Let’s Drink to Pete and Jay!
Let’s Drink to Pete and Jay!
With all due reverence for Messrs Jefferson and Reagan, a government that governs less is not always a government that governs best. Consider Ecology’s performance the last twenty some years. And loo
With all due reverence for Messrs Jefferson and Reagan, a government that governs less is not always a government that governs best. Consider Ecology's performance the last twenty some years. And look at Whatcom County's efforts this past decade. In particular let's consider their part in facilitating sprawling low density development in Whatcom county and around Bellingham's reservoir, Lake Whatcom.
We have repeatedly been shown that the water quality of the lake is deteriorating. As it does, the cost of treating Bellingham's drinking water increases; but more importantly the treated water's safety becomes more dubious, no matter how it tastes.
We have also been told that the primary reason, far and away the largest cause of this deterioration, is residential development in the reservoir's watershed; not forestry practices, not recreational uses on the lake, and not people walking their dogs.
This development is brought to you by your Whatcom county government and Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District, with the necessary cooperation of the Washington State Department of Ecology.
There is no building without proof of an adequate water supply. There wouldn't be this relentless residential development in the watershed without Ecology choosing not to update their rules and practices to stay abreast of developments in our water laws.
Ecology is charged with determining that water is in fact available for appropriation before allowing a new withdrawal. Before a well can be drilled, Ecology must confirm that water may be withdrawn from the proposed location.
The Administrative Code that Ecology is to follow provides guidelines intended to facilitate further development of our water resources “to the extent of their availability for further appropriation.”
Amongst other things, “where appropriate,” Ecology is to establish criteria for limits beyond which further appropriation will not be made; identify streams closed to further appropriation to protect salmon; and withdraw waters from additional appropriation when sufficient information is lacking to make sound decisions.
Ecology has closed Whatcom Creek and Lake Whatcom year round to new withdrawals. The courts ruled years ago that where surface waters are restricted, groundwater withdrawals that would even affect those surface waters “molecularly” are not allowed; that the same restrictions applied to the surface waters are applicable to groundwater that is tributary to a lake, river or stream.
The Administrative Code even specifically states that no exemption is to be allowed for even “otherwise exempted single domestic uses” from Whatcom Creek. Well, the entire watershed is tributary to the lake and the creek, and according to the court, then subject to the same restriction.
But what is Ecology's response? They interpret the rule only to mean that surface water withdrawals are restricted. They continue to allow wells to draw the water from the aquifers that feed the lake and the creek. Do they have information that would show that these withdrawals do not affect the lake?
But it gets better (or worse depending on your perspective.)
The Washington Supreme Court has unequivocally determined that until you put water to actual beneficial use, you do not establish a right to use it. If in the interim water becomes unavailable, new withdrawals should cease. The court ruled that Ecology's historical practice of granting water rights, (as they have to Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District) before beneficial use was demonstrated, is unlawful.
But Ecology has not notified the holders of such worthless paper rights that new withdrawals from surface water and tributary groundwaters closed to preserve stream flows are unlawful. Do they know something the rest of us don't, or are they just blindly plowing on without “sufficient information to make sound decisions.”
And of course, Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District, with really no right to make new withdrawals from the lake or its tributary aquifers, merrily continues to enter into agreements with developers to further destroy the watershed. And the county Health Department continues to allow building and subdivision in the watershed based on “exempt single domestic uses” that will take water meant for the lake and the creek.
Just business as usual. Well, perhaps government that governs least does govern best. But government that doesn't govern at all is little more than anarchy. But what a splendidly profitable anarchy it is for some.
Apparently this is nothing new though. Sophocles wrote of his contempt for the governor who failed to follow the course he knew was best for the state, and had no use “for the man who sets private friendship above the public welfare.” Whether friendship or political relations, what's the difference.
So Bellinghamers, as your water bills rise, and the quality of your water declines, when even your use of this crappy water is restricted, be sure and send your thanks to Mr. Manning in Olympia. You can share your gratitude with Mr. Kremen too.
They are the ones defending these practices. They're not doing anything for you!
We have repeatedly been shown that the water quality of the lake is deteriorating. As it does, the cost of treating Bellingham's drinking water increases; but more importantly the treated water's safety becomes more dubious, no matter how it tastes.
We have also been told that the primary reason, far and away the largest cause of this deterioration, is residential development in the reservoir's watershed; not forestry practices, not recreational uses on the lake, and not people walking their dogs.
This development is brought to you by your Whatcom county government and Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District, with the necessary cooperation of the Washington State Department of Ecology.
There is no building without proof of an adequate water supply. There wouldn't be this relentless residential development in the watershed without Ecology choosing not to update their rules and practices to stay abreast of developments in our water laws.
Ecology is charged with determining that water is in fact available for appropriation before allowing a new withdrawal. Before a well can be drilled, Ecology must confirm that water may be withdrawn from the proposed location.
The Administrative Code that Ecology is to follow provides guidelines intended to facilitate further development of our water resources “to the extent of their availability for further appropriation.”
Amongst other things, “where appropriate,” Ecology is to establish criteria for limits beyond which further appropriation will not be made; identify streams closed to further appropriation to protect salmon; and withdraw waters from additional appropriation when sufficient information is lacking to make sound decisions.
Ecology has closed Whatcom Creek and Lake Whatcom year round to new withdrawals. The courts ruled years ago that where surface waters are restricted, groundwater withdrawals that would even affect those surface waters “molecularly” are not allowed; that the same restrictions applied to the surface waters are applicable to groundwater that is tributary to a lake, river or stream.
The Administrative Code even specifically states that no exemption is to be allowed for even “otherwise exempted single domestic uses” from Whatcom Creek. Well, the entire watershed is tributary to the lake and the creek, and according to the court, then subject to the same restriction.
But what is Ecology's response? They interpret the rule only to mean that surface water withdrawals are restricted. They continue to allow wells to draw the water from the aquifers that feed the lake and the creek. Do they have information that would show that these withdrawals do not affect the lake?
But it gets better (or worse depending on your perspective.)
The Washington Supreme Court has unequivocally determined that until you put water to actual beneficial use, you do not establish a right to use it. If in the interim water becomes unavailable, new withdrawals should cease. The court ruled that Ecology's historical practice of granting water rights, (as they have to Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District) before beneficial use was demonstrated, is unlawful.
But Ecology has not notified the holders of such worthless paper rights that new withdrawals from surface water and tributary groundwaters closed to preserve stream flows are unlawful. Do they know something the rest of us don't, or are they just blindly plowing on without “sufficient information to make sound decisions.”
And of course, Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District, with really no right to make new withdrawals from the lake or its tributary aquifers, merrily continues to enter into agreements with developers to further destroy the watershed. And the county Health Department continues to allow building and subdivision in the watershed based on “exempt single domestic uses” that will take water meant for the lake and the creek.
Just business as usual. Well, perhaps government that governs least does govern best. But government that doesn't govern at all is little more than anarchy. But what a splendidly profitable anarchy it is for some.
Apparently this is nothing new though. Sophocles wrote of his contempt for the governor who failed to follow the course he knew was best for the state, and had no use “for the man who sets private friendship above the public welfare.” Whether friendship or political relations, what's the difference.
So Bellinghamers, as your water bills rise, and the quality of your water declines, when even your use of this crappy water is restricted, be sure and send your thanks to Mr. Manning in Olympia. You can share your gratitude with Mr. Kremen too.
They are the ones defending these practices. They're not doing anything for you!
2 Comments