HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Resources Worksession November 20 20011
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
48
49
Whatcom County Council
Special Water Resources Work Session
November 20, 2001
The meeting was called to order at 10:10 a.m. by Council Chair L. Ward
Nelson in the Whatcom County Civic Center Annex, Second Floor Meeting Room,
322 N. Commercial, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
Barbara Brenner
Marlene Dawson
Sam Crawford
Connie Hoag
Absent:
Dan McShane
Robert Imhof
WATER RESOURCES WORK SESSION (AB2001 -063)
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Manager, stated people are attending this
meeting to speak on the flooding situation on their property.
Ken Van Dyken 1450 Hampton Road, stated they have some concerns about
significant changes. The dike has been formed there. More water is coming under
the Everson bridge than it can handle. He is concerned that he will lose his animals
during the next flood. He presented a buyout solution.
Jeff Monsen, Public Works Director, stated Mr. Van Dyken described the most
recent modeling work. They have clear evidence of what Mr. Van Dyken described.
There are other policy issues that need to be dealt with regarding where the water
should be going. They haven't resolved whether or not what is occurring should
happen.
Regarding the buyout, the Council has given staff policy decisions on
designing and implementing buyout projects. Now, a condition is that local money
is used to provide a match to grant opportunities. They have not yet had a grant
opportunity for that area. They will have to discuss how to finance those projects.
Nelson asked the recommendation for these folks to continue processing
solutions for their land. Monsen stated that at this point, the drainage district
should maintain contact with the Flood Advisory Committee and the flood staff.
Also, he expects to act on buyouts and overflow corridors sometime next year. This
situation is not an overflow corridor. It is backwater. He didn't know whether they
would consider sending water from upstream into this reach. From a habitat
standpoint and a flood storage standpoint, there was some interest a few years ago
in looking for financing to do buyout and enhancement.
Hoag stated these people contacted the Flood Division to see if they were
available for buyouts. If they had applied for Federal Emergency Management Act
(FEMA) funds, they would be eligible for a buyout. They didn't. They took care of it
Water Resources Work Session, 11/20/2001, 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
48
49
themselves. They are not eligible because of that. Paula Cooper told her the
modeling had not been completed yet, so they could not demonstrate a problem
area for FEMA for about two years. She is concerned about where it will leave
these people. It sounds as if an overflow coordinator is not something that will lend
itself to. She questioned whether this is an area that would lend itself to a habitat
area. Monsen stated this area does lend itself to pretty substantial habitat creation.
At this point, they need a local sponsor to research that topic. It may be
appropriate for the Salmon Recovery Funding (SRF) Board funding through their
ranking process. A local sponsor would be someone who actually takes a lead in
pulling together a project that could be successful.
Hoag questioned whether the County Council could be a sponsor. Monsen
stated a sponsor could be anyone willing to come up with the proposal.
Hoag questioned whether these people are not eligible for the buyout funds
that exist now. Monsen stated that if they have not submitted repetitive loss
claims, then it would be a problem being eligible for FEMA funding. FEMA funding
for repetitive loss is for structures and improvements, not necessarily the
underlying land. Many times, in an agricultural situation, the majority of the value
may be in the land, not the structures. It depends on what the owners are asking
to be bought out.
Hoag questioned whether the modeling so far indicates that there will be a
problem in terms of flooding. Monsen stated they have enough information through
the modeling work that demonstrates the situation is getting worse.
Hoag asked the County's options to do something about this. Monsen stated
a policy decision would be to suggest that the County would begin creating buyout
programs, even though they are funded 100 percent by the County. Design the
criteria to make that selection. Now, that selection is based upon eligibility from
FEMA, state grant programs, and federal grant programs.
Van Dyken stated they are in an overflow area. They do have overflows.
Monsen stated one item in the Flood Hazard Plan is to select geographic locations to
direct floodwaters into. When he talks about an overflow, he is talking about
somewhere between natural and created overflow corridors. They are clearly in an
overflow location. He does not know whether this is a location where overflows
should continue.
Crawford stated a fully funded buyout program would be a shift away from
their policy. He questioned whether the proposal would still go through the Flood
Advisory Committee and whether the Flood Advisory Committee still has criteria for
prioritizing projects according to the seriousness of the problem. Monsen stated he
assumed that, if the County moves in that direction, the Council would still engage
the Flood Advisory Committee in the process of advertising, selection, and
recommendation. It wouldn't have to be that way.
Crawford questioned whether the Flood Advisory Committee is now giving a
higher priority to programs that have matching funds. Monsen stated that almost
Water Resources Work Session, 11/20/2001, 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
48
49
everything the County does from a funding standpoint begins when someone else
proposes to bring money to a project. If someone else hasn't brought money to
the table through a grant, diking district, or proposal, the County has not done that
type of project.
Crawford questioned what the local diking district is doing and what position
it is taking.
Sherm Polinder, stated they have very little money, but are willing to share
some of it for matching funds. The bottom line is that they will be alright if they
don't have a major flood for two years. If they do have a flood, Mr. Van Dyken is in
a spot that is in danger of dropping in. The practical question is, if that happens,
who is responsible. Most of them know that the dike is an illegal dike without a
permit.
Hoag asked about changing the policy, and if they can make an exception to
the policy if something fits the criteria and they filed a claim. Monsen stated that
as the Board of Supervisors of the flood district, the Council could make exceptions
any time it wants. However, exceptions usually lead to a number of requests, and
they will be back to redesigning the program.
Nelson stated the policy is to work through a funding matching policy. When
these situations arise, have agencies develop plans within their own locales. He is
concerned about becoming inundated with requests. Many people have impacts
from flooding without having a comprehensive approach to the problem. They want
to solve most of the problems in a comprehensive fashion.
Hoag agreed on having a comprehensive approach, but the timeline doesn't
allow that to be completed in this instance. What these owners are proposing is in
line with what the Council proposes for its comprehensive approach. It is not
something that would cause problems down river, such as a dike. The Council
should take a short -term look at this.
