Well done, Greg.  Thank you.  As always, political courage is at a premium.  Let’s see if any of our leaders step up to the plate.

Greg,

I also appreciate the thoughts and the conclusions, my only question is the analysis of the effect of special interests on the process.  I suspect that Councilmembers Kelly, Weimer, Fleetwood, Caskey-Schrieber, and almost everyone on the Bellingham city council would take exception to the comments on special interests donations.  Yes, developers and the building industry do give a lot of money to local politicians, but very little of that goes towards the people that have majority control over both city and county. 

I suspect that what we are seeing is the issue if far more complex than maybe we believe it is.  Making campaign promises is one thing; actually doing something is much different.  It is easy for people like us to stand on the sidelines and make editorial comments on how little is happening, but when faced with the actual constraints in dealing with Lake Whatcom progress is much more difficult.  You are balancing many different ?cooks in kitchen?, plus funding issues, plus existing regulatory requirements, plus many potential solutions, each tainted by various viewpoints of concern.  The amount of work and effort required to bulldoze your way through all of that is tremendous. 

I also do not want to absolve our local elected officials, as they do have ultimate responsibility for solving the problems, and they all said during their campaign that it was important.  At some point someone is going to have to step up and spend the time, energy and passion to just get it done.  I do not doubt that our elected officials would like to fix the problem; my criticism of them is I do not think any of them are willing to really spend the time, energy and passion to actually do it.

Craig,

I agree with your observation that elected officials - particularly city and county council members ?need to invest more time and energy on our drinking water issues.  Unfortunately, council members get paid to work essentially a day or so each week.  Considering the complex challenges facing Bellingham and Whatcom County, it may be time to elect full time council members.  The need for full-timers should not be based on the absolute size of a municipality.  A more relevant consideration just might be the rate of growth being experienced.

Larry,

The time factor of them being only very part time as county and city council members certainly plays a role.  I thought of bring that issue up in my post, but could not find a clean way to do it.  I think having full-time members would help, but you still have to have the intangible leadership skills and passion to get it done so I still think you need to have the right person in the right role, and I am not sure we have that yet (although Carl Weimer would be the best chance we have).

Craig

Greg,

Thanks for your excellent observations and assessment.  I’m currently visiting my old stomping grounds in Austin, Texas.  Since I left Austin a dozen years ago, this mostly progressive part of Texas has managed to urbanize a couple of hundred square miles of lake district and aquifers. As in Bellingham, I don’t detect any outrage here about the shortage of fresh water, increased runoff and increased flood danger as a result of that urbanization. 

So where is the outrage about promises unkept?  Where is the report card from our elected ones on how they have served us over the last year?  Is it possible that we the voters got just what we wanted?  It might seem so since there is not a lot of evident progress, and there are no howling mobs carrying torches outside of city hall and county council chambers. 

Is it possible that our culture has become so “don’t rock the boat” in attitude that we will put up with just about any ill action or incompetence from public OR private sectors?  Yep, I think we voted for ourselves and that’s just what we got.

Thanks again,
Ham

Craig,

Again, I agree.  Our electeds need leadership skills and passion to overcome the challenges we face as a community.  But they also need to be rewarded for making the kind of time commitment necessary to tackle these problems head-on.  I believe we have already elected a number of council members in both Bellingham and Whatcom County who qualify - and many of them already make a substantial time commitment.  But we need qualified council members in every seat, and we need to fairly compensate them to adequately address these issues.  I believe that until we do, we?ll never be able to hold them accountable.  Are we ready for full time councils?

There is one unintended consequence of full-time politicians that should be highlighted.  If a current council member loses an election, no big deal they still have their other job.  If a full-time politician loses an election, then they have to find another job.  If we move everyone to full-time then when elections do come around the stakes are much higher and therefore the need for special interest money may go up as well.  This discussion creates the catch 22 of politics.  You need time to solve problems which drives you to full-time politicians, but full-time politicians are more desperate to keep their job and may more closely align themselves with special interests.  As we have learned, politicians, like CEO’s, are human too and may seek out their own best interests before that of the people that elect them (you can insert many names from both parties as examples).

In more ways than one, you get what you pay for.

Thank you all for your additions and observations. 

For my part, though you’d think that the so called gang of four on the county council, and all those liberal/progressive types elected to the city council, would just put their boots to the two executive’s asses, for some reason they don’t.  And it ain’t because they’re part-timers.

We already have full time politicians in those executive positions, and they have numerous departments sucking down tax dollars already.

All I’m hoping is they will take an initial, simple step and get their legal departments working.  These lawyers seem to find it easier to find reasons why they can’t do anything than pick up the gauntlet and fight for a take on the law that will do something to stop the desecration of the watershed.

I’m just tired of them all.  All these council members, executives, mayors and department heads have accomplished so far is to find a rationale for not acting.

So, recognizing the inaction and the (real, though sad) political / economic constraints which do cramp movement by our elected officials, I must ask a fundamental question - and pose a fundamental challenge to everyone. 

“What are the solid goals to be achieved - the final one and the ones just steps before that?”  And the corollary - what can be done - what is being done - to address those specific achievable goals?  Thinking and planning backwards from the goal, not only forwards from the current situation, is essential. 

