HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Works February 26 20021
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.
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee
February 26, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Committee Chair Barbara
Brenner in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington,
Present: Absent:
Laurie Caskey- Schreiber None
Sam Crawford
Also Present:
None
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION REGARDING DEER CREEK WATER ASSOCIATION'S
REQUEST FOR COUNTY ASSISTANCE IN NEGOTIATING WITH THE
CITY OF BELLINGHAM REGARDING THE POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF A
CITY WATER LINE INTO THE ASSOCIATION'S SERVICE AREA
(AB2002 -093B)
Tom Schoen, Deer Creek Water Association Secretary /Treasurer and
Business Manager, stated his association covers 26 square miles of the county, just
north of Bellingham. They serve 602 connections authorized by the State
Department of Health. Their water rights are fully committed at this time. No new
ones have been granted in a substantial number of years. He began putting
together a proposal in 1999 to address the issues of the Guide Meridian when the
State widens it. Officials and interested parties have discussed it. The association
is going to have to relocate almost four miles of water distribution main on the
Guide Meridian. The south end of their line is currently in the Bellingham city
limits. They did serve Pantec Storage, which switched to the City of Bellingham.
The north end of their water main goes almost to Ten Mile Road. The area they are
concerned about is south of the Smith Road. The association currently serves 86
members via pipes on the Guide Meridian, south of Smith Road.
They have an opportunity to do a change that would be in the greater public
interest, beyond the membership, and do a cooperative venture. Put something in
place to benefit the county for a long time to come. The proposal has been to
attempt to upgrade the pipeline to a ten- or 12 -inch pipeline when it is relocated. A
trench has to be dug and connections have to be reconnected. The cost of doing
the upgrade is not significant compared to the relocation. The estimated cost is
$1.2 to $1.8 million. A good portion of the pipeline is on private easements, for
which the State is responsible for relocating. The association will have to pick up
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/26/2002, 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.
the cost for the line in the State right -of -way. The State will pick up a substantial
portion of the cost of that pipeline.
The Bellingham Public Works Department is not willing to share a pipeline
with them and will put in its own pipeline to Smith Road. He has a problem with
this. The association serves 86 connections on the Guide Meridian, so they have no
choice but to put a pipeline in when it must be moved. It doesn't make sense for
Bellingham to put in a parallel pipeline. They should be able to share a pipeline
with a scheduled transmission as annexation occurs. Some arrangement should be
worked out. There are a number of possible scenarios. If the association doesn't
want to serve those customers along that pipeline, it has to buy their membership
at a cost of over $400,000, which the association can't afford because it is paying
for the relocation.
There are also concerns about the Coordinated Water Systems Plan (CWSP).
When Bellingham annexed the Cordata area in the north, Bellingham encroached
into the Deer Creek Water Association service area. There were no negotiations or
agreements. They just did it. It was in the best interest of Pantec Storage to
switch to Bellingham water when that area was annexed, because Pantec Storage
wanted to expand and was required to meet City fire flow and other requirements.
The association bought Pantec Storage's membership. Provisions of the CWSP
should have covered that. A number of things should be covered by the CWSP,
which hasn't been implemented fully. There are provisions regarding appeal
boards, boundary review boards, and other items that the Coordinated Water
Systems Plan calls for, which haven't been done. The plan calls for an annual
meeting, and recommends more frequent meetings. That has not happened in two
years. For all practical purposes, the CWSP is shelf art. The CWSP needs to live
and grow with changes in the county. It should have been used to resolve some of
these disputes. He participated in that plan development beginning in 1993. It's a
shame to see the plan do nothing. There was a lot of effort put into it.
Crawford stated he's discussed this issue with Mr. Schoen for a long time.
He endorsed the proposal concept. It would be in everyone's best interest to see
an interconnect with the City of Bellingham. He asked the motivation of the City to
get involved. The City Public Works Department employee comment is reflective of
an internal discussion going on at the City that they don't have a vested interest, so
they won't do it. He asked why Mr. Schoen is not having this discussion at the
Bellingham City Council.
Brenner stated the County set up the CWSP, and it has an overall interest in
everyone in the county, included Bellingham. It's a jurisdictional dispute. The
County needs to be more aware of this stuff. When Bellingham comes to the
County with a request for annexation, the County can make sure these things are
incorporated into that request. The incentive for the City of Bellingham is that it
doesn't get its urban growth area or annexation unless it works with other
interested parties. That was the whole purpose of the Coordinated Water System
Plan.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/26/2002, Page 2
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.