Nelson stated he is not ready to make a commitment to these folks at this
time about a buyout. He questioned whether FEMA has programs for individuals.
Monsen stated his flood staff could answer that question.
Nelson suggested that the owners see if there is anyway that they can get
assistance from FEMA.
1. WRIA 1 WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROJECT
Drayton Harbor Sewer Line Repair
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated this is a second early
action project funded through Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) Early Action
Grant Program. It has been highly successful, and it involved many players who
participated together, including Semiahmoo First Nation, City of Bellingham, Port of
Water Resources Work Session, 11/20/2001, 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
47
48
Bellingham, State Department of Health, WRIA 1, and City of Blaine. Together, all
the groups found a place to affect change and deal with issues related to sewer
overflows. The people who participated understood the complexities of
infrastructure in terms of sewer lines. It was a good educational project. At the
same time, there was also a partnership. They continue to monitor fecal coliforms
and discharges in the vicinity of these areas, so they will have information in the
future that will hopefully show a decline in fecal coliform.
Brenner stated she is impressed with the work that was done for that price.
She asked if this covers the majority of the problem. Roll stated this is a big one
for the shellfish committee. It was a partnership with the Drayton Harbor Shellfish
Protection District Advisory Committee. It was one area identified as a priority with
the Advisory Committee. It is time to move on to the next priorities.
Brenner stated she liked seeing something that they actually committed
money to, stayed within the budget, and was finished.
Watershed Characterization Summary
Roll stated this is a good starting point to understand what is going on in the
watershed. They need a user - friendly status of the watershed. This is the first
draft. It will be worked over in the coming months. People can begin to
understand how the pieces will fit into the products rolling out of the WIRA process.
Sue Blake, Resource Planner, stated there are several different chapters that
include background, overview of how water is used in WRIA, the challenges and
issues, data research needs, and potential solutions and opportunities.
The purpose is to explain the extensive technical work being done by the
process. They need to make sure there is a common understanding of how they
use water and of the issues and challenges. The purpose is also to help identify key
problems and common issues. It will be used to assist in developing the decision
support system (DSS), the phase III technical work, and the watershed plan. The
DSS will try to address the various issues out there. This document helps the non-
technical person understand the problems and possible solutions.
This report was put together by her and Becky Peterson. Many other authors
contributed. They are referenced in the document. The information builds on past
and current work being done. It is all referenced in the document. It represents
technical information and the perspectives of the community. It is a living
document that is updated as new information is provided.
The background chapter talks about the size of the WRIA, who lives here, the
different kinds of land use, economics, water resources, and biological resources.
For example, the report provides information on the smaller drainages. Twenty
drainages are summarized in the report. The background section also includes a
pie chart on population.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/20/2001, 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
48
The second chapter is on water uses. That chapter includes basic
information on how people use water here from out of stream /consumptive uses
including domestic, commercial, industrial, agriculture, and hatchery uses. There is
also information on instream /non- consumptive uses, such as fisheries. There is
also a section on the near shore water and estuaries, including shellfish. Much
more could be added, but this is what they focused on at this point.
Crawford asked if the water use information includes the Georgia- Pacific (GP)
diversion. Blake stated it does.
Crawford questioned what the City is currently doing with that water, and if
the pipe is open or closed. Blake stated they route water from the middle fork of
the Nooksack River, through Anderson Creek, and into Lake Whatcom. There is
one intake for the city. When it reaches Whatcom Falls Park, some of it goes to GP
and the rest goes to the water treatment plant. She doesn't know the volume that
GP is using now.
Roll stated it is around two to three million gallons per day (mgd), compared
to 20 mgd they used previous to their shut down. The use has tapered off
dramatically.
Crawford stated that after GP shut down, there was a headline that the lake
is threatened due to lack of water going through it. He asked about keeping the
lake flushed. Roll stated it is years in which water is retained in the reservoir.
Having the GP pipe on or off has minimal impact on the number of years the water
is retained. There isn't enough water being drawn to imply that the GP usage is the
dilution factor. In terms of microbial activity, the diversion is insignificant in terms
of effects throughout the entire basin.
Nelson questioned whether they could cause a short turnover time if they
shut off the intake completely. Roll stated it may be four years instead of three
years.
Blake stated the modeling would help answer those questions in the next few
years. They are trying to set up models to get better technical information.
Hoag asked if the water is staying in the North Fork or coming through the
lake. Blake stated she didn't know when the diversion was turned back on.
Nelson stated they typically let it drain down in the winter because it will fill
up naturally.
Brenner asked if it is correct to say that they don't have enough information
to determine if there is a problem. Roll stated that one factor of the impact to
water quality is that there are a number of loads coming into the lake and they
don't know the response of the lake. That is a gap they currently have in
information.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/20/2001, 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
47
48
49
Brenner asked if someone else has information that the County doesn't have.
She asked where the newspaper got its information. Blake stated she's heard
about different opinions over the years.
Brenner asked if there is data.
Crawford stated the City of Bellingham has the data.
Brenner stated the County should have the data that the City of Bellingham
has. Roll stated data is collected in response to a particular management strategy
they are trying to evaluate. Data hasn't been collected with that question in mind.
There is data, but they lack the types of data to make sure that they have a
scientific explanation.
Brenner asked if there is anything in the data they have that would answer
that question definitively.
Crawford asked if shutting off the intake and outflow would result in lower
dissolved oxygen levels and the lake getting worse. If they can agree it is not a big
deal, then fine. On the other hand, they were taking 20 million gallons per day in
and out of the lake. That is changing the situation. Roll stated it is difficult to give
one answer. There are three basins that behave differently. They hope to describe
behaviors through the modeling.
Dawson asked how the instream flow is measured, and if accumulating
gravel affects instream flow.
