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."

30 - no, 28 Days to Comment on Coal Port?

On Monday, many of you may have received the notice from Whatcom County that you have 30 days to comment on the largest coal port in North America.

"This notice is to give you the opportunity to comment on the proposal and review process." 

Say what?  30 days?  No, make that 28 days.  May 16, 2012 to be exact.

On March 20^th, an estimated 800 people packed Bellingham High School's Auditorium to listen to county, state and federal staff members talk about the review process for Gateway Pacific.  During that presentation, two issues were discussed:  1) the timeline for environmental review and 2) that any public comments submitted prior to scoping will have to be resubmitted once scoping begins.

The presentation slides can be found on Whatcom County's website here.

On Slide 17, the next steps are identified as:

·         County determines if application is complete (completed on April 2, 2012)

·         County, state and feds issue notices to start scoping and the EIS process

·         Scoping process and public meetings begin

Not one mention of a notice of application with 30 -- no, make that 28 days to comment on the coal port application.  So, what gives?

John Watts posted a blog on hamstertalk where he expressed frustration, and even infuriation, after that March 20^th public meeting because all the concerns that "have been registered to date must be resubmitted after the date the official clock- stopwatch- gets started."

If you received a notice that you had 30 -- no, 28 days to now comment on North America's largest coal port, and if you had attended that meeting, would you think that now might be the time to submit your scoping comments?  If you assumed yes and are busy writing your scoping comments -- WAIT! 

Since this isn't a scoping notice, and according to the presenters at the March 20^th meeting, any comments you submit now will have to be submitted again, then your comments now on the scope of the EIS will not be considered. 

So what exactly is the purpose of this "notice of application" and what should I comment on?

In 1995, Washington State passed "regulatory reform" legislation (RCW 36.70B).  One of the requirements was a "notice of application".  The major point of the notice is to inform the public that an application is submitted, identify early in the process the agencies and permits that might be required, and let the public know of the date, time, place and type of hearing.

But, why didn't Whatcom County disclose this step when they had captured the attention of 800 people on March 20^th?  Everyone left that meeting thinking that the next notice would be "their time to comment."  And, is this notice of application really the right notice at this point?

I found it quite odd to have received this notice, especially with the 30 day -- now 28 day clock. So I decided to look at the County ordinance that adopted the procedures for notice of this type of project.  What I found was that if "the county has made a determination of significance", in other words an EIS would be required, then "the determination of significance and scoping notice shall be combined with the notice of application." WCC 2.33.060(B)

I left out five words in this quotation of county code.  The code says if the county had made this determination "concurrently with notice of application".  Perhaps Whatcom County might argue that technically they have not yet issued that determination, but when you look at the coal port's application, endnote iii on page 10 of 10 says "the County SEPA Responsible Official has determined that an EIS will be required," which is repeated in several spots in the application.   The applicants relied on this fact since they didn't turn in a SEPA checklist -- a required part of the application in order to determine it complete.  In other words, the application was not complete unless a determination of significance was assumed.

Everyone knows an EIS is required. Wouldn't it have been clearer and less "regulatory burden" to the agencies and public to have just one comment period at the onset of reviewing North America's largest coal port? 

I think so. And I think the letter, if not the spirit of the law, says that the notice at this stage should be combined. 

After all, the County had plenty of notice that the application was coming in.  Even Get Whatcom Planning knew that the party was happening on March 20^th. 

P.S.  If you are compelled to write something at this time, you might identify any other permits or agencies that should be involved in this project.  You might also ask that the public hearing process be clearly spelled out (something that was obviously missing in the March 20^th discussion).    

Now, get back to more useful things, like rural sprawl. 

The Cost of Participation

I must admit, I'd rather have another colonoscopy than attend a Whatcom County Planning Commission meeting. 
After all, look at how they treat the public that testifies:

"Of course, since Stalheim et al cooked the numbers, the impression is that rural growth is rampant in Whatcom County."  (David Onkels, Apr 04, 2012, Northwest Citizen)

Last fall, another Planning Commission member's conduct towards staff rose to the level to be reviewed for harassment.

At the end of the meeting on March 8, Mr. Onkels again belittles another member of our community, Wendy Harris, in closing remarks that drew a response from the Chair that it was "out of order" while others can be heard laughing out loud.  Listen for yourself:

The concept, and law, behind growth management, is to ensure public participation.  The county's public participation plan says the procedures will allow for "open discussion." 

Now, I have a pair of big boy pants and all, and after 20 years of being a planning director, I've taken my share of bullpucky from a lot of different people.  But, never in my years as a planner, have I ever witnessed a planning commission member create a more hostile environment for the public to participate in growth management "discussions". 

So, Whatcom County Planning Commission, I choose colonoscopy over attending one of your meetings.  Not only do you not listen to the input that is provided, nor give it a fair hearing, you treat the public that testifies before you with disdain.