1
2 Schoen stated an interlocal agreement and a cooperative venture would be
3 more work for the City Public Works Department. The question is whether it is in
4 the City's best interest. He questioned why it isn't in the City's interest. If the City
5 can get a pipeline that it will have to have eventually anyway, and the State can
6 pay for it, it would benefit the City. If they can work something out, the City gets
7 enough of the pipeline for their taxpayers that will cost less to the taxpayers. There
8 isn't a downside for the public, although there may be a downside for the
9 department because it is more work. The same letter he sent to the County Council
10 a month ago was also sent to the City Council, Mayor, County Executive, Georgia
11 Gardner, and Kelli Linville. He's heard no response from those other people.
12
13 Brenner stated Mr. Schoen's interests lie outside the City. It wouldn't be fair
14 to make him deal directly with the City of Bellingham. The County is supposed to
15 represent his interests. She had no idea that the City of Bellingham encroached
16 upon the association's interest.
17
18 Crawford stated the same City of Bellingham employee told him that the
19 Lake Whatcom reservoir has enough water to provide for all the drinking water
20 needs for all of Whatcom County. That doesn't include the industrial or agricultural
21 use. If the County Council wants to go along the path that Skagit County has gone
22 along by having a complete county water system, the water is there. He would
23 support the County Council asking the City Council to begin addressing the issue.
24
25 Brenner asked how the City's abundance of water addresses the issue of
26 putting two pipes in.
27
28 Crawford stated the water is there, and the association can't get another
29 right from the State Department of Ecology.
30
31 Caskey- Schreiber asked if the City made a plan to take water out that far
32 along the Guide Meridian.
33
34 Crawford stated the City sees its role to provide water to the city limits and
35 ultimately to the urban growth boundary, not beyond that. There has been some
36 discussion about the City of Lynden purchasing water from the City of Bellingham,
37 using the City's water rights in the middle fork of the Nooksack River. One aspect
38 of that is a water main from Bellingham to Lynden along the Guide Meridian.
39
40 Caskey- Schreiber asked if the association's water pipe could be built with
41 the idea of someday having an interlocal agreement with the City of Bellingham.
42 Schoen stated that is an expanded part of their proposal. The proposal is to look to
43 the future. Bellingham has 20 million gallons of the better water from the
44 Nooksack River that is no longer being used by Georgia- Pacific. If Lynden needs
45 water, create a facility to take that water from the current diversion to Lynden,
46 which would make water available to entities in between Bellingham and Lynden
47 and who can't get new water rights. Even Meridian High School, which the
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/26/2002, 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
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.
association serves, can't grow because the association can't get any more water. If
a diversion from Bellingham to Lynden happened, the City can sell the water at
rates better than what Georgia- Pacific paid, enough to pay for a new treatment
plant.
In addition, the State Department of Health has been after water utilities to
create interconnects. There are no emergency interconnects right now. If the
association's water supply becomes contaminated, there is no effective means to
get water to any of those people. No one can provide or pay for bottled water to
thousands of homes per day, for an unlimited length of time. An interconnect is
important. There are only a few gaps in the pipelines between Bellingham and
Lynden.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how the Council can help. Schoen stated the County
can help facilitate discussions with the City of Bellingham.
Regina Delahunt, Interim Health and Human Services Department Director,
stated Mr. Schoen raised a lot of big issues. Some of the issues or pieces of the
issues can be addressed using the Coordinated Water System Plan. Others are
beyond the scope of the plan. Using the CWSP, address the fact that the City of
Bellingham and Deer Creek Water Association have had a contested service area for
many years. Water associations and municipalities have to declare their service
areas. There is a spot on the Guide Meridian that both have declared as their
service area. When there is a contested service area, it is supposed to be resolved.
The County could set up a procedure for resolution, or the State Department of
Health can resolve it.
Schoen stated that for Bellingham to expand in the area, the City has to
resolve the contested area, according to the CWSP. However, the expansion
already occurred.
Delahunt stated that when annexation occurs, the Boundary Review Board is
supposed to take any contested service areas into account. This annexation went
through the Boundary Review Board, but the association was not contacted.
