Of Salmon and Bagpipes

I’ve lived in Whatcom County since 1996, and it has always seemed a bit like Brigadoon to me. The land that time forgot. A county-dwelling friend claims that this aura is related to the County's staunchly conservative electorate: “These are the folks who ran as far away from civilization as they could, until the water and the border stopped them from going any further.”

Maybe that’s why the idea of “planning” meets so much resistance in our county. “Planning” means that change is going to happen, that the future may be different from the past, and that change might make us do things differently.

No change will be bigger than climate change. The scientific evidence of climate change’s effects makes it clear that our future is going to be quite different from our past. And when I say “our future,” I mean our future. Right here in Whatcom County.

Just yesterday, for example, a peer-reviewed article confirmed what we already know: that climate change is giving salmon a tough time. As NOAA Fisheries states: 

Many salmon rivers around Puget Sound have experienced increasing fluctuations in flow over the past 60 years, just as climate change projections predict - and that's unfortunate news for threatened Chinook salmon, according to a new analysis of salmon survival and river flow.

More pronounced fluctuations in flow can scour away salmon eggs and exhaust young fish, especially when lower flows force adult fish to lay eggs in more exposed areas in the center of the channel.

Flow fluctuates so wildly because of bigger storms, more droughts, and more water falling as rain instead of snow. This study makes it clear that these fluctuations are already happening – this is not just something that may happen in the future.

Oh well, you may be thinking, that’s OK, we’ll just get our salmon from British Columbia. Except that a recent Canadian study shows that warming waters in B.C. rivers will give chinook salmon heart attacks. Literally.

So maybe we shouldn’t “plan” to outsource our salmon dinners
.

These studies, and many more like them, show that the future will not be like the past. In fact, “the future” is now. It’s already on the job. What can we do about it?

Whatcom County is in the middle of its most important planning exercise: the update of its 2016 Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is supposed to identify and protect frequently flooded areas. It’s supposed to protect surface and groundwater resources. It’s supposed to protect fish and wildlife habitat. Climate change will affect all of these “protected” resources. We could -- in fact, we should -- plan to avoid and ameliorate the effects of climate change.

But I’ve been watching County planning for a while now, and I have a prediction based on past performance. I predict that Whatcom County will continue to plan for the past, because that’s where its most vocal residents are the most comfortable.

The County will continue to promote land conversion that way it’s always been done in Whatcom County-- without worrying about water supply, or how much pavement covers watersheds, or whether farm land is protected, or even whether impact fees are in place that could help to pay for some of the impacts of land conversion. The County will continue to give the very highest priority to making sure that tens of thousands of new houses can be built on farm land and in rural areas, even when the new houses’ new wells deprive salmon of the water that they need.

In short, Whatcom County will continue to plan for 1950, not for 2050.

Now, some readers are shaking their heads, saying “I live in the most progressive community in the universe! We love the environment! What are you talking about?” And that may be right, as far as it goes. Psychologically, if not geographically.

As Gail Collins has pointed out, there’s a large and increasing difference between what she calls “crowded places” and “empty places.” "Empty places" are a state of mind, not necessarily a geography; Texas views itself as an empty place, Collins notes, despite the fact that 80% of its population lives in urban areas

In our crowded place, Bellingham, it can be easy to stay cocooned in our proto-Brooklyn hipster vibe. But the fact is, our mini-Brooklyn is located smack in the middle of mini-Texas, when it comes to voting patterns and cultural affiliations.

Speaking of Texas – we have a lot of folks in Whatcom County who would find Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s favorite climate joke to be really funny: “It’s cold! Al Gore told me this wouldn’t happen!”

Best available science recognizes that climate change is already upon us. Whatcom County is required to use best available science when it protects critical areas.

But will it?

Or is that the sound of laughter over Al Gore jokes that I hear, almost muffling the faint strain of a bagpipe, as Brigadoon fades back into the past?

