HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources August 11 1998I WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
2 Natural Resources Committee
3
4 August 11, 1998
5
6 The meeting was called to order at 11:00 a.m. by Committee Chair Connie Hoag in the
7 Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue.
8
9 Also Present: Absent:
10 Tom Brown None
11 Kathy Sutter
12
13
14 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL
15
16 1. ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING WHATCOM COUNTY CODE 16.28, MANURE
17 AND AGRICULTURAL NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT (AB98 -254A)
18
19 George Boggs, Whatcom Conservation District Coordinator, gave a presentation. This
20 issue is being proposed because of the partial downgrade of the Portage Bay shellfish beds by
21 the State Department of Health (DOH). They cited the presence of fecal coliform in excess of
22 national standards. Fecal coliform is often associated with pathogens from animal and human
23 waste. When this is found in water quality samples, they can't distinguish whether there is
24 something more harmful in the water. DOH closed two stations in Portage Bay, which
25 triggered a requirement of the County to form a shellfish protection district and a program to
26 address the sources of the fecal coliform. DOH identified the following potential sources of
27 fecal coliform: failing on -site septic tanks, wildlife areas, sewage treatment plants, stormwater
28 runoff, and agricultural sources. In the study, DOH looked at the potential for the amount of
29 fecal coliform being generated in the watershed and they concluded that agricultural sources
30 had the highest potential for making the contributions, which resulted in the closure. The
31 Conservation District was asked to actively assemble a Portage Bay Closure Response Team to
32 determine what could be done to reverse the closure. Members of the team included John
33 Gillies of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), the Whatcom Conservation
34 District, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the state Department of Ecology (DOE),
35 the Tribes, Cooperative Extension, the Agriculture Federation Farm Bureau, and some of the
36 Sewage Treatment Plants (STP's) that were invited to participate.
37
38 Out of this team evolved the strategy to reverse the closure of the shellfish beds and
39 eliminate the potential harm of public health. The strategy identified four main sources.
40 • Failing on -site septic services. The County Health Department conducted a sanitary
41 survey in Marietta and found failing septic tanks and is now funding the correction
42 of those tanks.
43 • Sewage treatment plants. One STP in particular was not doing a good job, and those
44 discharges were watched on a regular basis. A full time staff person was hired to
Natural Resources Committee, 8/11/98, Page 1
I ensure the STP was operating within their permit.
2 • Stormwater. The County is developing a stormwater plan which has been funded.
3 • Agricultural sources. Sources include small farms and commercial farms. Technical
4 assistance would be provided to help farmers practice best management, which
5 would keep fecal coliform from going into the surface water and ground water. The
6 farming community needed financial assistance to put the facilities in. The
7 Conservation District has raised $700,000 for technical and financial assistance.
8 NRCS and the Conservation District is still pursuing additional funding.
9
10 The practice of the application of manure, post - harvest, to corn ground or to bare ground
11 has the greatest potential for runoff into streams, rivers, and creeks. NRCS standards require
12 the application of manure as a fertilizer. It is to be applied in the amounts and at the times that
13 there is a crop available that can use it. The problem with post - harvest application to corn
14 ground is that it would be washed away by flood waters or runoff from rainfall if left on the
15 surface. It could be incorporated below the soil to keep it from moving off target, however, it is
16 leached out of the root zone and goes into the groundwater. Studies done by the County of the
17 Lynden/Everson/Nooksack/Sumas area identified that groundwater nitrate levels are increasing,
18 and this was a source of that increase.
