HomeMy WebLinkAboutSpecial Council July 20 2004 eve1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Special County Council
July 20, 2004
Council Chair Dan McShane called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Present: Absent:
Barbara Brenner None
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber
Sam Crawford
Seth Fleetwood
Sharon Roy
L. Ward Nelson
McShane announced that if people want to speak about both hearings at one
time, they should let the Council know, and their comments will be placed in both
records.
McShane also announced that this meeting will be broadcast on EGTV
channel 10 on July 21, at 7 p.m. and July 26, at 4:00 p.m.
A speaker may defer his or her comments to another speaker, allowing the
other speaker more than three minutes to testify.
1. ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR IMMEDIATE REMOVAL FROM LAKE
WHATCOM OF ALL GAS - POWERED CRAFT (AB2004 -242)
McShane explained that this hearing is required because of the mini -
initiative presented to the Council.
McShane opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Wendy Eickmeyer, 2319 Northshore Drive, asked to provide testimony on
both ordinances. She submitted additional information for the record (on file,
Exhibits A and Q. She stated she lives on the lake, does not own a boat, and is
not concerned about boats on the lake. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) sets the level for benzene. The lake is far below the maximum level of
benzene. The water is safe. They don't have contaminated drinking water. She
cited studies by various agencies. Many other factors affect the water quality,
such as stormwater runoff.
Craig Magnusson, Bellevue, Washington, submitted information on
behalf of Steve Martini (on file, Exhibit C). He stated he is an attorney. He speaks
on behalf of the Lake Whatcom Stewardship Association. The Council's legal
Special Whatcom County Council -Lake Whatcom Boating, 7/20/2004, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
jurisdiction is questioned. A threat to shut down a public hearing does not meet
the public hearing requirement, and is a violation of the Open Public Meeting Act.
Lake Whatcom is owned by the public. Navigable waters are held in trust
for the public. It is not under the jurisdiction by the county or the city. It is
owned by the citizens of the United States. He gave a history of ownership and
administration of waterways and shore lands. The right to navigate rests with the
people in the country, not a county or a city.
Navigation is a way in which the general public uses its bodies of water. It
is not limited to any particular type of boating or boat. Ownership of the shoreline,
deeded by State of Washington, is a property right and an interest that cannot be
taken away. The only agency that can draft and impose water quality statutes is
the Department of Ecology. The Council does not have the authority or jurisdiction
to write water quality statutes.
The City of Bellingham's drawing water from the lake is considered a private
use. It does not gain any ownership by drawing water from the lake. The Lake
Tahoe basin is governed by a federal agency that bans the discharge of gas from
two -cycle engines, not the use of two -cycle engines. Regarding the jet ski
nuisance issue in San Juan County, the use was banned.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Magnusson continued to state that San Juan County jet skis were banned as
a public safety issue due to harassment of the whales and shoreline habitat that
could not be controlled because of the island's geography.
Doug Williams, 1410 Northshore Drive, stated they should focus on other
issues such as water runoff. Vote down both of the ordinances.
John Wenger, 521 E. North Street, stated the right to navigate is not the
same as the right to run a gasoline motor. A promoter is a compound that
amplifies carcinogens, but are not measured. The risk of carcinogens are
cumulative. Carcinogens may happen at the interaction of different things.
Science underestimates the risk. EPA budgets have been cut, so they
underestimate the risk.
Gerald Simmons, Bellingham, stated he is against the boat ban issue, but
feels strongly about protecting the environment. There are no facts that boats
cause harm to the environment.
Kristin Baker, 9 Strawberry Point, stated she is opposed to a boat ban.
Boating is great family fun that family members can enjoy together.
Betsy Brinson, 1811 C Street, stated she is opposed to a boat ban.
Motorized watercraft does not affect water quality. The EPA will phase out two-
Special Whatcom County Council -Lake Whatcom Boating, 7/20/2004, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
stroke engines because of air quality, not water quality. There is no scientific
evidence to support the notion that watercraft harms water quality.
Bob Harriman, Borderline Bass and Contenders, stated he is opposed to a
boat ban or partial ban. He sent the Council an email earlier, and read the email
into the file. The EPA's 2006 and 2008 phase out is adequate.
Norm Chamberlain, 2532 Lake Whatcom Boulevard, asked to provide
testimony on both ordinances. He is opposed to any sort of ban. There is no
scientific evidence to support the ban.
