HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources May 30 20001
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
May 30, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
L. Ward Nelson Connie Hoag
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
2. DISCUSSION WITH VARIOUS WHATCOM COUNTY STAFF MEMBERS
ON THE DRAYTON HARBOR SHELLFISH PROTECTION DISTRICT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE STAFF REPORT AND WATER RECOVERY PLAN
(AB2000 -188)
McShane stated he wanted to know if there are any red flags that the staff
has noticed about this ordinance. He questioned where they are at and what they
should be doing.
There was one presentation on the Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection
District and plan. There is a request that the County Council adopt the plan as an
ordinance. He wanted to hear from staff, including the Health Department and
Water Resources Division, and individuals.
Regina Delahunt, Environmental Health Services Manager, stated the
advisory committee did a great job putting the plan together, with all the different
objectives and tasks that need to be accomplished. She didn't see anything that
raised a red flag. She does see a lot of work that needs to be accomplished. A lot
of the tasks that are on the plan are tasks that have been part of the plan for quite
a while. They are updated in the latest plan. They have had difficulty in getting
many of the tasks accomplished. They talked with representatives of the Drayton
Harbor Shellfish Protection District Advisory Committee at the Water Team meeting
last week. The advisory committee feels the need for a lead entity in the County
government to ensure that the tasks will be accomplished. That has been an issue
over the years and has gotten better over the last couple of years. A grant from
the state allowed the County to hire support for the advisory committees, but that
support has been limited. It deserves attention.
McShane questioned whether the lead should be through the Health
Department or the Water Resources Division. Delahunt stated the Health
Department got involved because of the onsite sewage aspects, and no one else
was appropriate. Now that there is a Water Resources Division, it is more
appropriate as the lead entity. The issue is part of the bigger water picture. It is
related to the total maximum daily load (TMDL) study and the watershed planning
Natural Resources Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
efforts. Everything is tied together. They have to look at the big picture. The
Health Department would still be involved on health issues. It is a broad water
resource issue. There is no commercial harvesting happening now.
McShane stated there are people harvesting recreationally. Delahunt stated
the Health Department does as much public education as it can. It is not against
the law to collect or eat the shellfish.
Nelson stated this is primarily an issue of a health concern. The shellfish
protection issue is whether or not people can eat the shellfish. The Health
Department should take this up, with assistance by the Water Resources Division.
Delahunt stated that how they get to solve the situation relates to water resources.
Nelson stated the shellfish district isn't necessary if the water quality is
improved, and that is a health concern. It was imposed due to a concern of the
contaminants on shellfish beds. They shouldn't be expanding the role of
government or expanding districts on a water resource issue. It is based upon the
health issue at this time. If there are other issues, then they need to look at other
approaches. He is concerned when other issues are getting involved.
Delahunt stated it is duplicative if the Health Department is working on
shellfish. The cause of the contamination relates to the entire watershed planning
effo rt.
Nelson asked what water planning issues relate to Drayton Harbor.
Bruce Roll, Water Resources Division Manager, stated Drayton Harbor is in
the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) #1.
Nelson questioned whether it is part of the Nooksack watershed. Roll stated
it is.
Nelson stated it is an element of the Nooksack watershed. He questioned
whether it is infecting the shellfish. Roll stated it certainly is.
Nelson questioned how that is. Roll stated it is affected a couple of ways.
The health issues are derived from a contaminant being in a shellfish that is then
consumed. That is where the health interest stops in this instance. In cases of
Lake Whatcom, they are looking at similar issues. They are looking activities that
could be detrimental to water in some shape or form, whether they be biological or
chemical. For the most part, it is handled by the Water Resources Division to
identify the types of land uses and mitigation factors that are in place to prevent it.
