Remember Lake Whatcom?

Permalink +

Mon, Dec 29, 2008, 11:13 am  //  g.h.kirsch

Username

Password

Forgot your password? | Register

At the risk of displeasing friend and foe alike, may I ask what has been accomplished this past year to fix Lake Whatcom and protect Bellingham's water supply? The answer, candidly, is little or nothing. Oh perhaps some new focus groups were created. How many does that give us now?

With the most at stake, you'd have thought Bellingham would have thrown more at it. A year ago, the incoming administration identified the health of the Lake Whatcom reservoir as one of the most critical issues to be addressed. And at least the new mayor seemed to understand that ever increasing human activity in the watershed, residential growth (and the continued interception of oxygen rich groundwater to serve that growth) were the forces driving the reservoir to destruction.

And shortly thereafter the Department of Ecology published their study fundamentally confirming the relationship between residential development and the declining lake. Notwithstanding the seriousness of Ecology's appraisal and recommendations, after years in production, the report hardly surprised anyone who thought honestly about the situation and understood the sad history of policy in the watershed.

For a short while Bellingham actually opposed the county's determination to interpret its comprehensive plan and regulations to allow the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District to extend and expand water service throughout the rural watershed and facilitate still more development.

But then there was a change of direction. The city abandoned the action that could have corrected the erroneous interpretation of county code and stopped the water district's expansion on the north shore. They believed they could take over, merge, or somehow control the water district's policies instead.

The foremost proponent of this approach was the Director of Public Works. With his support, the city allowed the water district to complete the improvements the city had earlier opposed; and position the water district to use these expanded capabilities to service several thousand new residences on the north shore. Perhaps he was preoccupied with finding more profitable employment and forgot the ostensible reason for the takeover. Or maybe he really thought more growth, more water lines and sewers and more treatment plants were the answer. In any case, he's destined for the City of Destiny now.

In August, the county executive, the mayor and Steve Hood, the writer of Ecology's report, took the stage before a packed house at the City Club, who assembled to learn the implications of the state's study and hear the specific plans of the county and city to right this situation. In one of the more poignant political moments locally of late, Pete Kremen, embarking on his usual rambling odyssey of platitudes, was shouted down by the crowd, who demanded in one voice he get specific. To no avail. I'm sure retirement took on a new and more attractive perspective for our indefatigable campaigner.

Mayor Pike, better able to discern the audience's interest in more than mere words, laid out for the gathered several initiatives already underway down at City Hall. And if only by comparison, he sounded pretty good. Of course central was the negotiations to bring the water district under the influence of the city and convert its program from destruction to protection of the watershed and the reservoir.

The mayor also told the audience, and Mr. Hood, that the city would soon be petitioning Ecology for a clear policy in the watershed that would preclude future interception of groundwater by un-permitted wells to support otherwise impossible development projects.

So, where are we now? Nowhere. The county permissiveness continues unabated. The county council is too intimidated to even take up the issue and address the policy of allowing urban water systems to be extended into rural areas. And, believe it or not, the county has even chosen to look the other way while the water district shamelessly ignores the law and proposes to provide sewer service for watershed developers. (Thankfully, Bellingham has challenged this county policy.)

The county's answer to protecting the reservoir seems to be increasing tourism and recreation on it and its watershed by converting forest lands into parks. Nearby land owners who hoped for such a change are already at work developing plans for more residential growth around the lake when the market allows. Asked to declare a moratorium on building in the watershed, the county declined. And the county still will not acknowledge that their acceptance of un-permitted wells as a source of water is contrary to the law in a basin where Ecology could not permit new wells.

And of course we all know that there will be no change at the water district. The city will not be absorbing the district and will not be requiring they temper their perceived “duty to serve” with their greater duty not to harm Lake Whatcom. And Bellingham's acquiescence during the pre nuptial bliss has paved the way for the water district to continue its ravage of the watershed. (Thank you Dick)

Bellingham did institute a largely symbolic building moratorium in their small portion of the watershed. But even little steps are steps. The city ducked though, and backed away from the idea of a full environmental analysis of the county's park plan before the county began the process that will stimulate increased activity and development in the watershed.

And the city has no known plans to challenge the county again on the extension of urban water service outside areas designated for urban growth. In spite of the mayor's warning to Ecology during his statement at the City Club, there hasn't been any request that Ecology declare the Lake Whatcom watershed a closed basin, ending the acceptance of un-permitted wells around the reservoir as a sufficient source of water to build.

I believe remediation and protection of Lake Whatcom are the hostage of political intimidation and cowardice. Key legislators have come under the influence of a building industry lobby that understands too well that reasonable enforcement of water law would be the end to their abuse of the public. The saddest example of this was the passage of a law that redefined developers as municipalities and allowed them to hoard unused water rights and increase their use of water even where public waters and fish populations were suffering. Ruled unconstitutional, these folks are still hoping the state Supreme Court will see it differently.

With that lobby's support, those politicians gain more influence. And of course we have our own local examples; little foxes manipulating zoning for their own hen houses.

But the real cowardice is probably driven by fear of well heeled special interests, landowners, speculators and developers who are substantial campaign contributors and influential in the selection of candidates for local office. The real shame is that this is so clearly a conflict between the public's and private interests. There should be no confusion about the duty of the elected.

On the one hand, you have a few loudly proclaiming for their property rights; hang the public if this mean the destruction of the lake. On the other, you have the many largely not paying attention, maybe even swayed by the rhetoric of the few. So you have the elected, intimidated by the power of the few, realizing the majority don't get it or aren't that interested, playing it safe. Let's not look like we're doing nothing, but let's not stir up trouble for ourselves come re-election.

The fact is, there is a clear and significant distinction between property rights and water rights. All of our state's waters belong to the public, and all of our public officials have a duty to protect them. The body of water law is all based on the principle that the use of water shall not damage the public interest. There is no right to take the public's water away from an earlier use. Developers and water districts can't hoard water rights. And where the protection of our lakes, streams and rivers is inadequate, or where our fishery resources are threatened, water is not available for new or increased use for developers. Where the abuse of the public's interest entails destroying the very water source the abusers exploit, ignorance and self interest are confused and compounded.

There can not be a property right to develop where there can be no right to use the public's water. No one can demonstrate a right to intercept the water needed to sustain the reservoir.

So who will champion a real effort, not just another committee or panel, to stop the damage to the watershed and protect the lake? Will it be Pete Kremen? Will it be Dan Pike? The city council? The county council? Well it won't be Ecology, sua sponte. Somebody's got to take the initiative. Until they do, let's not hear any more platitudes from these elected officials on how critical they feel it is.

Now that the great hope of controlling the water district has been dashed on the rocks of reality, may I humbly suggest that Bellingham again get out in front and lead the legal effort to enforce laws that will save the lake. Opposition to the extension of sewers is welcome, but only the restriction of water service will stop the residential growth that has been identified as the problem.

Or, of course, we can just talk about it some more.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---