The Lake Whatcom “reconveyance” makes sense on many levels, as explained in this compelling Bellingham Herald opinion column.
And once the reconveyance has been achieved, as we can hope
that it will be soon, what will we have?
A polluted drinking water source that faces the prospect of additional pollution from residential development.
At the beginning of 2012, the Growth Management Hearings
Board concluded that Whatcom County’s planning for residential development had
not protected the water quality of Lake Whatcom:
The
County‘s unsupported assertion that its regulations are adequate to provide the
needed protection rings hollow. The County provides no information about the [development
regulations] that allegedly address these issues, but the current report on
Lake Whatcom water quality demonstrates that the existing regulations have
not protected Lake Whatcom and that the problems are actual and proven, not
speculative.
At the beginning of 2013, the Hearings Board found that the
County still had not protected Lake Whatcom.
Although around 1,700 lots can be developed in the portion of the Lake
Whatcom watershed that the County has designated as “Rural,” the Hearings Board
concluded, “[t]he stricter stormwater recommendations advocated by Ecology and
promised by the former County Executive. . . have not been adopted.”
The County Council’s response?
Use taxpayer funds to hire a Seattle law firm to appeal this
decision in Skagit County Superior Court.
That appeal was filed on February 1st.
Yes, we are all paying for the County’s multiyear fight
against protecting Lake Whatcom.
Council member Carl Weimer voted against both the plan and
the expenditure of funds for the Seattle law firm. If anybody cares about Lake Whatcom water
quality, you might ask the rest of the County Council members, and the County
Executive:
When will the County get to work to protect Lake Whatcom?
My limited understanding of the matter is that the Best Law Firm Ever is employing the daring "Nuh-uh" defense of the County's Not-So-Benign Neglect of the lake.
ReplyDeleteNow, Shane, I think that you're glossing over the subtleties here. I'd go so far as to characterize it as the "You Can't Make Me" defense.
DeleteThis is frustrating and disheartening. I did not know about the appeal that was filed. It's almost unbelievable, (or at least I wish it was, because then it wouldn't be true). What next? What advice do you have for those of us who want to help but don't know exactly what to do?
ReplyDeleteThank you for your concern, CM. What comes to mind:
DeleteWrite to the County Council, asking it to make sure that development in the watershed will not result in more phosphorus pollution than forested conditions;
Contribute to Futurewise Whatcom, which provides the persistent leadership that we need to provide a healthy, clean environment in the long term;
Vote in the fall election, and talk to your friends about the issues and the candidates; and
Wish me good luck, when I go up against the Seattle law firm in court.
Thanks! I can do all of those things! And I most definitely wish you good luck--(and how lucky for the rest of us that you are doing what you do.)
Delete