Ron Pattern, 2409 Fir Street, Bellingham, stated he supports a boat ban
because of the benzene. He asked the Council to take all necessary steps to
preserve their water.
Gordon Stevens, 2723 Lake Whatcom Boulevard, stated he does not support
a boat ban because they don't have the support for what they're trying to do.
Edward King, 2347 Northshore Drive, asked to provide testimony on both
ordinances. He submitted his testimony in writing (on file, Exhibit 8). He is
opposed to any boat ban because there isn't science to support a ban.
Carolyn Wilhite, 3155 Sylvan Street, stated she is in favor of a boat ban.
The EPA and DOE have changed their standards in the last three years. Navigable
waterways refers to waterways where there is a tide. There is no tide on Lake
Whatcom.
Michael Spinale, 3700 Alabama #212, stated he is in favor of a boat ban
because the water quality has gone down over the last ten to 20 years, and they
have to take steps to stop that. Do everything they can to have clean drinking
water.
Mark Polin, 2125 Michigan Street, stated he is in favor of a boat ban
because boats increase the level of benzene in the water. Address the exhaust
from cars and the water runoff.
Tim Paxton, 2120 Ellis Street, Bellingham, stated he is a proponent of the
Boats Off! Initiative and is in favor of a boat ban. He explained what the ordinance
would and would not do. It is within the legal authority of the County to enact the
ordinance. It addresses health problems. Motorboats discharge pollutants from
two - stroke engines into the lake. The main chemicals of concern are hydrocarbons
and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons ( PAH's). Toxicologists say that PAH's are
more of a problem than the benzene because they are very carcinogenic. The
levels are five to ten times the standard. Studies show that accumulations of
PAH's are from motorboats.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Special Whatcom County Council -Lake Whatcom Boating, 7/20/2004, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Paxton continued to state that carcinogens are cumulative. The PAH's are
phototoxic to humans and aquatic wildlife. This ordinance is to protect public
health, which is one of the County Council's prime duties. The San Juan County
commissioners had the authority to regulate the activities as a police power. That
was held up by the Supreme Court. Robin Matthews said that the lake can't stand
the current level of development at the lake. Restricting motorboats is done all
the time under the power of county legislators. It is in the County Council's
jurisdiction. Look at the data, including the 303(d) listing and information from Dr.
Matthews. Flushing from the diversion fixes things. Look at all the contaminants
in one group, because they interact together. Bring in the experts to look at the
situation. Begin the process of cleaning up the lake.
Sharon Crozier, Bellingham, stated she is in favor of a boat ban. The
problem in the lake is with the boats and the runoff. PAH's will make Lake
Whatcom an unsuitable drinking water source. Combustion byproducts will only
add to this level. The State laws prohibit the discharge of any pollution in the
waters of the state. The health officer of any municipality or county must enforce
health offenses.
Many accidents involve personal watercraft. The cleanest motorboat
discharges four to six ounces into the environment. It doesn't all evaporate.
Some of it gets into the intake.
On the petition, she's getting an 80 percent signature rate in the city and a
70 percent signature rate in the county. Taking two - stroke engines off the lake in
five years won't help. Lake Whatcom is the only non -river washed reservoir in
Washington that allows boats on the reservoir. If the Council won't approve this
ban, then it should put the ban on the ballot and let the people vote on it.
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a ten - minute break at 8:00 p.m.)
Ryan Ferris, 1401 E. Victor, Bellingham, submitted his testimony for the
record (on file, Exhibit D). He supports a boat ban because benzene is well known
to cause leukemia and acute lymphoblast leukemia (ALL) in children. Motor
boating is risky. Patrolling the lake takes a large amount of time from the Sheriff's
Office.
Ellen Murphy, Forest Street, Bellingham, stated she is in favor of a boat ban.
She asked what the would lake say if the lake had a voice.
Jan Resick, 617 -14th Street, stated she is in favor of a boat ban. She grew
up in Rhode Island where the one body of water used as a reservoir was
surrounded by trees. Take care of the water.
Special Whatcom County Council -Lake Whatcom Boating, 7/20/2004, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Suann Baker, 9 Strawberry Point, stated she is not in favor of a boat ban.
She lives on the lake and is concerned about water quality but doesn't believe that
boats are the problem.
Lisa Cardarelli, Bellingham, stated she is in favor of a boat ban.
Carcinogens are in the water. She and others have been threatened. There are
health risks from motorboats. There is noise pollution from the jet skis.
