Some potentially big news is flying under the radar.  The city of Bellingham plans to provide water to Lynden in exchange for the right to withdraw city water from Lynden's water diversion/intake facility on the Nooksack River.  The City Council agenda for this Monday reflects a proposed memorandum of understanding (MOU) between  Bellingham and Lynden.  The MOU is stated to be "conceptual" instead of a binding contract, whatever that means. (But I am guessing it means that in the near future the admistration will show up with a proposed binding contract, stating that it has already been through the public process and has been blessed by the public.)

And here is the best part.... COB has no need for this access.  It is part of a plan to "establish redunancy in the delivery system," in case some need arises in the future, although there is no explanation as to how or why this would occur.  Here is the council agenda for August 12.  

The MOU provides the city administration with its usual unlimited and unchecked power.  In return for use of Lynden's water diversion/intake facility, the city will provide "an annual quantity of untreated water (Qa) for a negotiated period of time under the terms set forth in a Future Agreement."  In terms of "concept," I would say this one is either undeveloped or undisclosed.  City Council should require objective terms and identified water quantities before this "concept" moves forward.

Few things are more valuable in this city and in this county than water, and its value will only increase over time. There is insufficient water to meet growing demands in Whatcom County.  Most county surface waters are closed to new withdrawal, at least for part of the year.  Lummi water rights in the Nooksack River remain unquantified.  And Lake Whtacom water quality issues are connected to water quantity issues, while the lake is already infested with Asian clams and under threat from mussels.  How do we know we are adequately protecting the city's supply of water?

And how wise is it to exchange water for unneeded water diversion sites? On Monday, the council will also be reviewing a MOU between COB and Public Utility District, No. 1.  In this case, the city will be obtaining access to the PUD property and diversion structure by funding the full cost of improvements and maintenance (for an undisclosed sum of money).  I question the need and the public expense, but at least it is not being paid for in water. 

We also need to consider how the Lynden MOU will impact county growth. Lynden lacks adequate water to meet future demands based on the growth it will be requesting during the 2016 County Comp. Plan update. I want issues of water supply and water availability to be determined comprehensively at the county level, rather than through private deals cut between two cities. The MOU states that it offers potential solutions for regional water supply issues, but how is this the role of the city of Bellingham?  If Bellingham is giving away its water, I would rather it supported agricultural uses instead of new urban residential housing in other cities.