaimed for re-use?
Will the storm water treatment systems be designed to recapture this spray water as runoff?

Certainly better uses of 5.33 million gallons per day can be found than spraying it on mounds of coal in an operation that might employ only about 200 people.

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.

Water: The Big Thirst

Water is H2O, hydrogen two parts, oxygen one, 
But there is also a third thing, that makes it water 
And nobody knows what it is. 
--D.H. Lawrence, "The Third Thing"
------------------------------------------------

Heads up on a new book; THE BIG THIRST - The Secret Life & Turbulent Future of Water,  by Charles Fishman, published last year by Simon & Schuster.

The book is about our relationship with water; it uses live examples from different locales that share similar challenges, including Las Vegas, Atlanta, Australia, India and others. 

He points out that we are stuck with the amount of water the earth contains, and that water is free; although it often does not exist in sufficient quantity and/or quality where or when we humans may need -or want- it. 

While the impacts of population growth/demographics and climate change do exacerbate water availability challenges, still many of these can be overcome by understanding local situations and simply changing our attitudes and habits about water.

A large part of the problem is assuming that water is free, yet neglecting the costs of cleaning and distributing it which are certainly not free, especially if we aren't willing to differentiate between basic needs and wants that are wasteful. 

An example is why should we treat all water to drinking standards -even for watering the lawn or flushing toilets?

Why not recycle gray water, or use collected rainwater for these purposes? 

There are places where these practices are now being followed, both out of necessity and costs. So-called 'purple pipes' have already become essential in Las Vegas and parts of Australia, where conservation is now being considered not only smart, but critically important.

Of course, each community must decide on the changes that it needs, and how to pay for these.

Another common sense concept is having each area agree to a basic water allocation model along these lines:

First, a certain percentage of any fresh water source needs to be retained for sustaining itself, whether a surface lake or steam, or underground aquifer supplying wells. 

Next, a certain percentage of the water is retained for free human needs; drinking water, food preparation, sanitary purposes.

For critical institutional and essential processing purposes requiring a secure supply, a percentage of treated water is provided at a price to reflect its value.

Last, the remaining water -which may vary based upon higher priorities- is provided at a price for general purposes, but only as it s available.

Doesn't that sound like a reasonable way to allocate water?

We tried to develop a system similar to that several years ago, but that effort failed to reach agreement and now languishes as expensive 'shelf art' somewhere in the bowels of our County Courthouse, where it awaits the coming of a County Executive and Council bold enough and wise enough to dust it off and complete it.

I have posted a few blogs on this very topic, but these two entries summarize it best:

9/30/07  WRIA-1: Whatcom County's Unfinished Water Business

5/23/09   WRIA-1: Wasted Resources or Important Asset?

--------------------------------------

There is also a reading group guide at the end of the book which poses some really insightful questions.

For those interested, here's a couple that seem to fit us here pretty well:

#5 Throughout The Big Thirst, Fishman returns to the idea that water is too inexpensive. At one point, he writes, "If you had to pick one thing to fix about water, one thing that would help you fix everything else - scarcity, unequal distribution, misuse, waste, skewed priorities, resistance to reuse, shortsighted exploitation of natural resources - that one thing is price. The right price changes everything else about water." [see p. 291]
Do you agree?
If water should be priced more fairly, how would you go about doing that? What would you do with the fresh revenue from more expensive water? Is there a way of increasing the price of water without hurting poor people, without increasing the price of every product that reins on water?
--------------------------------
When you start to think like we think, you don't see water in the pipes. You see dollar signs. --Eric Berliner, IBM water manager in Burlington, Vermont
---------------------------------

#8 Plenty of places in the U.S. have ample water resources. Is there any value in "conserving" water, or creating water awareness, in communities that have abundant water?
How would you make the case for smart water use to citizens in a community where the water supply itself isn't under any pressure?
Are there any other issues besides simple availability that ordinary people should be paying attention to?
-------------------------------------------------
"When I came to work here, our attitude was, "Just shut up and turn on the faucet." That was a huge mistake. We were all going to run out of water in 1995. --Patricia Mulroy, water czar of Las Vegas since 1989
-------------------------------------------------
Here's a Crosscut blog on this same book.

Local Politics: 25 Reasons?

Beware of candidates claiming their inexperience as their main virtue.
---------------------
I'm just now returning to the present after a short interlude to the past, studying ancient & medieval history.
That was interesting, but I must say we have it better these days, notwithstanding the habitual lying and dishonest posturing on political matters.

For example, I'm pleased that another local blog, Latte Republic, published a document -plus responses to it- entitled
25 REASONS WEIMER, CASKEY, MANN* & MCSHANE* HAVE FAILED THE CITIZENS OF WHATCOM COUNTY.

The original list of '25 Reasons' purports to support 4 brand new candidates for County office by trying to smear 4 other candidates, three of whom have actual experience in that office.
[Note McShane has been out of office since 2007 and Mann has never held elected office]
Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, the 25 'reasons' are bogus and don't hold water, but since several are on the subject of water, I'll get back to that.

Anyway, this particular political piece ends this way:

Please ask your friends, families and neighbors to review this list. All of these statements are factual. Make sure everyone you know understands that the current County Council has lost sight of what is important to the people of Whatcom County. The 'Gang of Four' (Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan) must be removed from office.

And finally, this admonition:
We Must Support Kathy Kershner, Mary Beth Teigrob, Michelle Luke, and Bill Knutzen!

Note that none of these favored four have any experience at all in public office, which is being touted as a virtue.
Instead, their clever handlers are speaking for them by using this poorly aimed broadside.
A fitting, and more likely result will be actually to turn the 'favored four' into political cannon fodder, a hard lesson for not being careful with the truth, or with whom you let speak for you!

This reminds of a quote nearly 60 years old: 'The GOP would do well to remember the warning of Maine Republican Margaret Chase Smith, who worried in 1950 that her party was trying to achieve victory on "the Four Horsemen of Calumny -- Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear."'
Guess we could also add simple lying and deliberate misinterpretation of facts.
----------------

Of the 25 'Reasons' several are related to important water issues, so this piece will focus on them.

1. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan advocated for, and voted to raise taxes without offsetting the net cost to the taxpayer. This has not otherwise occurred in the 14 years Executive Kremen has been in office. Carl initially advocated for more than double the increase that was finally passed by a slim Council majority.

Carl's response: This refers to the increase in the Flood Tax which amounted to less than $1/month on the average house. This small increase was needed to start to implement the Lake Whatcom stormwater plan, meet other mandated water quality issues, and shore up the flood fund that was dipping below what has historically been the level set to meet emergencies. Luckily this increase happened when it did because the January 2009 flooding required a big chunk of this emergency money.

My response: This 'increase' actually was a partial restoration of funding necessary to accomplish water related work considered vital to this entire county. Formerly, the so-called 'Flood Tax' was used to fund the WRIA1 Program [Water Resource Inventory Area #1], a comprehensive planning effort supported by 5 'Initiating Governments', Whatcom County [Lead entity], City of Bellingham, PUD #1, Lummi Nation & Nooksack Tribe and several stakeholder groups. About $4.5 million was expended in this effort over several years, before the effort was undermined by those -including the development community- who felt threatened by it; quite possibly by some of those who are still attempting to discredit water planning as a necessary task.
Whatcom County retains the serious, legal responsibility for providing water-related services, and to give these priority without providing the necessary funding would be irresponsible, thereby inviting costly legal actions the County would likely lose.

2. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan increased the taxes to pay for pet projects, one of them directly benefitting a friend and campaign advisor. This of course was for the "Shellfish Bed Inventory" portion of the designated uses for the Flood Tax increase. Geoff Menzies will assist in this work, and gain financially.

Carl's response: This again refers to the increase in the Flood Tax ($12/year for a $300,000 property). The rest of the statement is a bald faced lie. There was no money included for anything like a “shellfish bed inventory,” or anything that Geoff Menzies would have in any way been paid for. There was money for shellfish closure response plans for Birch Bay and Chuckanut Bay because the pollution in those areas have closed shellfish beds and we are required by state law (and it’s the right thing to do) to develop recovering plans in such circumstances. We also enhanced the Flood Fund with $500,000 from the REET fund. Here are the ways that money was targeted.

• Increased Flood Planning, Implementation, and Response $555,000
• Shellfish Closure Response Plans (Birch Bay and Chuckanut) $70,000
• Code revision to add appropriate Low Impact Development standards for county roads, other developments $60,000
• Design and engineering for Lake Whatcom sub-basin natural drainage retrofit - $150,000
• Stormwater Low Impact Development Pilots for existing homes (Lake Whatcom) $120,000
* CAO/Shorelines Education and Enforcement (PDS) Additional FTE $85,000
• Enhance implementation of shoreline, salmon, marine restoration, and shellfish recovery plans $50,000
• Lake Whatcom Stormwater capital projects planning and construction per Lake Whatcom Stormwater plan $390,000
• Lake Samish stormwater plan development $110,000

My response: Drayton Harbor has a terrible problem related to high levels of fecal coliform that is evidenced particularly at low tide. As a historic shellfish habitat, addressing this problem and restoring a healthy shellfish production was considered a worthwhile task of the former WRIA1 program, and remains so.
The attempt to characterize this effort as personal and political is bogus and gratuitous. In other words, a lie!

3. SKIP

4. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan are strong advocates to create a gigantic park around Lake Whatcom, rather than allowing for an environmentally, responsibly, and economically-managed (by DNR) undeveloped forested landscape to be maintained around the lake. While this removes revenue to the County, it adds a huge future cost-liability to the taxpayers with no other foreseeable reimbursement.

Carl's response: This refers to the proposal to reconvey about 8000 acres of DNR land around Lake Whatcom back to the County to set it aside as a low impact reserve. Yes some hiking will be allowed in the area, but those impacts will be minimal compared to the impacts associated with road building and logging. New studies have recently been released, and more are on the way, that show pretty clearly that logging in the watershed has a much larger impact on phosphorus loading to the Lake than previously acknowledged. While it is true that DNR does a better job than most private forest operations, in the Lake Whatcom watershed we need to get into place more stringent control on all logging if we hope to restore the lake. It should be noted that DNR recently increased their forest practice regulations, and the Dept. of Ecology has just started a huge process to address the scientific evidence which shows that the much touted Forest and Fish law is not adequate to protect water quality in general, and certainly not in the Lake Whatcom watershed.

My response: My position is clear from previous blogs, and can be briefly summarized as follows. Protection of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, the sole water supply for half of Whatcom County, is important, and minimizing development and land/vegetation disturbance is critical. To the extent the County can fund and carefully manage the reconveyance of 8400 acres of forest lands around Lake Whatcom, the proposed reconveyance may be helpful, notwithstanding the loss of revenues from timber harvests. To date, I have not seen the land use plans nor the longterm funding source that would give me confidence this will work as anticipated. But, the potential for protecting the Lake and its watershed are considerable.

5. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan led the charge to create a costly and inefficient homeowner septic inspection program. Under this scheme, the property-owners of Whatcom County pay millions per year for needless inspections, with well over 90% of the results being 'everything's fine'.