Larry Leeper, 5712 Lawrence Road, Everson, stated he is not in favor of a
boat ban. They need to use common sense. Houses exist along the lake, and
boats use the lake. There are roads around the lake. Boating on the lake supports
the boating industry. Upcoming legislation on combustion engines will make them
much cleaner by 2008.
Linda Zander, 803 E. Main Street, Everson, stated the issues are
contamination and health. The county is responsible for leachate coming down the
creek from the Y Road Landfill. Mercury and tin is coming down the creek, federal
law requires that runoff from the streets be treated.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Zander continued to state that they need to clean up the dump and the
runoff. Come into compliance with federal and state law.
Ken Tarr, 2603 Woburn Street, stated he is in favor of a boat ban. Charge a
fee to anyone using the lake and use the fees to fund the Sheriff's Office for
enforcing violations. The City should convert all storm drains around the lake so
they go through a treatment system before being released into the streams and
rivers.
Jeremy Brown, 3217 Greenwood Avenue, asked to provide testimony on
both ordinances. He supports a boat ban on all motorized watercraft. They
shouldn't be on the drinking water. It is within the Council's power to regulate this
use. The waters will remain navigable.
Matt Mullett, 2897 Lake Whatcom Boulevard, asked to provide testimony on
both ordinances. He is opposed to a boat ban. Motor boating is a family activity.
There is a lot more to deal with than boats on the lake. Put a comprehensive plan
together.
Riggs Nelson, 1722 Euclid Avenue, stated he opposes any boat ban on Lake
Whatcom. There is no evidence it would improve the water quality of Lake
Whatcom or improve the safety and health of the citizens.
Dan Sturtz, 2006 Alvarado Drive, stated he is opposed to a boat ban.
Manage risk by choosing wisely. They rely on government to look at facts and
Special Whatcom County Council -Lake Whatcom Boating, 7/20/2004, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
make sound, reasonable decisions for the citizens. Be sure there is just cause to
remove boats from the lake and remove people's recreational rights.
Dan Dahlgren, 2502 Northshore Road, stated he is opposed to boat ban. He
agreed with the previous speaker's comments. The benzene level the City tests
for is below the detection level.
Breck Anderson, 3611 Haggin Road, stated he is opposed to a boat ban.
They need to put some money behind the problem to fix other problems and come
up with informed proposals. Use common sense.
Gretchen Anderson, 3611 Haggin Road, stated she is opposed to both
proposals before the Council tonight. She lives in the watershed and is a good
steward of the lake. There is no evidence that motorboats cause any problems
with Lake Whatcom water quality.
Kris Ungern, 2095 Northshore Road, stated he is not in favor of a boat ban.
Boat use has decreased, and water quality has increased. A boat ban is not
supported by science. The real issue behind the boating controversy is the noise
and wakes associated with personal watercraft. The ban is not logical.
Mark Jeseritz, 990 Lake Whatcom Boulevard, stated he is opposed to a boat
ban. His business, Wildwood Resort, takes many cautions to protect the lake.
Many jobs are supported by tourism and outdoor resources. It is contrary to the
Lake Whatcom Subarea Plan, Comprehensive Park and Recreation Open Space
Plan, County Comprehensive Plan, and the Growth Management Act. Make a
decision based on sound judgement.
Linda Tucker, 4371 Bay Road, stated she is opposed to a boat ban because
they are not the sole source of contamination. Look further for water than Lake
Whatcom.
Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, stated he is not taking a stand on the
issue but wanted to clarify some statements made earlier. The Entranco study was
not made public. Dr. Robin Matthews study has been available for years. Look at
the real issues. The lake's entropic state is declining.
Bob Fitzsimmons, 2935 King Street, stated he is in favor of a boat ban.
Lake Padden is protected from houses circling it and there are only non - motorized
boats on it. Not any one thing is polluting Lake Whatcom, but everything is,
including the motor boats, houses, fertilizers, roads, cars, and other things.
Danial Fitzpatrick, stated he loves to boat, water ski, and drink clean water.
He is not taking a firm stand on either issue. Start looking at some sort of
restrictions, or a ban that will preserve their water quality.
Special Whatcom County Council -Lake Whatcom Boating, 7/20/2004, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Sheila Pferffer, 2919 Cowgill Avenue, stated she is in favor of a boat ban.