Brenner asked what the County can do to broker a negotiation.
Delahunt asked if the Department of Health and State Department of
Transportation are trying to negotiate something.
Schoen stated they are not. The Department of Transportation agrees with
the association philosophically, but they have to stay out of it. The Department of
Health is working on other issues such as how they can get several utilities and well
owners hooked up to the Deer Creek Water Association. The Department of Health
hasn't indicated that they have a sway regarding Bellingham.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/26/2002, 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
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.
Brenner asked if there is a process the County can set up, since it has an
interest in this.
Hal Hart, Planning and Development Services Director, stated there is a
provision in the CWSP to allow issues like this to be mediated. There is an
association of water purveyors that would broker a negotiation.
Paul Chudek, Environmental Health Supervisor, stated the Department of
Health reviewed the CWSP. The utility service review process uses the multi -water
system group, not contested service areas. If there is a request for service that is
appealed, that group would look at that issue. It is possible that group could
mediate a contested service area, but it is not set up for that.
Brenner stated the County should begin with a letter to the City of
Bellingham. If the City wants to annex or expand their urban growth areas in the
future, the County may not be interested.
Hart stated there are independent dispute resolution centers.
Brenner moved to recommend to the full Council to request that the
administration draft a letter to the City of Bellingham expressing the County's
interest and concern in getting this resolved, and offering to work with the City to
ensure an agreement that they all can live with.
Crawford stated the implications of this are enormous. They are asking the
City to voluntarily start providing services beyond their UGA.
Brenner stated that is not what she wants to see in the negotiations at all.
She only wants the City to share a pipe.
Caskey- Schreiber stated the City isn't there yet. The City doesn't have a
pipe out there yet, so they can't negotiate.
Crawford stated the councilmembers could draft a letter and move it to the
full Council. It's hard to just say they will draft a letter to the City. The City has no
obligation to hook up. The City has concerns regarding tribal rights to the water,
which makes this a complex issue.
Brenner stated the Council needs to write to the City before antagonizing
them. The Council needs to make a statement that this needs to be done. Send a
letter to City first as a common courtesy.
Caskey- Schreiber asked how far out the City pipeline goes.
Crawford stated the City's water goes to Horton Road on the north side of the
road. That is the area with the small overlap. The City will provide services within
its UGA. Expansion of the UGA to the Smith Road is being considered right now.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/26/2002, 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.
Brenner stated the City made statements that it intends to put its own pipe
out there.
Brenner moved to request that the County administration write a letter to
offer assistance in negotiation between the City and the Deer Creek Water
Association to ensure there is one water pipe on the Guide Meridian instead of two
water pipes. She would rather the administration handle the letter at this point.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if staff can do that. Hart stated he has no problem
with that. They are talking about the implementation of the Growth Management
plan overall, and specifically the urban growth area portion of the plan. How the
area would be served by utilities is key.
Other jurisdictions have regular utility provider meetings. Not just utilities
but also school districts can participate. There are a variety of special districts that
need to coordinate.
Brenner stated her only intent is to notify the people that the County has an
interest. Her motion is to request the administration to write a letter to the City of
Bellingham offering County assistance to work toward a coordinated water supply
area on the Guide Meridian, involving the City and any other provider so they end
up with one pipe instead of two.
Crawford stated at this point the committee needs to have something in
writing to look at before they vote. As the councilmembers study this more, they
will realize that this is a complex issue. He would like to assist Mr. Schoen and the
association in a way that includes a lot of communication with the City of
Bellingham. The City now feels that it has other things of a higher priority to be
concerned about. It's a dilemma in terms of jurisdiction and obligation to provide
services. The City needs to know what the benefits are to the City. The County
can't tell the City to do it. The councilmembers, with Mr. Schoen's help, could craft
a letter to explain the benefits to the City. If the UGA were expanded to Smith
Road, a developer would be obliged to provide the cost of the pipe. That doesn't
resolve the issue of whether that pipe is tied into the Deer Creek Water Association.
Brenner stated her purpose of the letter is to notify the City that the County
wants to have discussions on this. The Council needs to do both.
Crawford stated he would support a letter to invite the Public Works
Department of Bellingham to give their side of the issue.