Blake stated the water rights section has information on instream flows and
why they are an issue. The book identifies the status of the water rights in the
basins according to the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173 -201. Because
of things that have happened, closing a stream poses a much bigger challenge for
groundwater withdrawals as well. This document attempts a concise discussion
about the instream flow topic. There have been questions about the methodology
that was used. Based on their current work, they will look to see if these statuses
would be changed. There may be more closures or fewer closures. She can't
answer the gravel bar question. Groundwater contributes to surface waters. The
system is a cycle of hydraulic continuity.
Monsen stated that in urbanized areas, smaller streams may be a collection
of capturing rainfall and getting a discharge. There may be a scenario in which
there is no recharge of the groundwater. It is no longer a reservoir to add water
into the stream during the dryer parts of the year. They don't have that
groundwater flow back into the stream. Small channels can go dry because of that
scenario. The same principal applies to the Nooksack River, but on a different
scale.
Brenner asked if it is possible in unpopulated areas for smaller creeks to go
dry in the summer anyway. Monsen stated it is possible. It becomes a matter of
frequency and the system's ability to recover from those events.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/20/2001, 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
48
49
Blake stated pages 55 and 56 of the document show graphs on actual stream
flows plotted against the legally established flows.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Monsen stated he envisions instream flow as a fixed number. However, it is
also a dynamic regiment throughout the year.
Dawson stated that as the gravel accumulates, the water warms up. That is
not good for fisheries. There is less ability for people to take out groundwater.
Monsen stated water temperature in the main stem of the Nooksack River has to do
with what is happening to the water in the watershed. A question is whether the
surface water is too warm or if there is groundwater that is recharging the area.
Gravel in the main stem of the Nooksack River doesn't have a dramatic impact on
water temperature. The impact is from water upstream.
Blake stated one of the proposals from Utah State University (USU) in their
phase III technical work is to look at the most important reasons why there are
temperature problems in the south fork of the Nooksack River. There are many
reasons for the temperature to be high.
Hoag stated that in the Sumas River, there was a spot where the river was
dredged. One of the side benefits was that it began drawing groundwater from the
area and the temperature dropped. There are lots of fish there now. In the
adjudicatory hearings for Sumas Energy 2 (SE2), water specialists testified that
pumping tests for SE2 showed a decrease in the amount of groundwater going into
Johnson Creek. Johnson Creek is 100 percent fed by groundwater during the
summer. There is an interaction there.
Brenner stated she has a hard time believing that there is not a direct effect
between gravel buildup and increased water temperature. If they are trying to
restore habitat, deeper channels for the fish will help.
Monsen stated that is why he specifically referred to the main stem of the
Nooksack River, where gravel being deposited doesn't mean that the water is
getting shallower. That is not necessarily the case in some of the smaller
tributaries. The example of Johnson Creek is a good example of sediment coming
in and forcing shallower and shallower water that is more vulnerable to raised
temperatures. Removing the material in that situation is the right solution. That is
not necessarily a correlation to the main stem of the Nooksack River.
Brenner stated it is likely that it is raising the temperature in many places on
the Nooksack River.
Blake stated one proposal from USU is to answer that very question.
Brenner questioned whether they would be allowed to dredge if they get the
answer to that question.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/20/2001, Page 7
1
2 Hoag stated making the river shallow prevents cooler groundwater from
3 feeding the stream.
4
5 Blake stated the final three chapters are on data and research needs, a
6 summary of potential solutions and opportunities, and a brief overview of the next
7 steps. This is a living document. The Planning Unit has received regular updates
8 on where they are on this. She provided the Planning Unit with the latest version in
9 October. She would like feedback from everyone on the document by January 15.
10 She will launch into another revision process to be ready in three to six months.
11
12 Nelson stated this is one of the best document designs he's seen in a long
13 time. He liked the terminology and definitions where he can look at them. The
14 tables and graphs are clear. It is laid out comprehensively. It will be easy for the
15 councilmembers and public to look at and read. Some terms are left out of the
16 glossary. Blake stated she will take this document and do an briefer summary of
17 the most interesting information for people.
18
19 Hoag stated page 53 includes legally established instream flows and closures.
20 It doesn't identify the geographic locations on the map. Blake stated the map will
21 be redone for better resolution. There may have to be a pullout map for the next
22 version.
23
24 Brenner stated they should not use an acronym that stands for two different
25 things, such as LID, which stands for local improvement district and low impact
26 development. Talking in acronyms turns the public off.
27
28 Hoag stated someone testified that it was determined that the
29 Sumas /Abbottsford aquifer had plenty of water, based on the studies that have
30 been completed so far. She questioned whether that is included in this document.
31 Blake stated that is not in this document. It is more complex than that.
32
33 Roll stated they don't provide printed copies of this document to the public.
34 It is available on compact disc and will be on the website soon.
35
36
37 2. MARINE RESOURCES COMMITTEE
38
39 Update on Activities of the Whatcom County Marine Resources Committee
40
41 Erika Stroebel, Planner II, stated that over the last two years, the Marine
42 Resources Committee (MRC) received four grants from the Northwest Straits
43 Commission. Two administrative grants help with contracts, meetings, and the
44 work of the MRC. Two action grants are to compile existing information on
45 Whatcom County marine resources and a shoreline inventory. This year, they held
46 the first annual marine summit, which pulled together a variety of local groups.
47 There are many other processes and projects through other MRC's and the
48 Northwest Straits Commission. This year, the Whatcom County MRC has chosen
Water Resources Work Session, 11/20/2001, 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
48
49
several projects to pursue. The focus is on forage fish, bottom fish, data
management, and continuing to build community partnerships.
They are working on forage fish in collaboration with other MRC's and the
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife. A protocol has been developed.
Regarding bottom fish, Skagit County did work with local community members last
year to identify potential bottom fish for protection in that county. Whatcom
County would like to do something similar, and use the information to focus on
future efforts. There is a lot of marine resource data out there. They helped
compile and generate some of that data. More data will be generated. It is
important to find a way to manage that data and make it accessible to many folks
in the community. They will strive to develop a management strategy that is
accessible by the public.
