Something very disturbing happened at yesterday's Bellingham City Council meeting.  The city administration asked the Bellingham City Council to approve two memorandums of agreement, one with Lynden and one with PUD No. 1, to obtain new access sites further down the Middle Nooksack.  Staff's explanation of the agreements was in direct conflict with the actual language of the documents. 

We were advised not to pay attention to the language in the agreements because it was intended to prove to DOE that the city had access to new withdrawal sites.  If the language is so unimportant, why is it there at all?  And why are different contract terms reflected for each of the memorandums of agreement? 

Staff alleged that the memorandum of agreement does not bind the city in any way or reflect the use of a predetermined arrangement with Lynden.  Yet the stated purpose of the agreement, to be signed by the mayor of each city, is to "outline the mutual understandings and framework under which Bellingham and Lynden will work together to achieve common objectives."  So, clearly, COB and Lynden have reached an understanding that is intended to guide a "future agreement."

Staff advised that the new withdrawal sites would create unused "redundancies" in the city's water withdrawal system, intended to address future changes in demand.   Yet the agreement requires that Lynden provide the city with "expeditious review and permission to access, use and improve its Water Intake Property."  "Expeditious" access is a peculiar requirement in a bare-bone agreement that is alleged to be "conceptual in nature," and not needed in the short term. 

Most glaring of all is the conflict between the agreement and staff's allegation that the city is not providing water to Lynden.  In fact, at the committee meeting, the staff asserted that Lynden had no interest in Bellingham's water, although Lynden lacks sufficient water to expand its UGA boundaries, and the County 2016 Comprehensive Plan update process is fast approaching. The memorandum of agreement states that in exchange for access to Lynden's water diversion/intake facility, "Bellingham will provide Lynden with compensation SOLELY in the form of an annual quantity of untreated water (Qa) for a negotiated period of time under the terms of the Future Agreement."  That language sounds to me both specific and deliberate.  The use of the word "solely" means that other forms of compensation are precluded, in direct contradiction of staff's assertions. 

Nor is this language required or mandated to obtain DOE approval for water withdrawal site access. At the same time that the city is proposing to enter into an agreement with Lynden, it proposes an agreement with PUD No. 1, where it pays for full improvement and maintenance costs from its use (meaning that the PUD gets the benefit of improvements, in an unspecific sum, and maintenance costs, paid by someone else).

Something is wrong, very, very wrong.  What the staff is advising the public and the council should be confirmed and supported by its written documents.  I am at a loss to understand why these contradictions are acceptable to the council. Why isn't the council requiring an agreement with more specificity regarding costs, quantities, timing, etc, before approving agreements with other municipalities?  How is this impacting water planning at a comprehensive county level?

I am not sure what this is all about, but these facts suggest that there has not been a full public disclosure of all relevant facts and information.