Today's BELLINGHAM HERALD reported 'Boat docked at lake burns'. It mentioned that: the boat didn't sink, damage was estimated at $50,000, no one was hurt, minor damage was done to the dock and neighboring boats, that the Department of Ecology had determined there was no fuel or oil leakage, and booms were set up around the boat to prevent pollution. Also, that George Henderson, Chief of Whatcom County Fire District No. 18 - the same person and organization that was just fined $21,000 by DOE for illegally disturbing the shoreline in the South Bay - was the responding fire safety officer. He also said the owners had docked the boat after using it 'without any problems during the day'.
Two questions:
1. How do we know the boat was used during the day 'without any problems'?
2. What wasn't 'the lake' described as the Lake Whatcom Reservoir, our Municipal Water Supply?
To the extent this can become a 'teachable moment', the following is in response to a list of questions submitted to staff by me, regarding motorized watercraft management recommendations. Each underlined question is followed by its answer, with some questions having multiple parts that are related to a common subject. Cost estimates are based on a variety of sources but all should be viewed as preliminary estimates. These answers were issued on 3/11/2004.
===================================
1. For how long have the benzene tests been conducted?
--------------------------------------------------------
The City has collected benzene data since 1988 as part of our volatile organic chemical monitoring program per Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requirements. Sampling procedures have been refined and improved in the past 5 years.
Treated water is currently sampled annually to establish compliance with the SDWA. Often the treated water sample is paired with an untreated water sample to derive treatment plant removal data for the water utility. The analysis required for Safe Drinking Water Act compliance is a broad scan, and as such, has a detection level for benzene that is up to 9 times higher than more selective methods currently used by the utility (see paragraph below). The detection level for SDWA compliance determination is conventionally reported at the State Reporting Level for compliance determination (typically reported as 0.5 parts per billion or ug/L). When reporting the results for compliance monitoring, it is the convention to report only to the State Reporting Level. Therefore, data derived for SDWA compliance sampling is reported above the benzene levels typically observed in Lake Whatcom.
Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl Benzene, and Xylene (BTEX) Sampling
Because the 1999 Olympic pipeline rupture and explosion occurred directly between the water filtration plant and the filtered water chlorine contact reservoir, there was concern about gasoline contamination in the water supply. The utility immediately began collecting and analyzing water from the treatment plant and in the distribution system for benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX), which are constituents of gasoline. These BTEX compounds were detected in all but seven of the 120 samples collected from the time of the explosion until the end of that year. Levels of detection were well below the State Reporting Level, and the average benzene levels in all samples collected from that period was 0.07 ug/L. Six of the seven samples that had no BTEX detections were from those samples taken from 11/15/99 until 12/13/99. Those 6 samples comprised all the samples taken during that later period.
With the realization that BTEX compounds were being detected in the treated water supply came the desire to definitively attribute the source of these compounds. Sampling began at the Gatehouse (untreated Lake Whatcom water from the City Intake pipe in basin #2) on June 22, 1999. It came as a surprise to the utility that benzene levels were also detectable at the source of the City’s drinking water, over a mile away from the site of the pipeline rupture. As this monitoring program continued, an analytical method with better detection levels was employed starting in 2001. The Selected Ion Mass Spectrometry (SIMS) allowed detection levels at up to 9 times lower than by the conventional SDWA-required method as it is able to focus in on the specific spectra of interest.
Where are these records kept?
--------------------------------------------------------
All records from the Safe Drinking Water Act compliance monitoring are reported and filed with the State of Washington Department of Health and are also filed in the Water Filtration Plant Laboratory.
Records from the post-Olympic pipeline rupture monitoring are filed at the Water Filtration Plant Laboratory. Results from this monitoring are entered into an Excel spreadsheet to allow for data analysis.
What is done with this information? Is it included in any official reports or literature?
--------------------------------------------------------
The City included information/data on the BTEX monitoring program in two of its Consumer Confidence Reports sent to all customers of the water utility (June 2000 and June 2001). The benzene levels detected in lake water were also reported in the Water Source Protection Plan (Section 2.1.12), compiled by the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County Water District #10 in 2000.
The City’s BTEX data was also provided to the Citizen’s Advisory Committee formed to provide recommendations on boating on Lake Whatcom. This data is available electronically and is also provided to customers upon request.
Is it true that the levels reported to date are well below actionable levels [MCLs] mandated by Federal and State Law?
--------------------------------------------------------
Yes this is true.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and State of Washington regulatory levels of note are shown in the table below:
The table* depicts the maximum contaminant level (MCL), the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) and the Washington State Reporting Level. Though the MCLs are enforceable standards and MCLGs are not, the EPA feels there is no safe level of consumption for carcinogens such as benzene and has therefore set the MCLG at zero.
[Compressed Table*]
Compound//EPA Maximum Contaminant Level//EPA Maximum Contaminant Level Goal//State Reporting Level
[all values expressed in (ug/L)]
Benzene//5//0//0.5
Toluene//1000//1000//0.5
Ethyl benzene//700//700 //0.5
Total xylene//10000//10000//0.5
The EPA realizes that real financial and technological constraints often make zero unattainable, so they set MCLs as close to MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology and taking cost into consideration. The maximum level of benzene found in all treated water samples taken from 2000 to present is 0.123 ug/L, and the maximum level of benzene in untreated water (for which these level do not apply) is 0.137 ug/L.
The other contaminants toluene, ethyl benzene and xylene have MCL and MCLG levels that are the same because unlike benzene, the EPA believes those levels provides sufficient protection from the potential health problems associated with these contaminants.
The EPA has grouped contaminants into five groups based on the seriousness of their health effects upon humans. The health impact is based upon whether or not the substance being classified has been determined by USEPA to cause cancer in animals or humans.
Group A is described by USEPA as a known human carcinogen, or cancer-causing substance in humans.
Group B has been determined by USEPA to be a probable human carcinogen.
Group C includes possible human carcinogens.
Group D includes substances for which there is insufficient evidence to document carcinogenic effects upon humans.
Group E is not considered a carcinogen.
Benzene is a volatile organic compound (VOC) listed as a Group A contaminant, The EPA feels that adequate human data exists to support this classification. Another Group A VOC, vinyl chloride, is also of concern.
2. Is there any discernable trend in recorded benzene levels over time, aside from the periodic spikes? Is the fact that measurable concentrations have been found a cause for concern?
-------------------------------------------------------
The seasonal variations seem to be the only apparent trend.
--------------------------------------------------------
Please refer to prior response for discussion on MCLGs and benzene.
3. Where are the sampling points and with what frequency are samples taken and tested? Does sample location or frequency matter?
--------------------------------------------------------
Since 1999 samples are collected at least monthly and consist of paired gatehouse and treated water samples. The gatehouse sample represents the water coming into the City’s intake pipe. The water does not stratify thermally at the intake location, therefore there is a much greater likelihood that substances on the lake surface could make their way to the intake at the bottom of the lake.
In (only) one instance were samples collected from both the intake and from the surface of the water above the intake (where one would assume more hydrocarbon to exist). This sampling occurred in August 2000. The data were:
Benzene (ug/L or parts per billion) Single ion monitoring
8/28/00 Gatehouse 0.123
8/28/00 Surface of lake near intake 0.230
4. Is the City's present water treatment process capable of removing benzene from the raw water to produce our drinking water? From the data, it appears not likely because there is little difference in concentration.
--------------------------------------------------------
You are correct, the City’s treatment plant is not capable of removing benzene.
5. What is the estimated expense for upgrading the water treatment plant to remove benzene and/or other organics harmful to humans?
--------------------------------------------------------
A full comparative analysis of equipment costs, plant remodeling costs, potential for other contamination, expected benefits of the treatment options and other factors is needed to answer this question.
The EPA has selected two preferred treatment methods for removal of Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) contaminants such as Benzene. Packed tower aeration or air stripping is one method. This process transfers the VOC's from water to air. The air is discharged into the atmosphere. Consideration must be given on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the airborne VOC contaminants do not cause health risks. While it is possible to place additional treatment on the air discharge, the additional costs involved make this method very expensive especially when higher concentrations of VOC contaminant are present. One would also need to be concerned about introducing air borne contaminants into the water.
The other method of removal is granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption. When water passes through a bed of activated carbon, VOC's attach or stick to the carbon. The attaching or sticking process of VOC's to the carbon granules is called adsorption. The carbon must be monitored carefully so that it can be replaced before it is exhausted. Carbon which is exhausted, or has adsorbed all the VOC's it can, may allow the adsorbed VOC's to be released back into the water in higher concentrations, due to the amount of VOC accumulation upon the carbon granules. Contaminated carbon must be regenerated on site or properly disposed of so that recontamination of the water does not occur. This treatment technology also has been shown to encourage the proliferation of microorganisms at the treatment plant, some of which have shown resistance to disinfectants currently in use.
Would such an upgrade be justified?
--------------------------------------------------------
In the final determination of which treatment process to use for VOC removal, all elements relevant to our water system should be considered. These elements include the cost, the types/concentration of VOC's present, the amount of removal deemed acceptable and the surrounding neighborhood.
How would it be paid for and by whom?
--------------------------------------------------------
Water utility customers would pay the costs for changes to the water system. The utility users also pay for maintenance and operation costs.
How much more capacity is available using the current water treatment plant, and when would an expansion normally be expected, using the same technology?
--------------------------------------------------------
At what point would such an upgrade be anticipated?
--------------------------------------------------------
It is quite difficult to determine when we will reach capacity on our water treatment plant. It is an element of our comprehensive plan (1993) and was slated for expansion in 1995. Since 1993 the City’s overall water consumption has been flat and our peak use days have been significantly reduced. So at this stage we do not have a plan for expansion. At some point growth will overcome conservation and we will have to expand the facility. The current peak capacity available is approximately 20 % or 5 million gallons per day.
What are the estimated costs of a more sophisticated water treatment system based on advanced technology to remove benzene and related compounds?
--------------------------------------------------------
We do not have cost estimates of alternative treatment systems to address issues such as benzene. It would require us to retain a consultant to develop the feasibility of removing targeted compounds and what that would cost from a capital and O & M basis. It also would require that we evaluate the benefits of certain treatment schemes and the risks associated with using that technology. We would want to be assured that in the process of removing one contaminant that we did not introduce new risk factors which might be as great or greater than the targeted agent.
What about the idea of obtaining drinking water from another source besides Lake Whatcom? What estimated costs might this entail, assuming another source is available?
--------------------------------------------------------
Other drinking water sources have been reviewed. They include changing our point of withdrawal from the Nooksack River, piping Middle Fork water around the Lake directly to the water treatment plant and reverse osmosis treatment of salt water from Bellingham Bay.
Withdrawing water from the lower Nooksack is estimated to cost between $100 and $150 million for construction and $10 million or more in yearly maintenance and operations costs. The option would require land acquisition, big pumps, settling basins, new treatment facilities, etc. Electricity would be a big part of the yearly M&O costs. Due to the large sediment load and the need to pump continually equipment maintenance costs would be high. Water in the lower river receives contaminants from Everson, Lynden and Ferndale treatment plants as well as runoff from agriculture and other land uses, therefore requiring a high level of treatment.
Pumping around the Lake from the Middle Fork diversion is estimated to cost around $45 million. Yearly M&O might be
$2 million. This option relies heavily on the availability of land for the pipeline and a water reservoir. Probably big pumps would be required with high electric use. Depending solely on water withdrawal from the Middle Fork is not feasible given the instream flow constraints on our withdrawal management.
A reverse osmosis plant would be constructed on the City waterfront that would provide the supply source for drinking and industrial process water for the City’s residents and industrial users. The system would include a treatment plant, reservoir, pumps and pipes.
Reverse osmosis is, in general, very expensive ($180 million) and typically done when there is no fresh water alternative.
The advantage that reserve osmosis has is that there is no water right requirement for salt water. The supply is inexhaustible, available and located within Bellingham Bay where the City is located. In addition, a reverse osmosis plant to supply only potable water, although cheaper, does not completely relieve the City’s reliance on Lake Whatcom as a source of supply for industrial process water purposes.
How would this be paid for and by whom?
--------------------------------------------------------
The costs for changes to the water system would be paid by water utility customers. Maintenance and operation costs are also paid for by the utility users.
6. What is the estimated cost of moving the City's water intake to a more sheltered area in Basin 3?
--------------------------------------------------------
In the past the cost has been estimated to be $1000 per linear foot with an estimated distance of 5000’ for a cost of $5 million. This should be considered a minimum given anticipated cost increases by the time a project is construction ready.
Would such a move be expected to be helpful?
--------------------------------------------------------
We are currently reviewing this issue. The review is assessing the water quality and other issues in the portion of Basin 3 nearest Basin 2.
Would these costs be justified?
--------------------------------------------------------
This question will be answered after the completion of the review.
How would this be paid for and by whom?
--------------------------------------------------------
Water utility customers would pay the costs for changes to the water system. The utility users also pay for maintenance and operation costs.
7. Does the City have any way of systematically identifying: boaters using the Reservoir; the number by type of watercraft used; how particularly sensitive areas might be better protected; how to fairly & equitably enforce boating BMPs; how many of these boaters use the Bloedel-Donovan launch?
--------------------------------------------------------
At the present time, there is no comprehensive count of the numbers and types of watercraft used. Counting the number of boat launches at Bloedel Donovan Park (see below) is an inaccurate estimate of boat use, since boaters also access the reservoir at the public WDFW boat launch, as well as the boat launches at Sudden Valley and Wildwood Resort. Boat use counts are further complicated by the significant boat use that originates from the hundreds of private docks that encircle the reservoir.
How could particularly sensitive areas might be better protected?
--------------------------------------------------------
Identifying particular areas, such as the intake pipe, for enhanced protection is not included as a management recommendation.
How would we fairly and equitably enforce boating BMPs?
--------------------------------------------------------
It is recommended that the Whatcom County Sheriff’s boat patrol enforce any new boating regulations. The Sheriff currently patrols the reservoir on a limited basis. The committee has recommendation is that the boat patrol’s hours be increased, at least to cover the hours that the boat launch is open on weekends and holidays.
The recommendations include actions the City could take to improve facilities available to boaters and thus make it easier to comply with the fueling, bilge dumping and other waste related issues.
It also is recommended that a boating education program be developed to promote voluntary compliance with laws and BMPs.
How many of these boaters use the Bloedel-Donovan launching site?
--------------------------------------------------------
As reported in the Water Source Protection Plan (2000), in past years, the Bellingham Parks and Recreation Department charged during the boating season for weekend and holiday use of the Bloedel Donovan Park boat launch. During that time, Parks employees counted the number of vessels using the launch. Parks was able to provide data for weekend and holiday launches from Memorial Day to Labor Day 1986 (800 launches), 1998 (2156), 2000 (1375), and part of 2001 (Memorial Day through July 20, 525 launches).
In 2001, the Parks Board decided to discontinue the practice of charging for parking and use of the boat launch.
8. Does the fact that manufacturers of personal watercraft using 2-stroke carburated engines will eventually phase them out, have anything to do with these craft not being used in the Reservoir now?
--------------------------------------------------------
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a new standard for marine engine emissions in 1996. This standard requires marine manufacturers to achieve a 75% reduction in outboard and personal watercraft (PWC) engine hydrocarbon emissions by the year 2006. Although this standard is designed to improve air quality, they also result in engines that produce significantly less water pollution.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) decided that the EPA’s standard was not sufficiently strict and was being implemented too slowly. As a result, CARB accelerated the EPA timeline and set stricter standards for new marine engines sold in California. The CARB standard requires manufacturers to meet EPA 2006 standards by 2001 and to produce 65% lower emissions than the EPA standard by 2008, for a total of 91% lower emissions than carbureted two-stroke engines. Because California has such a large share of the marine engine market, manufacturers are designing their engines to meet the stricter CARB limits.
Because PWC engines are subject to the same restrictions as other marine engines, manufacturers are developing PWC with four-stroke and two-stroke DFI technology to reduce emissions. The new two-stroke engines are lighter and simpler in design than four-stroke engines, and some are almost as clean.
This does not mean that two-stroke carbureted PWC will not be manufactured after 2006. The EPA allows product averaging, which means that the “Family Emission Limit” (FEL) must meet or exceed applicable emission standards. This means that some two-stroke carbureted PWC will continue to be manufactured as long as their higher emissions are offset by other low-emission members of its engine “family.”
Neither the EPA nor CARB require boaters to dispose of carbureted two-stroke engines. The EPA estimates that old engines will no longer be used by the year 2050.
The CARB has estimated that the exhaust emissions from operating a PWC for seven hours is equivalent to the emissions from a 1998 passenger car operated for 100,000 miles. This means that one hour of PWC use generates as much air pollution as one year of automobile use. Because carbureted two-stroke engines exhaust through water, the pollution is received directly by the water body.
9. Recognizing the City's rationale for 'limiting its liability' by avoiding any sort of fee or permit system per RCW, what can be done to actually prevent or measurably mitigate any of the careless boating practices, short of closing the launch to watercraft using internal combustion engines? [Note this is already City policy at Lake Padden]
--------------------------------------------------------
The recommendations from the Motorized Watercraft Citizens Advisory Committee and the Lake Whatcom Management Committee include actions to change poor boating practices. Provision of a fueling area and a bilge dump facility are examples of very positive actions that the City can take to mitigate polluting activities.
10. Aside from the benzene spikes [public health issue] being discussed most prominently, what other concerns drive this discussion? [e.g. public/personal safety, nuisance & noise, the message conveyed by increasing unbridled use of a valuable and essential public resource for private recreation purposes]
--------------------------------------------------------
Although other issues associated with boating practices were recognized by both the Citizen’s Advisory Committee and the Lake Whatcom Management Committee, neither Committee made recommendations based on those additional issues.
11. What regulations are relevant to the recommendations? (Added)
--------------------------------------------------------
Both the State and City already prohibit the deposit of petroleum-based products into water, although neither regulation specifically refers to exhaust of such products into water.
RCW 90.48.080 states:
Discharge of polluting matter in waters prohibited.—It shall be unlawful for any person to throw, drain, run, or otherwise discharge into any of the waters of this state, or to cause, permit, or suffer to be thrown, run, drained, allowed to seep or otherwise discharged into such waters any organic or inorganic matter that shall cause or tend to cause pollution of such waters according to the determination of the department, as provided for in this chapter.