Brenner asked if they get the kind of data from out in the ocean that they
need for habitat protection. Stroebel stated they will start with near -shore data.
Through the Shellfish Protection District efforts, there has been coordination with
some of the Canadian folks. They hope to link to that data from Canada and learn
about that system. This is a regional system.
Brenner asked if they are going to get some data that is farther out from the
shore. There is some concern about seals and sea lions. Stroebel stated they can
pursue that data. They will try to find links to that data rather than try to manage
it.
Stroebel stated a final component is continuing to build community
partnerships. The marine summit was an excellent start in recognizing all the
marine efforts in the county and regionally. They have been making great strides
to build bridges between shellfish protection and salmon recovery efforts. A grant
application in the packet provides more detail on the projects they propose. The
Northwest Straits Commission is reviewing the applications. They hope to hear the
result by December. They may have to make a few adjustments in their
applications, and then they will hopefully begin receiving money in February.
Hoag stated she serves on the committee. When the MRC was established,
the committee members mentioned that they want to see short -term projects as
well as long -term projects. There are a lot of long -term projects here. For a short -
term project, she would like to identify impacts to forage fish so they can begin to
address the things that are causing problems. Look for gaps in the data, such as
the deposition of air pollution on the near -shore environment. No one is doing that
work. Stroebel stated that is why it is important to build partnerships. Salmon
recovery efforts propose several near -shore projects this year. That will help to fill
the gaps. There is $15,000 left in this year's budget. They are working on a
proposal for more short -term projects. Included in that proposal is a stewardship
program that recognizes shoreline owners and their stewardship practices. Another
program is an adopt -a -beach cleanup strategy and removal of creosote pilings that
have been identified.
Brenner asked if there is an adopt -a -creek program.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/20/2001, 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
48
49
Hoag stated there is not an official program.
Stroebel stated the adopt -a -road program is how this idea got started. They
thought it would be nice to do something similar to the beaches. There are already
many volunteers out there cleaning up beaches. This is a way to recognize those
volunteers and help provide supplies.
Brenner stated she did that in Point Roberts, and asked if Point Roberts has a
program. Stroebel stated she was not sure. There have been more informal local
efforts and also once -a -year beach clean up at Point Roberts.
Hoag asked the Council to keep an eye in the future on what is going on.
The Cherry Point herring are (inaudible). No one is looking at air deposition on the
near -shore environment. She also encourages Marine Resources to pick up the
issue.
Brenner asked if the State Department of Fish and Wildlife or the State
Department of Ecology is looking at any herring defects. Stroebel stated a joint
effort is looking at that population.
3. LAKE WHATCOM
Lake Whatcom Watershed Action Strategy
(Clerk's Note: The Council took a two - minute break.)
Roll stated there are three issues that include existing development, future
development, and how to deal with hazardous spills and response. In each of those
categories, they have identified work that needs to be accomplished in the context
of addressing those issues from a water quality perspective. This strategy is
geared toward recognizing that it is a drinking water supply, and the issues related
to drinking water are the highest priority in developing strategies.
Brenner stated she understood that the moratorium would be short -term to
collect the data. However, this document says a moratorium would be instituted
until the tasks are completed.
Crawford stated the minimum moratorium proposed is for three years.
Roll stated the purpose of the moratorium was to pursue and complete the
tasks as much as possible in the timeframe proposed.
The three specific areas have tasks that need to be completed. The first task
for future development is the protection of priority areas through conservation
easement or other tools. Another task is to evaluate development standards and
regulations and to pursue amendments to encourage or require low impact
development practices. A third task is education and enforcement of existing land
Water Resources Work Session, 11/20/2001, Page 10
1 use regulations. The fourth task is to acquire scientific information for predicting
2 pollutant loading into Lake Whatcom. They lack information on amount of pollution
3 from current land uses. This is related to pollutant loading information.
4
5 The next area is existing development, which would focus on a specific area
6 in the Lake Whatcom watershed, retrofitting, the impacts of retrofitting on water
7 quality, and how to manage stormwater. Another task is to reduce stormwater
8 contaminants through a stepped up emphasis on source controls, including current
9 stewardship and non - regulatory incentive -based programs. A multitude of these
10 have been rolled out in the last two years. This is to recognize those non -
11 regulatory, incentive based programs and increase the audience. It will determine
12 if the educational activities ultimately have an impact on water quality in the
13 watershed.
14
15 Brenner suggested adding language, "lake- friendly gardening and
16 landscaping." They are not exactly the same thing.
17
18 Roll stated another task is enforcement and education of existing land use
19 regulations. The last task for existing development is to acquire scientific
20 information related to what they currently know in terms of existing development,
21 areas where land use occurs in critical areas and other areas in the watershed, and
22 acquiring that loading information. They are looking at loading information in terms
23 of what may happen in the future and what is currently happening. Develop a
24 management strategy to mitigate potential pollutants.
25
26 Dawson asked how long it would take to complete the tasks. Roll stated it
27 will take three to four years. The scientific information related to loading depends
28 on lengthy, continuous gauging and flow measurements. At the same time, they
29 need to acquire data relative to pollutant loads related to both normal events and
30 stormwater events.
31
32 The emergency spill response area is important in the context of dealing with
33 issues in the lake and outside the lake, and how the community collectively
34 responds to spills. They need to make sure there are strategies in place.
35
36 Crawford stated this plan was not presented at the County Council meeting
37 on Tuesday night.
38
39 Brenner asked the type of relationship the County has with the City of
40 Bellingham to work together to create development ordinances that would lower
41 impacts in the watershed. She received an email from a citizen who sent her
42 information on what the City is doing. The City wants a dead end road paved wider
43 than the developer of a subdivision proposes. The City wants the dead end road to
44 be paved 18 feet wide. She remembered having a meeting with other
45 councilmembers where road turnouts were discussed. The City of Bellingham is
46 telling people that the County will not let the City develop roads that are less than
47 18 feet wide. However, that is not the message that the County Council gave.