Bellingham has the highest incidents of breast cancer than any other county in the
state. They put more emphasis on having fun than on taking care of the
children's' health and the environment.
Ron Eriksen, 2171 Dellesta Drive, stated he is opposed to a boat ban
because the benzene scare is bogus. He does surveillance for benzene, and has
never seen a trace of it.
Kristi Gruett, 1802 Lakeside Avenue, stated she is opposed to a boat ban.
Water runoff is the problem. Look at all the options first. There are sewage
problems on Academy Hill.
Larry Freeman, 218 Viewcrest, stated science tell them that there is a
problem. Look at the process. If the Council votes for the boat ban, it is just the
beginning of the process of addressing all the issues, including runoff.
Duane Dodson, 2577 Northshore Road, stated he is opposed to the boat
ban. He draws unfiltered, untreated water from the lake, and his family has been
healthy.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side 8.)
Kent Heuer, 3122 Laurelwood, stated protecting health and safety is a
primary function of government. Avoid crisis management. Take action now, not
in the future when things will be more expensive to deal with. Look at the big
picture.
Patti Mahboobzadeh, 206 Sudden Valley, stated she would like to testify on
both ordinances. She doesn't support a total ban, but a ban on boats that pollute.
Benzene is not good for them. The Council should base its decision on science.
Barry Ulman, 1424 Y2 Grant Street, stated boats are a problem, but they are
not the only problem. Development is a bigger problem. Logging in the hills
above the lake is another problem. If there is a boat ban, also ban development
around the lake and logging in the hills.
Brett Moleski, 1723 Euclid Street, stated he is opposed to a boat ban. Boats
are not the problem. There are other issues. If there is a boat ban on Lake
Whatcom they will go to Lake Samish.
John Horner, 1116 37th Street, stated he supports the boat ban. Lake
Whatcom's water is eventually going to get too bad to drink. If they create a boat
engine that cuts pollution by half, they've still lost ground if population increases
by three times. Talk about all causes of pollution, not just motorboats.
Special Whatcom County Council -Lake Whatcom Boating, 7/20/2004, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Judy Russi, stated she supports a boat ban. Some people in the audience
advocate dumping Councilmember Fleetwood, but he has nothing to do with this.
Citizens brought this forward. There are a lot of places to boat. Don't boat on
their drinking water.
Dave Paulson, 1515 I Street, stated he is in favor of a boat ban. The
problem is not just the benzene. Banning boats from the water supply is a good
first step. They need to start weaning society from oil products.
Hugh Beattie, 2104 Mackenzie, stated he supports a boat ban. There are
other places to use them. Divert traffic from the south end of the lake onto Lake
Louise Road, to keep them off Lake Whatcom Boulevard. Put up a sign indicating
the direction of Sudden Valley, to divert traffic off Lake Whatcom Boulevard.
Hearing no one else, McShane closed the public hearing.
McShane stated this motion is before the Council through the mini - initiative.
A motion from a councilmember isn't necessary.
Fleetwood moved to submit the written comment submitted from the City
of Bellingham regarding the Watercraft Advisory Committee into the record for
both ordinances.
Motion carried 6 -0 with Brenner abstaining.
Brenner stated she hadn't received the information from the City of
Bellingham and, therefore, has not read it.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she's not in favor of a total boat ban. She hopes
that the upcoming technologies will make boating compatible with water quality
standards. It's the Sharon Crozier's of the world who have pushed for higher
standards for clean engines. She thanked Ms. Crozier.
Motion to adopt the ordinance failed unanimously.
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a five - minute break at 9:45 p.m.)
2. ORDINANCE AMENDING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 11.32, BOATING
AND SWIMMING, SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS (AB2004 -265)
McShane moved to enter into the record all comments from the previous
ordinance to be applied to this ordinance.
Motion carried unanimously.
McShane opened the public hearing and the following people spoke:
Special Whatcom County Council -Lake Whatcom Boating, 7/20/2004, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Steve Hood, Washington State Department of Ecology, stated he would
speak for Richard Grout. He would summarize a letter sent earlier that day.
Water quality regulations require the Council to protect water quality. If the
Council reaches a criteria, it indicates the local jurisdiction failed in that duty.
That's when the State steps in.
The State hasn't taken action yet because criteria have not been violated.
This is when it's important for local jurisdictions to decide how they make sure
those criteria aren't violated in the future.