20 The object of the ordinance was first to require the farmer to hold the nutrient until the
21 following spring, since there is no good reason to put it out in the fall. If there is a cover or
22 catch crop that needed the nutrient, there would be a provision in the ordinance that the farmer
23 could get approval from the Conservation District that would individually review the situation
24 and the soil samples in the established crop. Second, manure application is too close to rivers,
25 streams, and drainage ditches, which results in runoff to the Nooksack Basin. That is the reason
26 for the 50 -foot buffer. The buffer requirement is negotiable based on a farmers particular
27 circumstances based on soils. If the soil is more permeable, then he may be able to work closer
28 to the stream without having run -off. If the ground is flatter, then he may also apply closer to
29 the stream. Where there is low permeability, slopes, or surface application, there must be a
30 buffer to the streams. The county passed a Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) in November 1997
31 which prohibits agricultural activity within 50 feet of a non - salmonid bearing stream or 100 feet
32 of a salmonid bearing stream. This ordinance waives the 50 -foot buffer if there is a
33 management plan that allows that activity.
34
35 The provision of the management plan set forth in the ordinance is not the same as the
36 exhaustive plan as required under the state legislative Senate Bill 6161 requirement, the
37 conservation plan. A farmer doesn't have to plan for the entire farm to get relief, but only a
38 particular field or as needed to tailor the management plan to have flexibility of the ordinance.
39 The prohibited application dates are September 1 to March 15 and are based upon best available
40 science.
41
42 This ordinance tries to reduce fecal coliform in the Nooksack drainage area so shellfish
43 beds can be re- opened. With the re- opening of the shellfish beds, farmers will not be subject to
44 lawsuits from the shellfish farmers that are damaged from the loss of income. The final
Natural Resources Committee, 8/11/98, Page 2
I adjustment in the time frame is based on the T Sum 200 formula, which calculates the number
2 of warm days after the first of the year. Based on that formula, a farmer can apply manure as a
3 fertilizer earlier than March.
4
5 Hoag stated that under WCC 16.28.010, a management plan could allow activity that
6 would otherwise be prohibited. Hoag reviewed the different sections of Exhibit A of the
7 proposed ordinance. A meeting was held with the farmers to get feedback on the ordinance. A
8 request was made for more flexibility on the spring date. The new proposed language allows
9 for earlier application, based on the T Sum 200 calculation. There was misunderstanding
10 regarding that language. This portion of the ordinance does not require a plan. It requires
11 approval of the Conservation District. Farmers want the approval to apply manure earlier to
12 only require a phone call to the Conservation District. Scientific data refers to average daily
13 temperature and precipitation amounts. It is a simple process. A confirmation letter from
14 Conservation District could follow the phone call.
15
16 There is also a suggested change on section 16.28.040 and an added definition of liquid
17 manure. Hoag stated definition of liquid manure. "A practical definition of liquid manure
18 includes any livestock manure mixture that can be pumped through conventional liquid manure
19 handling equipment." This includes the honey wagons, irrigation guns, and the injector
20 systems.
21
22 The Committee has gone to great lengths to make this ordinance as farmer- friendly as
23 possible. Hoag summarized that the law requires the County address the fecal coliform counts
24 in the river. The law requires that best management practices regarding manure be followed.
25 The committee tried to focus remedies on the worst problem that could make the biggest
26 difference on the fecal coliform counts. The committee is only addressing rising nitrate levels
27 in groundwater and the fecal coliform counts in the river and is also addressing liquid manure
28 being applied to bare ground or corn stubble following harvest. Coliform is being addressed
29 with the buffer and the run -off issue.
30
31 Hoag moved to include the liquid manure definition. "Liquid Manure: A suspension of
32 livestock manure in water in which the concentration of manure solids is low enough to
33 maintain a free - flowing fluid. Liquid manure also includes slurry, which is a mixture of
34 livestock manure, bedding, and waste feeding water. Liquid manure and slurry is typically
35 applied to fields by pumping through irrigation equipment or by hauling and spreading with a
36 tank wagon. The solids content of liquid manure or slurry is usually less than 10 %. A practical
37 definition of liquid manure includes any livestock manure mixture that can be pumped through
38 conventional liquid manure handling equipment."
39
40 Brown stated that this is the first he has seen of it. He will support it for now.
41
42 Motion carried unanimously.
43
44 Hoag moved to substitute the language in section 16.28.040 regarding enforcement as
Natural Resources Committee, 8/11/98, Page 3
highlighted in the latest substitute ordinance.