He didn't think the charge belongs to one department or the other. It is a tandem
issue. In terms of making sure that, once the shellfish beds are open, there are
measures to make sure land uses don't impact in the future, it is a tandem thing
tied to septic system oversight, the type of agriculture in the area, whether there
are adequate buffers to prevent contamination, and other issues. Those are water
resource issues.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
Nelson stated the point is that the issue is shellfish. There isn't a shellfish
restriction in Lake Whatcom. Roll stated there would be if there were shellfish
being harvested.
Nelson stated there aren't shellfish in Lake Whatcom. They are dealing with
a limited scope issue that was imposed by the state Department of Health on
Drayton Harbor. He is in favor of working collaboratively on other issues, but the
focus is on the shellfish issue. His objective right now is this shellfish restriction in
Drayton Harbor.
McShane questioned whether there are items in the plan that the County
should not be acting on.
Nelson asked the bottom line goal of the plan.
McShane stated the bottom line is to restore the ability to commercially
harvest shellfish in Drayton Harbor and to continue to be able to harvest.
Nelson questioned the objective in the first part of the plan. Delahunt stated
the objective is at the end of the executive summary. The goal is improvement of
and sustained water quality in Drayton Harbor in order to restore this harbor's
approved classification for shellfish.
Nelson stated that is the health condition they are dealing with.
McShane stated the Health Department has actively played a role in some of
those areas, such as onsite sewage treatment systems. It has, to a large degree
perhaps, accomplished that goal.
Nelson stated he wanted the Health Department to be responsible for
meeting the objective.
McShane stated that is one thing the Health Department typically does. The
next step would be dealing with issues that are not necessarily related to the typical
tasks that the Health Department does.
Nelson stated that is fine. The Health Department has to make the
determination of whether the tasks are important in meeting the objectives and
goals.
made.
McShane questioned who would oversee the work when that decision is
Nelson stated the County Council will oversee that work.
McShane questioned which department would oversee the work and how the
work would be accomplished. He questioned whether a division would be created
Natural Resources Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
within the Health Department, or if they would take it to an entity that the County
already created and that will deal with many of same issues already, such as
stormwater runoff and land use decisions.
Delahunt stated objective two is to identify pollution sources and monitor
water quality. Much of that work is going to be done in relation to the watershed
planning effort.
Nelson questioned whether that would meet the objective in restoring
shellfish quality. Delahunt stated it would.
Nelson stated that would be something they could work collaboratively on.
He is not disagreeing with the collaborative effort. There needs to be a responsible
agency with the focus on the shellfish. He didn't want this issue expanded. He
wanted a focused objective. If there are other issues that the Council or the public
wants addressed, they can address them. However, this goal and objective is
regarding lifting the ban in Drayton Harbor. That is a health issue.
Brenner suggested adding language on packet page 184 in the last
paragraph, "...improvement of and sustained water quality in Drayton Harbor in
order to restore and maintain this harbor's approved classification..."
McShane stated the Council would need to come up with an ordinance to
implement this plan. He didn't want to create an ordinance for staff that staff
disagreed with. When they write the ordinance, that suggested language is
appropriate for the ordinance.
Geoff Menzies, Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District Advisory
Committee Chair, stated the committee would be supportive of that language.
Delahunt stated an ordinance established the district. That ordinance
adopted the original plan by reference. She questioned whether this would be an
update to that ordinance.
McShane stated it would be an update. There have been changes in the new
plan from the original plan.
Menzies stated the status of the plan dated September 1998 was adopted by
ordinance as the shellfish plan for Drayton Harbor. There are many plans. There is
the closure response strategy. The last status report and recommendation that
came from the committee was adopted by ordinance. The date of that status
report was September 1998. This plan is an update of that plan. This plan also
documents the accomplishments that have been made by all the agencies, from the
initial closure in January 1995 through to the present time. That is important
because, for the state to upgrade Drayton Harbor, they have to see improvements
in water quality and also documentation of those improvements. The committee
has gone to the agencies to get that information, which is in this report.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
Nelson stated Menzies became involved because of the shellfish beds that
Menzies owned and because of his frustration in trying to keep the pollutants away
from those beds. Nelson's concern is that he wants to make sure that water quality
for shellfish protection is addressed. That is the issue they have to focus on. The
state put its regulatory hand down and prohibited shellfish harvesting in the area.