48
Water Resources Work Session, 11/20/2001, 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
48
49
Hoag stated the County Council specifically put in language saying that roads
of lesser standards would be allowed and the Engineering Division would work it
out.
Dick Prieve, Assistant Director of Administration, stated the County and City
have a letter of agreement. Road width becomes a safety issue. The County
always had a minimum of 20 feet to allow for parking and emergency vehicles.
That is for a very low volume of traffic.
Brenner stated the County Council made it clear that the County would allow
other things for less impervious surfaces.
Hoag stated that was also a recommendation of the Technical Advisory
Committee (TAC).
Brenner stated the County Council direction is being ignored.
Prieve stated the City and County are working together to reduce standards.
He didn't think it is true that the City is telling people the County won't allow lesser
standards.
Brenner stated Tom Rosenburg is one of the City employees who is telling
that to people.
Roll stated there was a specific task from the Joint Lake Whatcom
Management Committee that dealt specifically with roads, road standards, and
coordination between the City and County. Tom Rosenburg was the lead on that.
It included participants from the County. There is a link. The two governments
have been talking.
Brenner stated she would like a response about why the City is saying that.
Nelson asked if there are clear enough policies and directions that staff can
administer.
Monsen stated that staff is in the process of rewriting the road standards in
response to Council direction. Also, staff is aware that there is federal guidance
relating to the ability to construct roadways that are narrower, from a liability
standpoint. That guidance is being handed to them, which they didn't have in the
past.
Brenner questioned whether that guidance is an actual requirement. Monsen
stated it is guidance that any tort attorney would be successful in using against the
County.
Brenner stated there are alternatives that other communities are using.
Monsen stated staff is looking at putting those alternatives in place. They have not
yet rewritten all of the road standards, but they are being rewritten in the context
of the Council's direction.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/20/2001, 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
48
49
Nelson stated the City should tell people what the County's current standards
are. Monsen agreed.
Hoag stated the Lake Whatcom overlay was done two years ago. When it
was done, the Council was clear in its intent that road standards in the watershed
should be lessened so there is less of an impact on the lake. The TAC was involved
in that discussion. The language is there.
Sylvia Goodwin, Planning Division Manager, stated part of the problem is an
ongoing problem with TAC. They work at a very methodical pace. It takes forever
to get anything through. They are supportive, but they move very slowly. It took
five years to write the subdivisions regulations. It's been two years on road
standards. Staff has been trying to get the committee to work on Lake Whatcom
stormwater standards for two years. The committee needs Council deadlines.
Brenner stated that isn't the problem. The City of Bellingham has an option
to have a lesser standard, with an agreement that the developer /owner will pay for
an upgrade in the future. It is like a covenant on the property. It provides
breathing room while the standards are being worked on. The County should use
an intermediate agreement. Once 18 -feet wide asphalt is installed, it is done. The
County should use an intermediate measure.
Hoag stated that this was referred to the Engineering Division, not TAC.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side 8.)
Brenner stated applications are in right now. They are fighting with the City
about the road width. Do an emergency ordinance to allow for an interim
agreement.
Nelson stated the Council might need to revise the process with the TAC and
review the relationship policies between the City and County.
Brenner asked if the County could impose a smaller threshold until the
standards are worked out with the City.
Crawford stated the Council was told that there were two applications that
would have been affected by the proposed holding pattern. Goodwin stated there
are two short plats and one four -lot long plat. One of them was recently approved.
There were only five new lots last year that would have been affected by a
moratorium.
Crawford asked if that is an indication of the pace of subdivision development
that would be affected by a moratorium. Goodwin stated that is true. Historically,
there has been more. Last year, the issue that prevented subdivisions was the
water supply. The City is reluctant to give anyone water outside of the urban
growth area (UGA) and within the watershed. There hasn't been an available water
supply.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/20/2001, 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
47
48
Brenner stated that is the law. Goodwin stated that is correct.
Crawford asked if that situation changed. Goodwin stated not that she is
aware of. People can still do a short plat if they can get a well.
Hoag stated they need to look back at the past several years to determine
the pace of development.
Crawford asked if the situation could be characterized as greedy developers
tearing down the Planning Department trying to subdivide in the watershed. He is
trying to get to the nature of the emergency. Goodwin stated there has not been
over the last year. There may have been more in the previous year because of a
pending threat of development regulations.
Crawford questioned what has happened in the Planning Department this
past week, in terms of the reaction of the community to a proposed moratorium.
Goodwin stated there have been inquiries. They have not had a flood of
applications, partly because a developer has to get a surveyor and establish water
supply. It takes more than a week to get a subdivision application in. It takes two
to four weeks. Unless someone has already been working on it, it will take another
couple of weeks before someone can get in an application. There is an increase in
inquiries, but they are not tracked.
Crawford asked about the recommendation from the Water Resources
Division. Roll stated he was directed to develop the strategy that is in the Council's
packet.
Monsen stated that with or without the moratorium, the division's focus was
to develop an action plan to bring focus and resolution to the Lake Whatcom
watershed issue. This action plan proposal is with or without a moratorium. He
intends to move ahead of this with or without a moratorium.
Crawford asked why they need to find resolution now, and who directed
County staff to create the recommendation.
Nelson stated that question needs to be directed to the County Executive.
Monsen stated the primary focus of the discussion with the County Executive
was to get these things accomplished logically, with or without a moratorium.
Crawford asked if staff would pursue the strategy if they don't do a
moratorium. Monsen stated they would.
Crawford asked if the County Executive would determine what is going to
happen in the watershed, regardless of the work that the Council has done. He
asked if the Council decides whether or not this is the policy they want to pursue.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/20/2001, 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
48
49
Roll stated there isn't a thing in the proposal that wasn't in the jointly
adopted Lake Whatcom Management Plan. This proposal emphasizes the pieces
that they need to get going on sooner rather than later. There is nothing in the
proposal that the County Council has not already approved.
