And houses burn down.
(Had to shoehorn that “fire” element in there somehow!).
Water:
The Growth Management Hearings Board found that there was “ample
evidence” about “risks to water supply,
water quality, and water resources for fish from rural development in Whatcom
County.”
The Board noted testimony from the Department of
Ecology, stating that our current regulations cannot mitigate the impacts of
small lots, increased pavement, and the resultant pollutants that will drain
into Lake Whatcom. The Board observed that “the
measures necessary to protect surface and groundwater resources in the Lake
Whatcom area are clearly identified in the record” and concluded that
incorporating them into the Rural Element “should be a straightforward task.”
The Board noted evidence of saltwater intrusion requiring
the closure of wells on the Lummi Peninsula, where houses were built at one
unit per acre.
The Board noted that the County had planned for dense
residential development in areas of north of Bellingham (“North Bellingham” and
“Fort Bellingham/Marietta”), despite the closure of the Nooksack River Basin to
surface and groundwater appropriation.
In short, the County’s
planning needs to take account the constraints, limitations, and signals from
the natural world.
Critters:
This is particularly
true of areas that the County itself has found to be especially valuable. Whatcom County has identified one wildlife
corridor as a critical area requiring protection: the Chuckanut Wildlife Corridor, which
the County’s critical areas ordinance states is “the last remaining wildlife
corridor area in the Puget Trough where natural land cover extends from marine
waters to the National Forest Boundary east of Chuckanut Mountain. . .”
The County planned and zoned around 118 acres in the
Chuckanut Corridor, from Lake Samish to the Skagit County line, for two-acre
residential development. We pointed out that
reducing, degrading, and fragmenting habitat is the key cause of species
extinction, inconsistent with the County’s obligation to conserve essential
habitat. As the Board said, “the
County's response is silent regarding how its regulations protect the Chuckanut
Wildlife Corridor.”
Water and Fire:
Rounding up our review of the elements, with respect to
water and fire, the Board found that the County
failed to "consult and coordinate with the City and other service providers
with respect to water service and fire protection services.” Why does this matter?
The Board found that “the County's Rural Element named the
City and many of the water providers to whom the City supplies water as future
sources of public water supply capable of meeting the needs of the proposed
rural development.” The City has adopted
a policy stating that it will not supply
water and sewer outside its own urban growth boundaries, however, and the Board
concluded that the County had not coordinated with water providers to ensure
that they would actually supply the water that was assumed to be available in
the plan. The County’s own Plan requires such coordination.
Similarly, the Board found that the County’s own plan
required coordination to ensure that fire services could be provided in densely
populated rural areas outside of the City, and that the County had not
coordinated with the service providers.
So, earth, water, and fire – the County needs to take them
all into account when it’s planning to protect rural character.
What’s next?
I could go on, and on, and on about additional aspects of
the Hearings Board’s decision, but it probably already seems like I’ve gone on,
and on, and on.
So the next installment of the Hearings Board Trilogy – don’t
all great epics have to be trilogies? – will look at the most important issue
of all: what comes next.
The City's current stated policy is to extend its water & sewer utilities only to areas upon an annexation commitment - something it has been very lax about in the past. As a consequence, there are fairly extensive existing areas where these services have already been granted without requiring annexation, a problem it has been difficult to change.
ReplyDeleteIs it also true that every new division of land results in more parcels with legal access to 5000 gallons of groundwater per day (under RCW 90.44.050)? If so, an area that changes from 4 forty acre parcels to 32 five acre parcels could result in an eightfold increase in water use associated with development.
ReplyDeleteWhile agriculture is rightly worried about tribal demands that adequate in-stream flows are maintained to ensure continued viability of fish runs, an equal or larger impact on in-stream flows is likely the many, many 'rural straws' each drawing up to 5000 gallons daily and exempt from any water rights permit. Allowing for more 'rural straws' seems to indict the county in pitting agriculture against salmon when we really need to ensure ways both resources are protected.
Senate Bill 6163 introduced by Ericksen, Swecker, Hatfield and Chase is worth a read. There may be more to this than meets the eye.
ReplyDeleteMary
SB 6163: In 10 months, the department of econoligy must report its findings on water storage in the upper Skagit and water rights from Harrison lake, without additional resources. I'm sure DOE will put their best intern on the job.
ReplyDeleteGood ideas need good funding.
As for rural wells that are exempt, that was the petition the City of Bellingham submitted to Ecology for the Lake Whatcom watershed -- and was turned down on the state level. The more rural development we allow, the more straws that take water out of the rivers. The more water taken out of the rivers through exempt wells, the less water for junior water right holders like agriculture or cities.
We need to make rural growth accountable for the impacts of rural growth, but we don't have the political will to make the difficult decisions.
This bill is not a good idea. We should not be buying water from Canada. We need to deal with our water problems and not expect to take resources from someone else. I do agree that we need to control our rural development.
ReplyDeleteMary
Department of econoligy, Citizen Stalheim? Ecology with a little economics thrown in. That coudn't have been a freudian typo, could it?
ReplyDelete