“Whatcom County Has Plenty of Water,” And Other Happy Talk That Really Isn’t Helpful

This post is a delayed reaction to a panel discussion of Whatcom County water issues that took place last Saturday (this link will take you to Terry Wechsler’s summary of the forum on Northwest Citizen).

One phrase that was repeated umpty-times was “Whatcom County has plenty of water.”  Well, OK.

Let’s think about some other commodities that are plentiful in the County: 

Whatcom County has plenty of money:  Meander through Semiahmoo or Edgemoor, check out the coastal properties off of Chuckanut Drive, and it becomes readily apparent that there is plenty of money in Whatcom County.  I’m betting that we have so much money in Whatcom County that some of it even is sent abroad, to be hidden offshore. 

Whatcom County has plenty of food:  I was in Haggen’s just last night, and the shelves were downright groaning with food.  Farmers grow a lot of food here – milk, berries, all sorts of good things.  Plenty of food.  We even export some of it.  We have so much food that some of it gets thrown away.

And yet, people are poor.  And yet, people go hungry. 

The point is, of course, that overall quantity is one measure of plenty, but it isn’t the most useful measure when distribution is the problem.  And distribution is the problem with water.

Unless and until those winter flood waters voluntarily decide to route themselves into giant natural cisterns, and then accommodatingly flow onto farm fields in August, the fact that we have “plenty of water” (as an annual figure) doesn’t really solve our problem.

OH NO, have I started a meme?  Will people now claim that flood waters will route themselves into previously-unknown natural cisterns, and then will disperse themselves onto farm fields?

My concern is not as far-fetched as you might think.  The statement that got the biggest rise out of the audience last week was farmer Marty Maberry’s announcement that a previously-unknown deep aquifer, “bigger than the Amazon and the Columbia Rivers put together,” had been discovered under Seattle.

Members of the audience (1) immediately thought that he meant “under Whatcom County” (he hadn’t said that, but we all tend to hear what we want to hear), and (2) asked how we can get one of our own.  Marty suggested that we should be putting our money into drilling, so we can discover more previously-unknown deep aquifers.

Well, heck.  Who can blame Marty.  We all want a silver bullet.  And dealing with water issues in this county does have all the fun and sense of achievement of trying to run through a vat of drying cement.   I think that everybody involved is frustrated and would like to be rescued by a giant deep aquifer.

The only problem is that there is no vast, previously-unknown deep aquifer under Seattle.  There is a vast underwater canyon that belches salty, nutrient-laden water into Puget Sound, as my comments on the Northwest Citizen argument explain (with links).  UW researchers recently found that this canyon is bigger than the Amazon and Columbia Rivers, combined.   But it’s no freshwater source.

It’s a bummer.  It throws us back into the vat of drying cement, where none of us wants to be.  But you know what -- we’ve made a big part of that vat ourselves by our heedlessness in ignoring water issues.  The natural world is complex and only getting more so with climate change.  And that’s the reality that we face.

Therefore, I would suggest that it doesn’t help to keep repeating “we have plenty of water” without some clarification.

Who are “we”? Do We the Fishes count?

How do we gauge “plenty”?  Do time-and-place matter?

The state of Washington answered both of those questions in 1985, when it established instream flows (for We the Fishes) and closed watersheds during dry periods.  Yes, fish are part of “we.”  No, “plenty” doesn’t mean that we have enough water when and where we need it.

Almost thirty years later, it’s not like these concerns have gone away.  “Plenty” is as plenty does, and our “plenty” has some strings attached.

So please, no more empty happy talk.  Let’s have some action.

_________________________________

Why is Grumpy Blogger so grumpy?  See the response to Progress Hornsby, below.  

As promised, here's the factual record of Whatcom County's water resource management, in the words of the State Growth Management Hearings Board.  

But hey, this is nothing that Happy Talk can't handle. If we all believe -- REALLY BELIEVE -- that we have the best of all possible County governments. . . . 

if we all snap our fingers and say "Yes, Tink, I believe!". . . . (or, alternatively, "Whatever is, is right," with the theme from Candide running through our minds),

then all these problems just go away. 

