HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources July 14 19981
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
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
July 14, 1998
The meeting was called to order at 11:04 a.m. by Committee Chair Connie Hoag in the
Council Committee Room, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present: Absent:
Tom Brown None
Kathy Sutter
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. DISCUSSION WITH THE WHATCOM CONSERVATION DISTRICT REGARDING
THE DRAFTING OF A MANURE MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE (AB98 -254)
Brown stated that he received calls from people attending County Council committee meetings.
People should introduce themselves. There are no rules set down to let people know if they can speak.
Hoag responded that anyone can participate in her committee, provided they get acknowledgment
from the chair. The speaker should state his or her name for the record.
Hoag stated that the Council requested that the Portage Bay Closure Response Team reconvene
and produce a draft ordinance, which was received (handout on file).
George Boggs, Whatcom Conservation District Coordinator, stated that the Critical Areas
Ordinance (CAO) is also provided for reference.
Boggs stated that the team reconvened with a good response. He listed the attending members.
Other members provided written comments. He stated that Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy
Prosecutor, reviewed the ordinance with Steve Fox, Whatcom County Planning and Development
Services. She also had some concerns. She requested that the reference to the CAO be in the findings.
John Gilles, Natures Resources Conservation Service (MRCS), showed a slide
presentation. The focus is the application of liquid manure by any means. In February, they
looked in February at what was happening in the County and the effects. A lot of land is left
fallow through the winter. There is better infiltration where there is a grass crop. Where there is
not a grass crop, there is enhanced runoff. Access is the issue of application in the winter. Soils
Natural Resources Committee, 7/14/98, Page 1
I are wet. It is difficult on soils to get out there and gain access to the field. Manure disposed of
2 in winter is on fallow ground, not grass. Fecal coliform comes from manure distributed in rainy
3 conditions, which creates runoff. Even where grass is present, there can be runoff. There are
4 25,000 acres of farmland that are also in the flood plain. This is problematic when addressing
5 wintertime application on bare ground. They have been promoting the use of a cover crop, or a
6 relay crop, on corn stubble that is sown in July. Rye grass is a cover crop. They typically don't
7 need manure in the fall. There is plenty of residual manure from the corn harvest. There are
8 adequate nutrients. Farmers should test soil before applying manure on a good cover crop.
9 There is new equipment to keep manure in its place. A manure injector puts manure in the
10 ground, cuts into the sod, and doesn't run anywhere. The manure is absorbed very quickly. It
11 facilitates good manure management. The farmer can get out and apply manure in split
12 applications. That is what they want. The ground doesn't need nitrogen in the fall. Waste
13 management is based on agronomic issues, not disposal issues. Manure is not needed and
14 leaches into the groundwater.
15
16 Gillies continued to show overhead projections. They are working on a predictive tool
17 for determining the fate of nitrate nitrogen when applied at different times of the year. He
18 showed the travel time of nitrate nitrogen through the root zone. The available water holding
19 capacity (AWHC) of the soil is six inches. What is available for leaching is P -R -CU, which is
20 "precipitation" minus "runoff' minus "consumptive use." Through the winter months, there is a
21 lot available for leaching. In May, they go into a water deficit. If they can't keep nutrients in the
22 root zone for three to four weeks, then they are in trouble. The root zone travel time decreases in
23 summer because the precipitation drops off dramatically. Everything in the soil in the spring and
24 summer runs off in November. This is a model from NLEAP, which is nitrate leaching and
25 economic analysis procedure.
26
27 Hoag questioned whether anything applied from November through February is out of
28 the root zone within the month. Gillies stated that was correct. Manure, the nutrient, should be
29 applied from March through October. Dean Renner, who works for NRCS and is an agriculture
30 engineer with masters in hydrology, did the model.
31
32 Brown questioned the rainfall in Whatcom County. Gillies stated that the distribution of
33 rainfall is that December is typically the wettest month of the year. They need to develop
34 information for every precipitation station and then generate data for each soil to make the
35 information useable.