In addition, section 10.60.100 of the Bellingham Municipal Code states:
Deposit In Water Prohibited.—A. No person shall throw or deposit litter in any fountain, pond, lake, stream, bay, or other body of water in a park or elsewhere in the City of Bellingham. B. No person shall pour, allow to drain, discard, or otherwise introduce motor oil and other petroleum-based products, antifreeze, paint, or any other unauthorized substance including solid materials into any surface water drainage course or body of water, including but not limited to lakes, ponds, streams, creeks, storm water catch basins, storm water detention ponds, ditches, and storm water inlets, culverts, and manholes.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Friday, August 17, 2007
A Tale of Two Cities: Watershed Protection Law Case Studies
Some folks have requested more background information on what can be done to help preserve the Lake Whatcom Reservoir. So, with that in mind, here is another longish piece that appeared in the April 2002 Whatcom Watch. I collaborated with Tom Pratum to research and publish the following Cover Story entitled: 'An Examination of Two Laws That Have Been Used to Protect Watersheds'.
During the 5-plus years since this was published, much additional development has occurred around Lake Whatcom, with increased runoff and continued spills contributing to measureable additional degradation. Sadly, all of the considerable efforts and funds expended since then have not even been able to slow down the rate of raw water degradation, much less stop or reverse it. So, the 2002 story remains as applicable today as it did then. The message is that not all well-intended laws work, and those that do require strong and continuing efforts on the part of both communities and their citizens.
-----------------------------------------------
Both the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County have been under attack for their apparent failure to take significant measures to protect the sole source of drinking water for 85,000 residents—Lake Whatcom. This attack has become shrill with the recent sewage overflows in Sudden Valley and what would appear to be a multi-agency failure to act to stem this flow of raw sewage into the lake.
The four-day December 2001 sewage overflow and spill into the lake from Water District 10 facilities at Sudden Valley went unabated for far too long. It attracted many observers who are right to ask–what is going on here? Isn’t this against the law?
The simply stated cause of this spill was ‘excessive storm water infiltration into Water District 10’s sewer lines due to heavy rainfall’—this despite the recent installation of a large 693,000-gallon detention tank to alleviate exactly this type of situation from happening again, as it has repeatedly done in the past.
Sewage Overflows Under Control?
Now we are told that the situation is, at least temporarily, under control because additional large, portable tanks are on-site to augment the limited capacity of vacuum trucks used to haul excess sewage to the city’s sewer system. The long-term fix being proposed is to install a larger sewer interceptor system to directly connect to the city system. The construction of this new interceptor line has already begun.
Because of existing development, both the detention tank and new sewer interceptor now seem necessary to protect public health; but will they really solve the problem, or merely enable more development to occur so that the same unacceptable situation happens again in the future?
The real problem is not too much rain, because that has been happening in nature for hundreds and thousands of years. The problem is the already excessive and growing development of homes and other impervious surfaces around a public water supply reservoir, which is also being used as a vehicle transportation corridor as well as for swimming, boating and fishing.
By replacing natural vegetation with pavement, runoff volumes can be up to sixteen times greater, causing more flooding and erosion. This increased runoff picks up greater quantities of sediments as well as dirtier pollutants, like pesticides, fertilizers, metals, and fecal matter, on its way to the lake.
Prevention and Protection v. Treatment and Mitigation
Of course, detention/retention systems and treatment devices can be built to mitigate storm water runoff damage, but these are rarely more than 50 percent effective, and they cost all ratepayers big money, not just those who happen to be living in the watershed. Often, these types of facilities are required or built only after a serious problem has already occurred, too late to prevent it.
That is why it makes sense, even in urban areas, like the City of Bellingham, to adopt a policy of prevention and protection over treatment and mitigation regarding the Lake Whatcom watershed. That is also why it makes sense to limit further development in this watershed, outside the city limits.
Are the City’s Hands Tied?
As a water provider to 85,000 citizens, just what control does the city have outside of its boundaries? Some would say that the city’s hands are tied—the vast majority of its reservoir lies outside of its jurisdictional boundaries. The question is: are the city’s hands really tied? Or, do the tools exist for the city to exert its influence over this body of water, which it has a keen interest in preserving?
Here we present two often-cited cases in which a city attempted to apply its interest in water resources outside of its jurisdictional boundaries. These cases only show the obvious legal paths that have been pursued. Using this historical information as a base, we hope that a more thorough mining of legislative and administrative rules will turn up further avenues to pursue.
Water Pollution—Protection From
Our first example comes straight from the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Over 100 years ago, in 1899—only 10 years after Washington became a State and its constitution adopted—our legislature authorized Chapter 35.88 RCW (Water Pollution—Protection From; the text is shown in the sidebar on the facing page).
Intended as enabling legislation to help cities like Bellingham protect their water supply resources, this RCW was challenged and ultimately found unconstitutional in 1928, a legacy that continues to inhibit effective protection efforts.
That development on an urban scale is inherently inappropriate in a public water supply watershed seems so obvious that even our ancestors knew it as common sense, without needing to scientifically prove or justify it. Maybe that is why our state legislature, back in 1899, passed Chapter 35.88 RCW to avoid problems like this one.
Future Generations
As contemporaries of Teddy Roosevelt, might they have been thinking of the problems, which future generations would have if such protections were not adopted and used? Why else would they even go to the trouble to pass this measure?
It is certain they were not thinking that Chapter 35.88 RCW would be challenged and ruled unconstitutional, only 28 years later, in Brown v. Cle Elum; a decision which continues to limit its use and thereby its intended effectiveness in protecting the Lake Whatcom Reservoir. This limitation has required cities to become more creative and forward thinking in their watershed protection strategies. Our second case, Tacoma v. Welcker, recounts such a strategy, which, unlike Brown v. Cle Elum, has survived the test of time.
Brown v. City of Cle Elum (Washington 1927)
Exercising its police powers, the City of Cle Elum passed an ordinance pursuant to RCW 35.88, to protect its water supply source, the Cle Elum River (near its outlet at Lake Cle Elum, located in a National Forest preserve about six miles northwest of the city).
The main features of this ordinance included:
•Prohibitions against swimming, fishing, boating in the lake;
•Prohibition against dumping raw sewage into any lake, river, spring, stream, creek or tributary which constitutes the source of water supply;
•Prohibition against camping in the watershed;
•No dwelling could be constructed or maintained in the entire (about 23 miles long with a maximum width of 17 miles) watershed, unless said dwelling is provided with a sanitary toilet. Said toilet must be so designed and so kept that the contents of said toilet cannot drain on the surface of the ground or reach the water through the ground;
•Every person who deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever, dangerous or deleterious to health, or any matter or thing, which may or could pollute the waters or system, shall be deemed guilty of violation of the ordinance, punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.
Initial Judgment Reversed
The initial trial in Kittitas County Superior Court [ca 1927] resulted in a judgment awarding an injunction in favor of the plaintiff, Brown, who wanted to continue renting property from the U.S. Government for his cottage, and use the lake for boating, fishing and swimming.
However, the City of Cle Elum appealed to the Washington State Supreme Court and the earlier decision was reversed. In this latter decision, the city’s ordinance was:
• presumed a valid exercise of its police power;
• held not invalid as exercising police power over United States forest preserve;
• held not unreasonable in prohibiting swimming, fishing and boating in the lake.
Additionally, it was found:
•A lessee of land along lake in forest reserve held is not entitled to enjoin the city from enforcing ordinance to protect water supply;
•States may exercise ordinary police power over United States forest reservation for preservation of public health.
Court Predicts Controversy Over Territorial Limits
Portending what was to come on re-argument of this case, the court concluded:
“There looms in the horizon of this controversy a question of far-reaching importance; that is, as to whether or not the Legislature can constitutionally delegate to a city authority to exercise police power beyond its territorial limits and outside the boundaries of property it may own beyond its territorial limits, by the passing and enforcing of ordinances assuming to regulate the conduct of citizens beyond such limits and boundaries. No argument has been presented to us here touching that question, and we purposely refrain from expressing any views thereon. The city’s power is here challenged only upon the two grounds we have noticed: (1) The United States ownership of the lands and waters; and (2) the reasonableness of the ordinance. No other question is here decided.”
Re-Hearing of Case Favors Brown
Brown v. Cle Elum was granted a re-hearing, and on November 23, 1927, the Washington Supreme Court gave this decision: “Upon re-argument of the case before the court en banc, the question referred to in the foregoing quotation was presented to the court, and after such presentation we are of the opinion that the ordinance in question is unconstitutional.”
Supporting its decision, and citing Article XI, Section 11 of the Constitution (sidebar shows relevant part of Constitution), the court found:
•Penal ordinance protecting water supply from lake, outside city limits, violated Constitution limiting exercise of police power by city to own limits;
•Statutes empowering city to pass penal ordinance affecting water outside corporate limits violated Constitution limiting exercise of police power to city’s limits;
•Municipalities have only delegated legislative powers and Legislature cannot exceed constitutional limits in delegating powers.
Because of this decision, jurisdiction regarding matters of pollution of state waters is left to the state via RCW 90.48 (Water Pollution Control). The state enforcement entity is the Department of Ecology—whom some have questioned regarding their ability to act in an expeditious matter in the recent Sudden Valley sewage overflow.
Is this the end of the story? Not quite—nearly all municipalities depend on water resources outside of their political boundaries, and it was only a matter of time before another avenue of protection made it to the State Supreme Court.
City of Tacoma v. Welcker (Washington 1965)
The City of Tacoma obtained a surface water right to divert water from the Green River in 1913. The Green River watershed then became the city’s principal water source. This watershed lies in southeastern King County and is thus a fair distance from the incorporated boundaries of Tacoma.
In a situation reminiscent of Bellingham, the city did not (and still does not) have ownership of much of this watershed.1 However, in contrast to our own unfortunate situation, the Green River watershed lies in the Cascade foothills and is relatively far from Puget Sound urbanization—even today.
In 1961, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed a flood control and water storage dam across Eagle Gorge on the Green River for the purposes of creating a reservoir. This is referred to as the Howard Hansen Dam and the impounded water behind it is the Howard Hansen Reservoir. Although the city water withdrawal is downstream of the reservoir, this body of water acts as indirect storage for Tacoma’s water supply needs.
While the City of Tacoma owned very little of the watershed land, it had agreements with larger landholders—governmental agencies, railroad, and timber companies—to help protect this water resource.
Buffer Strip Along Shoreline
With the idea that it is cheaper to protect than to purify, the city reasonably desired to acquire all of the smaller parcels of land to complete a buffer strip along the shoreline, which would enable natural filtration of any upslope runoff as well as discouraging recreational use of the newly created Howard Hansen Reservoir.
To this end, the city endeavored to acquire by purchase and condemnation this land adjacent to the reservoir. The condemnation actions were initiated based upon a Tacoma city ordinance, passed on October 23, 1962, which declared that acquisition of these properties was necessary for the purpose of protecting the water supply from pollution.
As with the Cle Elum case, Tacoma referred to statutory law in the Revised Code of Washington to support its right of condemnation. In particular, provisions of RCW 8.12.030 (Condemnation authorized–Purposes enumerated; text is shown in the sidebar) and RCW 35.92.010 (Authority to acquire and operate waterworks; relevant part of text is shown in sidebar) were used to justify this action.
Condemnation Authorized to Protect Water Supply
One of the purposes for which condemnation is authorized in RCW 8.12.030 is to condemn land “within or without the limits of such city” to “protect such supply of fresh water from pollution.”
RCW 35.92.010 further states that a city “may acquire by purchase or condemnation and purchase any properties or privileges necessary to protect its water supply from pollution.” This ability of a public entity to acquire private property is often referred to as the right of eminent domain.
The parties whose land was to be condemned countered in part that they were not utilizing their land in a manner so as to be a threat to the city’s water purity, and even if they were, the city’s chlorination process had proved to be effective at ensuring safe drinking water. The initial condemnation petition was dismissed in King County Superior Court.
While no argument was made that the city had the power of eminent domain to protect its water supply, it was decided that the present condemnation action was arbitrary and capricious due to the lack of a current threat.
1965 State Supreme Court Decision
The dismissal was reversed and remanded by the State Supreme Court on February 18, 1965. The court agreed with the city that the acquisition of a buffer strip to protect its water supply was a reasonable action to protect said water supply in the future, and was therefore not arbitrary and capricious.
To quote from the justices’ decision:
The fact that the water now being supplied by the city is potable and does not exceed tolerable contamination levels, or that such contamination as presently exists cannot be traced to the usage of the lands here involved, in nowise detracts from the wisdom or present necessity of providing reasonable safeguards against a reasonably realistic and foreseeable future danger of contamination. A ‘stitch in time’ has never been considered capricious. And, the fact that expert witnesses may disagree as to the desirability of one method of protection, as opposed to another, does not perforce render one choice arbitrary.
A rehearing was denied on March 25, 1965, and this case has rested in the category of “good law” ever since. The case has been cited many times over the years; most commonly to justify the necessity of eminent domain actions.
Condemnation Requires “Just Compensation”
While Tacoma v. Welcker may still be good law, is this a case we can really expect to help us in our watershed protection efforts? Possibly, but it is unlikely to completely solve our problems for us. While it clearly allows one to argue that the City of Bellingham has a right to condemn lands within its watershed, said lands would not be obtainable without substantial cost—condemnations do require “just compensation.”
The time for the city to use its right of condemnation to the extent Tacoma demonstrated in 1962 likely passed long ago. The expense of such action now would likely be prohibitive2, and on the same order as the “pie-in-the-sky” proposal to pump water out of Baker Lake or Ross Lake and pipe it to Bellingham (if such a water right could even be obtained).
It may be possible to use eminent domain in a limited manner to achieve a more limited watershed protection objective. An example would be condemnation of developable lots in the Geneva and Sudden Valley areas to remove these potential development impacts from the watershed.
Water supply protection is a very serious matter, and it is the duty of our city and county governments to tackle it, expeditiously and effectively. It is incumbent upon these governments to develop a sensible, but more comprehensive approach than that which now exists, and to listen to the ideas and concerns of citizens in this endeavor.
As Theodore Roosevelt said, the “greatest good for the greatest number” should be our goal in responsibly protecting our precious water supply resource. He also said, “The shots that hit are the shots that count.”
Footnotes
1. According to Tacoma Public Utility information, the city currently owns approximately 10 percent of its 149,000-acre watershed.
2. For the purposes of rough calculation, if the city were to provide a 0.5-mile buffer around basin 3 alone, it would need to acquire about 16.6 miles of shoreline (basin 3 has about 20 miles of shoreline, but 3.4 miles are already in public hands) along with approximately 5000 acres inland. If we assume the shoreline to be priced at $1000-4000 per front foot (waterfront is expensive), this shoreline alone would cost $87.6 -$350.6 million. The remaining inland area would constitute a far lesser amount (probably on the order of $10-$15 million).
Tacoma authorized only $400,000 to acquire its buffer in 1962. While purchasing the shoreline buffer would eat the lion’s share of the funds, the inland buffer calculations used above may be grossly overstated for Lake Whatcom, because 69 percent of this watershed is already zoned for forestry (2/3 public, 1/3 private)— generally regarded as an ideal watershed land use.
During the 5-plus years since this was published, much additional development has occurred around Lake Whatcom, with increased runoff and continued spills contributing to measureable additional degradation. Sadly, all of the considerable efforts and funds expended since then have not even been able to slow down the rate of raw water degradation, much less stop or reverse it. So, the 2002 story remains as applicable today as it did then. The message is that not all well-intended laws work, and those that do require strong and continuing efforts on the part of both communities and their citizens.
-----------------------------------------------
Both the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County have been under attack for their apparent failure to take significant measures to protect the sole source of drinking water for 85,000 residents—Lake Whatcom. This attack has become shrill with the recent sewage overflows in Sudden Valley and what would appear to be a multi-agency failure to act to stem this flow of raw sewage into the lake.
The four-day December 2001 sewage overflow and spill into the lake from Water District 10 facilities at Sudden Valley went unabated for far too long. It attracted many observers who are right to ask–what is going on here? Isn’t this against the law?
The simply stated cause of this spill was ‘excessive storm water infiltration into Water District 10’s sewer lines due to heavy rainfall’—this despite the recent installation of a large 693,000-gallon detention tank to alleviate exactly this type of situation from happening again, as it has repeatedly done in the past.
Sewage Overflows Under Control?
Now we are told that the situation is, at least temporarily, under control because additional large, portable tanks are on-site to augment the limited capacity of vacuum trucks used to haul excess sewage to the city’s sewer system. The long-term fix being proposed is to install a larger sewer interceptor system to directly connect to the city system. The construction of this new interceptor line has already begun.
Because of existing development, both the detention tank and new sewer interceptor now seem necessary to protect public health; but will they really solve the problem, or merely enable more development to occur so that the same unacceptable situation happens again in the future?
The real problem is not too much rain, because that has been happening in nature for hundreds and thousands of years. The problem is the already excessive and growing development of homes and other impervious surfaces around a public water supply reservoir, which is also being used as a vehicle transportation corridor as well as for swimming, boating and fishing.
By replacing natural vegetation with pavement, runoff volumes can be up to sixteen times greater, causing more flooding and erosion. This increased runoff picks up greater quantities of sediments as well as dirtier pollutants, like pesticides, fertilizers, metals, and fecal matter, on its way to the lake.
Prevention and Protection v. Treatment and Mitigation
Of course, detention/retention systems and treatment devices can be built to mitigate storm water runoff damage, but these are rarely more than 50 percent effective, and they cost all ratepayers big money, not just those who happen to be living in the watershed. Often, these types of facilities are required or built only after a serious problem has already occurred, too late to prevent it.
That is why it makes sense, even in urban areas, like the City of Bellingham, to adopt a policy of prevention and protection over treatment and mitigation regarding the Lake Whatcom watershed. That is also why it makes sense to limit further development in this watershed, outside the city limits.
Are the City’s Hands Tied?
As a water provider to 85,000 citizens, just what control does the city have outside of its boundaries? Some would say that the city’s hands are tied—the vast majority of its reservoir lies outside of its jurisdictional boundaries. The question is: are the city’s hands really tied? Or, do the tools exist for the city to exert its influence over this body of water, which it has a keen interest in preserving?
Here we present two often-cited cases in which a city attempted to apply its interest in water resources outside of its jurisdictional boundaries. These cases only show the obvious legal paths that have been pursued. Using this historical information as a base, we hope that a more thorough mining of legislative and administrative rules will turn up further avenues to pursue.