There is confusion about the criteria for benzene. Five parts per billion
(ppb) is for drinking water. Often, the criteria for drinking water is higher than for
surface water. Drinking water criteria are set based on the technology available to
remove a contaminant once it's in the water. Five ppb is a good balance of risk
and expense. If the State does a total maximum daily load (TMDL) study for
benzene, the criteria would be 1.2 ppb, which is a one in one million cancer risk, as
set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The EPA has set a goal of zero for benzene. This process envisions how
close they want to get to zero. This is the process to go through.
Wendy Eickmeyer, 2319 Northshore Road, stated the City of Bellingham has
never detected PAH's in the drinking water. There is a cost to implementing this
ordinance. It would cost $60,000 to retrofit the sheriff boats to meet new
requirements.
Craig Magnusson, Bellevue, Washington, asked that his previous comments
be submitted in this record. Responded to Steve Hood's comments. Mr. Grout's
letter refers to RCW 90.48.080, which is the clean water statute. He read the
statute. The State Department of Ecology (DOE) interprets the statute in a way
that references to a 'person" includes any political or government agency. DOE
says that the County violates the statute when it allows the discharge. That
interpretation is wrong. This statute pre -dates the Clean Water Act, and
references direct dumping of pollutants. The statute holds the polluter
responsible, not the County. The County does not have authority to draft and
impose clean water regulations. That does not mean phasing out two - stroke
engines is not good planning, in cooperation with the State. He read RCW
90.48.035. The County's procedure to direct water quality standards and controls
is to work with the Department of Ecology. Lake Whatcom is unique. Lake
Whatcom is listed by the State as both a recreational lake, which includes
navigation and boating, and as a water supply. Make a proposal through the
administrative rule making process, which would apply good science to enact rules
and regulations.
Edwin Simmers, 2036 Donovan, stated tonight he decided he won't use his
two - stroke engine on lake Whatcom anymore.
Special Whatcom County Council -Lake Whatcom Boating, 7/20/2004, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Linda Young, 810 39th Place, stated she is not in favor of a boat ban. Using
their SeaDoo on the lake is the best thing that has happened to her family. There
are different kinds of two - stroke engines. The fuel- injected engines are not the
same. Banning two - stroke engines and motor boats in general won't make a
difference.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side A.)
Seth Cool, 711 Gladstone Street, submitted information (on file, Exhibit F).
He supports the ordinance. Handed in a chart showing benzene levels in Lake
Whatcom. Benzene is a hazardous carcinogen. The treatment system can't
remove this chemical efficiently. Benzene levels go up during the summer when
it's not raining, so it's not from runoff.
Kris Ungern, 2095 Northshore Road, submitted information (on file, Exhibit
G). He is opposed to the ordinance. His earlier comments apply. The ordinance
goes further than the citizen advisory committee report. There is no rationale for
the ban. The recommendations of the citizens advisory committee report are not
included. A properly maintained engine shouldn't be a problem. Most of the
emissions go into the air, not the water.
Larry Leeper, submitted information (on file, Exhibit H). He is opposed to
the ordinance. There is no EPA ban on two - stroke engines, only a phase -out of
carbureted engines. Two - stroke engines emission statistic of 25 percent applies to
the original engines. It doesn't apply today. Allow the manufactures, regulators,
and dealers to develop and implement the new technology.
John Wenger, 521 E. North Street, stated he supports the ordinance. New
technology will not save them. The car industry took 40 years to respond to clean
air regulations. Population is increasing beyond the increased efficiencies of the
engines. Newer technology costs a lot. Don't put carcinogens in the drinking
water.
(Clerk's Note: Councilmember Nelson left the meeting at 10:26 p.m.)
Betsy Brinson, 1811 C Street, stated she is opposed to the ordinance. There
is no science that connects the discharge of outboard watercraft with pollution and
water quality. The DOE must raise these regulations. The geese pollute the lake
with e -coli. If they regulate the boats, then regulate the geese.
Bob Harriman, Borderline Bass Contenders, 2284 E. Hemmi Road, stated he
is opposed to the ordinance. Remove two or three of the Whereas statements
because they reference the advisory committee. Public funds were used on the
advisory committee. When that happens, they have to have representation from
all views on the committee. There weren't any fishermen, water skiers, or jet
skiers on the advisory committee.
Special Whatcom County Council -Lake Whatcom Boating, 7/20/2004, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
David Langley, 1404 Northshore Drive, stated he is opposed to the
ordinance. Deal with the geese problem. Two - stroke engines don't add that much
pollution. The lake self - cleans. They can move the intake to basin three. The
science is questionable.