Caskey- Schreiber stated she wanted to get the utility provider meeting going
with all the players, and not come at it so it seems that it's the City versus the
County. Include more people on the information gathering.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/26/2002, 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
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.
Brenner accepted Crawford's suggested for a letter, to invite the City Public
Works Department come to the committee, as her motion. She just wants to get
the process started.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the letter would request the City of Bellingham and
utility providers to have joint discussions.
Crawford stated the first step is to invite the City to a Public Works
Committee meeting to see if they are interested in participating.
Brenner stated her motion is to invite the City of Bellingham to the next
committee meeting in two weeks.
Motion carried unanimously.
Delahunt stated the Health and Human Services Department uses the CWSP
every day as it concerns other matters. It does not become shelf art.
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING WHATCOM COUNTY'S COORDINATED
WATER SYSTEM PLAN (AB2002 -134)
This item was discussed jointly with the previous item.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL
1. ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 24 OF THE WHATCOM COUNTY
CODE TO INCLUDE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ADEQUATE
WATER SUPPLY AND MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SELLER TO
PROVIDE INFORMATION TO THE BUYER CONCERNING THE WATER
SOURCE WHEN SELLING DEVELOPED PROPERTY (AB2001 -369)
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Brenner stated she doesn't support no- protest agreements.
Bill Henshaw, realtor, referenced Council packet page 97. He submitted a
letter earlier to the Health and Human Services Department. He is concerned about
the water disclosure process and how it would be used. He asked for clarification
on that. Realtors currently have a statewide approved disclosure statement that
refers to water. He is concerned about how the draft of the water system
disclosure form would fit in with the disclosure they already have to do on a
statewide basis.
Brenner stated the committee will discuss taking out a lot of the water
disclosure requirements between the buyer and seller.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/26/2002, 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
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.
Henshaw stated that is what he is concerned with. The statewide form is
provided at the time of listing the property for sale. At the time of the listing, the
statewide form has water related questions. The proposed water disclosure form
could instead be part of the well testing information from the testing experts. It
would be too cumbersome for the real estate industry to deal with. Water
inspectors provide well testing, and could provide this information to a new buyer
as a part of that process.
Delahunt stated not all wells are tested in a transaction. If the banks require
a test, it is done. There are a lot of private sales that don't require it. Staff
examined the State disclosure form when they wrote the draft drinking water
ordinance, and determined that the State form is not sufficient.
Brenner stated the question is who is best suited to present this information
to the buyer. Henshaw stated the seller always fills out the disclosure form. The
realtor provides that form to the buyer, who has three days to review it and get it
back. During that period of time, if the buyer accepts it, then that's the way it
goes. If there is a question about the information on the form, then the buyer asks
for the details. That would be the time that the inspector goes out to inspect the
well and provide that additional information. That would be the proper time to do
it.
Brenner suggested a statement on the State form that a required disclosure
form is on file.
Delahunt stated the County form addresses local concerns. The State
addresses general concerns. Adding the County form to the State form is the most
expeditious way to provide the disclosure.
Brenner stated she liked the County disclosure form. She wants to make
sure someone has access to this information. Henshaw stated the State forms
come from the Northwest Multiple Listing Service in Seattle. Lawyers and real
estate firms have reviewed them. They would have to go through the process of
determining how to implement the new form into the packet of forms the realtors
use.
Brenner asked how realtors implement the right -to -farm disclosure.
Henshaw stated it is in the State form.
Brenner stated that is a County ordinance.
Caskey- Schreiber asked the staff's recommendation for distributing the form.
Delahunt stated the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) that requires the State
form also allows counties to require other disclosures. If the County revises its
Code, these will be the other disclosures that will be necessary, in accordance with
that RCW. Staff thought that the realtors would just attach the County form to the
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/26/2002, 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.
State forms. Staff would go to the Realtors Association to provide them with the
information and forms.
Henshaw stated the information the County form requests is beyond what
the seller knows.
Brenner stated the form allows the seller to fill in an answer of "unknown."
It would allow the buyer the option of considering these issues, which he or she
may not otherwise think of. Henshaw suggested language in the County ordinance
that would require an inspection.
Delahunt stated an inspection is not required. That was part of the
discussion. Folks didn't want to put that burden on a buyer or seller.
Henshaw stated that burden would be placed on the buyer or seller anyway.