36
37 NLEAP was developed at universities. It is one of the programs that is approved for
38 modeling by the NRCS and other agencies. It is common to use to model nitrate nutrient
39 movement. Other models for leaching could be used. Canada and Agassy have looked at
40 nutrient movement and found the same thing. Other reports have similar results. The United
41 States Geological Service (USGS) study in Whatcom County will confirm these results. There is
42 occasionally an episodic event that differs from the model, which uses average amounts of
43 rainfall. The USGS says that those are the kinds of events that move lots of nutrients in the
44 groundwater. The available water holding capacity is all of the water held by the tension of the
Natural Resources Committee, 7/14/98, Page 2
I soil particles in the soil.
2
3 Nelson asked about the four -month period. He questioned whether there has been an
4 assessment of farmers capable of storing manure during the four -month period, or whether they
5 found alternative mechanisms for a farmer to be able to get rid of manure. Gillies stated that
6 they have advocated the storage method for 20 years. There is a percentage of farmers that
7 cannot meet the requirements.
9 Hoag questioned what would happen to those farmers that cannot meet the regulations.
10 Gillies responded that they would be in violation.
11
12 Nelson questioned the amount of farmers that cannot meet the regulations. Gillies
13 responded that 20 or 30 percent could not store their manure by this storage season. They could
14 build storage but the question is whether it would be done by storage season. They may not get
15 permitting done in time. Typically, everything on a dairy gets expanded except the manure
16 storage facility.
17
18 This has been a voluntary thing for the past 20 years. Since the Clean Water Act in 1972,
19 the agricultural community convinced the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that if given
20 the opportunity to voluntarily comply, they would. However, they have not sufficiently done so.
21
22 Sutter questioned whether manure stored for eventual application could add up to more
23 manure than they can apply. If that is the case, she questioned whether they will end up with
24 storage of manure that can never be used. Gillies stated that is definitely a possibility. They go
25 through a detailed analysis when they work with a dairyman. They count cows, surface area, and
26 other factors to compute the amount of nutrients. They also look at the cropland and what crops
27 are grown and what types of soils and other limitations.
28
29 Sutter questioned the alternatives for dealing with too much manure. Gillies suggested
30 different crops that require more nutrients. They could also broker manure, treat manure, or
31 compost.
32
33 Sutter stated that they would have more success with farmers if they have a way to make
34 a profit.
35
36 Bob VanWeerdhuizen, 7026 Noon Road, Everson, gave a history. In 1962, there were
37 41,000 cows in the County on 1,100 dairy farms, which produced about 10,000- 12,000 pounds
38 of milk per cow. Today they are down to 240 farms with 65,000 cows that produce 22,000
39 pounds of milk per cows. A problem is that people want cheaper dairy prices. Smaller farms
40 cannot afford to build lagoons or any other of these measures.
41
42 Gillies stated that low intensity farms that can't store their manure can have plans for
43 year around application. In winter months, they may only put out 20 - 30 pounds of nitrogen.
44 That amount is not excessive.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/14/98, Page 3
2 Hoag questioned whether it would be appropriate to either write an exemption for dairies
3 under 100 cows or instead turn to Gillies for a management plan approved by NRCS. Gillies
4 stated that a farmer could have a management plan.
5
6 Nelson asked what assurance the County has that the management plan would be
7 acceptable. Gillies stated that the ordinance articulates what the management plan will be.
8
9 Dick Grout, State Department of Ecology (DOE), stated that Council Members should
10 keep in mind that they are talking about public groundwater and public surface water, which is a
11 public resources owned by the people and the State of Washington. Legislature stated that there
12 is no right for farmers to apply pollution. The application of materials at rates in excess of
13 agronomic amounts is waste disposal. The cost of waste disposal is a cost of doing business.
14
15 VanWeerdhuizen stated that it is a bureaucratic process with a lot of paperwork, but DOE
16 didn't do anything to enforce violators. The EPA was looking past 200 smaller herds. One of
17 the worst polluters had 175 cows.
18
19 Hoag stated that VanWeerdhuizen commented that the threshold with the EPA for
20 enforcement is 250 cows and that major violators had less than that amount of cows. She
21 questioned what to do about farms that are too small to put in a lagoon.