Norm Chamberlin, 2532 Lake Whatcom Boulevard, stated this issue will
divide the community.
Fred Boettner, 53 Strawberry Point, stated he is opposed to the ordinance
because there are worse issues they need to deal with, including the geese.
Extend the north shore sewer to get the septic tanks off the lake. Have a runoff
system. There is benzene during the winter.
Ed Brinson, 7 Strawberry Point, stated he is opposed to the ordinance
because the EPA decided that the engines don't pollute the water enough to
warrant regulation. Motor boats protect public safety by quickly getting to people
who have fallen into the lake.
Annie Brinson, 7 Strawberry Point, stated she is opposed to the ordinance
because this is something kids do to hang out. Being on the lake is a healthy
family activity. The water is fine.
Eddie Brinson, 7 Strawberry Point, stated he is opposed to the ordinance
because he enjoys jet skiing. He has used the jet ski to rescue a man.
Edward King, 2347 Northshore Road, stated the peaks in the benzene levels
are going down, as shown in the chart distributed by an earlier speaker.
Max Legg, 3844 South Bay Drive, Sedro Woolley, stated he is opposed to
the ordinance. The citizens advisory committee members did not have a science
background. They were supported by good staff from the City of Bellingham, but
those staff were all environmental folks. The report says no studies to date have
quantified the contamination.
Dennis Jones, 1487 Sudden Valley, stated he supports the ordinance. Have
a comprehensive plan for Lake Whatcom. They know how other lakes work. Save
this lake while they can.
Gary Lysne, 2472 Northshore Road, stated he is opposed to the ordinance.
The citizen's advisory committee did not release the names of its members. The
report has no credibility. The use of personal watercraft has been reinstated in the
National parks.
Marion Beddill, 3600 Seeley Street, stated she is in favor of the ordinance so
they can protect the public health and safety.
Special Whatcom County Council -Lake Whatcom Boating, 7/20/2004, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Chuck Rameau, 184 E. Kellogg Road, stated he is opposed to the ordinance
because there is no benzene problem in the lake.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape three, side B.)
Rameau continued to state that the real problem with the lake is the level of
dissolved oxygen.
Sherie Rego, 689 Cherry Lane, read a statement from her son Thomas
Rego- Brounstei n, who is opposed to the ordinance because they are not being sold
anymore and they will phase out naturally. He supports removing all car traffic,
which won't happen, because it causes more harm to the lake.
Loi Walton, resident, stated she is opposed to the ordinance because the
real issue is the stormwater runoff, dumpsite, and geese.
Mark Jeseritz, 990 Lake Whatcom Boulevard, stated he is opposed to the
ordinance because the sheriff couldn't enforce it. Many other reservoirs in the
nation allow motorboats.
Marilyn Houser, 321 N. Section, Burlington, stated she is opposed to the
ordinance. Work with people to implement the new technology.
Hearing no one else, McShane closed the public hearing.
McShane moved to keep the written record open until noon on July 27,
2004.
Roy stated she is against the motion. These people who have testified
would like the Council to make a decision. There has been a lot of opportunity for
people to contact the Council.
Brenner stated she is ready to vote, except Councilmember Nelson is absent
due to his military service. They should respect his desire to vote on the
ordinance.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she is in favor of voting tonight. They have heard
both sides of the argument and know their position. Vote now.
Motion to hold the record open failed 2 -4 with Brenner and McShane
in favor.
McShane moved to adopt the ordinance and read the portion of the
ordinance that amends the Whatcom County Code.
Special Whatcom County Council -Lake Whatcom Boating, 7/20/2004, Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
McShane moved to amend the eighth Whereas statement, "...demonstrated
that two -cycle eaFbH-eted outboard engines...." That amendment makes the
language more consistent with the language in Exhibit A.
Motion carried 5 -1 with Brenner opposed and Nelson absent.
McShane moved to amend the tenth Whereas statement, "...demonstrated
the negative impacts of carbureted two - stroke engines..." for the same reason as
the previous motion.
Motion carried 5 -1 with Brenner opposed and Nelson absent.
McShane moved to amend the 12th Whereas statement, "...eventual phase
out of eamet two - stroke engines that emit a large percentage of unburned
fuel; and"
Motion carried 4 -2 with Brenner and Crawford opposed and Nelson
absent.