2
3 Brown stated the need to make it clear that it does not change the effect of the
4 ordinance. Hoag stated that she wanted the language to reflect that the County is not trying to
5 punish people.
6
7 Motion carried unanimously.
9 Hoag stated that when this came before the Closure Response Team, it included items
10 such as prohibiting application within 50 feet of the road, which was removed because it was
11 undue regulation. It also included language addressing grass and solids, which was also
12 removed. The committee has tried to fulfill the responsibility of the Council to address the
13 problem without causing undue burden. She requested cooperation of the farming community.
14
15 Sutter questioned the procedure and whether it would be inappropriate to take testimony
16 now because the issue is scheduled for public hearing. Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy
17 Prosecutor, stated that nothing prohibits people from speaking, however it should be more
18 appropriate for night public hearing.
19
20 Hoag made it clear to the audience that this is not a public hearing.
21
22 Brown stated that implementation at this time of the year is not a responsible act. It is
23 too late. A lot of people have planted crops and made yearly plans for handling their farming
24 activities. The County should not come in at the ninth month and dictate changes. Some people
25 have no alternatives but to receive a fine. Some fines could cause them to lose their farms.
26 Some farming practices are done by farmers that are leaders in the industry. Others are not. He
27 would support tabling the issue until after the harvest
28
29 Sutter stated that people have been told for a long time to practice best farming
30 management, as far back as 1993 on this manure management issue. Senate Bill 6161 does not
31 address what is being addressed in the ordinance. This bill addresses the need for a
32 management plan, which is allowed in the ordinance.
33
34 Hoag stated that this is something farmers have discussed with her. Farmers have been
35 aware of the best management practices, but continued to not follow those practices. There is
36 language suggested by farmers, which she will consider. The shellfish beds have been closued
37 and there is a legal mandate to do something. If the County fails to do something about it, they
38 will be liable for lawsuits. On the other hand, a problem should not be created. She suggested
39 that for this year, the farmers that have too much land in corn would be allowed to apply
40 manure with the condition that they till in the manure and plant a cover crop by October 1. This
41 will accomplish two things. First it will keep farmers who want to solve the problem from
42 receiving a fine. It will give them a year so that next spring they can plant accordingly. It will
43 still help the County solve the fecal coliform counts in the river because the buffer will still be
44 in place. However, more nitrates will be put into the ground. There may be more flexibility on
Natural Resources Committee, 8/11/98, Page 4
I the nitrate issue. Sumas stated that their wells will be closing due to elevated nitrate levels.
2 This problem has to be solved. There is a two -fold reason that the ordinance must still be
3 adopted instead of held for a year. First, government should be very clear ahead of time that
4 this ordinance will be happening. Also a buffer is needed next to ditches this year. The Spring
5 Chinook are going to be listed as endangered species. If the County comes up with a plan to
6 address the listing that National Marine Fisheries approves, then they will not designate 300
7 foot buffers along streams. That would wipe out agriculture in the County. This manure
8 ordinance is not the response to Endangered Species listing. It is a small part of the response.
9 If the County would want 50 -foot buffers instead of 300 -foot buffers, then it has to be proven to
10 the National Marine Fisheries Service that those buffers will work. Testing is currently
11 happening in the Nooksack River as part of the Portage Bay Closure Response Strategy, which
12 outlines the locations of the sources of pollution that are coming into Nooksack and the testing
13 results. If the buffers are implemented this winter, the testing will show that 50 -foot buffers
14 will work. The County has to address the fecal coliform problem now. Nitrates must also be
15 addressed, but the County may be able to get away with allowing the farmers to till and put in a
16 cover crop for a year.
17
18 Brown stated that the EPA, DOE, and Fish and Wildlife agencies are active and can give
19 citations and issue fines to violators for contamination of the river. This ordinance is not
20 necessary to stop that activity. Regarding the issue of giving plenty of warning, major changes
21 such as the seatbelt laws included years of advisories and warnings, and safety information.