Carl's response: The state legislature passed a law requiring counties to institute a system for the inspection of septic systems. The local Health Department estimates there are 30,000 septic systems in the county, although they don’t have any records for a third of those systems. That equates to somewhere in the area of 30,000,000 gallons of human sewage in the county that no one knows where it is, or if the systems are functioning properly. What we do know is that every stream in the lowland parts of the county are failing to meet federal water quality standards for fecal coliform pollution (the measure of sewage in the water). Sophisticated DNA testing in area streams shows that this pollution is coming mainly from livestock and to a lesser degree septic systems. The regulations we passed require an initial inspection by a professional so we can get a clear baseline of where all the septics are and how well they are working. After the initial inspection most systems can then be inspected by the homeowners themselves on a regular schedule after they take a class from the Health Department. The first year of data indicates that about 5% of the systems inspected so far a failing outright, and about 20% need maintenance. If these types of numbers hold for the rest of the county it would mean somewhere in the area of 1500 systems are failing county-wide (1,500,000 gallons of human sewage), and as many as 6000 systems need maintenance to keep from failing. The cost of an inspection is between $200 - $300 which is still a bargain compared to what people in the cities pay for sewer annually. The County is working on a low cost loan program for people who need to do expensive repairs to their systems The Council has also made it clear that once the initial baseline inspections are complete we will look at the data to decide whether it makes sense to then relax the inspection interval to even further lower the cost.

My response: What is it that is so hard to understand about following State law? The County's responsibility includes public health & safety. Get serious!

6. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan came up with a scheme to remove the authority of the County Executive to veto tax increases in one of the County funds. They did this to insulate the Council from veto, and it was this very fund that a slim majority of Council members ended up increasing.

Carl's response: This is referring to the Flood Tax again, and is not at all accurate. The Flood Control Zone District (FCZD), which sets the Flood Tax level, is set up in state law as a separate municipal entity from the County. Currently the FCZD Board and the County Council are one and the same, but under statute it doesn’t necessarily have to remain that way. There was an audit finding in the 1990s that pointed out that the County was incorrectly mingling the functions and money of the FCZD with that of the County. Correcting this error has been in the works on and off for years, and the need to do this surfaced again a couple years ago. The County Prosecutor, Council, and the Executive all agreed this was needed. Part of that separation of functions was to follow state law in the operations of the FCZD, which would not allow the Executive to veto the decisions of a separate municipal entity (the FCZD), just like he is not allowed to veto the decisions of the City of Bellingham. Another example of this incorrect intermingling was that the interest off the Flood Tax was being directed into the County’s General Fund instead of accruing for Flood Fund purposes. This intermingling still has not been completely fixed, but is in the works.

My response: It's good that some discipline has been imposed on the County in its accounting practices. Those who complain are being either ignorant or disingenuous at best! One of the reasons the County failed to continue diligent pursuit of its WRIA1 Program was the threat of legal challenge over legal use of its funds. Now, at least part of that is fixed.

7. SKIP

8. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan championed one-size-fits-all shoreline regulations which require limiting or eliminating uses, such as homes and driveways, within 150 feet of the shoreline, with no supporting evidence whatsoever that somehow this would afford environmental protection.

Carl's response: There is tons of evidence (I have it) that impervious surfaces like homes, driveways, sidewalks, etc have a significant negative impact of our shorelines, fresh water, and ultimately Puget Sound. Most all of these studies show impervious surface totals in the 5-15% range have significant impacts on water quality. Saying over and over again that there is “no evidence” doesn’t make the evidence go away, although it may make people who do not want to have to adopt reasonable stewardship practices believe it.

My response: The Shoreline Management Program recently updated by Whatcom County is considered as an excellent effort by the Dept of Ecology and others knowledgeable in such matters. By its nature, the SMP must be fair and consistent to everyone. It's very hard to teach 'supporting evidence' to those who are being paid not to learn!

9. SKIP

10. SKIP

11. Carl, Laurie, Ken & Dan are currently advocating and promoting an elaborate and costly stormwater-tax scheme for many areas around Bellingham and Ferndale.

Carl's response: This refers to a proposal that is being developed by the Executive’s Public Works staff to create a Stormwater Utility in the urban areas of Bellingham and Ferndale that are outside of the city limits. Much of the impetus for this is to create a dedicated funding source to address mandated water quality issues around Lake Whatcom (NPDES, TMDL). The creation of such a stormwater utility would help start to shift the cost for such programs to those that are for the most part creating the problems or will benefit from the programs (people who live in the watershed or drink the water), instead of requiring people that are not the cause of the problems, or people in Cities already paying stormwater fees, to subsidize the cleanup.

My response: Stormwater and its potentially harmful effects are well known and regulated. Not only erosion and flooding are the problem, but also chemical contamination going into our lakes, streams, estuaries and bays. The City of Bellingham had pass new stormwater rates in 2001 to support a number of mandatory program elements, including stormwater treatment -in perpetuity. The County is required to do the same, beginning with those areas adjacent to urban areas and critical water resources. Because we are all living in watersheds, there is a necessity for a cooperative effort, with each participant paying their fair share of costs.

12. through 25. SKIP
-------------------

Now, returning to the author(s) of the '25 Reasons', and the request to potential supporters of their anointed acolytes;

Please ask your friends, families and neighbors to review this list.
All of these statements are factual.
Make sure everyone you know understands that the current County Council has lost sight of what is important to the people of Whatcom County.

I hope folks do review this list, because that could be a valuable lesson in what passes for political discourse in a significant portion of our population.
But, also review the responses, and also ask a few questions of your own, because that is how the truth gets known.
I don't believe a majority of the current County Council has lost sight of what is important to the people of Whatcom County at all.
Quite the contrary!
But those who believe that all the '25 reasons' are factual, do have a problem!
Accepting any of these statements as true without questioning does not serve anyone's best interests -including those who think they might benefit from it.

Candidates with integrity and competence always need to protect those valuable traits against such temptations!
I hope they will.
-------------

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!
----------------------

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.
-----------------------

Water Meters: It's About Time

----------------------------
Children of a culture born in a water-rich environment, 
we have never really learned how important water is 
to us.  We understand it, but we do not respect it. 
- William Ashworth, Nor Any Drop to Drink, 1982

"We forget that the water cycle and the life cycle are one."
 - Jacques Cousteau -
----------------------------
Today's Herald carried this article, which signals the City has finally bought into the idea that it needs water meters.
This decision has been a long time coming, and it will take time to accomplish, but it is the right thing to do.