McShane moved to amend the last Whereas statement, "...and
recommended the eventual phase out...."
Motion carried 5 -1 with Brenner opposed and Nelson absent.
McShane moved to amend the Now Therefore statement, "...the use of
two - stroke motorized watercraft that do not meet the
U.S. EPA 2006 emission standards for two - stroke engines, as specified in Title 40,
Code of Federal Regulations Part 91, on Lake Whatcom shall be banned as
indicated...."
Motion carried 6 -0 with Nelson absent.
Brenner moved to strike the 12th Whereas statement. The Lake Whatcom
Motorized Watercraft Advisory Committee did not consist of a balanced group of
interests. She could not get the list of names. It did not include fishermen, people
with modern motorized boats, or jet skiers.
Roy stated she did not support the motion. All the statement says that the
advisory committee came up with that statement, which is true.
Brenner stated that the language indirectly supports the structure of the
committee membership.
Motion failed 1 -5 with Brenner in favor.
Brenner moved to strike the 14th Whereas statement for the same reason
as the previous motion.
Special Whatcom County Council -Lake Whatcom Boating, 7/20/2004, Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Motion failed 1 -5 with Brenner in favor.
Caskey - Schreiber stated she is in favor of the ordinance. The Department
of Ecology recognizes the County's responsibility to protect the drinking water
source. Two - stroke engines contribute 25 to 35 percent of their fuel, according to
Richard Grout. A two - stroke engine running for seven hours creates as much
pollution as a car that has run 100,000 miles, according to Boat Notes. She talked
to Dr. Robin Matthews and a toxicologist at Western Washington University. The
fact that benzene is showing up near the intake is alarming to them. That's the
only place the City tests for benzene. Benzene is an aromatic hydrocarbon, and is
typically on the surface and evaporates. Given the fact that it shows up deeper in
the lake signifies that the amount is greater in other areas. The boat launch area
doesn't get tested at all. She is concerned about the people who swim at Bloedel
Donovan park. The City does not treat for benzene. It would be quite an expense
to remove it from the drinking water. Any benzene in the water goes straight to
the consumer. In this case, prevention is better than a cure. Benzene is a
carcinogen. As the Board of Health, the Council is responsible to reduce
carcinogens wherever they can, especially in drinking water. The Council is not
picking on boaters. They can make boating and drinking water compatible. She is
in favor of having a fueling station at a boat launch. The Council is also working
on development standards, limits on impervious surfaces, tree retention, and has
advocated for sustainable logging to prevent erosion. The number of people who
are ready to abandon this reservoir for another alternative is troubling. That
would be very expensive. Half the county does not use Lake Whatcom for its
water source. The cost of finding a new source would be on the half that does use
the lake's water. It would take multi - millions of dollars. Lake Whatcom is their
natural resource for the county. As an elected official, she can make sure that the
things that make this county great are viable for generations to come. This
ordinance has been revised and is fair. Boat owners will have either five or ten
years to make the change. That's ample time.
Crawford agreed with the gentleman who spoke tonight who said this is a
solution looking for a problem. They have not identified a problem with carbureted
two - stroke engines in Lake Whatcom. Government's role is to balance the risk to
public health and safety against the benefit of the activity the public participates
in. Speed limits are an example. These folks are not a special interest group.
They are a good cross - section of Whatcom County's population. Their message is
strong. This ordinance tilts the scale out of balance. He is not in favor of the
ordinance.
Brenner stated she made a motion months ago at a Water Resources work
session to deal with stormwater detention, and no one on the Council voted for it.
Now they are proposing this ordinance. They're looking at the cheapest way to
show people they care about Lake Whatcom. The least expensive way to go is not
necessarily the healthiest way to go. Dr. Robin Matthews told the Council that
Special Whatcom County Council -Lake Whatcom Boating, 7/20/2004, Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
boats are not a problem, but stormwater detention is a problem. She is against
the motion.
Roy stated the letter from the Department of Ecology said benzene is a
carcinogen, and any increase above zero represents an increased risk of cancer.
That is a strong, clear statement. It may not be a big risk to some. As a member
of the Board of Health, she's not willing to say a little is okay. There's nothing
scientific about these levels. It's a political decision that considers many factors,
including how much consumers are willing to pay, how much they think might
cause a problem, and how much the industries can afford to remediate. The
County was told for years by the EPA that certain levels of arsenic are fine in the
drinking water. They know now that's not okay. For many years, women were
told it was okay to take hormone therapy. They know now it's not okay. Setting
these levels is not an exact science. She is in favor of the ordinance.