The final physical goal that I am aware of is a substantial reduction of the algae content of the water in the Reservoir. As best I understand it, that can only be achieved by a substantial reduction of the phosphorus content of the lake water.  And I am confident that the only way to reduce that, is to reduce the phosphorus content of the water which flows from the land to the lake.

And, the step before that has two tracks - either take the phosphorus out of the water that is flowing to the lake, or keep the phosphorus from ever getting into that surface water in the first place.

Everything I hear, from every source I have found or been told, says that trying to take the phosphorus out of the creek water is a losing proposition - it does not work.  The only chemical treatment methods which maybe could work, are big, expensive treatment plants, and you’d need either (a) one for every creek or (b) a new piping system - itself expensive and a polluter during construction.  We already have treatment for our drinking water taken from the polluted Reservoir, though even that will surely have to be expanded if nothing else is done. 

So the step that I see as definitive is keeping the phosphorus from ever getting into the surface water in the first place (in substantial quantities - zero is impossible and probably not essential.)  Is that achievable?  I think so. How?  Don’t bring phosphorus products into the watershed area.  Don’t put phosphorus products on the ground in the watershed area.  (Adding that the same is true for many other pollutants, beyond just phosphorus.) 

So, one step before that:  How to stop the putting of phosphorus on the ground?  An obvious method would be to not let people go into the Reservoir watershed - the usual situation in most communities with a lake as water source. Sadly, we have lost that as a practical option, and we do have traffic and development (some level of urbanization) in the watershed. 

So the next-best thing is to convince the vast majority of the people who DO go into our reservoir watershed lands, to act in a responsible way - by eliminating their contributions of phosphorus (and other harmful chemicals) to the surface water. 

And the prior steps needed to get THAT to happen?  Inform people, and convince them they should do the right thing.  So, lets take that activity back to its antecedent step - what does it take to get people to change their behavior?

Who can answer that for us?  What could be the role of the City and the County and the State - and even private organizations and citizens, in changing the behavior of the populace?

Your turn to speak.

It’s actually been 24 years since the first Lake Whatcom Watershed Management Plan was published and “protecting the lake” became the perennial “top priority” of every candidate and administration.

Trying to convince people to change their behavior is a pleasant idea, but I’m not sure it will overcome the allure of lake view homes, wakeboards and waterskis.  Head out to north shore some fine summer afternoon and watch the fun.  Runabouts zipping around, pulling kids on tubes.  Treated dock boards bridging the water to immaculate, weed-free lawns.  Giant homes with five cars and two seadoos.  Once, campaigning out there for somebody, I came a cross a washing machine in a carport, discharging into a drainage ditch (Yes, I warned them and then reported it). It doesn’t take long to feel like the lake game has already been lost.

Some may feel uncomfortable with speculation regarding campaign contributions - or worse.  But then, please explain.  A very small number of voters have real estate or other special interests in the watershed.  A very large number have interests in drinking water.  There is an overriding public health issue, yet the net effect of our “management” has been steady deterioration.

Greg is right.  Shut off the tap.  No more water, no more development.  There are a few other regulatory angles: Proper zoning, better land disturbance ordinances, elimination of septic systems, remediation of the hokey sewer system out there,  restrictions on various soluble chemicals, e.g. detergents, yard and garden products, etc.

With proper zoning that established rational “reasonable uses” for the watershed, acquisition efforts would shift focus from large tracts to existing, platted lots of record. Might need to reduce the goose population, too!

(Coastal geese are each estimated to contribute up to 638 grams of soluble phosphorus/year.)

Marion is right.  Phosphorus is tough to beat.  Plenty is already stored in lake sediments which, originating in runoff as turbidity from land disturbances, actually scrubs nutrients from the water column, settling on the lake bottom, effectively masking and delaying the ultimate impact of development. But lakes are complex systems and these nutrients can end up being released more quickly.  You’ll know this just happened when a foot thick carpet of algae and dead fish suddenly appears on the lake, gracing area homes with a powerful stench.  It happens suddenly and to lakes much larger than ours.

The upshot is we need to do everything we can before it is too late - if it isn’t already.  We need to take a public health emergency approach, because it could already be one.  We just can’t know. Shouldn’t we err on the side of safety?  Otherwise, we may need to install stormwater intercepts, treatment and lots of other expensive stuff.

We should consider crafting a plan to destroy the lake and make it our top priority.  Our record of efficacy suggests that may be the most expeditious political route to preserving and improving lake water quality.

I remember Lake Whatcom. That’s the lake I’ve been taking my dog to the last coupla winters, Bloedel Donovan Park off-leash area. In addition, I look at the lake just about every Winter day because I live in the watershed.
  Full disclosure here; I’m ideologically opposed to the use of herbicides, particularly around a drinking water source and/or where people (particularly children) and animals are likely to come into contact with those herbicides….places like the above mentioned park.
  “Bloedel” is a mud hole. It is also a weed free zone with very sparse, at best, turf everywhere not just in the heavy traffic zones. I do not know how that “weed freeness” could be maintained without the use of herbicides. A little birdie, along with my eyes, tells me they are being used.
  I also remember the Silver Beach Ordinance. The Silver Beach Ordinance, along with some other provisions, prohibits the groundbreaking of over 500 square feet during the Winter months which is designed to avoid the transport of phosphorous into Lake Whatcom. Bloedel, by the city’s mismanagement effectively violates the SB ordinance every Winter day.