Inherently, meters allow users to regulate their own water use and not have to subsidize those who use more than necessary.
That is fairer than the system we have allowed to happen, plus it puts conservation opportunities in clearer monetary perspective.

Bellingham and Everett were the only cities in the State of Washington which remained in denial that water meters were needed.
Because of that stance, both cities are now well behind in providing meters to users, particularly those long-time users living in established neighborhoods.
Unfortunately, some of those more modest residences could have benefitted greatly from voluntary water conservation over the years.
New construction has been more fortunate because meter boxes have been required for some, meaning retrofitting meters is relatively simple.
And, new technology allows reading of meters to be be nearly automatic.

Yet, there remain some negative attitudes about meters.
Some perceive an advantage to not having meters, because others would subsidize their over use of water.
Others see meters as an unnecessary expense.
A few see the conversion as yet another 'guvmint' intrusion on private citizens.
While there is some truth in all of these positions, the overall best interests of Bellingham citizens are served by installing water meters.

One point needs to be emphasized; our water system is wholly financed by rates, system development charges [impact fees] and fees from water users.
That now also includes the costs of meters to be installed.
As a so-called 'Enterprise Fund' our Water System Utility is designed to be self-sustaining, just like the Sewer and Stormwater Funds.
Periodic adjustments to rates are needed depending upon the need for system-wide improvements, like storage tanks, mains and distribution piping, water treatment expansion, meters and the like.

With 20-20 hindsight, the City might have avoided the need for this expensive upgrade, but we are where we are and must deal with it the best we can.
Everyone will agree that the idea of fairness in cost and individual decisions regarding water use & conservation are desirable.
And, undue financial burdens on individuals are being avoided, with metering being phased in over time.

Thankfully, this is the direction Bellingham is now headed, toward fairness, conservation and sustainability.
--------------------------------------

When the well is dry, we know the worth of water.
 - Benjamin Franklin

In the Western United States, 
water flows uphill to money.
 - Glen Sanders
--------------------------------------

Draft Sewer Plan: Perpetually Unfinished Business

----------------------
This will offer 20 or so questions, several early answers from our former Public Works Director, plus a few comments from me submitted about 2 years ago.
But, the date really has little to do with this perpetually unfinished business, which will come up again and again.

And, because our sewer system -like our water system- is a Municipal Enterprise, its funding, including capital improvements, is funded by utility rates that system users pay.

That is not to say we don't have to be prudent and careful with the management of this fund, and the rates and system development charges that provide its revenue.
Anyway, rather than keeping this buried in my draft file, I might as well post it so those interested can read it or refer to it.

So, here goes:
-----------------------

How many people do you know who would willingly spend all day Saturday reading over 300 pages of a draft Sewer Plan?

OK, maybe a few engineers might do that.

Otherwise, only people like City Council members would do it, because they will need to understand why planning 20 years into the future is necessary, in order to justify making some important decisions that will affect how our sewer system must be expanded and upgraded, and these improvements paid for over that time.

Most people take sewers for granted as a basic necessity that is just -somehow- provided.
That's good, because the folks who operate our sewer system and waste treatment plant prefer to remain very low profile!
Remaining low profile means things are operating smoothly with little if any problems that can be noticed by citizens.

Bet you didn't know these fascinating facts:

• The City operates 324 miles of wastewater collection systems

• The Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant has a peak capacity of 72 million gallons per day

• The City's sewer service area covers 30 square miles and serves 83,000 customers

• The elevation ranges from sea level to a height of 800 feet

• Treated wastewater is discharged into Bellingham Bay

• Treatment of wastewater is closely regulated by the State Dept of Ecology

• Population growth over the next 20 years will require building capital facilities costing about $191 million [factoring in estimated inflation]

• All of this funding must be raised either from ratepayers [2/3] or public Revenue Bonds [1/3]

• The Sewer Utility operates as an Enterprise Fund, which means its costs of operation must be matched by its revenues.

• Some carefully considered increases to both sewer rates and system development charges must be adopted to meet projected needs.
---------------------

With this brief background it may be easier to understand why this topic should be of more than passing interest to everyone.
That is why this afternoon's Council Work Session was important.

Unfortunately, this meeting was not televised on BTV10, or well-attended, which is why I'm mentioning this subject in this blog.

In preparation for this meeting, I asked the 20 sets of questions shown below, and obtained early answers to most of them before the issue was tabled for more work and future consideration.

Answers given to these are summarized following each question.
Answers to the rest await their being asked again.

Stay tuned to see what decisions this -or a future- Council will make on this important issue
---------------------
Questions & Answers

---------------------
Q1. The Sewer system dynamics make a good illustration of what is meant by 'level of service', and can also be applied to transportation.
By identifying pinch points and suggesting parallel piping, larger piping, holding tanks and combined flow mitigation,
these have direct counterparts to handling traffic.

A1. Agreed regarding traffic. That's why we have Deemer, Cordata and Eliza parallel to the Guide.

---------------------
Q2. In the various scenarios, I don't see the idea of relocating the big interceptor that crosses Whatcom Creek.
Was this idea considered?
What is the estimated cost?
Is this the time to consider such an idea?

A2. We don't have the Whatcom Creek pipe in because relocating it doesn't help the sewer system.
We can do it by adding a pump station on one side of the creek.
It is millions and purely optional.
We can do it anytime someone provides the money.

---------------------
Q3. Regarding the proposed C Street Remote Storage facility, would this be located near or on waterfront property?
Is this included in waterfront redevelopment planning?
Will this idea serve to excite the neighborhood?

A3. C Street would be a large vault built under the renovated C Street at the waterfront.
Maybe 50 feet wide, 500 feet long and 20 feet deep.
We would essentially drive on the roof.

---------------------
Q4. Sewer service is a valuable commodity!
Do we need to reserve our existing capacity preferentially for in-City use?
How does this impact annexations and/or service to Water District?