Water Pollution—Protection From
Our first example comes straight from the Revised Code of Washington (RCW). Over 100 years ago, in 1899—only 10 years after Washington became a State and its constitution adopted—our legislature authorized Chapter 35.88 RCW (Water Pollution—Protection From; the text is shown in the sidebar on the facing page).
Intended as enabling legislation to help cities like Bellingham protect their water supply resources, this RCW was challenged and ultimately found unconstitutional in 1928, a legacy that continues to inhibit effective protection efforts.
That development on an urban scale is inherently inappropriate in a public water supply watershed seems so obvious that even our ancestors knew it as common sense, without needing to scientifically prove or justify it. Maybe that is why our state legislature, back in 1899, passed Chapter 35.88 RCW to avoid problems like this one.
Future Generations
As contemporaries of Teddy Roosevelt, might they have been thinking of the problems, which future generations would have if such protections were not adopted and used? Why else would they even go to the trouble to pass this measure?
It is certain they were not thinking that Chapter 35.88 RCW would be challenged and ruled unconstitutional, only 28 years later, in Brown v. Cle Elum; a decision which continues to limit its use and thereby its intended effectiveness in protecting the Lake Whatcom Reservoir. This limitation has required cities to become more creative and forward thinking in their watershed protection strategies. Our second case, Tacoma v. Welcker, recounts such a strategy, which, unlike Brown v. Cle Elum, has survived the test of time.
Brown v. City of Cle Elum (Washington 1927)
Exercising its police powers, the City of Cle Elum passed an ordinance pursuant to RCW 35.88, to protect its water supply source, the Cle Elum River (near its outlet at Lake Cle Elum, located in a National Forest preserve about six miles northwest of the city).
The main features of this ordinance included:
•Prohibitions against swimming, fishing, boating in the lake;
•Prohibition against dumping raw sewage into any lake, river, spring, stream, creek or tributary which constitutes the source of water supply;
•Prohibition against camping in the watershed;
•No dwelling could be constructed or maintained in the entire (about 23 miles long with a maximum width of 17 miles) watershed, unless said dwelling is provided with a sanitary toilet. Said toilet must be so designed and so kept that the contents of said toilet cannot drain on the surface of the ground or reach the water through the ground;
•Every person who deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever, dangerous or deleterious to health, or any matter or thing, which may or could pollute the waters or system, shall be deemed guilty of violation of the ordinance, punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.
Initial Judgment Reversed
The initial trial in Kittitas County Superior Court [ca 1927] resulted in a judgment awarding an injunction in favor of the plaintiff, Brown, who wanted to continue renting property from the U.S. Government for his cottage, and use the lake for boating, fishing and swimming.
However, the City of Cle Elum appealed to the Washington State Supreme Court and the earlier decision was reversed. In this latter decision, the city’s ordinance was:
• presumed a valid exercise of its police power;
• held not invalid as exercising police power over United States forest preserve;
• held not unreasonable in prohibiting swimming, fishing and boating in the lake.
Additionally, it was found:
•A lessee of land along lake in forest reserve held is not entitled to enjoin the city from enforcing ordinance to protect water supply;
•States may exercise ordinary police power over United States forest reservation for preservation of public health.
Court Predicts Controversy Over Territorial Limits
Portending what was to come on re-argument of this case, the court concluded:
“There looms in the horizon of this controversy a question of far-reaching importance; that is, as to whether or not the Legislature can constitutionally delegate to a city authority to exercise police power beyond its territorial limits and outside the boundaries of property it may own beyond its territorial limits, by the passing and enforcing of ordinances assuming to regulate the conduct of citizens beyond such limits and boundaries. No argument has been presented to us here touching that question, and we purposely refrain from expressing any views thereon. The city’s power is here challenged only upon the two grounds we have noticed: (1) The United States ownership of the lands and waters; and (2) the reasonableness of the ordinance. No other question is here decided.”
Re-Hearing of Case Favors Brown
Brown v. Cle Elum was granted a re-hearing, and on November 23, 1927, the Washington Supreme Court gave this decision: “Upon re-argument of the case before the court en banc, the question referred to in the foregoing quotation was presented to the court, and after such presentation we are of the opinion that the ordinance in question is unconstitutional.”
Supporting its decision, and citing Article XI, Section 11 of the Constitution (sidebar shows relevant part of Constitution), the court found:
•Penal ordinance protecting water supply from lake, outside city limits, violated Constitution limiting exercise of police power by city to own limits;
•Statutes empowering city to pass penal ordinance affecting water outside corporate limits violated Constitution limiting exercise of police power to city’s limits;
•Municipalities have only delegated legislative powers and Legislature cannot exceed constitutional limits in delegating powers.
Because of this decision, jurisdiction regarding matters of pollution of state waters is left to the state via RCW 90.48 (Water Pollution Control). The state enforcement entity is the Department of Ecology—whom some have questioned regarding their ability to act in an expeditious matter in the recent Sudden Valley sewage overflow.
Is this the end of the story? Not quite—nearly all municipalities depend on water resources outside of their political boundaries, and it was only a matter of time before another avenue of protection made it to the State Supreme Court.
City of Tacoma v. Welcker (Washington 1965)
The City of Tacoma obtained a surface water right to divert water from the Green River in 1913. The Green River watershed then became the city’s principal water source. This watershed lies in southeastern King County and is thus a fair distance from the incorporated boundaries of Tacoma.
In a situation reminiscent of Bellingham, the city did not (and still does not) have ownership of much of this watershed.1 However, in contrast to our own unfortunate situation, the Green River watershed lies in the Cascade foothills and is relatively far from Puget Sound urbanization—even today.
In 1961, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers constructed a flood control and water storage dam across Eagle Gorge on the Green River for the purposes of creating a reservoir. This is referred to as the Howard Hansen Dam and the impounded water behind it is the Howard Hansen Reservoir. Although the city water withdrawal is downstream of the reservoir, this body of water acts as indirect storage for Tacoma’s water supply needs.
While the City of Tacoma owned very little of the watershed land, it had agreements with larger landholders—governmental agencies, railroad, and timber companies—to help protect this water resource.
Buffer Strip Along Shoreline
With the idea that it is cheaper to protect than to purify, the city reasonably desired to acquire all of the smaller parcels of land to complete a buffer strip along the shoreline, which would enable natural filtration of any upslope runoff as well as discouraging recreational use of the newly created Howard Hansen Reservoir.
To this end, the city endeavored to acquire by purchase and condemnation this land adjacent to the reservoir. The condemnation actions were initiated based upon a Tacoma city ordinance, passed on October 23, 1962, which declared that acquisition of these properties was necessary for the purpose of protecting the water supply from pollution.
As with the Cle Elum case, Tacoma referred to statutory law in the Revised Code of Washington to support its right of condemnation. In particular, provisions of RCW 8.12.030 (Condemnation authorized–Purposes enumerated; text is shown in the sidebar) and RCW 35.92.010 (Authority to acquire and operate waterworks; relevant part of text is shown in sidebar) were used to justify this action.
Condemnation Authorized to Protect Water Supply
One of the purposes for which condemnation is authorized in RCW 8.12.030 is to condemn land “within or without the limits of such city” to “protect such supply of fresh water from pollution.”
RCW 35.92.010 further states that a city “may acquire by purchase or condemnation and purchase any properties or privileges necessary to protect its water supply from pollution.” This ability of a public entity to acquire private property is often referred to as the right of eminent domain.
The parties whose land was to be condemned countered in part that they were not utilizing their land in a manner so as to be a threat to the city’s water purity, and even if they were, the city’s chlorination process had proved to be effective at ensuring safe drinking water. The initial condemnation petition was dismissed in King County Superior Court.
While no argument was made that the city had the power of eminent domain to protect its water supply, it was decided that the present condemnation action was arbitrary and capricious due to the lack of a current threat.
1965 State Supreme Court Decision
The dismissal was reversed and remanded by the State Supreme Court on February 18, 1965. The court agreed with the city that the acquisition of a buffer strip to protect its water supply was a reasonable action to protect said water supply in the future, and was therefore not arbitrary and capricious.
To quote from the justices’ decision:
The fact that the water now being supplied by the city is potable and does not exceed tolerable contamination levels, or that such contamination as presently exists cannot be traced to the usage of the lands here involved, in nowise detracts from the wisdom or present necessity of providing reasonable safeguards against a reasonably realistic and foreseeable future danger of contamination. A ‘stitch in time’ has never been considered capricious. And, the fact that expert witnesses may disagree as to the desirability of one method of protection, as opposed to another, does not perforce render one choice arbitrary.
A rehearing was denied on March 25, 1965, and this case has rested in the category of “good law” ever since. The case has been cited many times over the years; most commonly to justify the necessity of eminent domain actions.
Condemnation Requires “Just Compensation”
While Tacoma v. Welcker may still be good law, is this a case we can really expect to help us in our watershed protection efforts? Possibly, but it is unlikely to completely solve our problems for us. While it clearly allows one to argue that the City of Bellingham has a right to condemn lands within its watershed, said lands would not be obtainable without substantial cost—condemnations do require “just compensation.”
The time for the city to use its right of condemnation to the extent Tacoma demonstrated in 1962 likely passed long ago. The expense of such action now would likely be prohibitive2, and on the same order as the “pie-in-the-sky” proposal to pump water out of Baker Lake or Ross Lake and pipe it to Bellingham (if such a water right could even be obtained).
It may be possible to use eminent domain in a limited manner to achieve a more limited watershed protection objective. An example would be condemnation of developable lots in the Geneva and Sudden Valley areas to remove these potential development impacts from the watershed.
Water supply protection is a very serious matter, and it is the duty of our city and county governments to tackle it, expeditiously and effectively. It is incumbent upon these governments to develop a sensible, but more comprehensive approach than that which now exists, and to listen to the ideas and concerns of citizens in this endeavor.
As Theodore Roosevelt said, the “greatest good for the greatest number” should be our goal in responsibly protecting our precious water supply resource. He also said, “The shots that hit are the shots that count.”
Footnotes
1. According to Tacoma Public Utility information, the city currently owns approximately 10 percent of its 149,000-acre watershed.
2. For the purposes of rough calculation, if the city were to provide a 0.5-mile buffer around basin 3 alone, it would need to acquire about 16.6 miles of shoreline (basin 3 has about 20 miles of shoreline, but 3.4 miles are already in public hands) along with approximately 5000 acres inland. If we assume the shoreline to be priced at $1000-4000 per front foot (waterfront is expensive), this shoreline alone would cost $87.6 -$350.6 million. The remaining inland area would constitute a far lesser amount (probably on the order of $10-$15 million).
Tacoma authorized only $400,000 to acquire its buffer in 1962. While purchasing the shoreline buffer would eat the lion’s share of the funds, the inland buffer calculations used above may be grossly overstated for Lake Whatcom, because 69 percent of this watershed is already zoned for forestry (2/3 public, 1/3 private)— generally regarded as an ideal watershed land use.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Growth Management 102: Dealing With Uncertainty -And Fantasy!
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome - Albert Einstein
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bellingham's 1995 Comp Plan -ratified in 1997- utilized a 5% to 25% Market Factor related to land availability, parcel size, infrastructure cost, and developer preference for lower density development. It also utilized a 50% inflation factor for the demand side. This 50% inflation factor was later reduced by the Growth Hearings board to 25%.
The final combined Market/Safety factor range used for the 1995 Comp Plan was 30% to 50%. This range was applied to the entire City + UGA capacity equation to give a range of capacity estimates that fed into the Land Use portion of the Comp Plan.
Contrast that with the City's current proposal for overall safety factor of 17 percent, that combines a recommended 25 percent for some areas and 0 percent for others. [Note: Twenty five 25 percent is the highest safety factor allowed by the Growth Management Hearings Board, without inviting their additional scrutiny] No 'fantasy safety factor'!
In between then and now, the City's actual land use is probably not too far from the amount projected, notwithstanding it has not been nearly as efficient as is desired. To answer this question accurately, we need to also consider changes in zoning between 1995 and today in the City and UGA; where new housing units have been built and at what density; and differences between the 1995 and 2006 methodologies. But, whatever it turns out to be, it was achieved under the circumstances of existing zoning, policy, regulations, jurisdictional control and several changes - some substantial. Together, all these elements -and the 'market'- explain our land use performance. Can the City's land use effiency be improved? You bet it can! But first some habitual patterns need to be identified and changed to achieve more certainty.
Here are some ideas for consideration:
• Neither the County nor the City has closely monitored what has happened in the past several years since the 2000 Census and OFM mandated population 'assignments' were made. It is suspected that more growth than 'assigned' has gone to places like Birch Bay, Kendall, the small cities, and the unincorporated areas. If that is so, then deducting any excess from what is expected to be accommodated by Bellingham would be fair. Initially, Bellingham did agree to the ambitious goal of trying to accommodate over 50% of total County projected growth, even though it currently represents only 40% of County population, excluding its UGA population of about 13,000. Maybe over 50% for Bellingham is unrealistic? But, adjusting Bellingham's 'share' of the growth might help the City, but would it help the County?
• The Bellingham Land Supply Analysis focused on Option 4 of the EIS, which called for some combination of infill and expanded UGA to meet projected population needs. But, most of the same assumptions used in the EIS also went into the land supply methodology that was used. So, predictably, this careful, lengthy process -based on actual land use history- came to the conclusion that Bellingham needed 1400 more acres to accommodate its 'assigned' growth, including 200 acres designated for Industrial use. However, all five of the 5-year Review Areas totaling 2200 acres were recommended to the County for its determination as to where the 1400 acres would come from. No 'fantasy analysis'!
• The allowance used for future Parks, Recreation & Open Space is probably overstated for several reasons. The six-year PRO Plan update is set for 2008 at which time questions about adjustments to the needed level of service, financial sustainability, inclusion of the entire UGA in addition to Bellingham, collection of Parks Impact Fees, impact on Greenways 3 levy, how future trail corridors and 'anchor' parks can be planned with more certainty, what constitutes our Parks system and what does not [e.g. wetlands, critical areas, watershed acquisitions], and the like must be done. Since these considerations do impact the land supply analysis significantly, some allowances based on informed estimates should be generated before final land supply decisions are made. These questions were not adequately addressed during the analysis due to time constraints, the newness of some of the elements and questions asked, and the uncertainty of knowing which new UGA lands might be added -literally a 'chicken and egg' situation. No 'fantasy Parks LOS'!
• In the existing UGAs the City had to assume that development would occur at the lowest densities allowed, because it doesn't have the authority or tools in place to demand otherwise. No 'fantasy analysis'! Granted, this is a low target, but based on past performance, it is at the limit of certainty. Assuming a mid-range density will occur in the UGAs would drastically change the land supply analysis, but it would also take a leap of faith -or making real changes- to make certain. UGA land is County land, has County zoning and regulations, and is not under City jurisdiction. Interlocal Agreements are good, but currently they don't provide the certainty the City needs to change its land supply analysis. The City has taken steps to use the tools it has, like extending water & sewer into the UGA only upon the certainty of annexation, but unfortunately because of its past lax policy, still allows lower than desired urban densities amonting to 'urban sprawl'. The real irony here is that only if new UGA land is allowed, will the new City policy be able to manifest itself quickly! A new UGA would essentially amount to a 'clean slate', upon which real urban densities and planning can be made much more certain.
• The waterfront redevelopment has significant potential for infill, in addition to its value for cleaning up a contaminated area, providing access to the Bay and attracting businesses and jobs. But, it also carries significant uncertainty. Again, different analyses show different ranges of housing densities and timing. The City again used the lowest allowed density as its assumption to accommodate growth, but with all of it as infill, to which the City will be able to both set the new zoning and use its regulations to monitor results. Other redevelopable areas near the waterfront redevelopment like Old Town are treated in the same manner, with the main uncertainty being the timing. No 'fantasy timing'!
• The planners at CTED tell us that the so-called 'safety factor' was dreamed up in the early 1990s before government had the computer and GIS capability for monitoring land supply. This technology has changed in the past 15 years, and now better monitoring of actual land use is preferred iover the use of a safety factor. Six Washington Counties are actually required to carefully monitor their land supply, but Whatcom County could decide to do it without being required to do so. With the known variability in underlying assumptions and the resultant compounding of uncertainty, land supply monitoring just makes more sense than continuing the practice of best guessing what will occur during the next 20 years, even though reviews do happen every 7 years. But, monitoring does cost money and takes time to set up, test and become a reliable tool. It's great to embrace such a good idea, but it is wishful thinking to simply rely on it happening in advance! We will still need to start out with a good faith, informed estimate so we have something to track against, then later phase in something better. No 'fantasy monitoring', because once a rural area is up-zoned we can't easily rescind it! [same problem the City has in existing neighborhoods, even including those that might make good urban centers] So, the thought is good, but real data is needed, along with real authority to actually achieve what is planned! We don't have the luxury of saying-in the words of Star Trek Commander Jean-Luc Picard- 'Make it so'!
• The 'safety factor' has served its purpose by being there mainly to cover up some underlying vagueness and uncertainties in how land will be used, as well as the timing of it. But, in many respects it has become a concept similar to 'papering over' an ugly or defective wall, or painting over rust and dirt. As in both these analogies, the safety factor should not be a substitute for good [surface] preparation, because it is a wasteful practice that won't last and won't satisfy. It is a derivative concept, not a basic one.
Of course, there are still some who see the safety factor differently and have come to rely upon it, but most would likely agree it is there to cover up a series of other uncertainties, which have the cumulative effect of obscuring what we need to see clearly. No 'fantasy certainty'! I believe the safety factor might easily be reduced to zero, but only if much more certainty can be gained in other, more basic ways, by making some of the changes suggested above. That ought to be the real task of any reconciliation meeting between the County and City - to render the use of the safety factor redundant, because it is no longer needed. And, this can be done, provided each party honestly seeks to treat the real underlying problems and not just an easy symptom -the safety factor- that owes its existence to other root causes.
No one can claim to know everything there is to know about this subject, and it is certain that more information - honestly communicated - would be helpful. Coming up with ways to allow the City more control over development in the UGAs, plus an opportunity to set up TDR/PDR/RDR systems that work to relieve development pressure from Lake Whatcom, AG lands and other lands that need preserving. These steps alone, would dramatically reduce the amount of additional UGA needs, and maybe eliminate it entirely! Again, every time more certainty can be introduced, the better the chance that GMA goals can be met. No 'fantasy knowledge'!
