Parks and More Important Things
Parks and More Important Things
It’s been an interesting week for watershed watchers. The growing Squalicum community chose to continue the fight to stop Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District’s expansion plans. And Ecology finally d
It's been an interesting week for watershed watchers. The growing Squalicum community chose to continue the fight to stop Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District's expansion plans. And Ecology finally delivered their TMDL study of the lake.
It remains to be seen if Bellingham and environmental groups will be shaken by Ecology's report and join the cause in stopping conversion of undeveloped land in the watershed to more suburban enclaves.
While it probably surprised few that the Squalicum group refused to accept the reheated decision of Whatcom county's Hearing Examiner, to allow the water district to carry on with their plans to expand urban water services in the watershed, Squalicum's legal efforts over the last two years may now come to be seen in a different light, given the grave findings of Ecology regarding the impact of development around Lake Whatcom.
It should be noted that the burden of these court actions has been shared by some 170 supporters, many not even from Squalicum Valley. But many are residents of the valley and landowners in the watershed whose holdings could easily be subdivided.
They could steal water from the Squalicum aquifer recharging the lake to build with so called exempt wells. Or their water association could ignore the law and provide water for that development. The water association could sneak water for new residences even though the aquifer is closed to additional withdrawals. That's what LWW&SD does.
But even before Ecology made it official, most understood it would be wrong. Now we are beginning to see how wrong.
As a group Squalicum's supporters have received a lot of criticism. The leaders have been ridiculed by elected officials and environmental and political activists alike. But notwithstanding the bullying, they have born up and hewed to their principles; stopping development that threatens resource lands and will irreversibly damage the watershed and the rural character of the place.
In addition to angry developers, who object to Squalicum's tactical use of water law to control growth, though the association has not taken an official position, a great deal of animosity has been directed at them because some criticized the county's proposal to create an 8,400 acre park in the commercial forestry zone of the watershed.
Of course they are characterized as selfish NIMBYs only interested in protecting their privileged lifestyles. We often reflect on these "privileges" when dragging a garbage can a block to the road, or mucking out stalls, turning compost and protecting gardens from ravenous bunnies.
Proponents of developing a park in the watershed have advanced the theory that stopping timber harvesting in some 3,000 acres of forest at the end of the lake is critical to protecting the water quality in the reservoir. They say the area to be reconveyed will be the “crown jewel” in the county's park system. Pete Kremen says, "its a bargain much like the Louisiana Purchase.”
The criticism has been that the park will have little, if any, effect itself on protecting the water quality of the lake, but may instead have a deleterious effect as a result of increased public use, and stimulation of residential, resort and recreational development in the watershed.
And, anticipating the enormous cost of remedial action to deal with the primary problem, development, critics feel the expense of establishing and maintaining a park in the watershed is an unreasonable use of limited financial resources.
Thursday morning Ecology met to brief city and county staff on the long awaited report determining the total maximum daily load of pollutants that could be allowed into the lake without continuing its downward spiral, inconsistent with the Clean Water Act.
It's clear from reading the report that residential development in the watershed, and associated human activity, is unquestionably and overwhelmingly the most significant source of these pollutants. It's also clear that we face decades of work and millions and millions of dollars in costs.
Forestry activities were hardly mentioned in the report. This seemed to prompt someone from the county to ask what effect stopping the logging on this land they intend to take back from the state would have in protecting water quality or reversing the degradation of the lake.
Ecology's answer was simple and direct. It would be inconsequential.
And so it goes. I'm sure that Ecology's position will be attacked by a county administration forever in denial and for ever more development; as well as park crazed environmentalists operating on blind faith. I expect Squalicum's supporters will soldier on trying to make sense and oppose nonsense.
But the legal fight to get the water district under control (inspite of all the talk about the city taking them over) is far from ended. Over the next several months Squalicum's supporters will be called on again to meet the costs of appealing this egregious county decision, first to the county council and then, most likely, to the Superior court.
The manager of the water district has made it clear that they intend to put in lines to connect the water systems of Opal Terrace, Agate Heights and the Residential Treatment Center to additional reservoirs at North Shore Estates and pump water out of the Squalicum aquifer to build out North Shore Estates and Eagle Ride and connect every platted lot along the way.
Who is going to step forward and challenge their right to do this? Do not assume someone else will stop the county and the water district, or that they'll admit their sins and repent.
In spite of acknowledging the need for oxygen rich recharge to the lake, don't expect Ecology to stop the water district from unlawfully taking water from the lake for new development.
It is imperative that we prevail in court and stop the water district from expanding their water system and promoting development on the north shore to match what has happened on the other side of the lake.
I still think the park proposal's got more to do with the plans for long term development than any effort for protection of the watershed. At best it's a nice idea we can't afford.
Or it's another effort, like green energy from Alaska, to seem concerned while really just continuing business as usual.
We can be distracted by the county's proposal for a park, or stop more development in the watershed and start fixing the damage already done. We can't afford both.
You can help.
