HomeMy WebLinkAboutCommittee of the Whole April 27 1989WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
April 27, 1989
The meeting was called to order at 7 p.m. by Council Chairman Don
Hansey.
Other Council Members Present: Absent:
Tom Burton None.
Emily Jackson
Corky Johnson
Will Roehl
Dan Warner
Mary Vanderpol
Among others present were Executive Shirley Van Zanten, Planning
Director Dan Taylor, Planning Technician Diane Harper, Public Works Director
Paul Rushing, and Buildings and Codes Administrator John Tyler.
PRESENTATION /DISCUSSION OF COMPREHENSIVE SEWER AND WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN (BY
DIANE HARPER, PLANNING, AND RAY WEDEN AND ASSOCIATES)
This presentation dealt with the document referred to as "Technical Memo
Number 2." See the attached agenda.
Dan Taylor, Planning Director, said the contract to create the
management plan was awarded about one year ago; appendices on the Nooksack
water rights are not yet ready. After this stage of the plan is reviewed, the
formal adoption process will begin. Burton is the chairman of an advisory
committee that will review the plan. Planning Commission will review it and
have a hearing on the plan June 20; State Environmental Protection Act
procedures must be followed. The earliest Council could see it is in July for
final consideration, but it could come before them in the fall Instead.
Diane Harper explained that she had met with water associations
throughout the County and found they share these concerns:
1. Possible effects of landfills and open gravel pits;
2. The state can issue water rights for properties without taking into
consideration the effect on already - established wells;
3. Septic tank rules are needed;
4. Aging pipes are a problem county -wide.
Harper said there are three alternatives the County can pursue to
address these concerns and help preserve the County's water supply:
1. Take internal actions (such as zoning, Health Department regulations,
cooperation among departments;
2. Maybe establish cooperative actions (with other agencies);
3. The County could pay for physical installation of better water systems;
the County would need to determine to what extent it wants to put money into
this.
She then talked about the reason the comprehensive plan is needed -- the
expected population growth in the County. She said there are physical
restraints on growth, as follows:
1. Water constraints; groundwater quality is seriously under question in
farm and agriculture areas. Shallow wells are a concern. See map A3.
2. Whatcom County is a part of the Fraser lowland (see page 19, map 131).
The County needs to consider the impact Canadian development will have on its
water supply.
3. The Nooksack River, from which most water supplies come either directly
or indirectly, is already below state minimum flows at certain times of the
year. The Lumml Indians have primary water rights.
The only systems with potential for growth are Bellingham and Water
District 10, because they pull water out of the Nooksack through Lake Whatcom.
The State grants the water rights, but doesn't understand groundwater in the
County; in fact, no one does. That, Harper said, is the main reason this
study is so important.
Water associations test water quality once a year, usually. Sewage
sludge and how to dispose of it is a concern. There is no system of tracking
where wells are drilled in the County. There may be a need to consolidate
some smaller water associations into larger ones. These are among things that
need to be dealt with, Harper said.
Johnson said if his small water association, for example, were to be
absorbed into a larger one, the service charge could increase from $1 per
month to $17 per month. He wanted to know if all the water associations had
been contacted and asked their opinions.
Harper said most of the systems participating in County meetings had
from 40 to 500 members (Johnson's association has 20 members). She said most
of the systems said they wanted technical advice but they do not want to
become a state district (because they must go through the Treasurer's Office,
hire a state auditor every year for $250, go through elections, etc.). They
want private associations to form instead. However, Harper said she did not
know how a county -wide operation would be possible without forming a district.
Harper noted that she pays $36 a year for her water, and she feels that it is
not a high enough charge because it doesn't plan for the future.
Ray Weden and Derrick Holtz presented the sewer service portion of the
comp plan, showing recommended alternatives for service to six commercial and
industrial areas in the County (see summary on agenda). They said they don't
recommend one alternative over the other.
Warner asked what the Council was supposed to do with this information;
he understood that eventually the Council will adopt a plan, but upon what
basis should the Council make a policy decision on these technical
alternatives?
Taylor said the presentation will make the Council aware of the
alternatives so that once the plan is adopted, the Council can decide if some
of those alternatives should be dropped.
There was discussion about the capacities available from the Public
Utility D °lstrlcts in the Cherry Point area. Weden said later the costs for
each 'a'lternatIve will be Included.
Yanderpol asked if, based on population projections, it seems the County
has enough or too much industrial zoning. Harper said it is difficult to
project how much Industrial zoning will be needed. There is enough available
for -250 percent growth. There was further discussion.
Tire Greeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
WHATCOM COUNTY C L
ATTEST: -COM COUNTY, W TO
4Z
Ramona Reeves, Council Clerk d G. Han , haf man
N
PRESENTATION OF
WATER AND SEWER PLAN BACKGROUND DOCUMENT AND
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 2
County. Council Committee of the Whole
April 27, 1989
7:05 1. Introduction on Water and Sewer Comprehensive Plan Process and Scope - Dan Taylor
7:10 2. Briefing by staff - Diane Harper
a. Potential recommendations in Plan
1)
internal County actions
2)
cooperative actions
3)
physical Installations
b. Background information document
1)
population projections
2)
physical constraints
3)
water systems
4)
wastewater treatment systems
5)
overall demand for service
6)
issues
C. Other elements of Plan - growth areas
7:30 3. Questions and discussion
7:50 4. Briefing by consultant (with questions /discussion after each item)
Ray Weden /Derrick Holtz
8:50 5.
j a.
Cherry Point
1)
Nonpotable Water Options: upgrade PUD plant 1; or Inter -tie Aldergrove and
Grandview lines
2)
North Sewer: Whitehorn plant (Birch Bay District); or connect to new central
(Point
plant
3)
Central Sewer: Point Whitehorn plant; or new on -site plant; or Ferndale plant;
4)
South Sewer: Sandy Point plant (Lummi District); or connect to new central plant
5)
Potable Water: Ferndale; or Bellingham; or Birch Bay District; or new on -site
treatment of PUD nonpotable water
f b.
Western Airport Area
1)
Sewer: Bellingham; or Ferndale
2)
Potable Water: Bellingham; or Ferndale
3)
NonpotableWater: PUD Plant 1; or Bellingham Whatcom Falls Plant
Jc.
Bakerview /Hannegan Area
1)
Sewer: Bellingham; or new on -site plant
2)
Water: District 16; Bellingham; or new groundwater source
Jd.
Grandview /1 -5 Area
1)
Sewer: Ferndale (two routes)
2)
Water: Ferndale; or Birch Bay District; or on -site district wells
Ve.
Gateway Industrial Area
1)
Sewer: Blaine; or Birch Bay District
2)
Water: Birch Bay District; on -site district wells; Blaine
✓f. Smith Road /Guide Meridian Area
1) Sewer: Bellingham; or Ferndale
2) Water: Bellingham; or Ferndale
General Questions /Discussion
`t-