Crawford asked why it wasn't proposed that way.
Hoag stated the question was whether or not they should stop development
while these things are accomplished. These things have been agreed on by all the
jurisdictions. The question was whether or not to stop development in the
meantime. The Council has voted to approve this over the years. The moratorium
is new. She would like to go through the document and ask about specific items.
She doesn't agree that they need to have all the items complete before lifting the
moratorium. On page 2 of 3 of the Lake Whatcom Watershed Action Strategy, item
one of the existing development area, she asked the potential development in the
Geneva area. Monsen stated there is little potential development. Geneva was
isolated to accomplish retrofitting, not new development.
Hoag asked the importance of having that item complete before new
development if they are using it to demonstrate a retrofit. Monsen stated the
moratorium has nothing to do with Geneva.
Hoag read the second area of existing development. She didn't see
something about fixing failing stormwater systems. An inventory showed that the
Park Place drain is failing. She questioned why there is not an item to fix the
system that is not working. Monsen stated that from a regional standpoint, there
are no non - working systems in the unincorporated area. There are some small
systems in the Geneva area. Councilmember Hoag's suggestion would be a project
in Geneva. The systems in the unincorporated areas are either a ditch or a small
detention system.
Hoag asked if the County could coordinate with the City to address that
issue. Monsen stated it is a matter of approaching the issue without having a say
in it.
Brenner stated she wanted to make sure the moratorium, if they approve
one, is temporary and not ongoing. The items that should not be included as tasks
for the moratorium because they are ongoing are:
• Protection of high - priority lands through conservation easements and
other preservation tools,
• Evaluate development standards and regulations and pursue amendments
to encourage or require low impact development,
• Education and enforcement of existing land use regulations, and
• Reduce stormwater contaminants through a stepped up emphasis on
source controls including current stewardship and non - regulatory
incentive based programs.
Crawford stated that when he reads this document, he doesn't have a
problem with any of this in detail. He suggests that they should discuss what a
Water Resources Work Session, 11/20/2001, 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
48
49
moratorium does to help or not help this along. He is struggling with why four of
the councilmembers voted for the moratorium.
Nelson stated that if they do a moratorium, he hoped the reason is to do a
time out to develop the knowledge base they need. To demonstrate concerns, they
need a baseline. The question is whether a moratorium allows the time to develop
that baseline. Roll stated yes. It is an opportunity to collect information they need
to predict what should go where and what is existing right now, and what their
relative contributions are to Lake Whatcom water quality. This is something they
are pursuing regardless of a moratorium.
Nelson asked if the information would be different if there is a moratorium.
Roll stated it depends on what they are most interested in addressing, such as
high- density development, single family homes, and building across the spectrum.
Nelson asked the reason for doing the moratorium. Roll stated the Council
has come to him a number of times wanting to do an overlay and the effects of
development on stormwater. This process is to acquire information to provide
guidance in the future on how they may want to allow development in the future
and how they currently want to deal with existing pollutant loads from existing
development.
Brenner stated she thought that they would find out where the pollutants
come from. The mercury issue put this on the front burner. She thought they
would find out where those sources come from before they proceed, and that this
moratorium will give the County a chance to look at that pollutant and other
pollutants. Roll stated this proposal does not include mercury. This is geared
toward pollutants that have immediate health effects to the drinking water supply.
The priority was specifically as a source protection of drinking water. The issues
with mercury are based on fish consumption.
Hoag stated the question from the public is the most efficient way to protect
a drinking water reservoir. It is most efficient to protect pollutants from getting in
the lake in the first place, rather than removing the pollutants once they are in the
lake. In cities and counties that have not allowed development in the drinking
water reservoir, they don't have a problem. Places that allow development have
contaminated water and spend huge amounts of money to clean up the water, with
mixed results. The purpose of a moratorium is to hold development until they are
sure that development does not impair the water quality or until there is an efficient
method of fixing the problem. The question is whether they should allow
development before they know if they can adequately address the impacts. The
tasks in the plan are how they know. Look at other things that have gone on. The
problem may not necessarily be from residential development, but they don't know
for sure. If they can find out and prove that they can allow development with no
impact on the lake, then there is no reason to prevent development. On the other
hand, if there is a problem, the Council has to determine how much development is
acceptable. The purpose of the moratorium is to stop and determine whether or
not there can be development without risking the drinking water supply. Have a
moratorium to assess where they are at, and to determine whether or not they can
Water Resources Work Session, 11/20/2001, Page 16
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
48
allow development without having a negative impact on the drinking water source.
That is the issue of the moratorium, not to collect a steady baseline.
Nelson stated humans make an impact. Lakes will degrade naturally. The
Council needs to develop policies. No one can guarantee a development with zero
impacts.
Brenner stated they could create developments that reduce impacts by doing
certain things. Developers are interested in doing that. Produce a menu of options
so people can develop their properties.
Hoag stated the public was told that the Park Place stormwater system would
prevent contaminants from running into the lake. Tests have shown that it was a
miserable failure. They know that what they are doing doesn't work. They need to
look at the things that are not working and question why.
Emily Salka, Building Industry Association, stated she is concerned about the
lack of public process that went into this process. If people feel development is a
main source of the problem, no one in her agency was asked about this. She
doesn't see that this is a threat to the public's health, safety, and welfare. Two
years ago, the County Council adopted a proposal by BIA on policies and goals to
reduce pollution. Development can be used as a tool to reduce pollution. She
doesn't think a moratorium is necessary to achieve these goals.
Gary Reid, builder, asked the cost benefit of a moratorium to the public. He
asked what they gain and the defining goals. If they shut down development, they
affect the growth management process.
Brenner stated she understood from Executive Kremen that this would not be
prolonged. The timeframe is important.
Reid stated he would be concerned if the County Council extended the
moratorium many times. The plan doesn't define a goal for staff.