Contributions to the fund financing the litigation opposing the water district expansion can be sent to: Squalicum Valley Community Association, c/o Darlene Rethlefsen, Treasurer, 2300 Queen Street, Bellingham, WA, 98225.
It remains to be seen if Bellingham and environmental groups will be shaken by Ecology's report and join the cause in stopping conversion of undeveloped land in the watershed to more suburban enclaves.
While it probably surprised few that the Squalicum group refused to accept the reheated decision of Whatcom county's Hearing Examiner, to allow the water district to carry on with their plans to expand urban water services in the watershed, Squalicum's legal efforts over the last two years may now come to be seen in a different light, given the grave findings of Ecology regarding the impact of development around Lake Whatcom.
It should be noted that the burden of these court actions has been shared by some 170 supporters, many not even from Squalicum Valley. But many are residents of the valley and landowners in the watershed whose holdings could easily be subdivided.
They could steal water from the Squalicum aquifer recharging the lake to build with so called exempt wells. Or their water association could ignore the law and provide water for that development. The water association could sneak water for new residences even though the aquifer is closed to additional withdrawals. That's what LWW&SD does.
But even before Ecology made it official, most understood it would be wrong. Now we are beginning to see how wrong.
As a group Squalicum's supporters have received a lot of criticism. The leaders have been ridiculed by elected officials and environmental and political activists alike. But notwithstanding the bullying, they have born up and hewed to their principles; stopping development that threatens resource lands and will irreversibly damage the watershed and the rural character of the place.
In addition to angry developers, who object to Squalicum's tactical use of water law to control growth, though the association has not taken an official position, a great deal of animosity has been directed at them because some criticized the county's proposal to create an 8,400 acre park in the commercial forestry zone of the watershed.
Of course they are characterized as selfish NIMBYs only interested in protecting their privileged lifestyles. We often reflect on these "privileges" when dragging a garbage can a block to the road, or mucking out stalls, turning compost and protecting gardens from ravenous bunnies.
Proponents of developing a park in the watershed have advanced the theory that stopping timber harvesting in some 3,000 acres of forest at the end of the lake is critical to protecting the water quality in the reservoir. They say the area to be reconveyed will be the “crown jewel” in the county's park system. Pete Kremen says, "its a bargain much like the Louisiana Purchase.”
The criticism has been that the park will have little, if any, effect itself on protecting the water quality of the lake, but may instead have a deleterious effect as a result of increased public use, and stimulation of residential, resort and recreational development in the watershed.
And, anticipating the enormous cost of remedial action to deal with the primary problem, development, critics feel the expense of establishing and maintaining a park in the watershed is an unreasonable use of limited financial resources.
Thursday morning Ecology met to brief city and county staff on the long awaited report determining the total maximum daily load of pollutants that could be allowed into the lake without continuing its downward spiral, inconsistent with the Clean Water Act.
It's clear from reading the report that residential development in the watershed, and associated human activity, is unquestionably and overwhelmingly the most significant source of these pollutants. It's also clear that we face decades of work and millions and millions of dollars in costs.
Forestry activities were hardly mentioned in the report. This seemed to prompt someone from the county to ask what effect stopping the logging on this land they intend to take back from the state would have in protecting water quality or reversing the degradation of the lake.
Ecology's answer was simple and direct. It would be inconsequential.
And so it goes. I'm sure that Ecology's position will be attacked by a county administration forever in denial and for ever more development; as well as park crazed environmentalists operating on blind faith. I expect Squalicum's supporters will soldier on trying to make sense and oppose nonsense.
But the legal fight to get the water district under control (inspite of all the talk about the city taking them over) is far from ended. Over the next several months Squalicum's supporters will be called on again to meet the costs of appealing this egregious county decision, first to the county council and then, most likely, to the Superior court.
The manager of the water district has made it clear that they intend to put in lines to connect the water systems of Opal Terrace, Agate Heights and the Residential Treatment Center to additional reservoirs at North Shore Estates and pump water out of the Squalicum aquifer to build out North Shore Estates and Eagle Ride and connect every platted lot along the way.
Who is going to step forward and challenge their right to do this? Do not assume someone else will stop the county and the water district, or that they'll admit their sins and repent.
In spite of acknowledging the need for oxygen rich recharge to the lake, don't expect Ecology to stop the water district from unlawfully taking water from the lake for new development.
It is imperative that we prevail in court and stop the water district from expanding their water system and promoting development on the north shore to match what has happened on the other side of the lake.
I still think the park proposal's got more to do with the plans for long term development than any effort for protection of the watershed. At best it's a nice idea we can't afford.
Or it's another effort, like green energy from Alaska, to seem concerned while really just continuing business as usual.
We can be distracted by the county's proposal for a park, or stop more development in the watershed and start fixing the damage already done. We can't afford both.
You can help.
Contributions to the fund financing the litigation opposing the water district expansion can be sent to: Squalicum Valley Community Association, c/o Darlene Rethlefsen, Treasurer, 2300 Queen Street, Bellingham, WA, 98225.
2 Comments