"The record demonstrates the following in the County’s Rural Area regarding surface and groundwater resources:

Whatcom County Leadership Needed to Protect Water Resources and Agricultural Land

The League of Women Voters’ March 15th session on water resources focused on “solutions.”

After the four panel members (Jeremy Freimund, Lumm Water Resources Manager; Hanry Bierlink, representing the Whatcom Agricultural District; George Boggs, from Whatcom Conservation District; and Ann Wessel, from the Department of Ecology) finished their remarks,  the League moderator noted that the speakers had used a whole host of words --  “litigate,” “ cooperate,” “be optimistic,” “be holistic” – and so forth.

As she ran through the string of words, I noticed that one word was missing:  “plan.”  Whatcom County has the obligation to plan to protect water resources.  Why didn’t anybody talk about that?

That absence came out in the subsequent conversation.  Henry Bierlink noted that water “is a land use issue, it’s an economic development issue, and everything else.”

Speaking of planning (or the lack thereof), the next question asked how much farm acreage the County is losing to development.  Henry responded that we lost a lot over the past 20 years, but now it’s plateaued and we have the 100,000 acres that the County Council has committed to protect.

I was standing in the back of the room, shaking my head vigorously – not because I doubt Henry’s word that more than 100,000 acres are currently being farmed in Whatcom County, but because the County has NOT protected 100,000 acres of agricultural land.  Only 88,000 acres are zoned for agriculture (don’t take my word for it – click here and see page 3).

On top of that, even the 88,000 acres that are zoned for agriculture are not permanently protected for agricultural use, as George Boggs emphasized.  The issue, he said is “what we can lose” – and this County has 4,000 development rights in prime agricultural land. 

Why does that matter?  As these lots are developed, they will withdraw some water, and in some places, that may be a problem.  But the bigger problem is the potential for incompatibility.

Unlike anywhere else that I know of, Whatcom County’s zoning allows residential buildings to be built right up to a farmer’s property line.  In fact, under some circumstances, a setback applies to farm buildings, which are constrained in their location in order to protect residential uses.  This is a formula for conflict.

As restrictions tighten on the use of pesticides and other chemicals (don’t take my word for it, click here),   the ever-increasing number of residential buildings in Ag areas will increasingly constrain farming.

Whatcom County has a chance to address this issue in its upcoming Comprehensive Plan update.  It could revise its zoning code and provide some protection to Ag uses.  As George Boggs noted, the issue of residential development in agricultural land is an issue of great urgency. And yet the County Council recently voted NOT to docket a measure that would put the County on the road to protecting the additional ag land that everybody agrees that we need. 

Is Whatcom County in the business of planning?  Reacting?  Merely defending the status quo? 

That leads us to the most profound statement on leadership of the session. Jeremy Freimund, the Lummi Nation’s water resource manager, described the “Lessons Learned” from his years of being in the thick of water resource litigation.  The main “lesson learned,” he said, is that politicians want to be able to say “”the judge made me do it.”

True leadership, as he pointed out, would be to stand up and admit that concessions are needed to get to a negotiated agreement.

I think that we elected a new County Council in hopes that there would be a welcome return to leadership. Perhaps this hope only extended as far as the review of the Gateway Pacific coal terminal, and perhaps we are all too jaded or too indifferent even to dream that Whatcom County will ever again engage in the kind of leadership needed to address our other tough problems.

Water problems.  Council Chair Carl Weimer recently proposed, and the Council recently adopted, a Water Action Plan.  This could and should be part of the solution.  Will it have any teeth?  Will the Council have the political will to buck the status quo? 

The protection of agricultural lands.  Will the County do what it takes?  Ken Mann has proposed a Transfer of Development Rights program to remove development rights from agricultural land.  Does the Council have the technical support, the money, and the backbone to make it work?  And if not, what is Plan B?  Is planning any part of Plan B?

As George Boggs put it, “if you want change, you need to clamor.”  