A4. Quick feedback while working on the bigger answers: the sewer interlocal from 1974 does not expire after 20 years.
It says that the term is for a period of AT LEAST 20 years.
That means that it goes forever unless we mutually agree to a new agreement. I have contacted LWWSD to start the process.

A4. The Comp Plan planning section reviews the entire service area and takes into account the population projects and update TAZ data to determine adequate sanitary sewer capacity. The intent of the plan is to have a living document that can be updated as necessary. There is ‘no reserve’ but rather built in capacity for the densities that have been approved for current in-fill strategies. Example: if a future Council decided on limiting service to an area but wanted to expand density in another, the plan could be amended to achieve this goal or the capacity is already built-in to the system. How does this impact annexations and/or service to Water District? Generally, most annexations are in areas within the City’s UGA and those areas have been included in the planning/capacity analysis for this particular comprehensive plan. Unless during the annexation process zoning changes were being recommended to increase densities that may have not been originally planned for, there is again, built in capacity for those annexations. The City only serves one Water District with sanitary sewer service, LWWSD and the flows from that District are included in this plan based on 1) contract amount and the draft LWWSD comp plan.

---------------------
Q5. Do we charge SDCs for the Water District? Can we? If not, can we raise sewer rates sufficiently to cover this subsidy?
What does 'average GPM' flow rate translate to in terms of peak flow?
If we increase SDC for city dwellers, doesn't that mean the Water District gets an increase?
Where do we stand in renegotiating the Interlocal with the Water District?
It was signed in 1974 and was to be in effect for 20 years. That ended in 1994!
I know rate increases will be 50% higher in proportion to the City, but is this enough?

A5. Yes, [we do charge SDCs for the Water District] however, the only District receiving sewer service is LWWSD and they have a contract that allows for a specific amount of sewage flow, therefore, we would not be able to charge an SDC for each one of their internal customers that are connecting to their system. We could, if a new district required service charge the provider for the new main connection and service to the City’s system, i.e. Ferndale or Lummi, etc…

Q5. Can we? If not, can we raise sewer rates sufficiently to cover this subsidy?

A5. The SDC are a ‘buy-in+growth’ concept that the Council approved during the 2004 ‘cost-of-service’ model rate study. If a District where to ask for a new connection, the SDC would apply. The SDC is based on ‘meter size equivalent’ so generally there is really no ‘subsidy’ here.

Q5. What does 'average GPM' flow rate translate to in terms of peak flow?

A5. Depending on the context, but ‘average GPM’ is the expected flow in the system or from a customer on average over a specific time period. The industry usually uses ‘average annual GPM’ or ‘average annual daily flow.’ ‘Peak flow’ is the highest expected flow rate during a specific period of time; it can be in a daily format or an annual flow rate depending on whether one is discussing water or wastewater. In wastewater, we generally use daily peak flows as our way to gauge sizing of components and facilities.

Q5. If we increase SDC for city dwellers, doesn't that mean the Water District gets an increase?

A5. SDC are only paid at the time of permit, we would not be issuing any new permits to a water district unless they were to ask for a new connection. So, raising SDC for all new customers, inside and outside of the City only affects those services that are directly connected to the City’s sanitary sewer service.

Q5. Where do we stand in renegotiating the Interlocal with the Water District?

A5. The City is currently reviewing the Interlocal Agreement and is in the process of trying to reopen the process for negotiating. Internal meetings are on-going to outline strategies and objectives. The sewer interlocal from 1974 does not expire after 20 years. It says that the term is for a period of AT LEAST 20 years. That means that it goes forever unless we mutually agree to a new agreement.

Q5. It was signed in 1974 and was to be in effect for 20 years. That ended in 1994!
I know rate increases will be 50% higher in proportion to the City, but is this enough?

Q5. The Cost-of-Service model includes an analysis that accounts for the revenue generated by the 1974 agreement and subsequent payment options on new facilities, i.e. Oak St Lift Station Upgrade in 2005.

---------------------
Q6. Section 3 assumes the County will OK the City's request for additional UGA land supply.
Since this is in question, how will less land supply impact the analysis of future needs?

A6. The analysis is conservative in nature and as a living document with an active hydraulic model it is intended to be updated and used on a continual basis; the plan can be modified as planning scenarios change and growth is either slowing or increasing. We will update and reevaluate the CIP on a regular basis to ensure that our targets are being met.

---------------------
Q7. Are there further plans for separating sanitary and storm water, aside from reducing existing I & I?

A7. In 1978-1982, the City undertook a huge storm/sewer separation project that basically removed all known storm water from the sanitary system with some exceptions and no removal of roof drains from property owners. We are constantly evaluating the sanitary system through portable and permanent flow meters to determine unknown sources of storm water into the system. There are several large storm pipes that are in need of separation but unfortunately, no storm systems exists in the drainage area nor are those pipes easily constructed at this time due to existing structures and topography. These are in the downtown area, along the waterfront and it is expected that as the waterfront develops, these will be separated into new storm systems.

---------------------
Q8. Since Yew Street has not been up-zoned, why is the extension to Samish Way at Lake Padden needed?

A8. There are existing homes that are in need of sanitary sewer that would remove septic systems from the Lake Padden drainage area.

---------------------
Q9. There are expensive plans in Chapter 7 for sewer line extensions west of the airport and east of I-5.
Are these considered likely annexations?
If not, why plan for them?


A9. Annexations and their likelihood were derived from the Planning Dept and it’s direction from Council. It is not fully known on annexation timeliness nor likelihood. However, these areas are within the City’s planning area for wastewater service and thus need to be considered in the calculations at this time.

---------------------
Q10. What are our plans for providing sewers to currently un-sewered areas in the City, like the South Neighborhood?
Is significant growth likely for this area? Enough to justify costs?

A10. The City approached this neighborhood in the mid-90’s as a potential candidate for a Utility LID (Local Improvement District) but after analysis the cost did not justify the improvements. Depending on neighborhood sentiment and growth, it may be advantageous to review this again.