The Health Department needs to keep that in mind. He didn't want to see the
County using funds and resources going somewhere else instead of keeping it
focused in Drayton Harbor.
Menzies stated the original closure and the formation of the district was
because the water in Drayton Harbor didn't meet the standards for commercial
shellfish harvesting. That was a closure by the shellfish division of the state
Department of Health. That kicked in a closure response strategy. Using the
Drayton Harbor plan, which was approved by the state Department of Ecology in
1995, they came up with a closure response strategy. This plan is now the most
recent update of that closure response strategy. Initially it was a health issue
because the state Department of Health closed the beds. Immediately, under state
law, a county has a responsibility to form a shellfish protection district. Other
jurisdictions have called it a clean water district or a surface water district. What
started it was the shellfish downgrade by the state Department of Health.
Nelson stated that should be the bottom line so the public is not confused on
the intent. Many times, they fund agencies or departments within the County. His
concern is on staying focused on problems that have occurred in the past. They
have allocated resources and committees have been working a long time. They
need to keep resources available. The agency responsible for getting this lifted is
the Health Department, working with the state Department of Health.
Menzies stated the water plan has a shellfish protection component, for
Drayton Harbor that was derived by the advisory committee. The committee is
looking for a sustained funding source. The goal is shellfish restoration, no matter
how long it takes. It has been ten years since he got involved. Drayton Harbor
was prioritized in 1988 as the number one watershed priority in Whatcom County
due to its beneficial uses and potential problems. It is a health issue because the
oyster industry is an indicator of a healthy environment.
Nelson stated there can be storm runoff pollutant problems in any other
watershed and may not necessarily be a detriment to health. An identified health
concern is a different issue. He questioned whether the Health Department wanted
to give up its role as the protector of public health to another division. Delahunt
stated they are not giving up their role as protector of public health. She is trying
to find the most efficient way to see that the upgrade happens. The reason the
downgrade occurred is because the resource is not protected at this point in time
because of agricultural issues, stormwater runoff, sewage, and a variety of other
reasons. All of those issues will be dealt with, and are currently being dealt with,
under the watershed plan. They could leave it at the Health Department, but they
would have to figure out a way for the Health Department to work within that
frame.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
Nelson questioned whether they are doing that now. Delahunt stated they
are, but not to the extent they would if they were to be plugged in as the lead for
shellfish protection.
Nelson stated it is a significant issue. He didn't know what the economic
answer is because he didn't want to duplicate efforts. However, he would be very
concerned about accomplishing the bottom line goal of getting the downgrade
lifted.
Menzies stated the recommendations are based on different sources of
pollution, recognizing that Drayton Harbor is affected by non -point pollution. These
recommendations that are tied to specific sources didn't fall from the sky. They
were generated through ten years of work, beginning with the watershed planning
process and then the closure response strategy. This update provides rationale on
what has been accomplished and why they are still important. They have all been
identified as shellfish restoration points.
Nelson stated the questions are how they manage it and how to make sure it
gets done to accomplish the goals and objectives.
McShane asked if Councilmember Nelson was concerned with the plan.
Nelson stated he wasn't concerned with the plan itself.
McShane questioned whether the implementation is something they want to
put in the ordinance.
Nelson stated that is where they will design how the funding is allocated.
McShane questioned whether Councilmember Nelson wants the Health
Department to remain the lead agency in making these decisions.
Nelson stated it is a question that has to be answered.
McShane stated the Health Department may be the lead because it is a
health issue, but the resources available to accomplish the task may come primarily
out of the Water Resources Division.
Delahunt stated they discussed this at the Water Team meeting. The team
concluded that they need a proposal for the next budget year. Considering the
comments, she suggested figuring out how they would accomplish the goals.