Water Supply Symposum: Planning for Water

I was on an interesting panel at the Water Supply Symposium today.  There were nine of us, representing different interests.  After the first eight of us had spoken, in civil and probably fairly boring terms, Randy Kinley Jr., from Lummi Nation, said what needed to be said. To paraphrase:

Everybody knows what needs to be done.  It doesn’t get done because of politics. 

Well, yeah.  There it is. 

County Council candidate Rud Browne asked for “thinking outside of the box” on the issue of water rights and water supply.  Somebody suggested to me after the symposium that it would be “thinking outside the box” if our County Council decided to comply with the Growth Management Act.   

And that is also something that needs to be said:   

In our county, a decision to comply with state law would be thinking well outside the current box.

****************************************

My interest was “land use.”  Here’s what I said:

There’s a definition of “planning” in BusinessDictionary.com that says that planning is:

A basic management function involving formulation of one or more detailed plans to achieve optimum balance of needs or demands with the available resources.

The planning process (1) identifies the goals or objectives to be achieved,

(2) formulates strategies to achieve them,

(3) arranges or creates the means required, and

(4) implements, directs, and monitors all steps in their proper sequence.

We expect businesses to plan.  We expect families to plan, to make sure that the family budget balances needs or demands with available resources.  And planning is what Whatcom County should do.

Yes, we need to know more, but we actually have quite a bit of information about water availability.  We know that:

Most of Whatcom County’s surface waters are closed to further water withdrawal, either all year or in the critical summer months.  . 

Most farmers don’t have legal water rights.

There isn’t enough water for salmon in some of our streams. 

The Sumas aquifer has one of the worst levels of nitrate contamination in the state, with 70% of wells violating state water quality. 

Water supply is a problem that requires planning – a rational effort to achieve a balance of needs or demands with the available resources. 

But for some reason, the idea that Whatcom County should plan to achieve an optimum use of our most precious resource, water, has been viewed as way too radical.  Or a low priority.  Or something.

There’s no question that the County has the authority it needs to plan for the rational use of our water supply.  In fact, Goals 9 and 10 of the Growth Management Act  require the County to protect water quality, the availability of water, and fish and wildlife habitat. 

The County is required to plan for rural development that protects surface water, protects groundwater resources, and is compatible with fish habitat.  

As the Washington Supreme Court said recently, in its 2011 decision in Kittitas County v. Eastern Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd.,

Several relevant statutes indicate that the County must regulate to some extent to assure that land use is not inconsistent with available water resources.  The GMA directs that the rural and land use elements of a county’s plan include measures that protect groundwater resources.

What could the County do? 

When it’s deciding where to encourage or discourage growth, it could make water availability a key factor.  It could prevent further pollution of groundwater and surface water, because poor water quality in some areas translates into a lack of water supply.

I am representing local citizens who, along with Futurewise, are asking the Growth Management Hearings Board to find that Whatcom County has an obligation to make sure that its rural land use planning takes water supply into account.  This obligation is not only to address the exempt well issue, but also to consider water supply when planning for growth.

The County has said that it has no obligation to do anything that the Department of Ecology doesn’t force it to do.  A decision should be out next month.

But whether or not the County is required to protect water supply through planning, it certainly has the ability to do so.

Why does this matter?  Because we have a limited number of tools at our disposal, and because the stakes are so high. 

The tools that we have are state water law, and as previous speakers said, state water law is not enforced, and it’s not adequate to the task.

The tribes have options and rights, which are theirs to talk about;

And we have the County’s ability to plan for the optimal balance of needs. 

Let me leave you with another quote.

While none of us who live in Washington’s beautiful “fourth corner” are pleased with the prospect of spending substantial amounts of money on water resource issues, all of us have an important stake in the outcome of this work. If we fail to initiate and see these important projects through to successful completion, we will pay a much heavier price in the future. Without available and viable water resources, the beauty, strength and vitality that make Whatcom County a desirable place to live, raise our families and pursue our dreams will wither away.