22
23 VanWeerdhuizen stated that they are not violators because they have a large land based.
24
25 Hoag questioned whether the smaller farms are typically putting out solid manure instead
26 of liquid manure. Gillies stated that smaller farms produce solid manure, instead of liquid. The
27 NWRC looks at the intensity of the farm to balance nutrients and the land base. 60% or less of a
28 crop nutrient need is considered a low intensity farm. If a farm is greater than 80 %, it is
29 considered high intensity. Most of the farms are high intensity because they have too many
30 cows and not enough land base.
31
32 Hoag questioned whether a smaller farm that puts out solid manure would be restricted
33 because the ordinance deals with liquid manure. Gillies stated the ordinance would apply if the
34 smaller farmer applied liquid manure.
35
36 Brown questioned the process of turning compost into saleable product. Gillies stated
37 that they have been looking at the process for selling the manure. There are other options for
38 larger operations.
39
40 Brown stated that the ordinance may have an effect on farmers this year, and questioned
41 whether there would there be a benefit to pass an ordinance to make it advisory for now and then
42 go into full effect in September 1999, to give farmers time to comply.
43
44 Hoag stated that the County can't do that because of ESA. The County has to come up
Natural Resources Committee, 7/14/98, 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
with a plan. Brown stated that they are developing a plan, they are just not requiring fines until a
certain time in the future.
Hoag stated that if they delay implementation, the National Marine Fisheries Services
(NMFS) wouldn't approve. They want something on the ground, funded, and working. If this
can be in place before the winter, then they can do monitoring and show NMFS that the
County's plan works.
Brown questioned the language "adjacent to ". Hoag stated that the CAO spells out
distances.
Karen Frakes, Senior Civil Deputy Prosecutor, stated that issue is covered by the CAO.
Steve Fox, Planning and Development Services, assured her that it is covered by the CAO. She
suggested putting that part in a finding instead of the operative part of the ordinance.
Hoag questioned whether ditches are covered under the CAO. Frakes stated that ditches
that meet a certain criteria are covered under CAO. They are defined similar to a Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) definition.
rivers.
Hoag stated that they need to address ditches that are draining the farmland into the
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A)
Hoag continued to state that only covering ditches that were once waterways won't be
enough to address the ditches in the farming community. Sutter read definition of ditches in the
CAO.
Brenner stated that the County should be very specific and not refer to other ordinances.
Hoag suggested adopting language that spells it out specifically, with a reference to the
CAO. Brown stated that he would consider it.
Sutter read from the CAO regarding protection of rivers and streams and their required
buffers.
Brown stated that, under the proposed salmon policy, they are talking about salmon
streams, all streams that flow into salmon streams, and the streams that flow into those streams.
He wondered where the ditches fall into that regulation.
Hoag stated that regulating ditches in the CAO would require too many buffers and too
much land taken out of production. She questioned whether it was possible to allow a smaller
buffer.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/14/98, 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
Boggs stated that they have been reviewing that possibility. The reference is a provision
in the CAO that allows someone to manage land closer than those buffers, with a plan approved
by the Conservation District. They are writing plans that allow production closer to a stream
than 50 feet.
Hoag read the section of the CAO into the record. She questioned the exemption of
dairies with no more than five animal units.
Frakes stated that dairies with no more than five animal units are exempt from Appendix
A. Everything else is subject to going to the Conservation District to get a plan.
Brown stated that animal units are based on the amount of waste an animal produces.
Gillies stated that it is an old term. An animal unit is a cow with a calf, typically 1000
pounds of animal.
Boggs stated that the intent was to put all ditches, streams, ponds, and other bodies of
water, regardless of whether they are a critical area and because they are conduits to fecal
coliform getting into Portage Bay and Drayton Harbor, to require buffers or a management plan.
A management plan deals with site -by -site specificity. It deals with slopes, flood plains, and
other things that would be onerous to legislate.
Gillies stated that if a farmer is using appropriate equipment at the appropriate time in the
appropriate rates, then he can safely apply manure within the buffer areas under the auspices of a
plan.
Hoag questioned the amount of dairy farms that have a plan to address the buffers and
comply. Gillies responded that only 15 - 20% have a plan.