Hoag stated she asked the Executive when the moratorium would end. The
Executive told her the moratorium would end when the studies are complete, in
about six months. Putting a time limit on the moratorium is not the answer. They
would lift the moratorium when the tasks are complete. Reid stated the
councilmembers just discussed that they need a three or four year monitoring
period.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side A.)
Reid continued to ask what could be accomplished in the six months that the
moratorium allowed.
Hoag stated an emergency moratorium is always sixty days, legally.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/20/2001, Page 17
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
48
49
Dan Gibson, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated an emergency ordinance
has a 60 -day limit. A moratorium has a six -month limit. They would initiate an
emergency moratorium ordinance for 60 days, have a hearing, and move into a six -
month moratorium. The six months can be extended. It requires a hearing and
further findings that state an extension is needed.
Reid stated the developers' goals are similar to those in the plan. The
question is whether this moratorium is fair and if it is reasonable to create this
much doubt amongst the landowners. It won't have much of an impact on the
industry as a whole, but there may be a big impact on one individual's rights.
Crawford asked if a study, with continual new findings, would be the basis for
extending the moratorium. Gibson stated a radical new set of information would
not have to come forward every six months. Typically, after six months, they can
keep going if they don't have the information that they are looking for. That is the
practical reality.
Nelson asked if they could put a time limit on a moratorium. Gibson stated
yes. It is for six months. It is not extended beyond six months unless the Council
says it will be extended. They can continue up to one year if a work plan is
developed.
Bill Henshaw, 2653 N. Park Drive, Bellingham, stated the County, City, and
Water District 10 invested money in a program three years ago. For three years,
there has been a lot of dithering around. There is not a real understanding of what
is going on in terms of the watershed. The Building Industry Association (BIA) put
forth a proposal to attempt to retrofit all the existing homes. The realtors also
submitted a proposal. That was three years ago. They've been in this process for
three years, and they are still trying to do baseline studies. They need to retrofit
houses. They need to fix stormwater problems in the city and the county.
Concentrate on getting those done first. Continue with the baseline studies. The
public would feel better about how the money is spent by the County and the City.
There is not a level of cooperation that is needed to get the job done. They are
doing the same thing here that is happening with salmon. The County and City are
each doing something different. It is time to coordinate and use common sense
instead of putting it all on development. Subdivisions have to meet stormwater
management practices that are in place now. A single house does not. The
subdivisions are the best use for around Lake Whatcom, from an engineering
standpoint. The stormwater standards will keep the lake clean. They can't do
anything about a single house.
Brenner asked if best management practices (BMP's) for subdivisions will not
create any pollution. Prieve stated they would not create pollution if they are put in
and maintained correctly.
Brenner stated it is a moving target. They have to demand retrofitting. She
is glad there are developers who will do that. The moratorium was supposed to be
a breather, but not for a long time. It was supposed to be done to allow very
specific things. It shouldn't take years. There are things they can find in six
Water Resources Work Session, 11/20/2001, Page 18
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
48
months. In the meantime, the County can develop interim standards for
development.
Hoag asked for clarification on whether Mr. Henshaw believes that residential
subdivisions are a problem in the watershed. Henshaw stated they are a minor
impact compared to existing development.
Hoag asked if Mr. Henshaw knows where the mercury comes from. Henshaw
stated he has no idea, but knows the amount is less than the State Department of
Ecology's (DOE's) standard for water quality.
Hoag stated mercury is bio- cumulative. She questioned whether Mr.
Henshaw is aware of the toxic byproduct that is created when surface water is
treated with chlorine (inaudible). Henshaw stated he is aware that byproducts are
created.
Hoag stated that studies show that most of the organic (inaudible) from the
lake comes from residential development. If they add more organic stuff to the
lake, and end up with more carcinogenic byproducts from treatment, then it is a
large impact on the public.
Cal Leenstra, 1802 Lakeside, stated there is no imminent threat that can be
clearly demonstrated. There is not even a consensus among the councilmembers
about why this should be done. A moratorium would precipitate more applications
and aggravate the situation. It isn't going to get the job done. There have been
studies over the years on the lake. They still don't have the answers. They will not
get the answers in 60 days or in six months. Vote against a moratorium. If
implemented, and peoples' property values are devalued and there will be a takings
issue. He doesn't want to spend tax money on paying for a lawsuit.
Brenner asked if there has been any case where there has been a temporary,
time - specific moratorium in which a judge ruled there was a taking. Gibson stated
he was not aware of any.
Brenner asked if it is probable that there would be a case of a taking. Gibson
stated not on a six -month moratorium. It is different if it becomes a seven -year
moratorium.
Dawson stated mercury is shown in basin three, which has the least amount
of development. She anticipates that the mercury comes from the old mines in the
area. The public is accusing development for the increased amount of mercury.
Nelson asked for timeframes on the action items.
Brenner asked how quickly they could have a plan in place for retrofitting.
Nelson asked what could be accomplished in six months. Monsen stated it is
difficult for staff to give Council a timeframe for completing each item. Many
Water Resources Work Session, 11/20/2001, Page 19
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
48
activities involve a variety of individuals and departments. Staff needs to discuss it
first to develop an accurate answer.
Nelson asked if any of the tasks could be completed in six months.
Troy Muljat, 956 Colony Court, stated a moratorium sends a negative
message to the development community. Quality of life is important for all. He is
president of the Board of Realtors. The moratorium is not a major emergency. He
is enlightened by the action items. Vote against the moratorium.
Nelson asked for a timeframe to complete each item. Monsen stated some of
the items could be done in six months if they drop everything else.
Brenner stated that if it is important enough to do an emergency, they
should lower the priority of everything else.
Goodwin stated they can't drop everything. The County has other mandates.
Nelson asked what is important for a moratorium. Monsen stated that if they
envision the topic areas having a beginning and an end, then there are ways to do
that within six months or 12 months. They need three or four years of data
gathering. Everything else can be done in a specific timeframe if they establish the
appropriate priorities, are willing to drop other things, and have the right resources
available. .