--------------------------------------------------------------
"If we are to solve the problems that plague us, our thinking must evolve beyond the level we were using when we created those problems in the first place." - Albert Einstein
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bellingham's 1995 Comp Plan -ratified in 1997- utilized a 5% to 25% Market Factor related to land availability, parcel size, infrastructure cost, and developer preference for lower density development. It also utilized a 50% inflation factor for the demand side. This 50% inflation factor was later reduced by the Growth Hearings board to 25%.
The final combined Market/Safety factor range used for the 1995 Comp Plan was 30% to 50%. This range was applied to the entire City + UGA capacity equation to give a range of capacity estimates that fed into the Land Use portion of the Comp Plan.
Contrast that with the City's current proposal for overall safety factor of 17 percent, that combines a recommended 25 percent for some areas and 0 percent for others. [Note: Twenty five 25 percent is the highest safety factor allowed by the Growth Management Hearings Board, without inviting their additional scrutiny] No 'fantasy safety factor'!
In between then and now, the City's actual land use is probably not too far from the amount projected, notwithstanding it has not been nearly as efficient as is desired. To answer this question accurately, we need to also consider changes in zoning between 1995 and today in the City and UGA; where new housing units have been built and at what density; and differences between the 1995 and 2006 methodologies. But, whatever it turns out to be, it was achieved under the circumstances of existing zoning, policy, regulations, jurisdictional control and several changes - some substantial. Together, all these elements -and the 'market'- explain our land use performance. Can the City's land use effiency be improved? You bet it can! But first some habitual patterns need to be identified and changed to achieve more certainty.
Here are some ideas for consideration:
• Neither the County nor the City has closely monitored what has happened in the past several years since the 2000 Census and OFM mandated population 'assignments' were made. It is suspected that more growth than 'assigned' has gone to places like Birch Bay, Kendall, the small cities, and the unincorporated areas. If that is so, then deducting any excess from what is expected to be accommodated by Bellingham would be fair. Initially, Bellingham did agree to the ambitious goal of trying to accommodate over 50% of total County projected growth, even though it currently represents only 40% of County population, excluding its UGA population of about 13,000. Maybe over 50% for Bellingham is unrealistic? But, adjusting Bellingham's 'share' of the growth might help the City, but would it help the County?
• The Bellingham Land Supply Analysis focused on Option 4 of the EIS, which called for some combination of infill and expanded UGA to meet projected population needs. But, most of the same assumptions used in the EIS also went into the land supply methodology that was used. So, predictably, this careful, lengthy process -based on actual land use history- came to the conclusion that Bellingham needed 1400 more acres to accommodate its 'assigned' growth, including 200 acres designated for Industrial use. However, all five of the 5-year Review Areas totaling 2200 acres were recommended to the County for its determination as to where the 1400 acres would come from. No 'fantasy analysis'!
• The allowance used for future Parks, Recreation & Open Space is probably overstated for several reasons. The six-year PRO Plan update is set for 2008 at which time questions about adjustments to the needed level of service, financial sustainability, inclusion of the entire UGA in addition to Bellingham, collection of Parks Impact Fees, impact on Greenways 3 levy, how future trail corridors and 'anchor' parks can be planned with more certainty, what constitutes our Parks system and what does not [e.g. wetlands, critical areas, watershed acquisitions], and the like must be done. Since these considerations do impact the land supply analysis significantly, some allowances based on informed estimates should be generated before final land supply decisions are made. These questions were not adequately addressed during the analysis due to time constraints, the newness of some of the elements and questions asked, and the uncertainty of knowing which new UGA lands might be added -literally a 'chicken and egg' situation. No 'fantasy Parks LOS'!
• In the existing UGAs the City had to assume that development would occur at the lowest densities allowed, because it doesn't have the authority or tools in place to demand otherwise. No 'fantasy analysis'! Granted, this is a low target, but based on past performance, it is at the limit of certainty. Assuming a mid-range density will occur in the UGAs would drastically change the land supply analysis, but it would also take a leap of faith -or making real changes- to make certain. UGA land is County land, has County zoning and regulations, and is not under City jurisdiction. Interlocal Agreements are good, but currently they don't provide the certainty the City needs to change its land supply analysis. The City has taken steps to use the tools it has, like extending water & sewer into the UGA only upon the certainty of annexation, but unfortunately because of its past lax policy, still allows lower than desired urban densities amonting to 'urban sprawl'. The real irony here is that only if new UGA land is allowed, will the new City policy be able to manifest itself quickly! A new UGA would essentially amount to a 'clean slate', upon which real urban densities and planning can be made much more certain.
• The waterfront redevelopment has significant potential for infill, in addition to its value for cleaning up a contaminated area, providing access to the Bay and attracting businesses and jobs. But, it also carries significant uncertainty. Again, different analyses show different ranges of housing densities and timing. The City again used the lowest allowed density as its assumption to accommodate growth, but with all of it as infill, to which the City will be able to both set the new zoning and use its regulations to monitor results. Other redevelopable areas near the waterfront redevelopment like Old Town are treated in the same manner, with the main uncertainty being the timing. No 'fantasy timing'!
• The planners at CTED tell us that the so-called 'safety factor' was dreamed up in the early 1990s before government had the computer and GIS capability for monitoring land supply. This technology has changed in the past 15 years, and now better monitoring of actual land use is preferred iover the use of a safety factor. Six Washington Counties are actually required to carefully monitor their land supply, but Whatcom County could decide to do it without being required to do so. With the known variability in underlying assumptions and the resultant compounding of uncertainty, land supply monitoring just makes more sense than continuing the practice of best guessing what will occur during the next 20 years, even though reviews do happen every 7 years. But, monitoring does cost money and takes time to set up, test and become a reliable tool. It's great to embrace such a good idea, but it is wishful thinking to simply rely on it happening in advance! We will still need to start out with a good faith, informed estimate so we have something to track against, then later phase in something better. No 'fantasy monitoring', because once a rural area is up-zoned we can't easily rescind it! [same problem the City has in existing neighborhoods, even including those that might make good urban centers] So, the thought is good, but real data is needed, along with real authority to actually achieve what is planned! We don't have the luxury of saying-in the words of Star Trek Commander Jean-Luc Picard- 'Make it so'!
• The 'safety factor' has served its purpose by being there mainly to cover up some underlying vagueness and uncertainties in how land will be used, as well as the timing of it. But, in many respects it has become a concept similar to 'papering over' an ugly or defective wall, or painting over rust and dirt. As in both these analogies, the safety factor should not be a substitute for good [surface] preparation, because it is a wasteful practice that won't last and won't satisfy. It is a derivative concept, not a basic one.
Of course, there are still some who see the safety factor differently and have come to rely upon it, but most would likely agree it is there to cover up a series of other uncertainties, which have the cumulative effect of obscuring what we need to see clearly. No 'fantasy certainty'! I believe the safety factor might easily be reduced to zero, but only if much more certainty can be gained in other, more basic ways, by making some of the changes suggested above. That ought to be the real task of any reconciliation meeting between the County and City - to render the use of the safety factor redundant, because it is no longer needed. And, this can be done, provided each party honestly seeks to treat the real underlying problems and not just an easy symptom -the safety factor- that owes its existence to other root causes.
No one can claim to know everything there is to know about this subject, and it is certain that more information - honestly communicated - would be helpful. Coming up with ways to allow the City more control over development in the UGAs, plus an opportunity to set up TDR/PDR/RDR systems that work to relieve development pressure from Lake Whatcom, AG lands and other lands that need preserving. These steps alone, would dramatically reduce the amount of additional UGA needs, and maybe eliminate it entirely! Again, every time more certainty can be introduced, the better the chance that GMA goals can be met. No 'fantasy knowledge'!
--------------------------------------------------------------
"If we are to solve the problems that plague us, our thinking must evolve beyond the level we were using when we created those problems in the first place." - Albert Einstein
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Growth Management & The Art Of Pedantry
"For humans, honesty is a matter of degree. Engineers are always honest in matters of technology and human relationships. That's why it's a good idea to keep engineers away from customers, romantic interests, and other people who can't handle the truth." [Scott Adams, The Dilbert Principle]
As an engineer myself, I'm thinking maybe it's a good idea to keep us away from politics, too!
Pedantry (noun} - an ostentatious and inappropriate display of learning
or - narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary [definition #2]
Now, I'm not casting any dispersions on anybody, but there are some folks out there who know 'just enough to be dangerous'! There does seem to be a lot of rhetoric going around that smacks of folks who just recently got around to reading Eben Fodor's 'Better, Not Bigger'. BTW, that is one great little book -read more about it at the end- that presents a great overview of what entities actually constitute the 'Growth Machine' in virtually every community in America. It also has some excellent ideas about how to effectively counter sprawl and the many hidden subsidies to growth.
What it doesn't - and can't possibly - contain is the practical experience and knowledge of existing law and local practice, that informs us as to how to effectively rectify the entrenched conditions that legally bind us to continuing policies that not only allow, but promote sprawl.
There, that's a mouthful, isn't it? There's more.
I will challenge anyone to compare notes with me, or dog-eared and hi-lighted pages from Fodor's book. That;s just a start!
Next, I will challenge anyone with an open mind to discuss how we can get from where we are on Growth Management to where we want to be. That includes specifically the City of Bellingham, and the rest of Whatcom County.
Any takers?
That does it for tonight, but tomorrow there will be more. I promise!
But first, from the past, the following:
---------------------------------------------
Better Not Bigger -[Submitted to Herald on 9/19/2001 - 8 days after 9/11]]
One potential benefit of significant, life-changing events is that they may expose flaws in our habits and awaken us to broader perspectives, both individually and as a society. Broader perspectives help us subject our habits -and their cumulative impacts- to the scrutiny of so-called "full-cost accounting". Awareness of cause and effect relationships can then motivate us to assess and meaningfully change these habits. For example, awareness of the true costs associated with growth and development can motivate us to more carefully balance these against growth’s benefits in our community planning and design.
Recently, I read "BETTER NOT BIGGER", by Eben Fodor, which contains some fascinating information about the actual COSTS of growth to taxpayers. Published two years ago, this book summarizes the author’s research into those hidden costs of growth, which aren’t usually factored into community planning. Distinctly departing from conventional thought, Fodor’s findings and conclusions could prove essential in helping communities like ours to better determine and encourage the type of growth most likely to build-in the quality of life to which we aspire.
Here’s a sampling of a few provocative quotes and concepts:
o "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell" -Edward Abbey
o The average single family dwelling eventually COSTS taxpayers about $25,000.
o The "Catch 22" of Growth:
The better you make your community,
The more people will want to live there,
Until it is no better than any other community.
o Public acquisition of land for conservation or other purposes can often SAVE local taxpayers money.
o Regarding public involvement: "There are two stages to the public policy process: too early to tell, and too late to do anything about it." – Anonymous
This particular perception is troubling, but it too, may hold a blessing in disguise. Much citizen involvement already occurs in a multiplicity of ways. Pre-application neighborhood meetings between developers & citizens; Neighborhood and institutional plan updates involving property owners, renters, business owners and residents; Citizen advisory committees, boards and commissions; Visions for Bellingham; Center City Master Plan; numerous roundtables, seminars, public hearings, workshops; and, our constitutional right to vote, to name a few. If our existing public process is being discounted as inadequate, this awakening can evolve into valuable, citizen-driven, and supported, changes.
Fodor offers the following ten (TRUE or FALSE) questions test our knowledge about growing cities:
1. The bigger cities get, the lower the taxes are. (FALSE)
2. The faster cities grow, the lower local taxes are. (FALSE)
3. Police protection costs (per capita) are less in bigger cities. (FALSE)
4. Crime rates are higher in bigger cities. (TRUE)
5. The more cities grow, the more people are unemployed. (TRUE)
6. Bigger cities tend to have a lower cost of living and housing. (FALSE)
7. Growth creates costs, but the new tax revenues more than offset the added expenses. (FALSE)
8. More business subsidies mean greater prosperity for local residents. (FALSE)
9. Environmental regulation is bad for the economy. (FALSE)
10. Developed land usually produces more net revenues for the city (tax revenues minus cost of public service) than undeveloped land. (FALSE)
Fodor attempts to debunk what he terms the "Common Growth Mythology", a litany of arguments often used to justify "business as usual" development. Instead, he offers these "Twelve Steps toward A Sustainable Community" as more effective alternatives to enable the type of growth most likely to be beneficial over time:
1. Build a positive vision.
2. Improve citizen involvement.
3. Provide economic opportunity and equity.
4. Use land wisely.
5. Provide better information.
6. Use indicators and benchmarks for progress.
7. Use full-cost accounting.
8. Think long range.
9. Encourage efficient resource use.
10. Make neighborhoods walk-able.
11. Preserve unique features.
12. Recognize physical limits to growth and consumption.
Fodor concludes that we can do better than simply accommodating all the growth that knocks on our door. Instead, we can focus on how to become an even better place to live. By deciding to follow this advice, our focus can shift toward finding ways to improve Bellingham’s livability and sense of community, sustain our environmental quality, maintain and improve our public services and amenities, and strengthen the meaningful participation of citizens in government.
As an engineer myself, I'm thinking maybe it's a good idea to keep us away from politics, too!
Pedantry (noun} - an ostentatious and inappropriate display of learning
or - narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned - Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary [definition #2]
Now, I'm not casting any dispersions on anybody, but there are some folks out there who know 'just enough to be dangerous'! There does seem to be a lot of rhetoric going around that smacks of folks who just recently got around to reading Eben Fodor's 'Better, Not Bigger'. BTW, that is one great little book -read more about it at the end- that presents a great overview of what entities actually constitute the 'Growth Machine' in virtually every community in America. It also has some excellent ideas about how to effectively counter sprawl and the many hidden subsidies to growth.
What it doesn't - and can't possibly - contain is the practical experience and knowledge of existing law and local practice, that informs us as to how to effectively rectify the entrenched conditions that legally bind us to continuing policies that not only allow, but promote sprawl.
There, that's a mouthful, isn't it? There's more.
I will challenge anyone to compare notes with me, or dog-eared and hi-lighted pages from Fodor's book. That;s just a start!
Next, I will challenge anyone with an open mind to discuss how we can get from where we are on Growth Management to where we want to be. That includes specifically the City of Bellingham, and the rest of Whatcom County.
Any takers?
That does it for tonight, but tomorrow there will be more. I promise!
But first, from the past, the following:
---------------------------------------------
Better Not Bigger -[Submitted to Herald on 9/19/2001 - 8 days after 9/11]]
One potential benefit of significant, life-changing events is that they may expose flaws in our habits and awaken us to broader perspectives, both individually and as a society. Broader perspectives help us subject our habits -and their cumulative impacts- to the scrutiny of so-called "full-cost accounting". Awareness of cause and effect relationships can then motivate us to assess and meaningfully change these habits. For example, awareness of the true costs associated with growth and development can motivate us to more carefully balance these against growth’s benefits in our community planning and design.
Recently, I read "BETTER NOT BIGGER", by Eben Fodor, which contains some fascinating information about the actual COSTS of growth to taxpayers. Published two years ago, this book summarizes the author’s research into those hidden costs of growth, which aren’t usually factored into community planning. Distinctly departing from conventional thought, Fodor’s findings and conclusions could prove essential in helping communities like ours to better determine and encourage the type of growth most likely to build-in the quality of life to which we aspire.
Here’s a sampling of a few provocative quotes and concepts:
o "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell" -Edward Abbey
o The average single family dwelling eventually COSTS taxpayers about $25,000.
o The "Catch 22" of Growth:
The better you make your community,
The more people will want to live there,
Until it is no better than any other community.
o Public acquisition of land for conservation or other purposes can often SAVE local taxpayers money.
o Regarding public involvement: "There are two stages to the public policy process: too early to tell, and too late to do anything about it." – Anonymous
This particular perception is troubling, but it too, may hold a blessing in disguise. Much citizen involvement already occurs in a multiplicity of ways. Pre-application neighborhood meetings between developers & citizens; Neighborhood and institutional plan updates involving property owners, renters, business owners and residents; Citizen advisory committees, boards and commissions; Visions for Bellingham; Center City Master Plan; numerous roundtables, seminars, public hearings, workshops; and, our constitutional right to vote, to name a few. If our existing public process is being discounted as inadequate, this awakening can evolve into valuable, citizen-driven, and supported, changes.
Fodor offers the following ten (TRUE or FALSE) questions test our knowledge about growing cities:
1. The bigger cities get, the lower the taxes are. (FALSE)
2. The faster cities grow, the lower local taxes are. (FALSE)
3. Police protection costs (per capita) are less in bigger cities. (FALSE)
4. Crime rates are higher in bigger cities. (TRUE)
5. The more cities grow, the more people are unemployed. (TRUE)
6. Bigger cities tend to have a lower cost of living and housing. (FALSE)
7. Growth creates costs, but the new tax revenues more than offset the added expenses. (FALSE)
8. More business subsidies mean greater prosperity for local residents. (FALSE)
9. Environmental regulation is bad for the economy. (FALSE)
10. Developed land usually produces more net revenues for the city (tax revenues minus cost of public service) than undeveloped land. (FALSE)
Fodor attempts to debunk what he terms the "Common Growth Mythology", a litany of arguments often used to justify "business as usual" development. Instead, he offers these "Twelve Steps toward A Sustainable Community" as more effective alternatives to enable the type of growth most likely to be beneficial over time:
1. Build a positive vision.
2. Improve citizen involvement.
3. Provide economic opportunity and equity.
4. Use land wisely.
5. Provide better information.
6. Use indicators and benchmarks for progress.
7. Use full-cost accounting.
8. Think long range.
9. Encourage efficient resource use.
10. Make neighborhoods walk-able.
11. Preserve unique features.
12. Recognize physical limits to growth and consumption.
Fodor concludes that we can do better than simply accommodating all the growth that knocks on our door. Instead, we can focus on how to become an even better place to live. By deciding to follow this advice, our focus can shift toward finding ways to improve Bellingham’s livability and sense of community, sustain our environmental quality, maintain and improve our public services and amenities, and strengthen the meaningful participation of citizens in government.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Between Iraq & A Hard Place
Last Monday night at the Council meeting, a gentleman spoke during the Public Comment time about the essential rightness of communities and citizens expressing their objections to the Iraq 'War'. Who can honestly disagree with that? Granted, we are here now and can't take back history, but we can certainly object!