McShane stated there is science supporting this ordinance. Drinking water
standards are set as policy. There hasn't been a lot of data and studies, but those
being done say it's there. The question is the fair, reasonable way to deal with it.
Deciding whether or not this is a good or bad idea is tough. They don't want to
have a continued pattern to have benzene show up just at the drinking water
intake. That means the levels are high elsewhere. He's not keen on spending a
lot of money so people can be sure of themselves because they have data from
other lakes with similar settings. Don't disparage studies done elsewhere, and
think they have this unique lake that will act completely different. This ordinance
allows people five years to make plans for new boats. Boating recreation on Lake
Whatcom is critical. He's worried about the positions that others will take that are
beyond the Council's control. He's worried about the Council, as the Board of
Health, taking no action. The science on the new technology engines and the four -
stroke engines is very positive. He sees no reason to ban boats in general, based
on that science. It's clear which types of engines are causing the problems, and
deal just with that. Give credit to those who are using cleaner engines.
Fleetwood stated he introduced this ordinance. He's heard many people
accuse him of introducing the ordinance for political reasons. That's not the case.
He thought the Council should have something before it that is more consistent
with some of the recommendations from the advisory committee, the positions of
the councilmembers, and because it is a reasonable compromise. He wasn't
prepared to go as far as a complete boat ban. A compromised version is because
they can and have identified dirtier and cleaner boat engines. Distinguish between
the two. They have given consideration to those who are worried about having
their boats taken away immediately by phasing in the restriction over a number of
years. People are correct in saying there are bigger issues with Lake Whatcom.
The Council has addressed those things, and will address stormwater and density
reduction. This is a smaller act that they have reasonable control over. It is a
carcinogen. He supports dealing with big and small pollution. Today, they are
checking off this small pollution, and hopes they will deal with bigger issues in the
future.
Special Whatcom County Council -Lake Whatcom Boating, 7/20/2004, Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Crawford stated the question of caring is not the issue. They all care that
there is a small amount of pollution. The EPA did not change its mind over
arsenic. That was a political decision. They're talking about risk evaluation. There
is no one testifying on behalf of the Whatcom County Health Department, which is
responsible to come forward to the Council with any concern. The Health
Department understands there is risk in everything they do. They need to
understand where the real risks are, and address them. They are deciding to
magnify one risk to affect a huge segment of the population, which is wrong.
McShane stated it has been said the Council isn't addressing other issues.
Any issue of note regarding Lake Whatcom, the people who are opposed filled the
Council Chambers. When the Council wanted to reduce the stormwater impacts
and development impacts to the lake, people opposed showed up in large
numbers. When the Council wanted to set better development standards so new
development wouldn't cause harm to the lake, the Council Chambers was filled
even more than it is now with people who were opposed. There is loud, intense
opposition every time the Council tries to do anything to protect the lake. Those
who say the Council hasn't taken on those issues need to understand that it has.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape four, side A.)
McShane continued to state that the County has been studying the landfill
very intensely. It's spent a lot of money on those landfills. The County has no
authority to move the intake.
Caskey- Schreiber stated it's fair to let people know the Council is going to
phase out these engines. The market will be flooded with these engines when that
happens. She's heard it takes 50 years to get rid of those engines. There are
4,000 undeveloped lots in Sudden Valley. If they estimate that half will want to
boat on the lake, it would be irresponsible of the Council to not put those people
on notice that they are moving away from that type of engine.
Roy stated they have done the biggest downzone in the state to protect the
lake. They have worked in partnership to acquire land and development rights to
keep areas of the watershed forested. She never intended to say she cared more
than others on the Council. This is about evaluating risk. Her willingness to take a
risk is different than other's willingness. It's a risk she's not willing to take as a
County Council and Board of Health member.
Motion to adopt as amended carried 4 -2 with Brenner and Crawford
opposed and Nelson absent.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
Special Whatcom County Council -Lake Whatcom Boating, 7/20/2004, Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
DISCLAIMER: This document contains the Whatcom County Council or Committee
minutes, as approved. However, unless an attested signature page is attached, they
are not the final approved minutes.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
The Council approved these minutes on September 14 , 2004.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Council Chair
Special Whatcom County Council -Lake Whatcom Boating, 7/20/2004, Page 17