---------------------
Q11. The suggestions for eliminating bottlenecks, increasing efficiency, changing treatment technology and expanding unit processes and unit operations at Post Point seem well-conceived and phased.
What is the practical limit on this site?
I note a hydraulic capacity expansion to 82 mgd is suggested.
Is that the maximum likely?
What are plans once Post Point's ultimate capacity is reached?

A11. The site expansion would be limited for any continued expansion to the west and south by the new recommended improvements being built in 2009-2012. The City’s purchase of the McKenzie Ave property allows for some additional growth beyond the current proposal most likely into 2030. After that, if no additional property is obtained to the north (Port of Bellingham land) then possible upgrades to existing process with newer technologies that do not require larger footprints may be an option.

Q11. note a hydraulic capacity expansion to 82 mgd is suggested. Is that the maximum likely?

A11. The City has experienced flows at the WWTP around 72MGD instantaneous, so the 82 MGD and the higher 107MGD are good planning numbers that are consistent with growth projections and the planning storm of 2004.

Q11. What are plans once Post Point's ultimate capacity is reached?

A11. Hydraulically, additional collection system storage or high rate treatment facilities may be necessary within the collection system at key conveyance points to meet futre needs, similar to what is being recommended for the collection system in 2012.

---------------------
Q12. What about nutrient removal? Is this for Nitrogen? Will it work on Phosphorus?
Where is DOE coming from on this?
When does our existing NPDES permit expire?

A12. Based on discussions with DOE, nutrient limits (ammonia, N, and/or P) are not likely to be imposed during the planning period. Furthermore, the current recommended expansion is not designed to provide nutrient removal per se (although bio-P is provided via the anaerobic selector). The planned expansion can be modified if needed at some future date, to accommodate nutrient removal. The City received its new NPDES permit on November 02, 2007, it is good for 5 years from that date.

---------------------
Q13. Recommended conveyance systems improvements fall largely at the edges of City limits, some in UGAs.
If the City must finance these prior to annexation, isn't that an undue burden on existing taxpayers?
Will Latecomers fees recover all these costs?

A13. If any utility improvements are installed by ratepayer funds, the City will assess property owners a future latecomer fee to access the system. Another possible way to achieve improvements prior to annexation or during would be to form a Utility LID. Costs that are associated with capacity are rolled into the SDCs and new developer pays the buy-in + growth, thus paying back the cost that the City incurred to make the necessary capacity available to the new customer.

---------------------
Q14. Chapter '11' for Capital Improvements Plan is scary!
But, seriously, the Basis for Estimated Cost on page 11-5 is interesting.
Can or should this methodology be applied to other capital projects?
Like a Library?

A14. Yes, many other organizations, especially the Federal Government use ‘Cost Basis of Estimate’ or BOE. The Cost Basis of Estimate provides a record of the procedures, ground rules and assumptions, data, environment, and events that underlie a cost estimate’s development or update. Good documentation supports the cost estimate’s credibility, aids in the analysis of changes in program cost, enables reviewers to effectively assess the cost estimate, and contributes to the population of data bases for estimating the cost of future programs.

---------------------
Q15. Thank goodness this isn't Chapter 11!
Good job of presenting the results of many complex activities and projects.
The point needs to be made clearly these total $110 million in present day costs.
The $191 million takes into account escalation over time and on time.
Regardless, it is good news that only 30% of the total amount must be raised from bonds, grants and other sources other than rates & SDCs.
Having to raise $33 million present day or $60 million escalated will be far more acceptable for Council to approve.

A15. No comments received.

---------------------
Q16. The rate increases of 7% for 2008 and 7.68% for 2009 are OK with me because they do seem necessary because they address a known deficiency earlier rather than later.
But, some others may feel differently and an alternate phasing might be advisable to have in your back pocket.

A16. Phasing options will be available for discussion.

---------------------
Q17. The SDC increases are quite substantial and will probably be fought by the BIA and others.
So, timing is important! Maybe early December after elections?
You might also consider a phasing plan for SDCs, although its probably better to just get beaten up once instead of multiple times.
But, a $4201 increase over the existing $3436 SDC is a big jump! 122%

A17. This will be something that we will want to discuss at the November 19th Council session on water/sewer rates.
A phasing plan is always an option and if Council like to explore the possibility of phasing the SDC, we will have several courses of action to choose from.

---------------------
Q18. The comparison to other cities on page 12-15 is useful.
But only Kirkland is shown as having a higher SDC AFTER we increase ours.
That may be a negative.

A18. No comments received.

---------------------
Q19. Appendix D - Water District Agreement needs revisiting!
I know we can't rescind it, but we can change it!
Changes in circumstances is really all we have to claim.
Since 1974 we have finally discovered Lake Whatcom is our reservoir and taken significant action to protect it.
Those actions cost dearly and all parties need to share more equitably!
Sudden Valley should not be considered a low cost community.
Other developments around the Lake are certainly not low cost either!
This sewer agreement is leverage the City ought to be using better.

A19. No comments received.

---------------------
Q20. It would be nice to get the changes is SDCs and rates into the 2008 budget, whether before we approve on Nov 26 or early next year.
But, if Water rates and Stormwater rates are to be increased as well, you need to think about what's most important and start with that.
It will be very nice to get these big utility funds updated to last several years into the future, regardless of administration.
Including phased increases is a very smart way to do that, for multiple reasons.

A20. No comments received.

---------------------

Center For Watershed Protection: Helpful Articles

-------------------------
'The only consistent financial “loser” in the watershed protection balance sheet is local government.'
-------------------------

Years ago, I found the CWP website and read a number of articles posted there.
Then, somehow, I lost or forgot that link and was left to scramble to try and reconstruct information from memory to use in our efforts to protect the Lake Whatcom Reservoir.
Now, I've relocated this updated website and found most of the information I had tried to recollect, intact!.