Since the invasion on March 20, 2003 -and the 'Mission Accomplished' speech on May 1, 2003- there have been over 650,000 Iraqi deaths and almost 3700 Americans killed. The $400 BILLION that has been appropriated for this 'war of choice' amounts to a cost of over $1300 for every man, woman and child in the US. With the population of Whatcom County at about 185,000, that is the equivalent of about $240 MILLION. The gentleman has other statistics he will present later that indicate the war's cost to Whatcom County is only $130 MILLION. Either number is a heckuva cost! And that's just the dollars. What about the human costs, the suffering that lingers, the worry about more losses, the concern about destabilizing the world, the toll on our allies, and the erosion of trust and respect that the US has earned over many decades? Difficult to gain, but easy to lose. But we have lost it, because we believed a series of deliberate lies from our highest elected official!
I strongly agree with Bill Bradley -whose book I am paraphrasing liberally- that the central lie was not about Weapons of Mass Destruction, or about liberation of the Iraqi people from a dispicable tyrant, or that Iraqi oil would pay for the costs, or that Iraq would house permanent US bases against terror, or that a free Iraq could help support Israel. The central lie was that Iraq was linked to al Qaeda! It wasn't, but it certainly is now! Yet, as late as the summer of 2006, 64% of Americans still believed that central lie! How is that for abuse of truth -and power? At last in 2007, over 60% of Americans finally thought the invasion was a bad idea! What took so long for that to happen? Isn't our history completely different from what has transpired since March 20, 2003?
The events of 9/11 changed things forever, because it was the first time we were attacked on our own turf since Pearl Harbor. Our initial response to retaliate at al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan was appropriate, since they were the perpetrators. Stepped up intelligence operations, police actions, targeted military strikes and diplomacy and real coalition building with other nations are the recognized and appropriate methods that take time, but work. A full scale invasion of a foreign country -that had no al Qaeda or Taliban- was not justified, and has not worked. It's just that simple! Not only has it not worked, it has backfired and exacerbated Mid-East unrest in a way that Osama bin Laden could only have imagined!
War on terrorism is serious business, but force should only be used as a last resort, and that must be done with an exit strategy and massive enough force to insure victory in a reasonable time. None of that happened. Now, we're stuck in a mess of our own making, and its just getting worse every day we are there. So now we deal with that mess too.
What Ben Franklin said is still true, 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'. Let's don't let that pound grow to several pounds!
Just before the invasion of Iraq happened, the Herald published the Guest Editorial below, which I believe reflected the thoughts and hopes of many Americans. Unfortunately, our President was not one of them.
----------------------------------------------
War Principles: A Herald Guest Editorial
From the City Council meetings held during the week of January 27th, at which a possible Iraq War Resolution was publicly discussed, the most commonly heard objections seemed to fall into one of these four groupings:
• Decision-making Roles & Responsibility:
This is not the City Council’s job or even within its realm of responsibility. Federal officials were elected who are responsible for such decisions, we need to trust them to do it. Even if we agreed on a Resolution, it wouldn’t make any difference.
• Accuracy in Representing Community Sentiment:
The City Council can’t speak for everyone in our community. Only a small group of vocal activists are behind this idea. It's impossible to make such a decision without hearing from everyone. This exercise is doomed to be a waste of time and taxpayer money.
• Conflict Resolution on a Controversial Issue:
This is too divisive an issue on which to have any meaningful discussion. We could never agree anyway. I’m having trouble focusing both halves of my brain on this issue.
• Overcoming Mind-sets:
City Council needs to avoid all unnecessary controversies, such as this issue, especially during an election year. Such an action is unpatriotic, doesn’t support our military, or may even border on treason. My mind is already made up and I won’t change it - no Resolution -pro or con!
It may sound strange, but I was encouraged by the turnout and the comments made at the Town Meeting, which attracted a diversity of thought and opinion, comparable to that heard during earlier meetings or received through phone calls and e-mail.
My hope is that we can make this issue much less divisive. How this might happen would be to align our aspirations with what is possible, and simply begin to identify those points upon which general agreement can be reached within our community. If some points of agreement can be reached, these could evolve into a 'de facto' set of principles, or nucleus of ideas that the Community could endorse. But, to reach such a goal will require us to raise our sights well above the win-lose situation that we now seem to face.
An idea gelled the morning that Brett & Debbie on KGMI said that 'no one wants a war'. That is so obviously true that it could become our first point of community agreement! What reasonable person could disagree with that?
That spurred more thinking about other principles that might have similar potential for community agreement, such as:
Before declaring war:
• War should be a last resort; a sign of a failed international policy and diplomacy.
• US unilateral action should be discouraged; UN support encouraged.
• The US Constitution should be strictly followed for US involvement.
• A formal declaration of war by US Congress should be expressly required before any attacks -except defensive- are authorized.
• US War budget estimates should use full-cost accounting methods to anticipate paying for mitigating domestic economy impacts as well as global impacts resulting from war.
In the event war is duly declared:
• International law must be respected, including the Geneva Convention.
• Civilian populations should not be deliberately targeted or endangered.
Following the successful conclusion of war:
• The US needs to fully recognize and be accountable for the full negative impacts on both its own people and the people who are harmed or deemed the enemy.
• The US should commit the resources and expertise necessary to help reconstruct the essential public infrastructure destroyed or damaged by war actions.
• The US should commit to a meaningful and ongoing humanitarian policy of assistance to the people harmed, whether deemed friendly or enemy.
• The US should recognize there are finite limits to both its resources and power in the world and diligently seek ways to use them wisely in the best interests of world humanity and the global environment.
A methodology to determine the extent of agreement on these -or other- points could be to simply test each one against the list of objections above. If widespread agreement can be reached on one or more points, these could be clearly considered reflective of the will of our community.
Since the invasion on March 20, 2003 -and the 'Mission Accomplished' speech on May 1, 2003- there have been over 650,000 Iraqi deaths and almost 3700 Americans killed. The $400 BILLION that has been appropriated for this 'war of choice' amounts to a cost of over $1300 for every man, woman and child in the US. With the population of Whatcom County at about 185,000, that is the equivalent of about $240 MILLION. The gentleman has other statistics he will present later that indicate the war's cost to Whatcom County is only $130 MILLION. Either number is a heckuva cost! And that's just the dollars. What about the human costs, the suffering that lingers, the worry about more losses, the concern about destabilizing the world, the toll on our allies, and the erosion of trust and respect that the US has earned over many decades? Difficult to gain, but easy to lose. But we have lost it, because we believed a series of deliberate lies from our highest elected official!
I strongly agree with Bill Bradley -whose book I am paraphrasing liberally- that the central lie was not about Weapons of Mass Destruction, or about liberation of the Iraqi people from a dispicable tyrant, or that Iraqi oil would pay for the costs, or that Iraq would house permanent US bases against terror, or that a free Iraq could help support Israel. The central lie was that Iraq was linked to al Qaeda! It wasn't, but it certainly is now! Yet, as late as the summer of 2006, 64% of Americans still believed that central lie! How is that for abuse of truth -and power? At last in 2007, over 60% of Americans finally thought the invasion was a bad idea! What took so long for that to happen? Isn't our history completely different from what has transpired since March 20, 2003?
The events of 9/11 changed things forever, because it was the first time we were attacked on our own turf since Pearl Harbor. Our initial response to retaliate at al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan was appropriate, since they were the perpetrators. Stepped up intelligence operations, police actions, targeted military strikes and diplomacy and real coalition building with other nations are the recognized and appropriate methods that take time, but work. A full scale invasion of a foreign country -that had no al Qaeda or Taliban- was not justified, and has not worked. It's just that simple! Not only has it not worked, it has backfired and exacerbated Mid-East unrest in a way that Osama bin Laden could only have imagined!
War on terrorism is serious business, but force should only be used as a last resort, and that must be done with an exit strategy and massive enough force to insure victory in a reasonable time. None of that happened. Now, we're stuck in a mess of our own making, and its just getting worse every day we are there. So now we deal with that mess too.
What Ben Franklin said is still true, 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure'. Let's don't let that pound grow to several pounds!
Just before the invasion of Iraq happened, the Herald published the Guest Editorial below, which I believe reflected the thoughts and hopes of many Americans. Unfortunately, our President was not one of them.
----------------------------------------------
War Principles: A Herald Guest Editorial
From the City Council meetings held during the week of January 27th, at which a possible Iraq War Resolution was publicly discussed, the most commonly heard objections seemed to fall into one of these four groupings:
• Decision-making Roles & Responsibility:
This is not the City Council’s job or even within its realm of responsibility. Federal officials were elected who are responsible for such decisions, we need to trust them to do it. Even if we agreed on a Resolution, it wouldn’t make any difference.
• Accuracy in Representing Community Sentiment:
The City Council can’t speak for everyone in our community. Only a small group of vocal activists are behind this idea. It's impossible to make such a decision without hearing from everyone. This exercise is doomed to be a waste of time and taxpayer money.
• Conflict Resolution on a Controversial Issue:
This is too divisive an issue on which to have any meaningful discussion. We could never agree anyway. I’m having trouble focusing both halves of my brain on this issue.
• Overcoming Mind-sets:
City Council needs to avoid all unnecessary controversies, such as this issue, especially during an election year. Such an action is unpatriotic, doesn’t support our military, or may even border on treason. My mind is already made up and I won’t change it - no Resolution -pro or con!
It may sound strange, but I was encouraged by the turnout and the comments made at the Town Meeting, which attracted a diversity of thought and opinion, comparable to that heard during earlier meetings or received through phone calls and e-mail.
My hope is that we can make this issue much less divisive. How this might happen would be to align our aspirations with what is possible, and simply begin to identify those points upon which general agreement can be reached within our community. If some points of agreement can be reached, these could evolve into a 'de facto' set of principles, or nucleus of ideas that the Community could endorse. But, to reach such a goal will require us to raise our sights well above the win-lose situation that we now seem to face.
An idea gelled the morning that Brett & Debbie on KGMI said that 'no one wants a war'. That is so obviously true that it could become our first point of community agreement! What reasonable person could disagree with that?
That spurred more thinking about other principles that might have similar potential for community agreement, such as:
Before declaring war:
• War should be a last resort; a sign of a failed international policy and diplomacy.
• US unilateral action should be discouraged; UN support encouraged.
• The US Constitution should be strictly followed for US involvement.
• A formal declaration of war by US Congress should be expressly required before any attacks -except defensive- are authorized.
• US War budget estimates should use full-cost accounting methods to anticipate paying for mitigating domestic economy impacts as well as global impacts resulting from war.
In the event war is duly declared:
• International law must be respected, including the Geneva Convention.
• Civilian populations should not be deliberately targeted or endangered.
Following the successful conclusion of war:
• The US needs to fully recognize and be accountable for the full negative impacts on both its own people and the people who are harmed or deemed the enemy.
• The US should commit the resources and expertise necessary to help reconstruct the essential public infrastructure destroyed or damaged by war actions.
• The US should commit to a meaningful and ongoing humanitarian policy of assistance to the people harmed, whether deemed friendly or enemy.
• The US should recognize there are finite limits to both its resources and power in the world and diligently seek ways to use them wisely in the best interests of world humanity and the global environment.
A methodology to determine the extent of agreement on these -or other- points could be to simply test each one against the list of objections above. If widespread agreement can be reached on one or more points, these could be clearly considered reflective of the will of our community.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Surface & Storm Water Utility: Rates & Rationale Revisited
Still a point of contention to this date, Bellingham's SSWU program remains a work in progress. As it will, by law - in perpetuity! The City of Bellingham now has the ultimate responsibility for meeting new, stringent run-off discharge limits, regardless of whether it actually owns Surface & Storm Water Utility Facilities or not.
The main areas of public concern seem to fall into one or more of these categories:
1. Rates are costly, despite the built-in equity based upon impervious area and a reasonable balance between user groups and classes. Also, several exemptions are offered, as well as reduced rates for those most in need of financial help.
2. It's difficult to tell where these funds are being spent, and to what effect. Considerable funding is being applied to staffing the program and providing services ranging from inspection of facilities, to designing systems using Best Management Practices and then monitoring results. Five of the six main elements of the SSWU Program involve non-capital projects, which aren't readily visible to the public. Permitting Stormwater systems has turned out to be one of the most time-intensive exercises that the City requires. Capital Projects are visible, but not always, because often the best stormwater treatment is provided by using Mother Nature's methods, instead of steel and concrete structures that are costly to build, operate and maintain - and sometimes don't work very well anyway! Because many effective 'non-structural' stormwater facilities actually resemble the natural landscape, they aren't readily identified as 'facilities', but the land they occupy does cost money, which the City must obtain by some means. To the extent property acquisition must occur, that does qualify as a 'capital expense'.
[Note: I've heard there is a little game making the rounds, called 'Bellingham Bingo', which tries to track Surface & Storm Water Utility Projects from year to year, and guess where the intended funds are really being spent. Sounds like a good tracking exercise, and a topic that our Public Works Dept should be prepared to answer]
3. People may still be wondering why the level of funding now in place is needed at all, and what we get for our money. That answer is a little simpler, but not more popular. The reason is that our Surface & Storm Water Utility now has to treat a large portion the stormwater run-off -even from non-point source properties- and remove most harmful contaminants before the run-off can legally get released into the Bay. [The City now has to comply with a separate NESHAPS permit -similar to the one needed for sewage effluent- that is enforced by the Dept of Ecology] That alone is a very big change from just preventing flooding and erosion as was done inthe past.
I hope these short explanations will be found at least partially helpful. --------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, from the past, a Guest Editorial from 2001 on our Surface & Storm Water Utility Rates & Program:
In the interest of accurate public information, and to clear up any misperceptions created by the Herald’s editorial of 2/11/01, the editorial board has invited this column in rebuttal.
Need: Recent regulatory changes have added qualitative measures, in addition to the customary quantitative measures, as necessary requirements for community-wide compliance with the Clean Water Act & Endangered Species Act. This means that we must control the pollution entering our waterways from all sources, in addition to flooding and erosion. The City of Bellingham, as the entity responsible for ensuring compliance, must have an approved, fully funded plan in place to do this job - in perpetuity.
Timing: As one of the two last large cities in Washington without an approved and funded plan enacted, Bellingham is both blessed and cursed. The blessing is we are able to use the best parts of programs already established elsewhere, thus avoiding some mistakes and learning curves. The curse is that we have waited since 1990, (when our Storm-water Ordinance was enacted) to get started in funding some expensive, necessary facilities. Like investing in an IRA, the earlier one gets started the better off one is at retirement. The SSWU rates are needed now because the Street Fund and the storm-water fees collected on new development can no longer support these community-wide needs by themselves.
Benefits of compliance: Fits with long-established environmental goals incorporated in our Comprehensive Plan; enables Federal & State grants to help pay for costs; enables the City’s NPDES permit process to proceed on time for a new Storm-water out-fall to the Bay. Also, by adopting dedicated SSWU rates, the City stands a better chance to receive its share of Flood Tax money from Whatcom County to pay for a substantial portion of its program costs.
Penalties for non-compliance: Opposite of the benefits mentioned above; additional likelihood of fines, penalties and citizen lawsuits to force compliance. Clark County, for example, has incurred fines of $25,000 per day per out-fall (a total approaching $2.5 million/day) for its lack of progress on a similar plan.
Community input: A total of 14 public meetings were held by the City Council between June 2000 and February 5, 2001, when rates were finally enacted by Ordinance. In addition, numerous articles, workshops and related forums were sponsored. For each of the last three years, Storm-water Management has been adopted as one of three top priorities in the joint City/County/WD10 Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Plan (along with Land Use [Silver Beach Ordinance] & Watershed Acquisition).
Criteria for exemptions: Must be earned, generic and performance-based, not specific to individual ‘squeaky wheels’. Exemptions adopted, resulting from community input are:
- 3-tiers of residential rates, based on impervious surface cover
- rates reduced from $7+/$7/$5/mo to $5/$3/mo
- senior & low income discounts
- education exemptions for public information and education (PI&E)
- exemptions for existing 1992 DOE-compliant facilities or existing mitigation
- exemptions for certain Best Management Practices (BMPs), like gravel surfaces
- exemptions for properties with NPDES permits, or direct discharge into marine waters
- an on-going appeals process
Budget: $4.5 per year was initially proposed. We adopted a $2.2 million budget for 2001 (8 months) and $3.2 million for 2002. The net effect of the exemptions, plus the lower 'phase-in' schedule and rates was to reduce the program to 50% of its intended level for 2001, and 70% for 2002. Program review is required before any rate increase can be approved. Similar programs in other cities collect SSWU rates equivalent to about $7 per month. Only two meaningfully large projects can be instigated in 2001/2002 at the reduced $3-$5 per month level currently funded.
Learning to live with the new rules: Preserving native vegetation wherever possible is an obvious inexpensive and beneficial step. For example, a new mall in Connecticut was required to build a $1 million storm-water collection & treatment facility as mitigation. By redesigning the large parking lot using pervious paving systems and vegetated strips, this facility was not needed at all, resulting in savings of $500 thousand.
Residents, businesses, institutions and governments alike will need to adjust their practices and living habits to this new reality.
The main areas of public concern seem to fall into one or more of these categories:
1. Rates are costly, despite the built-in equity based upon impervious area and a reasonable balance between user groups and classes. Also, several exemptions are offered, as well as reduced rates for those most in need of financial help.
2. It's difficult to tell where these funds are being spent, and to what effect. Considerable funding is being applied to staffing the program and providing services ranging from inspection of facilities, to designing systems using Best Management Practices and then monitoring results. Five of the six main elements of the SSWU Program involve non-capital projects, which aren't readily visible to the public. Permitting Stormwater systems has turned out to be one of the most time-intensive exercises that the City requires. Capital Projects are visible, but not always, because often the best stormwater treatment is provided by using Mother Nature's methods, instead of steel and concrete structures that are costly to build, operate and maintain - and sometimes don't work very well anyway! Because many effective 'non-structural' stormwater facilities actually resemble the natural landscape, they aren't readily identified as 'facilities', but the land they occupy does cost money, which the City must obtain by some means. To the extent property acquisition must occur, that does qualify as a 'capital expense'.
[Note: I've heard there is a little game making the rounds, called 'Bellingham Bingo', which tries to track Surface & Storm Water Utility Projects from year to year, and guess where the intended funds are really being spent. Sounds like a good tracking exercise, and a topic that our Public Works Dept should be prepared to answer]
3. People may still be wondering why the level of funding now in place is needed at all, and what we get for our money. That answer is a little simpler, but not more popular. The reason is that our Surface & Storm Water Utility now has to treat a large portion the stormwater run-off -even from non-point source properties- and remove most harmful contaminants before the run-off can legally get released into the Bay. [The City now has to comply with a separate NESHAPS permit -similar to the one needed for sewage effluent- that is enforced by the Dept of Ecology] That alone is a very big change from just preventing flooding and erosion as was done inthe past.