If anyone sees the questions on the County form, he or she will feel obligated to
get an inspection so the questions can be answered.
Caskey- Schreiber stated that could be negotiated between the buyer and
seller.
Brenner stated the seller provides the disclosure forms. It's natural that this
form goes with it.
Crawford asked what Mr. Henshaw is proposing. Henshaw stated there
should be a requirement at the time of transfer that the well be inspected.
However, the inspector, not the seller, should provide the information in the form.
If the buyer chooses to not have the inspection done, he or she waives that
inspection requirement.
Brenner stated some buyers will not know what questions to ask. This is an
excellent opportunity to help a buyer know what questions to ask. It doesn't cause
any more work for the realtors. The seller fills it out, not the realtor.
Crawford asked if the real estate industry would have a problem if the
County required a well inspection. Henshaw stated it wouldn't.
Delahunt stated the County Health and Human Department does the loan
inspection on existing wells. There are a lot of older wells in the county. If the
County is required to inspect all the wells, most of them wouldn't be approved. It
would slow down the real estate transactions.
Chudek proposed striking items two through five on packet page 97, in the
section "Water Source Disclosure Requirements for Real Property Sales." The
information is self- evident. They are attempting to make sure this is between a
buyer and seller, with a minimum amount of County involvement.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/26/2002, Page 9
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.
1 Brenner moved to amend the language to strike items two through five on
2 Council packet page 97, in the section "Water Source Disclosure Requirements for
3 Real Property Sales."
4
5 Motion carried unanimously.
6
7 Chudek proposed adding language to item one on Council packet page 97, in
8 the section "Water Source Disclosure Requirements for Real Property Sales,"
9 ......RCW 64.06. ttUnless the buyer has expressly waive the right to receive the
10 disclosure statement, failure by the seller to provide the disclosure statement will
11 result in a private cause of action on the part of the purchaser against the seller.
12 The Director will not enforce any provisions of section (number to be inserted
13 Later l.-
14
15 Brenner moved to amend language in item one on Council packet page 97, in
16 the section "Water Source Disclosure Requirements for Real Property Sales,"
17 ......RCW 64.06. eUnless the buyer has expressly waive the right to receive the
18 disclosure statement, failure by the seller to provide the disclosure statement can
19 result in a private cause of action on the part of the purchaser against the seller.
20 The Director will not enforce any provisions of section (number to be inserted
21 later ."
22
23 Motion carried unanimously.
24
25 Chudek suggested amending language on Council packet page 98, in the
26 Enforcement section (1), "...with the provisions of this chapter, except the section
27 dealing with water source disclosure, the director or local..."
28
29 Brenner moved to amend language on Council packet page 98, in the
30 Enforcement section (1), ° ... with the provisions of this chapter, except section
31 (number to be inserted later) dealing with water source disclosure, the director or
32 local..."
33
34 Motion carried unanimously.
35
36 Chudek stated the Health and Human Services Department's position is that
37 public water presents less risk to the public than private treated water. The Health
38 and Human Services Department supports a requirement for homeowners to hook
39 up to public water when it becomes available, if their source water was
40 contaminated when their water availability application was approved. Furthermore,
41 the Health and Human Services Department supports the requirement for recorded
42 no- protest agreement to the development of a public water supply that would serve
43 their property. The Health and Human Services Department has never supported
44 the use of contaminated source water as a private supply, and recommends against
45 using surface water as a source water for private supply. The department now has
46 about 87 of these no- protest agreements on file for surface water at Lake Samish
47 or Lake Whatcom. They expect that to change with the new arsenic minimum
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/26/2002, 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
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.
contamination load (MCL). Some of the potential problems are that there is no
assurance or cost effective way to provide assurance. The Health and Human
Services Department should not provide assurance for private contaminated water
supplies, and should be certain that there is a good source and good protective
measures in place at the time of the approval. Source water that needs treatment
doesn't meet any of those conditions. Sampling is required for the initial source
only. There is no way to assure that the homeowner will take samples to determine
whether the conditions of the source water remain the same over time. There is no
assurance that the treatment system continues to operate, or that the homeowner
will continue to operate the system. The expectation from the homeowners is that
Whatcom County will spend resources to notify them each time they perceive their
source water to be threatened. In the past, homeowners seemed certain that
someone would provide some oversight for the condition of their source water.