Hoag asked how long it would take to develop an emergency spill response.
Stroebel stated that action involves several different departments. They haven't
discussed that with the other departments.
Roll stated a number of jurisdictions also would be involved. They haven't
asked other jurisdictions to make this a priority.
Brenner stated Executive Kremen and Dewey Desler should be there to give
an answer on the timelines.
Nelson asked why an emergency spill response is tied to a moratorium.
Brenner stated more cars from development results in more chances for a
spill.
Hoag stated some developments might heat with oil, which requires oil
trucks to be driving in the watershed.
Brenner asked how the administration came up with an estimate of the
timeline.
Nelson stated he was told they would do an emergency moratorium to have a
public hearing on these items regarding a six -month moratorium. That was not to
Water Resources Work Session, 11/20/2001, Page 20
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
48
49
say that the work would last for six months. It was only that a moratorium can be
done for six months at a time.
Brenner stated a three -year moratorium would push their patience.
Hoag asked the timeline of acquiring scientific information for predicting
pollutant loading into Lake Whatcom. Roll stated they need good flow information
over three to four years to begin to get a body of information for flow. In addition,
they need individual samples on pollutants to be collected in that time during
normal events and also during storm events. This is being addressed through the
total maximum daily load (TMDL) from DOE and work by the WRIA watershed
planning process. Those are two places the scientific information will be gathered.
The proposal on the Planning Unit's table is that some of the loading data be
collected through WRIA, and lake response data be collected through the TMDL
process.
Hoag asked if any of this information has been gathered for predicting
pollutant loading. Roll stated there is very sketchy data now.
Stroebel stated there is data for a year from two or three sites. Four new
stations were installed this fall, and two new stations will be installed in the spring.
Roll stated studies are only as good as the scientific questions that are asked.
Robin Matthews did good work on low level dissolved oxygen. That regimen isn't
intended to be applied to where the load is coming from.
Hoag stated other items were about evaluating development standards and
making amendments that require low impact development practices. She asked
the timeframe.
(Clerk's Note Nelson and Crawford left at 1:10 p.m. The quorum was lost.
The discussion continued, below.)
Goodwin stated it will take about two years. This year, the County has to
update its Comprehensive Plan, Critical Area Ordinance, and other requirements. If
this is all the Planning Department had to do, staff could focus on it and get it done
in a year.
Brenner asked what would happen if they did a moratorium to develop,
within six months, interim regulations for the watershed that would result in a net
reduction of pollution due to development. Pat Jones and the BIA have talked
about this before. Set interim standards that would allow development to continue
with stringent interim standards. They could put that together in six months.
Goodwin stated they could do it if they drop the Lummi Island Subarea Plan, the
transfer of development rights (TDR) program, and the surface mining and gravel
studies.
Brenner stated they would not drop the priorities, but rearrange the
priorities. This is supposedly life and death. They've said that the Lake Whatcom
Water Resources Work Session, 11/20/2001, Page 21
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
48
49
watershed is the number one priority. Goodwin stated they can do it if they can
postpone other things.
Reid stated a lot of that is already put together. Single family houses have
strict stormwater management guidelines. They are probably close to the net
guidelines now.
Brenner stated this would not be guidelines. This would be regulations. Reid
stated that already exists. They will never see the water runoff. It all goes
underground to the leaching trenches. There are a lot of technical regulations in
place. He didn't know what else they can do that isn't being done.
Brenner stated no one has said to her that they are only allowing
development in the watershed that creates a net reduction in pollution. Goodwin
stated they don't use that term, and the County never requires someone to
overcompensate for someone else's pollution. That might not even be legal.
Monsen stated the County is not monitoring the situation, so they can't say if
that actually occurs.
Brenner stated they need to do six months of monitoring to see if that is
happening. She asked if it was legal to require a net reduction in pollution. Gibson
stated the County cannot legally require someone to take care of someone else's
pollution.
Hoag discussed mercury. She didn't know if people are aware of the studies
that have been done that compares public municipal groundwater sources and
surface water sources, and the cancer rates that are associated with them. The
studies found that communities that use surface water end up with a byproduct
when they use chlorine to treat the water, because of the amount of the organic
material in the surface water. The more organic stuff that is in the water, the more
carcinogenic byproduct is created. There is a direct connection between what goes
into that water. It is not about chemicals or pesticides.
Brenner stated they are saying now that almost all surface water is being
considered groundwater.
Hoag stated once the water comes to the surface, it is surface water. Reid
stated look at the information in terms of the moratorium. Look at the number of
lots proposed last year and the balance of the developed areas. Determine the
percentage of impact of existing development that is proposed to future
development. Also look at the guidelines that already exist. There would be .00
percent impact on five new lots compared to 99.99 percent on the existing
development. They are not talking about a moratorium on people who use the
property that exists today. They are talking about the future five lots that are
under a much higher standard.
Hoag stated that saying the future is about only five lots is misleading. The
point is that they can't put a moratorium on someone who already lives in a house.
Water Resources Work Session, 11/20/2001, Page 22
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
They can look at the number of the lots that are developable. It is a very high
number, higher than what is already developed. A moratorium addresses a big part
of the problem.
Brenner stated Sylvia Goodwin does not believe there are transitional
regulations in place that require no net increase in pollution. Reid stated the
standards are very high now. Requiring no net increase would require a $5,000
study on every lot to prove that there is no net increase. There are high,
reasonable standards now.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape two, side B.)
Brenner stated that until they get to a point where they have a better idea of
the cause of the problems, they would have to require no net increase in pollution.
They can't require a reduction, but they can create interim standards that require
no net increase. She does not expect to have all the answers in six months. She is
also not looking to extend the moratorium beyond six months. She is trying to
have something developed in six months that would justify taking specific actions in
the watershed.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 1:10 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
These minutes were approved by Council on December 11 , 2001.
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L. Ward Nelson, Council Chair
Water Resources Work Session, 11/20/2001, Page 23