I hope these short explanations will be found at least partially helpful. --------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, from the past, a Guest Editorial from 2001 on our Surface & Storm Water Utility Rates & Program:
In the interest of accurate public information, and to clear up any misperceptions created by the Herald’s editorial of 2/11/01, the editorial board has invited this column in rebuttal.
Need: Recent regulatory changes have added qualitative measures, in addition to the customary quantitative measures, as necessary requirements for community-wide compliance with the Clean Water Act & Endangered Species Act. This means that we must control the pollution entering our waterways from all sources, in addition to flooding and erosion. The City of Bellingham, as the entity responsible for ensuring compliance, must have an approved, fully funded plan in place to do this job - in perpetuity.
Timing: As one of the two last large cities in Washington without an approved and funded plan enacted, Bellingham is both blessed and cursed. The blessing is we are able to use the best parts of programs already established elsewhere, thus avoiding some mistakes and learning curves. The curse is that we have waited since 1990, (when our Storm-water Ordinance was enacted) to get started in funding some expensive, necessary facilities. Like investing in an IRA, the earlier one gets started the better off one is at retirement. The SSWU rates are needed now because the Street Fund and the storm-water fees collected on new development can no longer support these community-wide needs by themselves.
Benefits of compliance: Fits with long-established environmental goals incorporated in our Comprehensive Plan; enables Federal & State grants to help pay for costs; enables the City’s NPDES permit process to proceed on time for a new Storm-water out-fall to the Bay. Also, by adopting dedicated SSWU rates, the City stands a better chance to receive its share of Flood Tax money from Whatcom County to pay for a substantial portion of its program costs.
Penalties for non-compliance: Opposite of the benefits mentioned above; additional likelihood of fines, penalties and citizen lawsuits to force compliance. Clark County, for example, has incurred fines of $25,000 per day per out-fall (a total approaching $2.5 million/day) for its lack of progress on a similar plan.
Community input: A total of 14 public meetings were held by the City Council between June 2000 and February 5, 2001, when rates were finally enacted by Ordinance. In addition, numerous articles, workshops and related forums were sponsored. For each of the last three years, Storm-water Management has been adopted as one of three top priorities in the joint City/County/WD10 Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Plan (along with Land Use [Silver Beach Ordinance] & Watershed Acquisition).
Criteria for exemptions: Must be earned, generic and performance-based, not specific to individual ‘squeaky wheels’. Exemptions adopted, resulting from community input are:
- 3-tiers of residential rates, based on impervious surface cover
- rates reduced from $7+/$7/$5/mo to $5/$3/mo
- senior & low income discounts
- education exemptions for public information and education (PI&E)
- exemptions for existing 1992 DOE-compliant facilities or existing mitigation
- exemptions for certain Best Management Practices (BMPs), like gravel surfaces
- exemptions for properties with NPDES permits, or direct discharge into marine waters
- an on-going appeals process
Budget: $4.5 per year was initially proposed. We adopted a $2.2 million budget for 2001 (8 months) and $3.2 million for 2002. The net effect of the exemptions, plus the lower 'phase-in' schedule and rates was to reduce the program to 50% of its intended level for 2001, and 70% for 2002. Program review is required before any rate increase can be approved. Similar programs in other cities collect SSWU rates equivalent to about $7 per month. Only two meaningfully large projects can be instigated in 2001/2002 at the reduced $3-$5 per month level currently funded.
Learning to live with the new rules: Preserving native vegetation wherever possible is an obvious inexpensive and beneficial step. For example, a new mall in Connecticut was required to build a $1 million storm-water collection & treatment facility as mitigation. By redesigning the large parking lot using pervious paving systems and vegetated strips, this facility was not needed at all, resulting in savings of $500 thousand.
Residents, businesses, institutions and governments alike will need to adjust their practices and living habits to this new reality.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Water Source Protection Plan: Comments & Questions
Here are WSPP Comments & Questions I sent to the Public Works Dept on 6/30/2006. Hopefully, most of these will have answers developed for the upcoming August 15 meeting referred to in my previous posting. I know the jargon, extensive references to a large, obscure document and the sheer number of questions will not be easy reading for most people. But for some, it will represent exacly the type of oversight they expect from elected officials, especially on an important matter like watershed protection. I'm putting these questions out there anyway, with apologies to those who would rather read something else.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are comments referenced to specific sections & pages of the printed 2000 WSPP document. These need special emphasis when the 2006 update is drafted for submission to the State Dept of Health. This should not be considered a routine administrative task! It has broad policy implications that City Council rightfully needs to consider and approve.
There are major updates required to this document to reflect both accomplishments and new trend data. More important are the broad implications to be derived from current knowledge, activities underway and additional actions required to actually achieve the stated goals of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program.
The following general comments [in no particular order] that are –or should be – addressed in this WSSP:
1. The WSPP document was jointly submitted by COB & WD10. These organizations have vastly different Charters, objectives and organizational structures. COB is a Strong Mayor/ Weak Council form of Govt, wherein the Executive has significant operational authority, providing policy direction and funding is approved by Council. The Water District has a much different, single mission focused on its system service requirements within its district boundaries and budget balancing. The GM needs approval from the Commissioners before taking other than routine action. The problem comes from both the different perspectives and funding the 2 organizations inherently have. It is essentially a David & Goliath relationship, where WD10 [and WC] has effective veto power over actions that might benefit watershed protection that fall outside City jurisdiction. Perhaps a Gulliver & Lilliputian analogy would be more appropriate, but the point is made. Regarding this WSPP, both WD10 and the County had the opportunity to review, revise and weaken the plan the City paid for! This, without any City Council review! What is wrong with this picture? At a minimum the City Council needs to review the update before it is submitted!
2. From the data submitted, it is obvious that COB is paying the great majority of the costs for monitoring this water supply. This appropriate because COB is by far the largest purveyor of water and sewer services. But, at some point, is it OK for COB to be responsible for determining what problems are causing water supply degradation, and then have to pay to fix them? Both WD10 & WC have been externalizing these responsibilities to COB, and this must stop!
3. This update is a major undertaking! Are we prepared to do it correctly? Why is it already a year late? Much has happened in the last 6 years and more is known now than before.
4. Input from Whatcom County appears to be extensive. Will this be developed for review and inclusion in a timely fashion? Is there any sense of obligation or urgency? How can we get this to happen?
5. What has happened to the Lake Whatcom Management Program Review meetings? These seem to have become afterthoughts! Why don’t the executives see this as an important aspect of their responsibilities? It would be good to set these meetings early and stick to the dates!
6. DOE’s 303(d) listing allows 15 years to mitigate. It has now been 8 years, and no TMDL or Model yet! Even before these tools are ready, we need action toward meaningful results!
7. Re Watershed Property Acquisition, more funding is needed from both COB and Whatcom County. Public ownership and careful management are the best BMPs known!
8. Whatcom County & COB need to look very carefully at Recreation uses in and around Lake Whatcom, and insure passive uses predominate! What kind of message are we sending to the public when we fail to respect so valuable a resource? Other jurisdictions generally prohibit any such uses as standard practice.
9. New focus needs to be on interpreting results and taking actions likely to produce favorable results. Focus to date has been on data collection, planning to plan and watching more development and degradation happen! If this is really a hot issue, why not pursue real progress?
10. It would be of great interest to review the comments and changes made by WD10 & Whatcom County to the initial WSPP submitted in 2000. Are these available for examination? Will it require an Public Information Request to make this happen?
11. From the Introduction, comes this overall perspective:
Preventing drinking water contamination at the source makes sense:
• good public health sense;
• good economic sense; and
• good environmental sense.
Section 1 – Background & Description
• needs updating for water use, post G-P & diversion
• What are implications of increasing impervious surface coverage in watershed?
• Lake is a glacial depression, incapable of flushing itself.
• Note mass-wasting hazard from forest harvesting is minimized by vegetative cover
• Austin & Smith Creeks are largest tributaries + Anderson [diversion]
?? How will DNR mass-wasting hazards compare with proposed County land swap/reconveyance? Are county uses/practices likely to be any more protective than DNR? See figure 1.3.3-2 on p 1-19:
p 1-23: critical source protection areas
immediate
cumulative
Fig 1.5.1-1: WD10 wells in Agate Bay area? What is planned use/expansion?
P 1-27: jurisdictional boundaries – adjust for acquisitions
• what would be advantage of COB annexing WD7’s area?
P 1-29: Whatcom County land use needs update. Note that Rural Forestry rezones continuously allow roads and sprawl development on 20 acre lots.
Fig 1.6.2-2: WC Title 20 zoning & UGAs – note land acquisition location priorities. Commercial Forestry [CF] allows roads, no houses, outside WD’s [>40 acres]
P 1-32: needs updating
P 1-34: COB zoning – Basin 1; Fig 1.6.2-3 needs update for parks, acquisitions
p 1-38: Water Quality Monitoring; need column to show $ per year! For COB costs [note COB also pays for IWS work]
p 1-42: 1993 Comp Water Plan – by Barrett Consulting
Section 2 – ID of activities detrimental to water quality.
• need update of Lake Whatcom Watershed to show current zoning
p 2-1: modify to eliminate G-P use [explain reference to residential ?]
p 2-2: update potential build-out tables
p 2-3: 10% impervious should be maximum!
Fig 2.1.1-1: does not bode well for lake, especially basin 2!
**P 2-9: DOH designated Lake as “severe public health hazard”
Need to ban any more OSS?
Fig 2.1.4-1: OSS sites; don’t allow more; require sewer hook-ups where close by; buy TDRs from remainder
P 2-11: forestry is 67% or 20,798 acres of watershed; 3,000 acres = Rural; 18,000 acres = commercial. Need to prohibit any further use of RF zoning for homes! Relate this to land acquisition program. Update areas to current conditions.
P 2-11: mass-wasting is mostly from catastrophic events, slides, etc. DNR practices are better than private forest rules, but all forestry has some deleterious impact. Is this the intent of the County’s proposed re-conveyance plan? If so, why not focus on private land, not DNR?
P 2-13: bulk chemical spill hazard is obvious, especially off LW Blvd.
P 2-14: alluvial fan hazards- assumes additional floods/slides will preferentially impact these areas? eg Sudden Valley, etc.
**P 2-15: if only mitigation is appropriate zoning, then do it & enforce it!
P 2-15: diversion prior to 1998 was > 25% during summer. Better flushing than we can expect post G-P. earlier flushing inadequate to completely mask degradation, merely delaying it longer.
Explain hydropower plant impact on diversion flow further. Does this constrict COB operations?
P 2-15/16: Note joint planning with WD10 since 1974. Are they still in denial a problem exists and it is their responsibility to help fix it? If COB’s greatest concern is water degradation, what else can we do to prevent it?
P 2-16: if diversion water has < nutrients, could diversion water enter the lake closer to basin 2, especially during summer? Would this cost be cheaper than extending COB intake?
Fish hatcheries impacts; any unnecessary wastes being dumped into lake?
Passing reference to pathogens giardia and cryptosporidium; treating takes care of giardia, but not crypto?
Fig 2.1.8-1: fish species and habitat; concentrate on preserving natural spawning areas.
P 2-18: mining for sand, gravel [and coal] should be permanently terminated as inappropriate use
P 2-21: road use chart needs updating; future road maximum needs determining and ensured.
P 2-23: LW Connector – please delete all reference to this in future. Only developers [and potential Trillium rezone] could benefit! Note that 32% of roads are gravel forest service roads, yet these contribute 50% of sediment. Stop doing this! Also stop allowing more private roads that ‘daisy chain’ development!
P 2-23: Hydro-power requires reduction in middle fork flow from 90 to 66 cfs to produce 1000 kw. Is this worth it at PW current practice? It is green energy, but reduces operational flexibility for LW. Its moment in history may be over.
P 2-24: recreation is cited as a ‘popular’ use by 71% of those surveyed. Are we to be guided by what is popular, or what is best practice? What are appropriate recreational uses and where should they be located? Are these active or passive uses? Do they require hauling boats over local roads from anywhere? Who is to regulate this activity? Who will keep track of statistics, collect fees and enforce laws? County has 5 parks; how will these be developed and used? Some uses [marine & floatplanes] should be curtailed or eliminated for the general good of the community and ratepayers. New parks development will bring more roads, parking and people which exacerbates existing problems!
P 2-25: ORV/off-trail vehicles are a problem that demonstrably degrades watershed. Need to be careful! Trend is toward more urbanization and less natural areas – bad ideas, both of them.
P 2-28: prioritization of adverse activities & rating system. This is the meat of this exercise, yet only methodology is discussed –maybe more later?
Section 3 – Watershed management & Control measures.
P 3-1: how local jurisdictions monitor & control activities to minimize adverse source water impacts.
P 3.1 thru 3.5: details existing measures [are they working?]
• Land use & ownership are challenging! No surprise.
Public ownership is 47.5% + 4.4% = 51.9%
• Cites failed TIG effort; ‘currently no plans to purchase property’ needs update!
• cites Sudden Valley’s Gordian Knot of covenants; can’t limit access to lake, even at water intakes!
P 3-2: agreement: COB & WD10 –increases sewage volume to COB
• 2 agreements: WC & COB
UGA annexation ‘coordination’
Septic system survey
• agreement: COB & DNR [14,300 acres] 1985 – encourages public ownership!
• agreement: COB & WD7: 1703 acres
p 3-3: water & sewer outside COB limits; COB stipulates to protect
• SVCA ACC Guidelines -35% max lot coverage
• SVCA density reduction program [reduces by 1400 lots]
**p 3-4: cites WD10 settlement with CWA regarding 241 & 91 lots
NOTE COB bought these properties with Watershed Acquisition $!
[Chen & Denke]
• ‘informal agreements’ COB & Agencies - pesticides
• WD10/WC bought SV lots at tax auction [so did COB]
• cites CWA suit settlement $220 K
p 3-5: notes Lake Whatcom is a ‘hot’ political issue! Imagine that!
• COB prohibitions are pre Silver Beach Ordinance
P 3.6: touts Lake Whatcom Management Program as ‘unique advantage’.
Is this conceptual or actual? Show results! Talk is cheap. The best sounding idea may not be enough to do the job. Where are results?
P 3.7: effectiveness of existing controls
• COB enforcement weak; others?
• WD10 ‘empowered’ by 3 RCWs; these aren’t effective unless WD actually uses this enabling to advocate protection with WC!
• 80% Rule limits extent of zoned area to be developed.
Why not a lower %? What does this translate to in # of DUs?
P 3.8: recommended strategies
• WC Title 20; need update of current zoning and its potential build-out. Are there areas that could be further restricted? Acquired? Which ones?
P 3.9: reviews of anticipated monitoring & outlines future updates of WSPP.
• TDR program; is it working? Why not?
P 3-10: WC Storm water management; extremely weak!
• Land clearing; extremely weak! Needs update
p 3-11: GMA compliance with Comp Plan? What about UGAs?
**P 3-12/13: downzones; ‘options’ which were adopted? needs update
• Timber mgmt - Forest Practices Act; DNR has oversight in watershed- needs update!
p 3-13: ‘harvest prescriptions’ – means potential mass-wasting -or clear-cutting for the layperson
p 3-14: stormwater facilities – only COB [needs update to show new SSWU rates * program
P 3-15: WD10 Interceptor & overflow problems it was meant to correct. Will it just create more?
P 3-16: WC stormwater – where’s the results, except for those facilities that are privately owned and operated? If non-structural BMPs are used, this minimizes need for built facilities!
• Are OSS rules still voluntary? Is Lake Whatcom any different from countywide?
**P 3-17: are there really no restrictions on hazardous materials transport?
• LUST [Leaking Underground Storage Tanks] enforcement weak due to staffing. Is this being corrected?
** • Joint COB/WD10.WC effort on stormwater management- Phase 1, EES & ENTRANCO Report exceptionally weak! Has been discredited. More delays!
P 3-18: disposal of toxics: initiated by COB, now being operated by WC
• OSS interlocal – entirely paid by COB [$73.5 K per year]? 689 sites ID’ed in 2000.
**• Because of Moratorium, WD10 won’t object to OSS being used, if ‘no protest agreement’ is signed to connect to sewer later!
**P 3-19: Because COB would not accept add’l sewage, WC HHS had no choice but to approve OSS!
• State & Federal efforts; local control mechanism enables these agencies to help. Otherwise wait until emergency!
• DOE 303(d) listing [1999] for Oxygen depletion, triggers TMDL – within 15 years!
• DNR’s HCP excludes private forests lands. What covers them? WC must keep these in perpetual forestry!
• Bill 5536 LW Landscape Plan – a long, unsatisfactory result
P 3-20: no timber sale until pilot project completed [3+ years] defied state legislature!
**• WRIA – locally plan & implement! Where are results? What is plan? Is this defunct? Where are teeth?
P 3-21: public education – joint effort, list of tasks. Weak. Where are results?
**• COB has ‘tremendous commitment’. What are results & costs?
P 3-23: WD10 – nil! WC – OSS, otherwise nil! Needs update
P 3-24: DOE – COB 7 FTEs for Pledge Program, a voluntary effort
**• Local watershed control committee; Lake Whatcom Management Program adopted by 1992 Joint Resolution. This ID’ed 8 areas of focus, deferred 3 [Land Use, Stormwater, OSS] the important ones!
Instead, worked on Forest Practices, Spill Response, Conservation, Education, Data Management.
P 3-25: 1998 formalized Interlocal Agreement @ $375 K per year
• adopted Interlocal Agreement & published list of ‘accomplishments’
** p 3-29: Tabulated List of Existing Control Strategies & Ratings of their effectiveness. Note: these exclude laws, such as ESA, CWA, CAA, Federal WPCA, pesticide regs.
• Several Fold-out Spreadsheets list the above, with implementing agencies shown. Preponderance of work to be done by COB!
**P 3-30: Public ownership; DNR should keep forests; other avenues need exploring. Update for COB watershed Acquisitions
**• Restrict COB sewage amounts
p 3-31: Add COB; bought Chen & Denke [91 + 241 TDRs]; helped buy SV lots.
P 3-32: List COB actions! [Silver Beach Ord; SSWU; CAO; Land Acquisition; Narrow Street standards]
P 3-34: GMA; Landscape Plan; Land Acqusition –Private Forestry; fenced Anderson Creek; etc]
P 3-35: COB is doing its part!