Hoag stated that, if this were adopted, then all farmers would need to stay 50 feet away
from a ditch until a plan is done thorough NRCS. Gillies stated that their workload is backed up
and based on a volunteer basis.
Brenner suggested establishing a grace period for people to come into compliance.
Gillies could establish a grace period based on their workload.
Brown commented that any citations issued would be informational warning type
citations until September 1, 1999.
Hoag stated that she is fearful of NMFS regulating buffers at 300 feet throughout
Whatcom County. If the County can get on the ground now and get farmers to stay 50 feet
away, then they should be able to test and show that the plan makes a difference. They need to
have it in place, test, and show that it makes a difference. That is the best safeguard that to
prevent NMFS from regulating with 300 -foot buffers.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/14/98, Page 6
2 Brenner stated that the other side of the picture us what will happen to the farmers in the
3 meantime.
4
5 Sherm Polinder, 670 Polinder Road, Lynden, suggested making the requirement take
6 effect on September 15 or September 20 of this year.
7
8 Brown stated they don't have storage capacity and lagoons will overflow. He hoped to
9 give the farmer time to construct a lagoon or find an off -site location for storage. That was his
10 reason for delaying the implementation date.
11
12 Hoag stated that Polinder's suggestion would help to alleviate the problem.
13
14 Polinder stated that they would give a cushion for the fist year, to encourage farmers to
15 be on time and still get them to comply.
16
17 Hoag stated that if corn comes off the first two weeks in September, then there still would
18 not be a vigorously growing crop put in by mid - September. Polinder stated that is true, but there
19 would be a lot of growth by October 1.
20
21 Grout pointed out that, typically when corn is harvested, there is not a need for
22 supplemental application of nutrients. There have been 25 years that have been available for
23 volunteer compliance. In the meantime, there has been climbing contamination in those 25
24 years. From DOE's point of view, this ordinance should be looking at an outright restriction in
25 November and December. Those are the highest rainfall months. The total maximum daily load
26 (TMDL) study shows that the two highest fecal levels in the tributaries coming into the river are
27 in November and March. The three highest creeks in terms of fecal coliform counts are Fishtrap
28 Creek, Bertrand Creek, and Ten -Mile Creek. Manure collected during those months will have to
29 be stored, hauled, or whatever. It is waste disposal.
30
31 Sutter stated that right now there is no place for a farmer to dispose of waste. The
32 County needs to offer an alternative. The problem is that they have to do something about the
33 manure application. They have identified that the worst problem is on bare or stubble ground.
34 That is a place to start. The County has to give them an opportunity to comply. They never
35 threatened the farmers with an absolute before. Now they are saying that they must be ready.
36
37 Hoag stated that the EPA has been enforcing against the farmers for not having enough
38 lagoons to hold manure during the winter. Gillies stated that there are more lagoons in the
39 County than dairy farms. There have been in excess of 300 waste storage ponds that were
40 installed over the years. The problem is that there are more cows. There is not adequate storage
41 on farms that have many cows. The lagoon expansion does now follow the increase in the
42 number of cows.
43
44 Hoag stated that the ESA listing is looming and the restriction will hurt the County more
Natural Resources Committee, 7/14/98, Page 7
I than the proposed ordinance.
2
3 Boggs requested guidance to amend the proposed ordinance to take back to the advisory
4 committee.
5
6 Hoag mentioned that the price of milk has gone up. Dairy farms are looking to buy more
7 cows, but cannot accommodate more manure storage. The problem will not go away.
8
9 Regina Delahunt, Health and Human Services Environmental Services Manager,
10 responded that the committee didn't recommend a ban on application during the winter months.
11 That was an idea that came from DOE. The hardship may shut down the intent of the ordinance.
12 She suggested sunseting the ordinance.
13
14 Hoag stated that if they implement in phases, they are already doing that. This addresses
15 the worse problem. There are other problems. They should pass the ordinance as presented, and
16 if they need to come back, then they would do so.
17
18 Brown suggested getting back to the specific items that Boggs requested.
19
20 Gillies stated that there is a new environmental quality incentive program. They have
21 been doing the program for two years. The issue is how to write a plan that meets requirements
22 of the CAO and also NRCS requirements. 15 - 20 % of the people have a plan for buffers.
