Joint City-County Lake Whatcom Advisory Committee
Joint City-County Lake Whatcom Advisory Committee
Starting in the mid-eighties, when I was on the City Council, I sat on the original Joint City-County Lake Whatcom Advisory Committee, comprised of elected officials from both City and County as well
Starting in the mid-eighties, when I was on the City Council, I sat on the original Joint City-County Lake Whatcom Advisory Committee, comprised of elected officials from both City and County as well as stakeholders from the community. We had the original Lake Whatcom Management Plan - really a menu of possible management strategies - to plow through and from which to make recommendations.
Talk about talk! It wasn't long before I was making the same motion every meeting: Before we waste a lot more time, let's decide if we want to 1) do the best possible job, 2) make a middlin' sort of effort or, 3) do the best possible job of protecting water quality. Never could get a second for that motion. Imagine that.
Times were different. Believe it or not, the City's public Works Director at the time, Jack Garner, would actually use the Mississippi River as an example of why additional treatment was a realistic alternative to protection.
True, a multi-jurisdictional approach is needed, but mainly because land use regulation on the lake must be integrated. The Councils' could already take care of that. They should have a long time ago.
The so-called "problem" with the lake is not so complex as it is made out. It is a simple matter of determining what uses of the watershed are reasonable and amending the land use code accordingly. A couple more regulations consistent with a determination of reasonable uses of the lake and voila!
The real problem is that once you put housing and water skiing at the top of the list of reasonable uses, you're going to have long discussions about adding pure drinking water.
I wouldn't start griping about the costs just yet, though. This is nothing. The real need for such a bureaucracy is to justify and sanction spreading the cost of solutions across the community. For instance, the cost of shoreline intercepts and facilities to capture and treat polluted storm water ought to be assessed to the properties creating the problem. More likely, it will end up a general tax obligation. Same goes with septic replacement programs, etc.
Don't get me wrong. I support any effort to save the lake, but like any government initiative, citizens ought to be wary.
Talk about talk! It wasn't long before I was making the same motion every meeting: Before we waste a lot more time, let's decide if we want to 1) do the best possible job, 2) make a middlin' sort of effort or, 3) do the best possible job of protecting water quality. Never could get a second for that motion. Imagine that.
Times were different. Believe it or not, the City's public Works Director at the time, Jack Garner, would actually use the Mississippi River as an example of why additional treatment was a realistic alternative to protection.
True, a multi-jurisdictional approach is needed, but mainly because land use regulation on the lake must be integrated. The Councils' could already take care of that. They should have a long time ago.
The so-called "problem" with the lake is not so complex as it is made out. It is a simple matter of determining what uses of the watershed are reasonable and amending the land use code accordingly. A couple more regulations consistent with a determination of reasonable uses of the lake and voila!
The real problem is that once you put housing and water skiing at the top of the list of reasonable uses, you're going to have long discussions about adding pure drinking water.
I wouldn't start griping about the costs just yet, though. This is nothing. The real need for such a bureaucracy is to justify and sanction spreading the cost of solutions across the community. For instance, the cost of shoreline intercepts and facilities to capture and treat polluted storm water ought to be assessed to the properties creating the problem. More likely, it will end up a general tax obligation. Same goes with septic replacement programs, etc.
Don't get me wrong. I support any effort to save the lake, but like any government initiative, citizens ought to be wary.