P 3-36: COB is doing its part!
P 3-37: COB is doing its part & more! [BTV10, etc]
• Cop out! Legislative bodies have other things to do! Both COB & WC have Executive/Council forms of Govt. Neither Council had any input into this WSPP! This does need to change! [WD10 Commissioners had input!]
p 3-38: Recommended Control Strategies: COB & WD10 have limited abilities!?? Yes, because County has jurisdiction over most of it, and they need to do things too!
• ‘Water Purveyor Perspective’ 5,000 DU’s now + ???? more to come!
Potential for 7331 add’l DU’s, for total of 16,500 people! Update this!
• Residential paragraph – doubtful of effectiveness
• Commercial – only WC has the zoning stick!
P 3-39: Reaffirm that WC has responsibility!
**• Recreation plans need review for compatibility – encourage passive uses!
P 3-40: Recommended control policies currently being pursued
• all old news!
• what specifically has WD10 done? $?
• monitoring & assessing toxics; who does this, COB? $?
• Modeling Lake Whatcom; DOE has ever-elongated time frames – 6 ears later this still is not ready for use as a management tool. [16 years is allowed]
p 3-41: Plans for monitoring & updates; where are the ‘plans, procedures & schedules’?
• began discussions in 1990; in 1998 set up annual review, focus is on 1 year ahead?
P 3-42: WSPP update
• where is info between 2000 & 2005? Are we serious about meeting deadline with meaningful update?
• 2005 1st 6 months –COB & WD10 are to consolidate information –has this begun?
• 2005 last 6 months –weekly progress meetings –has this happened?
• Final Draft is to be submitted to the Lake Whatcom management Committee for THEIR approval – never goes to City Council? Why?
• Approved Draft plan to be submitted to State Dept of Health by Jan 1, 2006. Has this happened? If not, why not?
Section 4 – Monitoring Programs
P 4-1: Most monitoring by COB & WWU - $? Per year?
• some by WD10; DFW; DOE - $? Per year?
• routine tests - $? Per year?
• Water quality parameters tested – Table 4.1.2-1 – are these adequate, or just the minimum required?
P 4-2: Stormwater run-off monitoring – extent & who pays? Adequate?
P 4-3: Special monitoring; analysis of trends – what are major findings? Implications? What actions does this suggest? Where is expert interpretation? E.g. don’t correlations between giardia, cryptosporidium & fecal coliforms tell us something? Does treatment kill crypto? What are near-shore implications for swimming and other direct water contact recreation?
P 4-10: Oxygen depletion conditions; why are two different perspectives given? This seems a continuation of the dueling scientists that clearly showed basic disagreement between COB & WD10 during the discredited ENTRANCO Report. Does WD10 get to veto COB concerns?
P 4-11: Phosporus; again, why are two different perspectives given? This also seems a continuation of the dueling scientists that clearly showed basic disagreement between COB & WD10 during the discredited ENTRANCO Report. Does WD10 get to veto COB concerns? What about WC? Didn’t the Joint Council agree 2 years ago that Phosphorus was a top priority? This need serious updating of agreed policy!
P 4-11: Austin Creek; 58% of samples exceed fecal limits! What’s wrong with this picture? Can this ever get bad enough for WD10 to actually do something?
P 4-13: WWU monitoring; why are we even bothering to do this if we’re not willing to be guided by the trends? What happened to our agreed policy of prevention over cleaning up a bad mess? Are our laws so weak that we are stymied? Do we have the political will? Is ignorance by decision makers still an excuse? When will the situation be bad enough to force strong action? Seriously, we need more than just retreating lines in the shifting sand!
P 4-14: Near-shore; Bloedel-Donovan has high fecal & enterococcus counts. What implications does this have for continuing to have children swimming here? What about boats, cars & trailers? It will take more than a few life guards to fix this problem!
P 4-16: after storm events – high fecal, phosphorus & nitrogen concentrations. Summary says it very succinctly. Needs current update, especially for Basin 3. Identifies streams & constructed stormwater facilities as main problems!
P 4-17/18/19: Recommended Monitoring Improvements –Important!
• Hydrologic Model –Long Term predictive tool –when?
• Nutrient Transport Model [TMDL] – when? Why not set interim limits as adaptive management tool?
• Determine if P or N limited; why not control for both?
• Additional Sampling; to test validity? Will there ever be a time when more data is not needed? This paralysis by analysis is understandable, but not helpful in slowing or stopping or reversing negative trends!
• Additional Monitoring parameters; same comment as above. It’s good to improve tools, but don’t let ‘better’ get in the way of doing ‘good idea for until we know more’!
• Circulation Model; good idea, but why not just test for the existing conditions?
• Monitor BMPs for stormwater facilities; always good to monitor for results, but we already know which BMPs are likely to work best!
• Identify sources of pathogens; good idea! Hint, its mostly humans!
• Evaluate Y-Road landfill; isn’t this done? Has any mitigation resulted?
• DOE Toxics study follow up. Good idea, but not reason to delay action!
• Additional weather stations & gauges; necessary for proper data gathering to support Model(s) - isn’t this completed?
Section 5 – System Operation
• Mostly info that describes basics; could benefit from a narrative of how system could be reconfigured for better treatment results, including OOM cost estimates.
Section 6 – Appendices
Very information collection of existing policy, Interlocal Agreements, Ordinances & Operating procedures that give the foundation for why things are as they are.
• ORD 7775: Public Water Supply –to DOH in 1969
• Water Quality Report for 2000
• Staff Ranking Factors, developed to weight ‘Adverse Activities’ in Table 2.2-1
• Interlocal Agreement; COB/WC/WD10 [9/9/98] - Joint Lake Whatcom Management Program
• Interlocal Agreement; COB/WC [12/19/97] - Annexation – Very problematic! Among other things, this says COB adopts the Countywide Planning Policies. This was specifically rejected by COB in its recent Comp Plan!
• Interlocal Agreement; - Septic Systems [undated] – Dr Frank James
• Agreement; DNR & COB [3/5/85] – Forest management
• Interlocal Agreement; COB & WD7 [4/13/93] -
• Lake Whatcom RESERVOIR Management Program – 2000 [printed brochure with tasks listed in some detail]
• COB Public Works Data & Operating procedure
====================END===========================
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are comments referenced to specific sections & pages of the printed 2000 WSPP document. These need special emphasis when the 2006 update is drafted for submission to the State Dept of Health. This should not be considered a routine administrative task! It has broad policy implications that City Council rightfully needs to consider and approve.
There are major updates required to this document to reflect both accomplishments and new trend data. More important are the broad implications to be derived from current knowledge, activities underway and additional actions required to actually achieve the stated goals of the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program.
The following general comments [in no particular order] that are –or should be – addressed in this WSSP:
1. The WSPP document was jointly submitted by COB & WD10. These organizations have vastly different Charters, objectives and organizational structures. COB is a Strong Mayor/ Weak Council form of Govt, wherein the Executive has significant operational authority, providing policy direction and funding is approved by Council. The Water District has a much different, single mission focused on its system service requirements within its district boundaries and budget balancing. The GM needs approval from the Commissioners before taking other than routine action. The problem comes from both the different perspectives and funding the 2 organizations inherently have. It is essentially a David & Goliath relationship, where WD10 [and WC] has effective veto power over actions that might benefit watershed protection that fall outside City jurisdiction. Perhaps a Gulliver & Lilliputian analogy would be more appropriate, but the point is made. Regarding this WSPP, both WD10 and the County had the opportunity to review, revise and weaken the plan the City paid for! This, without any City Council review! What is wrong with this picture? At a minimum the City Council needs to review the update before it is submitted!
2. From the data submitted, it is obvious that COB is paying the great majority of the costs for monitoring this water supply. This appropriate because COB is by far the largest purveyor of water and sewer services. But, at some point, is it OK for COB to be responsible for determining what problems are causing water supply degradation, and then have to pay to fix them? Both WD10 & WC have been externalizing these responsibilities to COB, and this must stop!
3. This update is a major undertaking! Are we prepared to do it correctly? Why is it already a year late? Much has happened in the last 6 years and more is known now than before.
4. Input from Whatcom County appears to be extensive. Will this be developed for review and inclusion in a timely fashion? Is there any sense of obligation or urgency? How can we get this to happen?
5. What has happened to the Lake Whatcom Management Program Review meetings? These seem to have become afterthoughts! Why don’t the executives see this as an important aspect of their responsibilities? It would be good to set these meetings early and stick to the dates!
6. DOE’s 303(d) listing allows 15 years to mitigate. It has now been 8 years, and no TMDL or Model yet! Even before these tools are ready, we need action toward meaningful results!
7. Re Watershed Property Acquisition, more funding is needed from both COB and Whatcom County. Public ownership and careful management are the best BMPs known!
8. Whatcom County & COB need to look very carefully at Recreation uses in and around Lake Whatcom, and insure passive uses predominate! What kind of message are we sending to the public when we fail to respect so valuable a resource? Other jurisdictions generally prohibit any such uses as standard practice.
9. New focus needs to be on interpreting results and taking actions likely to produce favorable results. Focus to date has been on data collection, planning to plan and watching more development and degradation happen! If this is really a hot issue, why not pursue real progress?
10. It would be of great interest to review the comments and changes made by WD10 & Whatcom County to the initial WSPP submitted in 2000. Are these available for examination? Will it require an Public Information Request to make this happen?
11. From the Introduction, comes this overall perspective:
Preventing drinking water contamination at the source makes sense:
• good public health sense;
• good economic sense; and
• good environmental sense.
Section 1 – Background & Description
• needs updating for water use, post G-P & diversion
• What are implications of increasing impervious surface coverage in watershed?
• Lake is a glacial depression, incapable of flushing itself.
• Note mass-wasting hazard from forest harvesting is minimized by vegetative cover
• Austin & Smith Creeks are largest tributaries + Anderson [diversion]
?? How will DNR mass-wasting hazards compare with proposed County land swap/reconveyance? Are county uses/practices likely to be any more protective than DNR? See figure 1.3.3-2 on p 1-19:
p 1-23: critical source protection areas
immediate
cumulative
Fig 1.5.1-1: WD10 wells in Agate Bay area? What is planned use/expansion?
P 1-27: jurisdictional boundaries – adjust for acquisitions
• what would be advantage of COB annexing WD7’s area?
P 1-29: Whatcom County land use needs update. Note that Rural Forestry rezones continuously allow roads and sprawl development on 20 acre lots.
Fig 1.6.2-2: WC Title 20 zoning & UGAs – note land acquisition location priorities. Commercial Forestry [CF] allows roads, no houses, outside WD’s [>40 acres]
P 1-32: needs updating
P 1-34: COB zoning – Basin 1; Fig 1.6.2-3 needs update for parks, acquisitions
p 1-38: Water Quality Monitoring; need column to show $ per year! For COB costs [note COB also pays for IWS work]
p 1-42: 1993 Comp Water Plan – by Barrett Consulting
Section 2 – ID of activities detrimental to water quality.
• need update of Lake Whatcom Watershed to show current zoning
p 2-1: modify to eliminate G-P use [explain reference to residential ?]
p 2-2: update potential build-out tables
p 2-3: 10% impervious should be maximum!
Fig 2.1.1-1: does not bode well for lake, especially basin 2!
**P 2-9: DOH designated Lake as “severe public health hazard”
Need to ban any more OSS?
Fig 2.1.4-1: OSS sites; don’t allow more; require sewer hook-ups where close by; buy TDRs from remainder
P 2-11: forestry is 67% or 20,798 acres of watershed; 3,000 acres = Rural; 18,000 acres = commercial. Need to prohibit any further use of RF zoning for homes! Relate this to land acquisition program. Update areas to current conditions.
P 2-11: mass-wasting is mostly from catastrophic events, slides, etc. DNR practices are better than private forest rules, but all forestry has some deleterious impact. Is this the intent of the County’s proposed re-conveyance plan? If so, why not focus on private land, not DNR?
P 2-13: bulk chemical spill hazard is obvious, especially off LW Blvd.
P 2-14: alluvial fan hazards- assumes additional floods/slides will preferentially impact these areas? eg Sudden Valley, etc.
**P 2-15: if only mitigation is appropriate zoning, then do it & enforce it!
P 2-15: diversion prior to 1998 was > 25% during summer. Better flushing than we can expect post G-P. earlier flushing inadequate to completely mask degradation, merely delaying it longer.
Explain hydropower plant impact on diversion flow further. Does this constrict COB operations?
P 2-15/16: Note joint planning with WD10 since 1974. Are they still in denial a problem exists and it is their responsibility to help fix it? If COB’s greatest concern is water degradation, what else can we do to prevent it?
P 2-16: if diversion water has < nutrients, could diversion water enter the lake closer to basin 2, especially during summer? Would this cost be cheaper than extending COB intake?
Fish hatcheries impacts; any unnecessary wastes being dumped into lake?
Passing reference to pathogens giardia and cryptosporidium; treating takes care of giardia, but not crypto?
Fig 2.1.8-1: fish species and habitat; concentrate on preserving natural spawning areas.
P 2-18: mining for sand, gravel [and coal] should be permanently terminated as inappropriate use
P 2-21: road use chart needs updating; future road maximum needs determining and ensured.
P 2-23: LW Connector – please delete all reference to this in future. Only developers [and potential Trillium rezone] could benefit! Note that 32% of roads are gravel forest service roads, yet these contribute 50% of sediment. Stop doing this! Also stop allowing more private roads that ‘daisy chain’ development!
P 2-23: Hydro-power requires reduction in middle fork flow from 90 to 66 cfs to produce 1000 kw. Is this worth it at PW current practice? It is green energy, but reduces operational flexibility for LW. Its moment in history may be over.
P 2-24: recreation is cited as a ‘popular’ use by 71% of those surveyed. Are we to be guided by what is popular, or what is best practice? What are appropriate recreational uses and where should they be located? Are these active or passive uses? Do they require hauling boats over local roads from anywhere? Who is to regulate this activity? Who will keep track of statistics, collect fees and enforce laws? County has 5 parks; how will these be developed and used? Some uses [marine & floatplanes] should be curtailed or eliminated for the general good of the community and ratepayers. New parks development will bring more roads, parking and people which exacerbates existing problems!
P 2-25: ORV/off-trail vehicles are a problem that demonstrably degrades watershed. Need to be careful! Trend is toward more urbanization and less natural areas – bad ideas, both of them.
P 2-28: prioritization of adverse activities & rating system. This is the meat of this exercise, yet only methodology is discussed –maybe more later?
Section 3 – Watershed management & Control measures.
P 3-1: how local jurisdictions monitor & control activities to minimize adverse source water impacts.
P 3.1 thru 3.5: details existing measures [are they working?]
• Land use & ownership are challenging! No surprise.
Public ownership is 47.5% + 4.4% = 51.9%
• Cites failed TIG effort; ‘currently no plans to purchase property’ needs update!
• cites Sudden Valley’s Gordian Knot of covenants; can’t limit access to lake, even at water intakes!
P 3-2: agreement: COB & WD10 –increases sewage volume to COB
• 2 agreements: WC & COB
UGA annexation ‘coordination’
Septic system survey
• agreement: COB & DNR [14,300 acres] 1985 – encourages public ownership!
• agreement: COB & WD7: 1703 acres
p 3-3: water & sewer outside COB limits; COB stipulates to protect
• SVCA ACC Guidelines -35% max lot coverage
• SVCA density reduction program [reduces by 1400 lots]
**p 3-4: cites WD10 settlement with CWA regarding 241 & 91 lots
NOTE COB bought these properties with Watershed Acquisition $!
[Chen & Denke]
• ‘informal agreements’ COB & Agencies - pesticides
• WD10/WC bought SV lots at tax auction [so did COB]
• cites CWA suit settlement $220 K
p 3-5: notes Lake Whatcom is a ‘hot’ political issue! Imagine that!
• COB prohibitions are pre Silver Beach Ordinance
P 3.6: touts Lake Whatcom Management Program as ‘unique advantage’.
Is this conceptual or actual? Show results! Talk is cheap. The best sounding idea may not be enough to do the job. Where are results?
P 3.7: effectiveness of existing controls
• COB enforcement weak; others?
• WD10 ‘empowered’ by 3 RCWs; these aren’t effective unless WD actually uses this enabling to advocate protection with WC!
• 80% Rule limits extent of zoned area to be developed.
Why not a lower %? What does this translate to in # of DUs?
P 3.8: recommended strategies
• WC Title 20; need update of current zoning and its potential build-out. Are there areas that could be further restricted? Acquired? Which ones?
P 3.9: reviews of anticipated monitoring & outlines future updates of WSPP.
• TDR program; is it working? Why not?
P 3-10: WC Storm water management; extremely weak!
• Land clearing; extremely weak! Needs update
p 3-11: GMA compliance with Comp Plan? What about UGAs?
**P 3-12/13: downzones; ‘options’ which were adopted? needs update
• Timber mgmt - Forest Practices Act; DNR has oversight in watershed- needs update!
p 3-13: ‘harvest prescriptions’ – means potential mass-wasting -or clear-cutting for the layperson
p 3-14: stormwater facilities – only COB [needs update to show new SSWU rates * program
P 3-15: WD10 Interceptor & overflow problems it was meant to correct. Will it just create more?
P 3-16: WC stormwater – where’s the results, except for those facilities that are privately owned and operated? If non-structural BMPs are used, this minimizes need for built facilities!
• Are OSS rules still voluntary? Is Lake Whatcom any different from countywide?
**P 3-17: are there really no restrictions on hazardous materials transport?
• LUST [Leaking Underground Storage Tanks] enforcement weak due to staffing. Is this being corrected?
** • Joint COB/WD10.WC effort on stormwater management- Phase 1, EES & ENTRANCO Report exceptionally weak! Has been discredited. More delays!
P 3-18: disposal of toxics: initiated by COB, now being operated by WC
• OSS interlocal – entirely paid by COB [$73.5 K per year]? 689 sites ID’ed in 2000.
**• Because of Moratorium, WD10 won’t object to OSS being used, if ‘no protest agreement’ is signed to connect to sewer later!
**P 3-19: Because COB would not accept add’l sewage, WC HHS had no choice but to approve OSS!
• State & Federal efforts; local control mechanism enables these agencies to help. Otherwise wait until emergency!
• DOE 303(d) listing [1999] for Oxygen depletion, triggers TMDL – within 15 years!
• DNR’s HCP excludes private forests lands. What covers them? WC must keep these in perpetual forestry!