22 Only after a number of years was the law enacted. When enacted, it was only an advisory
23 infraction for a period of time before it became permanent. This is the same situation for the
24 manure ordinance. The County has to allow slack time to so the farmers can make plans.
25 Regarding the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), if the County could get them to write
26 a letter that they will buy off on the plan now, he will support it.
27
28 Hoag stated that if the buffers are not put in place, NMFS would not approve activities.
29 They have stated that the County needs a proven and funded program that is working.
30
31 Brown responded that plans by other states are not all on the ground, proven, and in
32 place. The public has S136161. This legislative session, people should contact representatives
33 about problems with SB6161 and close the loopholes. That way, farmers would deal with one
34 regulation and not an additional regulation from the County Council. Farmers have many
35 agencies that dictate what is allowed on their land.
36
37 Hoag questioned whether the compromise regarding the application of manure in the fall
38 would put the County in a liability situation with regard to RCW 90.72, the shellfish protection
39 district. It requires best management practices be followed, and the County be would allowing
40 farmers to continue with a practice that is not best management. Frakes responded that it would
41 not subject the County to liability.
42
43 Brown stated that duplicating regulations is not an effective way to do government. If
44 there wasn't the state rule, he would look at this under different conditions. Only one layer of
Natural Resources Committee, 8/11/98, 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
control is needed.
Sutter stated that SB6161 doesn't say anything about prohibiting the application of
liquid manure to specific times of the year and to specific types of ground. It requires the dairy
industry have management plans. The County manure ordinance does not duplicate SB6161.
Brown stated that the management plan dictates when and where manure can be placed.
Many farmers don't have a management plan.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape 1, side A)
Brown continued to state that even if there is a management plan, the chances of being
allowed to apply during that time period are slim. Regarding SB6161, the management plan is
a key issue and requires testing and availability of records. Loopholes should be fixed so that
there is only one set of regulations.
Sutter questioned whether the County ordinance applies only to dairy farmers. SB6161
only applies to dairy farmers. There are other farmers that dispose of their liquid manure that
are not covered by S136161. Brown responded that there are not any other types of farms that
would apply manure in such a manner.
Dan McShane, 1451 Grant Street, stated that the Ferndale Meat Packing plant applied
liquid waste from their kill rooms. They don't do it anymore.
Chuck Timblin, Conservation District, stated that there are a number of dairy
replacement facilities not covered under SB6161 that apply liquid waste, and there are also
poultry farms that apply liquid waste.
Hoag stated that the ordinance is not limited to dairy farming.
Auggie Berendsen, 3125 E. Badger Road, Everson, stated that the DOE checked his
place out and covered his facility completely.
Hoag stated this does not duplicate S136161. DOE has said they are not able to address
the problems from the farms that do not have current management plans. It is a fallback
ordinance for those without management plans. SB6161 does not require compliance until the
year 2003. However, the County is required to fix the shellfish beds now. There are countless
state laws that lay out the general framework of how things should be done, then there are
County ordinances that detail how the state requirements would be accomplished. That is not
considered duplication, but local legislation.
Marian Beddill, 3600 Seeley, Bellingham, spoke in favor of the ordinance and allowing
tolerance for the current year. If the County residents want local control, than ask the federal
and state agencies to give the County only the guidelines for the end results that must be
Natural Resources Committee, 8/11/98, Page 6
I achieved, address the major problems, and give the local entities power to determine how to
2 achieve the end result. It is right to have multiple levels of controls. Also, Council member
3 Brown's seatbelt analogy does not apply. Wearing a seatbelt only affects the person making the
4 choice to not wear the seatbelt. Choosing to not engage in best management practices affects
5 many people and the water. She questioned enforcement and monitoring of the ordinance, and
6 encouraged proper management, reporting, and funding.