Mind you, none of this was written specifically for Lake Whatcom, but it might have well been, because so much of is directly applicable.
The problem of protecting watersheds is a universal one, shared by everyone in one form of severity -urgency- or another.
And, so are the economics associated with addressing this problem, whether it is a drinking water supply, recreational waterbody or farm pond.
By and large, the economics always seem to strongly favor prudent protection over expensive, after-the-fact clean-ups.
This so-called 'precautionary principle' was best defined by old Ben Franklin's 'a stitch in time, saves nine.'

So, I'm pleased to again cite the CWP website, as well as a list of articles that ought to be helpful to those trying to learn and teach others about watershed protection.

In particular, this article on the Economics of Watershed Protection seems appropriate and timely, considering the important TMDL response that will be due from the City and County later this year:
====================================

The Practice of Watershed Protection Articles

Below are articles from The Practice of Watershed Protection that pertain specifically to this topic. To purchase the hardbound book or CD of these articles, please visit our store. For citing these articles, add the article author and title to the following: The Practice of Watershed Protection. 2000. T. Schueler and H. Holland, eds. Center for Watershed Protection. Ellicott City, MD. Authors of each individual article are listed as initials at the end of the article, with full names as follows: Carol Anne Barth (CAB), Ken Brown (KBB), Ted Brown (EWB), Whitney Brown (WEB), Deborah Caraco (DSC), Richard Claytor (RAC), Hye Yeong Kwon (HYK), Jennifer McClean (JMC), Ron Ohrel (RLO), Janet Pelley (JP), Eric Reeves (ER), Chris Swann (CS) and Jennifer Zielinski (JAZ). To view comprehensive list of all downloadable articles from this book, visit the Practice of Watershed Protection Articles page.

Section 1: Stormwater Pollution
1. The Importance of Imperviousness
2. Hydrocarbon Hotspots in the Urban Landscape: Can They Be Controlled?
3. Influence of Snowmelt Dynamics on Stormwater Runoff Quality
4. Nutrient Movement from the Lawn to the Stream?
5. Urban Pesticides: From the Lawn to the Stream
6. Cars are Leading Source of Metal Loads in California
7. Sources of Urban Stormwater Pollutants Defined in Wisconsin
8. Is Rooftop Runoff Really Clean?
9. First Flush of Stormwater Pollutants Investigated in Texas
10. Dry Weather Flow in Urban Streams
11. Multiple Indicators Used to Evaluate Stream Conditions in Milwaukee
12. Characterization of Heavy Metals in Santa Clara Valley
13. Simple and Complex Stormwater Pollutant Load Models Compared
14. Impact of Suspended and Deposited Sediments
15. Stormwater Pollution Source Areas Isolated in Michigan
16. Diazinon Sources in Runoff From the San Francisco Bay Region
17. Microbes in Urban Watersheds: Concentrations, Sources and Pathways

Section 2: Habitat and Biodiversity
18. Effects of Urbanization on Small Streams in the Puget Sound Ecoregion
19. Dynamics of Urban Stream Channel Enlargement
20. Stream Channel Geometry Used to Assess Land Use Impacts in the Northwest
21. Habitat and Biological Impairment in Delaware Headwater Streams
22. Comparison of Forest, Urban and Agricultural Streams in North Carolina
23. Historical Change in a Warmwater Fish Community in an Urbanizing Watershed
24. Fish Dynamics in Urban Streams Near Atlanta, Georgia
25. Housing Density and Urban Land Use As Stream Quality Indicators
26. A Study of Paired Catchments Within Peavine Creek, Georgia

Section 3: Watershed Protection Tool #1 - Watershed Planning
27. The Tools of Watershed Protection
28. Basic Concepts in Watershed Planning
29. Crafting Better Watershed Plans
30. Economics of Watershed Protection
31. Microbes and Urban Watersheds: Implications for Watershed Managers
32. Methods for Estimating Effective Impervious Area of Urban Watersheds

Section 4: Watershed Protection Tool #2 - Land Conservation
33. Impact of Stormwater on Puget Sound Wetlands
34. Loss of White Cedar in New Jersey Linked to Stormwater Runoff
35. Wetter Is Not Always Better: Flood Tolerance of Woody Species
36. The Compaction of Urban Soils
37. Can Urban Soil Compaction Be Reversed
38. Choosing Appropriate Vegetation for Salt-Impacted Roadways

Section 5: Watershed Protection Tool #3 - Aquatic Buffers
39. The Architecture of Urban Stream Buffers
40. Urbanization, Stream Buffers and Stewardship in Maryland
41. Invisibility of Stream and Wetland Buffers in the Field
42. Techniques for Improving the Survivorship of Riparian Plantings
43. Impact of Riparian Forest Cover on Mid-Atlantic Stream Ecosystems
44. The Return of the Beaver

Section 6: Watershed Protection Tool #4 - Better Site Design
45. An Introduction to Better Site Design
46. The Benefits of Better Site Design in Residential Subdivisions
47. The Benefits of Better Site Design in Commercial Development
48. Changing Development Rules in Your Community
49. The Economics of Urban Sprawl
50. Skinny Streets and One-Sided Sidewalks: A Strategy for Not Paving Paradise
51. Use of Open Space Design to Protect Watersheds

Section 7: Watershed Protection Tool #5 - Erosion and Sediment Control
52. Muddy Water In; Muddy Water Out?
53. Clearing and Grading Regulations Exposed
54. Practical Tips for Construction Site Phasing
55. Keeping Soil in Its Place
56. Strengthening Silt Fences
57. The Limits of Settling
58. Improving the Trapping Efficiency of Sediment Basins
59. Performance of Sediment Controls at Maryland Construction Sites
60. Construction Practices: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
61. Delaware Program Improves Construction Site Inspection
62. Enforcing Sediment Regulations in North Carolina