• Bill 5536 LW Landscape Plan – a long, unsatisfactory result
P 3-20: no timber sale until pilot project completed [3+ years] defied state legislature!
**• WRIA – locally plan & implement! Where are results? What is plan? Is this defunct? Where are teeth?
P 3-21: public education – joint effort, list of tasks. Weak. Where are results?
**• COB has ‘tremendous commitment’. What are results & costs?
P 3-23: WD10 – nil! WC – OSS, otherwise nil! Needs update
P 3-24: DOE – COB 7 FTEs for Pledge Program, a voluntary effort
**• Local watershed control committee; Lake Whatcom Management Program adopted by 1992 Joint Resolution. This ID’ed 8 areas of focus, deferred 3 [Land Use, Stormwater, OSS] the important ones!
Instead, worked on Forest Practices, Spill Response, Conservation, Education, Data Management.
P 3-25: 1998 formalized Interlocal Agreement @ $375 K per year
• adopted Interlocal Agreement & published list of ‘accomplishments’
** p 3-29: Tabulated List of Existing Control Strategies & Ratings of their effectiveness. Note: these exclude laws, such as ESA, CWA, CAA, Federal WPCA, pesticide regs.
• Several Fold-out Spreadsheets list the above, with implementing agencies shown. Preponderance of work to be done by COB!
**P 3-30: Public ownership; DNR should keep forests; other avenues need exploring. Update for COB watershed Acquisitions
**• Restrict COB sewage amounts
p 3-31: Add COB; bought Chen & Denke [91 + 241 TDRs]; helped buy SV lots.
P 3-32: List COB actions! [Silver Beach Ord; SSWU; CAO; Land Acquisition; Narrow Street standards]
P 3-34: GMA; Landscape Plan; Land Acqusition –Private Forestry; fenced Anderson Creek; etc]
P 3-35: COB is doing its part!
P 3-36: COB is doing its part!
P 3-37: COB is doing its part & more! [BTV10, etc]
• Cop out! Legislative bodies have other things to do! Both COB & WC have Executive/Council forms of Govt. Neither Council had any input into this WSPP! This does need to change! [WD10 Commissioners had input!]
p 3-38: Recommended Control Strategies: COB & WD10 have limited abilities!?? Yes, because County has jurisdiction over most of it, and they need to do things too!
• ‘Water Purveyor Perspective’ 5,000 DU’s now + ???? more to come!
Potential for 7331 add’l DU’s, for total of 16,500 people! Update this!
• Residential paragraph – doubtful of effectiveness
• Commercial – only WC has the zoning stick!
P 3-39: Reaffirm that WC has responsibility!
**• Recreation plans need review for compatibility – encourage passive uses!
P 3-40: Recommended control policies currently being pursued
• all old news!
• what specifically has WD10 done? $?
• monitoring & assessing toxics; who does this, COB? $?
• Modeling Lake Whatcom; DOE has ever-elongated time frames – 6 ears later this still is not ready for use as a management tool. [16 years is allowed]
p 3-41: Plans for monitoring & updates; where are the ‘plans, procedures & schedules’?
• began discussions in 1990; in 1998 set up annual review, focus is on 1 year ahead?
P 3-42: WSPP update
• where is info between 2000 & 2005? Are we serious about meeting deadline with meaningful update?
• 2005 1st 6 months –COB & WD10 are to consolidate information –has this begun?
• 2005 last 6 months –weekly progress meetings –has this happened?
• Final Draft is to be submitted to the Lake Whatcom management Committee for THEIR approval – never goes to City Council? Why?
• Approved Draft plan to be submitted to State Dept of Health by Jan 1, 2006. Has this happened? If not, why not?
Section 4 – Monitoring Programs
P 4-1: Most monitoring by COB & WWU - $? Per year?
• some by WD10; DFW; DOE - $? Per year?
• routine tests - $? Per year?
• Water quality parameters tested – Table 4.1.2-1 – are these adequate, or just the minimum required?
P 4-2: Stormwater run-off monitoring – extent & who pays? Adequate?
P 4-3: Special monitoring; analysis of trends – what are major findings? Implications? What actions does this suggest? Where is expert interpretation? E.g. don’t correlations between giardia, cryptosporidium & fecal coliforms tell us something? Does treatment kill crypto? What are near-shore implications for swimming and other direct water contact recreation?
P 4-10: Oxygen depletion conditions; why are two different perspectives given? This seems a continuation of the dueling scientists that clearly showed basic disagreement between COB & WD10 during the discredited ENTRANCO Report. Does WD10 get to veto COB concerns?
P 4-11: Phosporus; again, why are two different perspectives given? This also seems a continuation of the dueling scientists that clearly showed basic disagreement between COB & WD10 during the discredited ENTRANCO Report. Does WD10 get to veto COB concerns? What about WC? Didn’t the Joint Council agree 2 years ago that Phosphorus was a top priority? This need serious updating of agreed policy!
P 4-11: Austin Creek; 58% of samples exceed fecal limits! What’s wrong with this picture? Can this ever get bad enough for WD10 to actually do something?
P 4-13: WWU monitoring; why are we even bothering to do this if we’re not willing to be guided by the trends? What happened to our agreed policy of prevention over cleaning up a bad mess? Are our laws so weak that we are stymied? Do we have the political will? Is ignorance by decision makers still an excuse? When will the situation be bad enough to force strong action? Seriously, we need more than just retreating lines in the shifting sand!
P 4-14: Near-shore; Bloedel-Donovan has high fecal & enterococcus counts. What implications does this have for continuing to have children swimming here? What about boats, cars & trailers? It will take more than a few life guards to fix this problem!
P 4-16: after storm events – high fecal, phosphorus & nitrogen concentrations. Summary says it very succinctly. Needs current update, especially for Basin 3. Identifies streams & constructed stormwater facilities as main problems!
P 4-17/18/19: Recommended Monitoring Improvements –Important!
• Hydrologic Model –Long Term predictive tool –when?
• Nutrient Transport Model [TMDL] – when? Why not set interim limits as adaptive management tool?
• Determine if P or N limited; why not control for both?
• Additional Sampling; to test validity? Will there ever be a time when more data is not needed? This paralysis by analysis is understandable, but not helpful in slowing or stopping or reversing negative trends!
• Additional Monitoring parameters; same comment as above. It’s good to improve tools, but don’t let ‘better’ get in the way of doing ‘good idea for until we know more’!
• Circulation Model; good idea, but why not just test for the existing conditions?
• Monitor BMPs for stormwater facilities; always good to monitor for results, but we already know which BMPs are likely to work best!
• Identify sources of pathogens; good idea! Hint, its mostly humans!
• Evaluate Y-Road landfill; isn’t this done? Has any mitigation resulted?
• DOE Toxics study follow up. Good idea, but not reason to delay action!
• Additional weather stations & gauges; necessary for proper data gathering to support Model(s) - isn’t this completed?
Section 5 – System Operation
• Mostly info that describes basics; could benefit from a narrative of how system could be reconfigured for better treatment results, including OOM cost estimates.
Section 6 – Appendices
Very information collection of existing policy, Interlocal Agreements, Ordinances & Operating procedures that give the foundation for why things are as they are.
• ORD 7775: Public Water Supply –to DOH in 1969
• Water Quality Report for 2000
• Staff Ranking Factors, developed to weight ‘Adverse Activities’ in Table 2.2-1
• Interlocal Agreement; COB/WC/WD10 [9/9/98] - Joint Lake Whatcom Management Program
• Interlocal Agreement; COB/WC [12/19/97] - Annexation – Very problematic! Among other things, this says COB adopts the Countywide Planning Policies. This was specifically rejected by COB in its recent Comp Plan!
• Interlocal Agreement; - Septic Systems [undated] – Dr Frank James
• Agreement; DNR & COB [3/5/85] – Forest management
• Interlocal Agreement; COB & WD7 [4/13/93] -
• Lake Whatcom RESERVOIR Management Program – 2000 [printed brochure with tasks listed in some detail]
• COB Public Works Data & Operating procedure
====================END===========================
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Water Source Protection Plan: Shelf Art or Management Tool?
The City of Bellingham was required by the Washington State Department of Health [DOH] to prepare a Water Source Protection Plan to help protect Lake Whatcom. This task was completed and issued -administratively- in April, 2000, and requires updating every six years thereafter. The City Council was never asked to review or adopt this Water Source Protection Plan, even though its preparation cost tens of thousands of dollars and required many hours of staff time. But, before the final draft was issued, both Whatcom County and Water District 10 were allowed to review this document, and delete sections they did not want in it! What is wrong with that picture? The City does the work on its nickel, allows other jurisdictions to gut the parts they don't like, and the document is simply issued - without City Council review or approval!
I believe this is a matter that the Council -and citizens- should be concerned about, because the WSPP represents a health mandated chance to set policy on a resource that has been one of the City's top priorities! The document that was issued does contain much valuable information that is useful, but the City missed out on having a much stronger WSPP that could also become a policy statement.
So, what happened in 2006, when the Water Source Protection Plan was scheduled for its six-year revision? Nothing. Not even the review and revision that the original plan clearly stated was to be accomplished! That time the Council caught it, and advised the administration that a full review and revision was expected. Next Wednesday, August 15, the Council will hold a special evening work session [6 to 8 PM] at which the Public Works Dept will present its proposed new WSPP. Since there has been no advance distribution of information for Council or public review, it is impossible to know what the PW preentation will entail. Perhaps, all will be revealed that was missing from the first Water Source Protection Plan, but that is doubtful.
Now, six years later -almost seven- we do know that our water quality situation has gotten worse, because of unprecedented new development that has happened over that time. If we could go back in time and establish the Water Source Protection Plan we needed then, would it have made any difference? Maybe not, but at least we would have had a chance!
Stay tuned to see the next exciting episode. Will we set a limit on impervious cover in the Lake Whatcom watershed? If so, will we enforce it?
-------------------------------------------------------
Here is a Herald Guest Column from March 9, 2002, entitled 'A Guide to Lake Whatcom Management ' which remains a potentially important tool to help us understand the causes of water degradation and how to set limits on them:
A recent publication from the Center for Watershed Protection [Watershed Protection Techniques, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 2001, pages 797-812] offers some timely and helpful advice for those concerned with protecting public water supplies. The referenced article reviews the current state of watershed practice in reservoirs, including some unique concerns facing reservoir managers, and summarizes a detailed survey of trends in watershed treatment practices used to protect 22 large water supply reservoirs in the U.S. - including our own Lake Whatcom. It concludes by recommending ways that watershed practices can be improved to meet ever-tighter drinking water standards, including the use of a Source Water Assessment Program to better integrate them into local watershed planning.
Impacts from watershed development on surface water supplies are a major concern, contributing heavily to such problems as: disinfection by-products; turbidity; pathogens (such as crytosporidium, giardia, and fecal coliforms); organic and inorganic chemicals (nutrients, pesticides, metals) and algae (which influences the taste and odor of drinking water). All of these impacts increase both treatment costs and the likelihood of public health alerts. Urban development also increases the risk of spills, leaks and accidents happening in the reservoir or its surrounding watershed.
What can be done to prevent these problems? Under the Safe Drinking Water Act - 1996 Amendments, each community must conduct a Source Water Assessment Program and use it to implement a Source Water Protection Plan. The survey results given are also helpful in comparing the effectiveness of various practices used in other reservoirs. For example, most localities rely upon a progressively stringent series of ordinances, regulations and zoning actions adopted over several decades, yet only 10 percent have instituted comprehensive watershed planning. This serious deficiency is attributed partly to the difficulty in coordinating planning efforts among multiple jurisdictions, and partly because of the historical disconnect between the water utilities responsible for meeting drinking water standards and the local government(s) responsible for regulating land-use change in the watershed.
The primary tools used in watershed planning and management are zoning, land conservation, shoreline/stream buffers and stewardship, with the latter encompassing education, spill response, monitoring and reservoir restrictions (90 percent prohibit swimming and use of gasoline engines).
Given the fact that water supplies have traditionally been heavily regulated due to public health concerns and increasingly stringent drinking water standards, it is surprising that only 10 percent of the reservoir watersheds studied have developed comprehensive watershed plans. Even more surprising is the finding that, despite anticipated future development in many watersheds, none have established a maximum upper limit on future development - the single worst enemy of watershed protection.
Other, typical watershed problems include concerns over long-term maintenance of storm water practices, septic systems and buffers, as well as failures in actually implementing practices in the field. The cumulative impact of inadequate staffing, waivers, infrequent inspections, poor design standards and limited enforcement all compromise the overall effectiveness of such programs, as does the lack of actual performance data.
While state and federal regulators clearly endorse a watershed approach for developing SWPPs, promoting stakeholder involvement and encouraging intergovernmental partnerships, they do not mandate that the cumulative impact of current or future watershed development be explicitly considered in the planning process. As a consequence, it is unlikely that many water providers will be able to develop fully effective watershed land-use plans, because both providers and regulators are reluctant to interfere with the land-use prerogatives of local governments.
Two specific recommendations are offered:
• Each SWAP should measure current watershed impervious cover, and forecast the amount of new impervious cover to be created over the next 20 to 30 years. If current or future impervious cover is expected to exceed 5 percent in the watershed, communities should adopt more stringent treatment practices for new development.
• If impervious cover is expected to exceed 10 percent in a watershed, then nine critical elements need inclusion in the SWPP: Watershed planning and management, watershed zoning, land conservation, shoreline and tributary buffers, better site design, erosion and sediment control, storm water treatment practices, wastewater management and watershed stewardship.
The referenced publication can be ordered online at www.cwp.org. Summaries are available at the City Council office.
I believe this is a matter that the Council -and citizens- should be concerned about, because the WSPP represents a health mandated chance to set policy on a resource that has been one of the City's top priorities! The document that was issued does contain much valuable information that is useful, but the City missed out on having a much stronger WSPP that could also become a policy statement.
So, what happened in 2006, when the Water Source Protection Plan was scheduled for its six-year revision? Nothing. Not even the review and revision that the original plan clearly stated was to be accomplished! That time the Council caught it, and advised the administration that a full review and revision was expected. Next Wednesday, August 15, the Council will hold a special evening work session [6 to 8 PM] at which the Public Works Dept will present its proposed new WSPP. Since there has been no advance distribution of information for Council or public review, it is impossible to know what the PW preentation will entail. Perhaps, all will be revealed that was missing from the first Water Source Protection Plan, but that is doubtful.
Now, six years later -almost seven- we do know that our water quality situation has gotten worse, because of unprecedented new development that has happened over that time. If we could go back in time and establish the Water Source Protection Plan we needed then, would it have made any difference? Maybe not, but at least we would have had a chance!
Stay tuned to see the next exciting episode. Will we set a limit on impervious cover in the Lake Whatcom watershed? If so, will we enforce it?
-------------------------------------------------------
Here is a Herald Guest Column from March 9, 2002, entitled 'A Guide to Lake Whatcom Management ' which remains a potentially important tool to help us understand the causes of water degradation and how to set limits on them:
A recent publication from the Center for Watershed Protection [Watershed Protection Techniques, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 2001, pages 797-812] offers some timely and helpful advice for those concerned with protecting public water supplies. The referenced article reviews the current state of watershed practice in reservoirs, including some unique concerns facing reservoir managers, and summarizes a detailed survey of trends in watershed treatment practices used to protect 22 large water supply reservoirs in the U.S. - including our own Lake Whatcom. It concludes by recommending ways that watershed practices can be improved to meet ever-tighter drinking water standards, including the use of a Source Water Assessment Program to better integrate them into local watershed planning.
Impacts from watershed development on surface water supplies are a major concern, contributing heavily to such problems as: disinfection by-products; turbidity; pathogens (such as crytosporidium, giardia, and fecal coliforms); organic and inorganic chemicals (nutrients, pesticides, metals) and algae (which influences the taste and odor of drinking water). All of these impacts increase both treatment costs and the likelihood of public health alerts. Urban development also increases the risk of spills, leaks and accidents happening in the reservoir or its surrounding watershed.
What can be done to prevent these problems? Under the Safe Drinking Water Act - 1996 Amendments, each community must conduct a Source Water Assessment Program and use it to implement a Source Water Protection Plan. The survey results given are also helpful in comparing the effectiveness of various practices used in other reservoirs. For example, most localities rely upon a progressively stringent series of ordinances, regulations and zoning actions adopted over several decades, yet only 10 percent have instituted comprehensive watershed planning. This serious deficiency is attributed partly to the difficulty in coordinating planning efforts among multiple jurisdictions, and partly because of the historical disconnect between the water utilities responsible for meeting drinking water standards and the local government(s) responsible for regulating land-use change in the watershed.
The primary tools used in watershed planning and management are zoning, land conservation, shoreline/stream buffers and stewardship, with the latter encompassing education, spill response, monitoring and reservoir restrictions (90 percent prohibit swimming and use of gasoline engines).
Given the fact that water supplies have traditionally been heavily regulated due to public health concerns and increasingly stringent drinking water standards, it is surprising that only 10 percent of the reservoir watersheds studied have developed comprehensive watershed plans. Even more surprising is the finding that, despite anticipated future development in many watersheds, none have established a maximum upper limit on future development - the single worst enemy of watershed protection.
Other, typical watershed problems include concerns over long-term maintenance of storm water practices, septic systems and buffers, as well as failures in actually implementing practices in the field. The cumulative impact of inadequate staffing, waivers, infrequent inspections, poor design standards and limited enforcement all compromise the overall effectiveness of such programs, as does the lack of actual performance data.
While state and federal regulators clearly endorse a watershed approach for developing SWPPs, promoting stakeholder involvement and encouraging intergovernmental partnerships, they do not mandate that the cumulative impact of current or future watershed development be explicitly considered in the planning process. As a consequence, it is unlikely that many water providers will be able to develop fully effective watershed land-use plans, because both providers and regulators are reluctant to interfere with the land-use prerogatives of local governments.
Two specific recommendations are offered:
• Each SWAP should measure current watershed impervious cover, and forecast the amount of new impervious cover to be created over the next 20 to 30 years. If current or future impervious cover is expected to exceed 5 percent in the watershed, communities should adopt more stringent treatment practices for new development.
• If impervious cover is expected to exceed 10 percent in a watershed, then nine critical elements need inclusion in the SWPP: Watershed planning and management, watershed zoning, land conservation, shoreline and tributary buffers, better site design, erosion and sediment control, storm water treatment practices, wastewater management and watershed stewardship.
The referenced publication can be ordered online at www.cwp.org. Summaries are available at the City Council office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