Nelson stated he wanted one source for the public to go to regarding this one
issue. The Water Resources Division is working on many things. He didn't want to
lose focus on Drayton Harbor and Portage Bay.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
Delahunt stated that if the Water Team came forward with a proposal about
how to address this in 2001, it would come forward in the budget ordinance.
McShane stated he was uncomfortable telling the administration how to
accomplish it.
Nelson stated he wanted to know how the administration wants to do this so
he can say why the Health Department decided to give it up to the Water Resources
Division. He can say to people that the administration decided this is the most
appropriate way of doing that.
McShane stated that is fine with him.
Nelson stated he wanted to hear the argument so he can agree or disagree.
Brenner suggested that the Health Department retain lead agency status.
The Council can make a recommendation to the administration. This is a health
issue that is very focused.
Jan Hanson, Drayton Harbor Shellfish Protection District Advisory Committee,
stated the words funding and money have been mentioned. That is the key. The
Water Resources Division has the flood fee, which is designated in part for shellfish
protection. The Health Department received grants and solved the septic tank
problems in Drayton Harbor. More funds are needed. If they designate part of the
flood funds to the Health Department, then it would be okay. She asked that the
Council not give lead agency status to the Health Department without funding.
Delahunt agreed.
Nelson stated he is looking for an advocate in getting this fixed.
Menzies stated the committee identified someone to implement the plan as a
major need. Based on the amount of time he has put in, Drayton Harbor can
provide enough work for one person. The committee suggests an interim person
for two to three years as a shellfish coordinator. There should also be money for
project funding. He estimated a cost of $80,000 to $100,000 per year. He
suggested that a portion of the flood fee go back to those in the district.
Brenner stated she wanted a position funded, but suggested that the County
hire someone as a private coordinator. The County will not need a full -time person
after the problem is solved. If the County brings on a full -time employee, and the
position goes away, the person can stay with the County in another position. She
would rather have someone specifically targeted for this. If the County decides it
wants to hire someone at a later date for maintenance, then she would be willing to
do that. At this point, she doesn't see that as an ongoing position.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/30/2000, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Menzies stated he was concerned about the authority of that short -term,
contracted person. The person needs the weight of being a County employee to
deal with other agencies.
Brenner stated a contractor is getting paid to produce accomplishments. If
they don't do that, they don't get paid. Menzies stated that, realistically, it is an
issue. It is about how that person is perceived by the Port, the public, and other
agencies.
Nelson stated they could contract out the development of the plan, but
implementation of the plan is different from developing the plan.
McShane stated it goes to an individual who is focused on this concern and
will have responsibility for the issue.
Nelson stated these people have worked hard on this. It is a health concern
and should remain so. He wants an advocate, and the Health Department is the
advocate.
Menzies stated it is important that the tasks for the person be clearly
defined.
Delahunt stated the current ordinance establishing the Drayton Harbor and
Portage Bay districts sunsets at the end of the year. They need to extend the
districts, and this is the ordinance they need to amend. They will also need to
update the Portage Bay plan as well.
Brenner questioned whether they have to sunset the district. She suggested
that they pass an ordinance that says the district is done when the upgrade is
lifted.
Roll stated the marina looks like a big issue to tackle. The septic systems are
not as big an issue right now. The distribution for the sewage needs a good going
over, including the age and proximity, which are questionable. He is amazed at
how much work has been done. He wouldn't advocate doing molecular
fingerprinting of the fecal coliform unless those methods are clearly defined. It
could be costly to do it right. The other pieces that they have to look at include two
issues related to monitoring for fecal coliform. One issue is what they have to do to
open up the monitoring. Another issue is what they need to monitor to look at
sources. They are two separate issues. They need to ensure there are adequate
funds for this endeavor to do what it takes to open it up and also to sniff out the
sources. Part of the problem with the activities is that, if minimal monitoring is
done, they will never get enough information on the sources. They need to have
adequate funds to do adequate monitoring, projects, and other things.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
Brenner stated there is money in the flood fund that is targeted for Blaine.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
Nelson stated Bellingham and Blaine, because they are not as impacted by
flooding, get a specific amount for other similar resources.