7
8 Hoag stated that the recommendation from the Closure Response Strategy Team was to
9 hire a County enforcement officer. Enforcement is guided by the CAO. The DOE stated that,
10 since they will have inspectors on the farms anyway, they would be willing to cite if they see an
11 infraction of the local ordinance. Farmers favored that enforcement method as opposed to
12 having an additional person on their property. However, DOE may have difficulties in getting
13 funding from the state if they are using their resources to enforce County regulations. That still
14 has to be worked out. It will be enforced either through DOE or the County. That was a portion
15 of the Closure Response Strategy.
16
17 Casey Lankhaar, 9914 Bender Road, Lynden, questioned the development of SB6161. It
18 was developed during over a year's worth of meetings with the tribes, the shellfish people,
19 Fisheries, DOE, and the EPA. All had input for a year. They were originally involved in the
20 development of the legislation. He questioned the County's reasons for creating stricter
21 legislation than the state created. Also, the time period to comply with SB6161 was originally
22 the year 2001, but at the request of the Soil Conservation Commission, it was moved back to the
23 year 2003.
24
25 Hoag responded that she supported SB6161. The County ordinance does not deny the
26 County's support of S136161. The status of the shellfish beds has nothing to do with S136161.
27 Shellfish beds were closed due to the rise in fecal coliform counts. The RCW requires the
28 County respond to that problem and put measures into place. Regarding dairies, the County
29 needs to be sure that best management practices are followed. Best management practices have
30 already dictated what is being required by the County ordinance. This is nothing new. The
31 counts on the shellfish beds are getting worse. It is not a problem that will go away. SB6161
32 does not solve it at this time. This would work in conjunction with SB6161. The Management
33 Plan items can be used with SB6161. What is now on the ground is not working. The County is
34 asking for this ordinance as a stop gap measure to take care of the problem until SB6161
35 becomes effective.
36
37 Sutter stated that SB6161 helps with the problem with dairy farms. There may be other
38 applicators besides dairy farmers to which the County ordinance needs to apply. Farmers with
39 management plans are exempt from the County ordinance.
40
41 Hoag clarified that management plans does not necessarily exempt farmers from the
42 requirements of the ordinance. A farmer must follow the requirements of the management plan,
43 which may echo the requirements of the ordinance.
44
Natural Resources Committee, 8/11/98, Page 7
I Boggs stated that it is not uncommon for the state legislature to leave areas for the local
2 legislators to fill in. He recited sections of RCW 90.72. There is a legislative mandate to
3 address the problem. There is the authority and jurisdiction to do what is necessary. It is a
4 political question as to whether or not the authority is exercised, based on water quality
5 problems.
6
7 Brown questioned the conditions in which the farmers could apply liquid manure to their
8 bare ground under a farm plan. Boggs responded that a crop must be established that requires
9 the nutrient. Soil samples must ensure the nutrient is not already available in the soil for that
10 crop. Taking into account what is presently in the soil, a prescription would be written to apply
11 manure to the crop.
12
13 Brown stated that just because there is a plan, it doesn't mean a farmer could apply liquid
14 manure to bare ground or corn stubble. Boggs stated that if a farmer plants a cash crop, the
15 ordinance would say a farmer couldn't apply liquid manure unless the crop needs it. Studies
16 show there is typically too much nitrogen in the soils. There are unique farm -to -farm and field -
17 to -field conditions that may allow application.
18
19 Brown questioned which station is closing due to high fecal coliform counts. Boggs
20 replied that station 13 is closing. The Lummi Nation stated that the latest numbers on station 13
21 in the Portage Bay Shellfish District demonstrate it has failed. The numbers are being reviewed
22 by DOH. The other four stations are one sample away from closure as well. The problem has
23 gotten worse since last August, not better.
24
25 Boggs stated that sampling has been on -going since last year. That series of sampling
26 shows increasing fecal coliform levels in the shellfish beds. Brown asked to see those updated
27 figures.
28
29 Hoag stated that farmers know that they can't apply manure contrary to best management
30 practices. However there are certain circumstances to allow a farmer to apply liquid manure
31 based on soil tests and crops.
32
33 Hoag asked Boggs to discuss the test data regarding failure. Boggs stated that there is
34 testing on a regular basis. They look at a weighted average, not just one test result, to make their
35 determination. As the numbers get higher, closures are required.