Section 8: Watershed Protection Tool #6 - Stormwater Management Practices General Background on Stormwater Treatment
63. Why Stormwater Matters
64. Comparative Pollutant Removal Capability of Stormwater Treatment Practices
65. Irreducible Pollutant Concentrations Discharged From Stormwater Practices
66. Stormwater Strategies for Arid and Semiarid Watersheds
67. Microbes and Urban Watersheds: Ways to Kill `Em
68. The Economics of Stormwater Treatment: An Update
69. Trends in Managing Stormwater Utilities

Ponds
70. Pond/Wetland System Proves Effective in New Zealand
71. Performance of Stormwater Ponds and Wetlands in Winter
72. Performance of a Stormwater Pond/Wetland System in Colorado
73. Performance of Two Wet Ponds in the Piedmont of North Carolina
74. Performance of Stormwater Ponds in Central Texas
75. Pollutant Removal Dynamics of Three Canadian Wet Ponds
76. A Tale of Two Regional Wet Extended Detention Ponds
77. Performance of a Dry Extended Pond in North Carolina
78. Influence of Groundwater on Performance of Stormwater Ponds in Florida
79. Environmental Impact of Stormwater Ponds
80. Pollutant Dynamics of Pond Muck
81. The Pond Premium
82. Water Reuse Ponds Developed in Florida
83. Trace Metal Bio-accumulation in the Aquatic Community of Stormwater Ponds
84. Human and Amphibian Preferences for Dry and Wet Stormwater Pond Habitat
85. Dragonfly Naiads as an Indicator of Pond Water Quality
86. Establishing Wildflower Meadows in New Jersey Detention Basins
87. Persistence of Wetland Plantings Along the Aquatic Bench of Stormwater Ponds

Wetlands
88. Return to Lake McCarrons
89. Nutrient Dynamics and Plant Diversity in Stormwater Wetlands
90. Adequate Treatment Volume Critical in Virginia Stormwater Wetland
91. Pollutant Removal by Constructed Wetlands in an Illinois River Floodplain
92. Pollutant Dynamics Within Stormwater Wetlands: I. Plant Uptake
93. Pollutant Dynamics Within Stormwater Wetlands: II. Organic Matter
94. Pollutant Removal Capability of a "Pocket" Wetland
95. Performance of Gravel-based Wetland in a Cold, High Altitude Climate
96. The StormTreat System: A New Technology for Treating Stormwater Runoff
97. Vegetated Rock Filters Used to Treat Stormwater Pollutants in Florida
98. Practical Tips for Establishing Freshwater Wetlands
99. Broad-leaf Arrowhead: A Workhorse of the Wetlands
100. Mosquitos in Constructed Wetlands: A Management Bugaboo?

Infiltration
101. Failure Rates of Infiltration Practices Assessed in Maryland
102. Longevity of Infiltration Basins Assessed in Puget Sound
103. A Second Look at Porous Pavement/Underground Recharge
104. The Risk of Groundwater Contamination from Infiltration of Stormwater

Filters
105. Developments in Sand Filter Technology to Treat Stormwater Runoff
106. Further Developments in Sand Filter Technology
107. Performance of Delaware Sand Filter Assessed
108. Field Evaluation of a Stormwater Sand Filter
109. Innovative Leaf Compost System Used to Filter Runoff in Northwest
110. Bioretention as a Stormwater Treatment Practice
111. Multi-Chamber Treatment Train Developed for Stormwater Hot Spots

Open Channels and Swales
112. Performance of Biofilters in the Pacific Northwest
113. Runoff and Groundwater Dynamics of Two Swales in Florida
114. Performance of Grassed Swales Along East Coast Highways
115. Pollutant Removal Pathways in Florida Swales
116. Ditches or Biological Filters? Classifying Pollutant Removal in Open Channels
117. Performance of Dry and Wet Biofilters Investigated in Seattle
118. Level Spreader/Filter Strip System Assessed in Virginia

Other
119. Performance of Oil/Grit Separators in Removing Pollutants at Small Sites
120. Performance of a Proprietary Stormwater Treatment Device: The Stormceptor
121. New Developments in Street Sweeper Technology
122. The Value of More Frequent Cleanouts of Storm Drain Inlets

Section 9: Watershed Protection Tool #7 - Control of Non-Stormwater Discharges
123. Dealing with Septic System Impacts
124. Recirculating Sand Filters: An Alternative to Conventional Septic Systems
125. Use of Tracers to Identify Sources of Contamination in Dry Weather Flow

Section 10: Watershed Protection Tool #8 - Watershed Stewardship

Watershed Education
126. Understanding Watershed Behavior
127. On Watershed Education

Watershed Advocacy
128. Choosing the Right Watershed Management Structure

Pollution Prevention at Home
129. The Peculiarities of Perviousness
130. Toward a Low Input Lawn
131. Homeowner Survey Reveals Lawn Management Practices in Virginia
132. Nitrate Leaching Potential From Lawns and Turfgrass
133. Insecticide Impact on Urban and Suburban Wildlife
134. Minimizing the Impact of Golf Courses on Streams
135. Groundwater Impacts of Golf Course Development in Cape Cod

Pollution Prevention at Work
136. Practical Pollution Prevention Practices Outlined for West Coast Service Stations
137. Practical Pollution Prevention Emphasized for Industrial Stormwater
138. Milwaukee Survey Used to Design Pollution Prevention Program
139. Rating Deicing Agents: Road Salt Stands Firm
140. Pollution Prevention for Auto Recyclers

Watershed Monitoring
141. An Introduction to Stormwater Indicators

Stream Restoration
142. Assessing the Potential for Urban Watershed Restoration
143. Stormwater Retrofits: Tools for Watershed Enhancement
144. Sligo Creek: Comprehensive Stream Restoration
145. Bioengineering in Four Mile Run, Virginia
146. Coconut Rolls Used For Natural Streambank Stabilization
147. Pipers Creek: Salmon Habitat Restoration in the Pacific Northwest
148. The Longevity of Instream Habitat Structures
149. Stream Daylighting in Berkeley, CA Creek
150. Parallel Pipe Systems as a Stream Protection Technique
---------------------------