Roll stated they have drained the Water Resources fund down to $200,000 to
$300,000 to the end of the year. They will have to set some hard priorities. In the
next two to three years, they will not have the luxury of having a lot of money in
the bank. There is an interest in the WRIA planning initiative to integrate some of
the drainages, because some of them are valuable salmon habitat and will be part
of the instream flows. They have to involve people with the knowledge of what is
going on so they can piggyback the land use and monitoring needs related to input
in the shellfish beds. He is not necessarily advocating that this becomes part of
WRIA. They have a chunk of money going out to do work. They should make sure
they can get as much out of it collectively as they can.
McShane stated he would make an effort to put the ordinance together. He
will attempt to implement the plan, fund the implementation, and ensure that the
implementation and funding occurs through the Health Department with a shellfish
coordinator. How it is finalized is an administrative decision. This is a higher
priority than some of the other WIRA items.
Brenner asked the status of the person who did enforcement in Lake
Whatcom. Roll stated it was a temporary County position.
1. PRESENTATION/ DISCUSSION REGARDING HIGH VOLTAGE POWER
LINES (AB2000 -174)
McShane stated he scheduled this item as a favor to the Planning and
Development Committee because that committee is so full today.
Dirk Petty, citizen, stated he was instrumental in the Neighbors Opposed to
Power Encroachment (NOPE) initiative. Electromagnetic fields (EMF), as related to
high voltage transmission lines, are an important issue in Whatcom County. He
was the head of a bio- effects committee and received a sponsorship from Robert
Strong, who was a Boeing employee who contracted leukemia from pulse radiation
and received a large out -of -court settlement by Boeing. With those monies, Mr.
Strong financed a national conference.
Nelson stated pulse radiation is a lot different than EMF.
Petty stated Mr. Strong paid for his attendance to the national conference.
This is an ongoing issue. First, PSE explained to the committee how power is
produced and moved around the County. Then the committee had a short
discussion on household exposure. They want to now discuss how the
epidemiological studies coordinate to non - ionizing, sixty -cycle EMF, and how that
relates to high - voltage transmission lines. In 1979, Nancy Weerdheimer looked at
cluster cancer and tried to get funding for that study. She had maps of cluster
cancer in the Denver area. She looked at groundwater and many things. It came
Natural Resources Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
down to transformers next to houses. That began the public awareness of how
exposure could be related to leukemia. That study was reproduced by Ross Aday, a
former worker for the New York power line project. It was a study done in 1987 to
critique what Nancy Weerdheimer suspected about how exposure relates to
childhood leukemia.
Brenner questioned the size of the lines in the study. Petty stated they were
12 kilovolt (kv) distribution lines. The one study that always comes up is Dr. Sam
Milham's study on occupational mortality that looks at a half million men the ages
of 21 to 50, what those men did during their lives, and how they died. This study
shows that fishermen drowned, loggers get smashed, dentists commit suicides, and
people in occupations that relate to very high exposure of EMF die of leukemia at a
disproportionate rate. The people who are included in the disproportionate rates
include electronic technicians, radio and telegraph operators, electricians, linemen,
cable repairmen, television and radio operators, power station operators, aluminum
plant workers, welders, motion picture operators, sewing machine operators, and
others. They found that the electric motor in a sewing machine, which is near the
operator's head, has extremely high EMF. One doesn't see, feel, or sense EMF in
any way. Distance is the only thing that decreases exposure. They are talking only
about 60- cycle, non - ionizing radiation. Intensity and duration correlate to
exposure.
McShane questioned whether elevation was taken into account in the Denver
study. A magnetic field has an effect on ionizing radiation coming in to the earth.