36
37 Jay DeJong, 9056 Telegraph Road, Sumas, stated that the goal on nutrient management
38 discussions was to insure rules were not applied to different producers across the state. The rule
39 had to be the same for everyone. The industry can't have different regulations based on location.
40 This creates competition between producers, depending on where they live. The Dairy
41 Management Act (DMA) required regular and periodic inspections by DOE that can continue to
42 respond to complaints as necessary to determine if a water quality violation has occurred. All
43 producers must implement a farm plan by 2003. Producers are not allowed to pollute during this
44 time and will be subject to inspections and sizeable penalties if the no- discharge requirement is
Natural Resources Committee, 8/11/98, Page 8
I violated. There are many professionals willing to evaluate the practices and facilities.
2
3 Hoag stated that she doesn't want farmers to be at a disadvantage. She questioned
4 whether other farmers in the state have to follow best management practices. DeJong stated that
5 the best management practices are the same across the state. The Dairy Act already covers best
6 management practices. Hoag stated that the ordinance follows best management practices.
7 Also, best management is not a moneymaker. Allowing farmers to not follow best management
8 practices puts them at an unfair advantage to those that follow best management practices. There
9 should not be an unfair advantage to polluting in Whatcom County. Polluting has been illegal
10 for a long time, however it is occurring. Simply saying something is illegal does not solve the
I problem.
12
13 Sutter stated that best management practices must be followed anywhere in the state and
14 questioned how it is a disadvantage to apply best management practices in the County.
15
16 Boggs stated that the best management practice that the ordinance encourages is soil
17 sampling before application of liquid manure post - harvest. It doesn't allow the application of
18 manure as a waste and ignore the crop needs. This follows NRCS guidelines that apply
19 statewide and nationally. Nutrients can only be applied as a fertilizer, which means applying at
20 the right time and in the right amount, in an agronomic manner. The ordinance tries to include
21 flexibility.
22
23 Sutter questioned whether it would be safe to say the ordinance is directed to those
24 unwilling to practice best management. Anyone who voluntarily practices best management
25 would not be affected by the ordinance. Boggs confirmed Sutter's question and stated that the
26 application of manure should have taken place before the crop was planted. Lagoons should be
27 at a low level and ready to go through the winter months.
28
29 DeJong stated that 96.2% of all streams and rivers in the nation are not polluted. He
30 questioned Frakes as to whether an individual would sue the County if they wanted to sue over
31 this ordinance. Frakes stated that is for his attorney to determine. DeJong stated that he pays a
32 lot of taxes and he is doing is share. Hoag stated that she has been defending the farming
33 industry. She has told many people that farming pays more in taxes than it uses in services. It is
34 an essential part of the local economy.
35
36 Craig MacConnell, Cooperative Extension, handed out information regarding Manure
37 Management Guidelines For Western Washington published in 1995 by Washington State
38 University (WSU). The information includes the timing of application. It states that it is not a
39 good idea to apply liquid manure on bare ground or corn stubble from September to February.
40 He can appreciate that there are dairy farmers this year that find they have insufficient
41 pasturelands to apply the liquid manure that is filling their lagoons. There should be a grace
42 period, as long as they are in the process of applying for a farm plan. The Conservation District
43 should prioritize the farm plan applications. WSU has been conducting research that looks at
44 Whatcom County's residual soil nitrogen for a number of years. Dave Grusenmeyer also
Natural Resources Committee, 8/11/98, Page 9
I conducted a study that looked at residual nitrogen after corn on a selected number of farms. The
2 amount ranges from 194 pounds to 388 pounds after the corn crop came off and in the top foot of
3 soil. There is too much nitrogen left in the fields. It is already known, in the farms that have
4 been studied, that there is already too much nitrogen before any additional application is put on.
5
6 Brown moved to forward to Council for public hearing so that all Council Members can
7 hear all testimony. There has been a lot of interesting discussion that all Council Members
8 should hear.