That is an expectation the Health and Human Services Department cannot meet.
There is a certain amount of risk to Whatcom County with each of these that the
County approves. That risk could continue indefinitely, unless the homeowner
hooks to a good supply when that supply becomes available. That is what the no-
protest agreement is about. It's good to remember that sewage is not the only
contaminant. There are other contaminants in surface water that are found later.
The question is what obligation the department and Whatcom County have to notify
all surface water users of the problem, and the extent of the intervention necessary
to provide some degree of safety.
Regarding contaminated groundwater, they are trying to treat contaminants
such as arsenic, pesticides, and other things that cause chronic disease. That is
difficult to do. Escaping illness each day really isn't the issue. A homeowner has to
escape the exposure over a long period of time to escape the risk of disease.
Surface water is easy. It is usually only contaminated with living organisms, which
will make a person sick in a day or two. Groundwater contaminants cause chronic
diseases. A homeowner will never know what risk he or she is accepting for many
years to come.
Brenner stated she can't argue with the Health and Human Services
Department's position, but the no- protest agreement is not the way to solve the
problem. That's why she won't support it.
Crawford stated a hypothetical scenario would be a developer who wants to
buy City of Bellingham water and pay for a pipe to Sumas at the cost of $1 billion,
and provides hookups along the route, but the requirement is that the hookup
charge is $1 million. He questioned whether the County is saying that the people
along the route have no choice but to pay $1 million. He's confused about what a
no- protest agreement means. He didn't know if the County is removing a person's
control of his or her financial future by requiring a no- protest agreement.
Brenner stated a homeowner could also be charged road frontage in addition
to a hookup, just because they are in the path of the sewer. Delahunt stated the
Health and Human Services Department's original position was that people not be
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/26/2002, 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
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.
allowed to use contaminated groundwater. If it is contaminated, it ought not to be
an approved source.
Caskey- Schreiber asked if the County could frame it that way.
Brenner stated that would be a misunderstanding. Contaminated means
contaminated. This is treated. It has to be treated so it meets the State
standards.
Delahunt stated any surface water is a contaminated water source.
Brenner stated it is called contaminated, even if it meets the standards after
treatment. There are better ways to deal with someone not keeping up with his or
her treatment system than by requiring a no- protest agreement. They are going to
spend the money on a treatment system, keep it below the MCL's, and then spend
a bunch more money to hook up to whatever goes by them at whatever price they
are told they have to pay. There really isn't a fair way to do it.
Crawford stated the developer ultimately will figure out a formula to
contribute to his per -lot price. The person along that line, who is between the
water source and the development and who is being forced to hook up, is part of
someone else's formula. The councilmembers are totally with the Health and
Human Services Department on this contaminated water issue. He's trying to get
equity in terms of what people will be forced to pay down the road.
Brenner stated another way to do that would be through seller disclosure
about the system and the surface water. That would be up to the seller to provide
to the buyer. Then there would be a willing buyer who would continue to operate
and maintain that system. Handle it through disclosure laws rather than through
no- protest agreements. She's worried about no- protesting someone financially off
his or her property, which has already happened.
Brenner moved to eliminate the no- protest requirement.
Crawford asked if the no- protest agreement is a matter of County policy.
Chudek stated it is. The Council gave direction for the no- protest agreement to be
included, with the idea of developing this ordinance.
Crawford stated he would vote against a change in policy until they explore
the issue more.
Caskey- Schreiber agreed. She would like to see an option aside from a no-
protest agreement. For example, a person can sign a no- protest agreement. If he
or she goes against the agreement, he or she would waive the County's liability for
contaminated water. Chudek stated people are already doing that. People are also
indemnifying the County for using the water.
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/26/2002, 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
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.
Brenner asked if people already have a choice to not sign the no- protest
agreement. Chudek stated they don't have a choice because they wouldn't get
their water availability approved. A person has to sign a no- protest agreement,
sign that he or she will agree to hook to public water, and sign that he or she will
not hold the County responsible for approval of their source of contaminated water.
Motion failed 1 -1 -1 with Brenner in favor and Caskey- Schreiber abstaining.
Brenner stated this would be held in committee for two weeks.
OTHER BUSINESS
There was no other business.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Barbara Brenner, Committee Chair
Public Works and Capital Projects Committee, 2/26/2002, Page 13