An EMF would affect that. At higher elevations, such as Denver, residents are
already exposed to substantially higher levels of radiation. Petty stated they are.
Other studies have taken place at sea level. Independent studies are quite rare
because power companies generally pay for the studies. He didn't know if altitude
was taken into account.
Petty continued to state that intensity and duration are the key factors for
exposure. Distance is the one thing that can mitigate exposure.
Brenner questioned whether a solution could be making the power lines
much higher. Petty stated that would reduce exposure, but there are many
problems with that, such as expense and construction aspects.
Petty continued to state that the epidemiological studies on occupational
mortality are hard facts that are difficult to dispute. He will study EMF levels in
people's homes.
McShane questioned whether there is any conclusion about what levels are
safe and what levels are not safe. Petty stated that is highly disputable. Dr.
Milham believed that 10 milligauss is acceptable. No safe level has been accepted
throughout the industry, privately, or has been suggested. He suggested 10
milligauss because that is what Dr. Milham suggested. Very strong field strengths
impede the immune system from doing its job. If the immune system can't do its
job, then other things will happen to the body. People with developing or failing
Natural Resources Committee, 5/30/2000, 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
48
immune systems are at the highest risk. Children with developing immune systems
or the elderly with failing immune systems are the most affected by high EMF.
Andy Swayne, Puget Sound Energy (PSE), stated he is not particularly
knowledgeable about EMF. Regarding the very high power poles, there would be
lower field strength due to the more distance. They do use 90- and 100 -foot poles
from time to time, for clearance reasons. If they have to span a long distance with
the wires, which tend to sag in the middle, then they have to put the two ends
higher up. Higher poles are not typical. It is use- and site - dependent.
Brenner stated it seems it would be cheaper in the long run to install higher
poles. Swayne stated it isn't as much a matter of cost as it is availability of poles.
There would be an issue if they replace all the wood pole transmission lines in
existence and rebuild them with taller poles. There are other implications. Some
people would suggest that taller power lines have other negative effects, such as
cutting more trees and being more visually prominent. It is a worthwhile debate
that communities need to have. There are different ways of building power
transmission facilities. If the utility understands what the issues and implications
are, and can work with the community to achieve a balance that makes most
people happy, it would be valuable to pursue.
Dean Rogers, Whatcom County resident, stated he previously asked Mr.
Swayne if there would be more power loss and EMF under a transmission line of
115 kv that was being supercharged with 300 + amps. He asked Mr. Swayne to
answer that question again, for the record.
Swayne stated there would be more EMF. The greater the current, the
greater the magnetic field strength. If one was to take a given power line and
operate it at the 115 kv that carries a higher amperage of power, putting a larger
electrical load, which is a higher amperage on the line, would result in the greater
the magnetic field strength for that line. Regarding line losses, they have a lot to
do with the size of the conductor, or wire that is used and the voltage at which the
line is operated. As a general rule, the higher the voltage, the lower the line losses
for a given size wire. The more amperage on a given size line, the greater the
physical heating of that line will be. That has to do with the electrical resistance of
a given wire or conductor. As they put more power through the line, the line
becomes warmer. As the line becomes warmer, the electrical resistance of the line
increases. When the resistance increases, the amount of power lost over a given
distance will increase. Large amounts of power in a given voltage of line would
experience greater line losses for that amount of power. It is not simply that it is at
a given voltage. Many things affect it. One could design a suitable 155 kv
transmission power line with the appropriate number of appropriately sized
conductors that would allow one to move a lot of power at that voltage. One may
not choose to do it that way because there would be fairly high line losses. It is not
necessarily a factor of being a particular voltage or a large amount of power. If
efficiently moving power so there aren't high losses is what one is concerned about,
they would look to a different voltage and a different line configuration.
Natural Resources Committee, 5/30/2000, Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 3:03 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 5/30/2000, Page 12