9
10 Motion failed 1 -2 with Brown in favor.
11
12 (Clerk's Note: End of tape 1, side B.)
13
14 Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services Environmental Services Manager, stated
15 that the motivation behind the ordinance is public health. DOE closed the shellfish beds in
16 Portage Bay due to bacterial contamination and the potential for illness associated with eating
17 contaminated shellfish. The Nooksack River has high bacterial contamination. It is a public
18 drinking water source for many residents in the County. It is well documented that the north
19 County area groundwater has high levels of nitrate contamination, which is a public health issue.
20 DOE did the most recent study that has been done in the nitrate problem this past year. Findings
21 in a draft report of a study done in April show that 21 % of sampled wells (250 wells were
22 sampled) exceeded the public water standard of 10 parts per million (ppm). 39% of the wells
23 exceeded 5 ppm. Not one person has been able to defend the practice of applying post harvest to
24 bare ground.
25
26 Fred Sytsma, W. Laurel Road, questioned what would happen when the nitrogen levels
27 don't go down when this ordinance goes into place. Hoag stated that other sources of pollution
28 are being addressed. Dairy is not the only industry implicated in pollution. The County is trying
29 to address all sources of the pollution.
30
31 Berendsen questioned whether the lawns in the city of Lynden have been tested for
32 nitrate problems. Golf courses are fertilized in January. The urban areas are not covered in the
33 ordinance. Whatcom Farm Co -op sells more chemicals and fertilizers for lawn application. That
34 should be looked at as a pollutant. Dairy farmers are not the worst polluters. Homeowners are
35 the worst polluters. Also, Canada is a source of pollution.
36
37 Hoag responded that this meeting deals with manure management. She has asked that
38 creeks coming across the border are tested to determine what problem the County is inheriting.
39 Also, wells that have been tested and determined to have a high nitrate counts have dairy farms
40 located next door. Wells closer to the border and farther from the dairy farms have lower nitrate
41 levels.
42
43 Berendsen asked the committee to confirm who the worst polluters of nitrates are. Hoag
44 stated that fecal coliform pollution does not come from homeowners.
Natural Resources Committee, 8/11/98, Page 10
2 Sutter stated that the County does not have jurisdiction over what the city of Lynden
3 regulates.
4
5 Chuck Timblin, Whatcom Conservation District, stated that many fields tested have an
6 excess of 160 pounds of nitrate nitrogen per acre for fields that apply post - harvest. The
7 recommendation is to apply 3/4 to 1 pound of nitrogen per 1000 square feet for lawn. An acre has
8 approximately 44,000 square feet. If 1 pound of nitrogen is applied to a lawn four times per
9 summer, which is pretty typical, a homeowner would be applying about 170 pounds over the
10 course of a summer, in four applications. About half of the nitrogen available in the co -op is in a
11 slow release form, the best on the market. With four applications at a pound per application,
12 there would be 176 pounds applied on an acre basis, over the course of one summer. This is
13 typically what is being found on bare corn ground. This has been occurring since 1991.
14
15 Hoag clarified that nitrogen applied to a lawn is being applied during the summer to a
16 crop that can take it up. There is a difference to the impact of the water.
17
18 Timblin stated that more homeowners are using mulching mowers, which reduces the
19 amount of nitrogen needed. Typical best management practice for a homeowner would be to
20 apply about 1 '/2 pounds. Also, most of the nitrogen applied to golf courses goes on the greens.
21 Greens account for a couple of acres. Fairways and rough areas do not receive as much nitrogen.
22
23 Hoag questioned the quantity of residual nitrogen on a lawn at the end of the summer.
24 Timblin stated that there are very low levels of nitrogen.
25
26 Sutter moved to forward to the Council as amended.
27
28 Brown stated that he is opposed to the ordinance, but he will vote to bring it to Council
29 for discussion.
