Pages

Sunday, April 29, 2012

It's Only Money

Whatcom County Council just voted to spend $104,000 for more studies on dredging gravel from the Nooksack River.  The purpose of the studies, apparently, is to “provide the opportunity for the community to better understand the complexities of permitting,” according to this article in today’s Bellingham Herald. 

This made me wonder.  How many hundreds of thousands of dollars does it take for Whatcom County to understand that we’re not living in the 1800s any more, and that permitting isn’t going to go away?

I don’t even want to talk about the County’s current, endless, dispiriting noncompliance with the Growth Management Act.  I’ve spent far too many hours of my life over the past few months with, and listening to, the Whatcom County Planning Commission, as it boldly rebels against any hint of “planning” in response to the County’s (current, and apparently permanent) noncompliance with the Growth Management Act. 

How many hundreds of thousands of dollars has the County spent on this effort?  How many hundreds more will we spend?

As for the gravel studies – in 2010, I attended a presentation by consultants who told the Council about an existing gravel dredging program on the Fraser River in Canada.  They pointed out that, unlike the situation here in Whatcom County, the Canadians started with decades of data on fish habitat.  These data are lacking here, and would be needed in order to understand the impacts of dredging.  (The Herald article neglected to mention that we share the river with fish).

The consultants also pointed out that this gravel dredging program is extremely expensive for the government, although apparently some private companies in B.C. are making money by selling the gravel. 

So – here we are, throwing good money after bad to pursue an idea that isn’t going to pass any kind of cost-benefit, much less environmental, test.  Just so people will understand that it’s complicated. 

The article also made it clear that Carl Weimer, who voted against the expenditure, is the true conservative on the County Council.  So-called conservative Bill Knutzen told the Herald that “the $130,000 [that figure must be adding in funds that the County has already spent] is a lot of money, but, in the scope of things, when you start dealing with floods, it's really not."

Just one problem with that:  the $130,000 won’t deal with flooding.  Its only benefit will be to start to address the County’s state of denial 

If the County really wants to deal with flooding, it might address some of the root causes.  For example, the Planning Commission just voted to allow unlimited impervious surfaces (hardscape) on rural properties.  Why?  As far as I could tell, to make sure that all rural property owners would be able to have paved parking lots if they want to.  Honestly, that's what they talked about.  Not water quality or flooding, that's for sure. 

Here are just a few examples of sources that describe the relationship between impervious surfaces and flooding:  one  , two   , three.

Don't look for Whatcom County to take a preventative approach any time soon, though.  There’s no reason to worry about an ounce of prevention when tax dollars can be spent on a "cure."

4 comments:

  1. If the goal is to “provide the opportunity for the community to better understand the complexities of permitting,” couldn't we save the money by having our County Attorney, Karen Frakes, give a public talk? It would be the biggest executive session ever!

    ReplyDelete
  2. You probably recall a Council member who commented that answering legal questions isn't the prosecuting attorney's job. We have to pay consultants for that, apparently.

    I just ran into another discussion of the effect of impervious surfaces -- the Gateway Pacific "PRELIMINARY CONCEPTUAL COMPENSATORY MITIGATION PLAN – REVISION 1", dated March 9, 2012, at p. 57:

    "One important aspect of a development’s effect on downstream hydrologic systems is the amount of new impervious surface that occupies the watershed. Precipitation on impervious surfaces results in increased runoff."

    Indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. But... but... but... if we limit impervious surfaces then there are members of the Planning Commission that will be personally inconvenienced!

    We can't be having that now.

    Also, in answer to the standing question... " How many hundreds of thousands of dollars does it take for Whatcom County to understand that we’re not living in the 1800s any more, and that permitting isn’t going to go away?"

    As many hundreds of thousands of dollars as are necessary to buy time until there is a Republican Governor and a Republican controlled Legislature, so that the GMA can be repealed.

    So... many, many, several, multiple, honey bunches of hundreds of thousands, is my best guess based on the best available science (fiction).

    ReplyDelete
  4. So sorry that the so-called conservatives are so hell bent on wasting taxpayers money. The issue to research is whether the gravel mining really does any good. For too long we have neglected the root cause of flooding, lack of capacity due to restrictions of the channel.

    ReplyDelete