23 People have changed their farming practices to the good, based on some of these new rules.
24
25 Sharon Deming, citizen, suggested, with regard to areas around creeks, to take two acres
26 of land along creeks and rezone to allow housing. It would restore the curves in the creeks and
27 the normal fish habitat. Farmers would make money on the rezone and reduce the area the
28 manure is spread on. Also, she questioned why manure cannot be sold for resale.
29
30 Hoag commented that there are problems with residential areas next to farms and
31 streams. The County would have a problem supplying services, such as the sheriff.
32
33 Frakes stated that if they expand beyond the CAO to include ditches, then this ordinance
34 is confusing as it is. They need to separate out what would be in addition to the CAO and
35 include that in the operative part. Some ditches are covered by CAO and some aren't.
36
37 Hoag clarified that the intent is to cover all ditches
38
39 Grout stated that part of the purpose of the ordinance is to inform the people most
40 directly affected. They should identify the areas that won't be covered by CAO, then attach an
41 appendix that states what the CAO says for the pertinent parts.
42
43 Hoag suggested wording in the findings that states, "The Critical Areas Ordinance
44 addresses buffers to streams...," then say, "Spreading of manure to land adjacent to streams,
Natural Resources Committee, 7/14/98, 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
rivers, lakes, that are covered under the Critical Areas Ordinance,..." and include specifics about
50 -foot buffers.
Frakes stated that an ordinance should only contain new things.
Sutter questioned whether Frakes was recommending to move section B to the findings
and delete the words, "drainage ditches," then clarify that drainage ditches are also subject to
certain sections of the CAO. Frakes stated that was correct. They could refer to that section that
establishes buffers for rivers or streams.
Hoag questioned why 50 feet is the buffer distance. Boggs stated that it is making it
consistent for enforcement. Unless the site is looked at by the Conservation District, the buffer
should be 50 feet.
Sutter stated that they should move the one section to the finding, then say, "as it applies
to the spread of manure, land adjacent to drainage ditches is subject to..."
Hoag suggested language that stated, "Spreading of manure to land adjacent to ditches
requires a 50 -foot buffer unless they have a Conservation plan."
VanWeerdhuizen clarified that they are also talking about corn or grass crops also. He
questioned why they can't go up to the ditch with the injector. Hoag responded that if the
Conservation Service approves the plan, then he can use the injector.
Frakes stated that the ordinance should specifically reference the management plan, or
refer it to the section of the Critical Areas Ordinance that talks about the Conservation District
and best management plans.
Brown questioned whether it is possible for someone to come in and have certain
activities already approved. Gillies stated that they could do a management plan on a specific
field.
Hoag suggested the language in item C be included in item B.
Sutter suggested at the beginning, "NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED... spreading
of manure. In the absence of a Conservation Plan, spreading of liquid manure is not allowed..."
Hoag moved Sutter's suggested language.
Hoag withdrew her motion.
Boggs questioned whether the intent was to move the reference to the CAO into the
findings, then prohibit application within 50 feet of a drainage ditch, unless approved by a
conservation plan. Boggs stated that he will craft appropriate language.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/14/98, 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
Sutter moved to move the CAO information up to the finding, address the ditches under
item B pursuant to a management plan, and to have the management plan out front of the
language if possible.
Motion carried unanimously.
Sutter questioned item (i) on the next page. She questioned whether corn ground is still
considered corn ground in 1999 if it was harvested in 1998. If so, they can therefore apply
manure in 1999. There needs to be a language change. Boggs stated that he would clean up that
language.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Hoag stated that they should address an exemption regarding smaller farms that cannot
comply.
Gillies stated that the language regarding a management plan approved by the
Conservation District allows an exemption.
Boggs stated that smaller farms do not necessarily grow corn, which is the focus of the
ordinance. The application is limited to corn and bare ground.
Brown stated that, during the first year, there should be no citations issued, only warnings
that the farmer is to be in full compliance by September 1, 1999. The reason is to allow farmers
to build an appropriate storage facility or make other arrangements.
Boggs questioned who would be the enforcement agency. Brown suggested creating an
interlocal agreement for enforcement.