30
31 Motion carried unanimously.
32
33 (Clerk's Note: Committee took a nine minute break at 12:55 p.m)
34
35 COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
36
37 1. DISCUSSION OF COORDINATED WATER SYSTEMS (AB98 -189)
38
39 Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services Environmental Services Manager, stated
40 that the state Department of Health (DOH) identified federal funding for public water system
41 planning projects. The DOH approached Whatcom County with the idea of utilizing the funds to
42 update the Coordinated Water System Plan. Whatcom County developed a Coordinated Water
43 System Plan in 1993. It is need of updating due to regulatory changes and to Comprehensive
44 Plan changes due to the Growth Management Act. The plan is a detailed local water
Natural Resources Committee, 8/11/98, Page 11
I management program developed by the County, the Public Utility District (PUD #1), cities, area
2 water utilities, the state Department of Ecology (DOE), and DOH under state regulation. It
3 provides a process for existing water utilities to define their role in a program to meet adopted
4 land use and projected growth standards in the area. It addresses water system design standards,
5 utility service areas, planning, and satellite management agencies.
6
7 There has been interest in proceeding with an update of the plan. The County would take
8 the lead in the process. The County applied for a $35,000 grant from DOH, and there is a 50%
9 local match. The County received the grant. Recently a Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued
10 for consultants to assist in the update of the plan. Only one proposal was received, but it is a
11 good proposal from the same company that assisted in developing the original plan, Economic
12 and Engineering Services from Olympia. The County will soon meet with the company to
13 review a firm scope of work that can be accomplished with the available money. Several water
14 purveyors discussed the different aspects of the plan that they would like to see included in the
15 update. That information was included in the RFP. The update will be a joint effort by the Water
16 Utilities Coordinating Committee (WUCC), including a County Council representative, the
17 County Health and Human Services Department, Whatcom County Planning and Development
18 Services, and any water purveyor with over 50 service connections. A WUCC meeting was at
19 the end of July, and Terry Klimpel of the City of Lynden agreed to be the chair. They hope to do
20 the update by the end of 1998.
21
22 Sutter questioned whether there had been any progress in getting state approval of the
23 plan. Delahunt responded that there wouldn't be any state approval until it is updated because
24 some aspects of the plan need to be in compliance with regulatory changes. The plan as it exists
25 has never been approved by DOH because the County has not been in compliance with the
26 Growth Management Act (GMA) and the Lummi water negotiation issue. The DOH stated that
27 if the plan is updated and they have a window of opportunity to approve it, they will.
28
29 Sutter questioned whether the state had given any indication or suggestion that there are
30 other reasons for not approving the plan, and that the County needs to specifically look at certain
31 areas. Delahunt stated that the County needs to look at areas that should change due to
32 regulatory changes, including the appeals process, the utility service review procedure, and an
33 update on Lummi negotiations should be included. The scope of work in the grant agreement is
34 such that there are many other areas that can be considered for updating. That is what the
35 committee will be working on.
36
37 Brown questioned task 2 on Council packet page 100 regarding water rights and whether
38 it gets into allocation with the tribes. Delahunt responded that the intent was that the plan would
39 be updated with respect to the progress that has been made. The plan would not go into much
40 detail.
41
42 Brown questioned item 6 regarding exempt well analysis. Delahunt stated that exempt
43 wells are ones that are not required to have a water right. Water utilities have concerns that
44 exempt wells are being allowed within their service area, because there are no water shares
Natural Resources Committee, 8/11/98, 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
available. They would like to see what the impact is on water systems. Service could be
provided if they had water rights.
Brown questioned item 7 regarding future supplies and what would be included in that
category. Delahunt stated it is a look at what supplies are potentially available for future
development.
Hoag questioned a previous statement by Delahunt about providing a process for utilities.
Delahunt responded that the process for utilities is to define their role in the program that is
adopted for land use and projected growth. All utilities are trying to coordinate how water is
supplied to the County as a whole, taking into account land use and future growth. It should be
completed by the end of the year, and the County Council will need to approve the update.
OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 1:16 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
ATTEST: WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk Connie Hoag, Council Member
Natural Resources Committee, 8/11/98, Page 13