Grout stated that he would not allow his inspectors to only issue warnings.
VanWeerdhuizen stated that there has been no consistency in enforcement. Brown stated
that DOE will be levying fines this winter.
Polinder suggested establishing an implementation date. The largest farms are the
biggest offenders. After 20 days, they can put the manure on grass.
Gillies clarified that Polinder suggested allowing them to apply to corn stubble until
September 20, when they can move over to grass.
Deming suggested that they allow residential zoning in the areas that would be buffered.
Brown asked Deming for more information at a later time.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/14/98, 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
Hoag questioned whether farmers that don't have enough lagoon/storage could truck to
existing abandoned lagoons. Gillies stated that it is a possibility. If the ordinance is enacted as
written, people will try to comply. It may be a little self - regulating. It is not the best solution,
but better than the previous version. Also, the fine is not that egregious. Farmers knew that this
was coming and what the regulations are. Behavior needs to be changed. He supported passing
as it is without including an exemption or a delay. The EPA and DOE do not provide
exemptions.
Hoag questioned whether the NRCS could approve all the plans in time. Gillies stated
that they can do them one at a time. He hoped that they could work with the farmer to keep him
in compliance by the deadline.
Sutter moved an addition, "beginning November 1, 1999, spreading of liquid manure by
any means is prohibited during the months of November and December unless it is pursuant to a
management plan..." This provides forewarning for farmers.
Hoag stated that there would be too much resistance by the farmers. The prohibition
could be addressed at a later time.
Sutter questioned whether the DOE proposed that only liquid manure or liquid and solid
manure be prohibited in November and December. Grout stated only liquid manure would be
prohibited to address violations by larger farmers. He agreed with Hoag. If a regulation does
not go into effect now, then they should not put it in the current ordinance.
Matt Kaufman, DOE Dairy Inspector, stated that compliance inspections are the same as
the inspections that will occur in the water. DOE has only carried out inspections during the
rainy season. They are trying to do a public service to farmers by inspecting during dryer
months. Farmers are aware of the DOE's intention to prohibit. Farmers do not need notice by
the County.
Boggs stated that there are to be four regional technical advisory groups to develop
standards. The Conservation Commission charged the technical advisory group to oversee the
development of the standards. There is more controversy to applications to grass in the winter
months. That issue will be discussed and examined. That inquiry will be made a part of the
conservation plans.
Hoag questioned the "fines" section. Frakes stated that it is appropriate to have the same
penalties as in the CAO. It is a civil penalty, with a fine levied per day.
Hoag suggested dropping the question mark and use section 16.16 of the CAO.
Frakes stated that they should have a new penalty section.
Natural Resources Committee, 7/14/98, 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
Hoag questioned whether the committee wanted to change the dates. Brown stated that
he wanted to change the date to 1999.
Brown moved to change the date to September 1, 1999 so the penalties will be of a
warning nature only.
Deming stated that the sooner they implement, the better. There are health factors
involved.
Motion failed 1 — 2 with Brown in favor.
Kaufman stated that they could only enforce when it potentially goes into the stream.
That's why this ordinance was brought forward.
Hoag announced that there will be a Natural Resources work session on July 21 at 7:00
p.m. at the Lynden Community.
2. REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO FORWARD PROPOSED SURFACE
WATER RUN -OFF MANAGEMENT IN THE LAKE WHATCOM
WATERSHED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND
COMMENT (AB98 -278)
Sutter moved to forward to the Planning Commission
Motion carried unanimously.
OTHER BUSINESS
1. THE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE HAS SCHEDULED A
MEETING AT THE LYNDEN COMMUNITY CENTER, 401 GROVER
STREET, TO GATHER PUBLIC COMMENT ON A PROPOSED MANURE
ORDINANCE. THE MEETING WILL BE HELD ON JULY 21 AT 7:00 P.M.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE COUNCIL OFFICE
AT 676 -6690 (AB98 -254)
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 1:05 p.m.
Jill Nixon, Recording Secretary
Natural Resources Committee, 7/14/98, Page 12
2
3 ATTEST:
4
5
6
7
9 Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
10
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Connie Hoag, Council Member
Natural Resources Committee, 7/14/98, Page 13