This is nobody’s campaign speech.  This is from the introduction to Whatcom County’s current Comprehensive Water Resources Plan, signed by County Executive Peter Kremen in 1999.  Yes, Whatcom County’s current plan is now a teenager – 14 years old.

What were our ambitions at the turn of the millennium, when we adopted our current plan?  Let me quote just a couple of the goals of this Comprehensive Water Plan:

·        Whatcom County will have coordinated land use and habitat management that protects drinking water supplies and provides recreational opportunities while restoring and sustaining natural systems.

·        WATER SUPPLY: Whatcom County will have a locally developed watershed plan and implementation strategy that provides for long-term, reliable and sustainable water supplies by 2003.

Ten years later, in 2013, my fear is the fear of most of the people in this room.  My fear is that we’ll all be here – older, greyer, a little less spry – ten years from now. In 2023, in a county that has successfully resisted planning, we will find that it has also failed to provide for coordinated land use and habitat management.  Failed to provide for long-term, reliable, and sustainable water supplies.  A County with more farmers uncertain about their water supply, more wells that violate state water quality, and fewer salmon.

Thank you.

Slaughterhouse 8

Having wrapped up its role in de-planning Whatcom County’s rural areas, the County De-Planning Commission has turned its attention to de-planning agricultural land.

The De-Planning Commission is considering a proposal for “small-scale” slaughterhouses.  Well, that was the original proposal. A trip through De-Planning Land has turned it into something else: 

Slaughtering and processing would be a permitted use with no size limit.  As many animals as you want, covering as much ground as you want, with no setback requirement.  The proposal would allow animals to be imported from anywhere -- the east side of Washington State, B.C, Oregon.  Slaughtering, rendering, PLUS processing would be allowed.  Spam!  Corned beef!  Leather!  Or, what the heck, any other kind of processing, even if unrelated to Ag (who needs LAMIRDs!?!).

But don’t take my word for it.  Here’s what the planner in charge of this matter told a citizen who asked about the current proposal:

You are correct that animal slaughter facilities of unlimited size, with unlimited numbers of employees, and with animals from any source would be a permitted use in the Agriculture district. . .

You are correct that neighboring property owners would not be able to comment through any public process, except the current one which is occurring under the planning filename "Small Scale Slaughterhouses."  While the public may submit comments to be a part of the official file of any proposal, there is no procedural requirement for a public process through WCC 20.40.050 Permitted Uses.

. . .You are correct that the requirement that agricultural processing be related to primary permitted use such as crop production or animal raising which are dependent upon soil and large parcel sizes such as found on the Ag district, process at least 50 percent Whatcom County agricultural products, and have adequate and necessary public facilities such as highways, police, and schools to support the proposal would no longer be required even for facilities with more than 20 employees. . . .

I hope this helps. If you have further questions, please fee; free to

contact me.

Regards,

Josh

Joshua Fleischmann

Natural Resources Division

Whatcom County Planning and Development Services

5280 Northwest Drive

Bellingham, WA 98226

But don’t take his word for it.  Read Planning Commissioner John Lesow’s comments on our prevous blog.  John is the sole remaining Planning Commissioner.  From the Planning Commission.  Back when it Planned.

I think that the others deserve the title “Slaughterhouse 8.”

As for the picture at the top of the blog:  I entered the word “slaughterhouse” into Google Images.  The things that I do for our readers.  This is not an activity that I recommend if you have a weak stomach.

Of the images that didn’t relate to heavy metal bands or Kurt Vonnegut, the picture at the start of this blog is the only one that was, well, palatable. 

(And yes, I do eat meat, and I grew up on a farm that raised beef cattle, so I know where meat comes from.  It comes from the pretty Black Angus cattle that used to graze in the field out our back door.  It just didn’t seem necessary to splatter blood all over our blog.)

The picture came from an article about a slaughterhouse in a residential neighborhood in New York state.  Buncha wimps live in that community.  They’re complaining about a new slaughterhouse that “would be 26,000 square feet, and stand less than 100 feet from some neighboring houses.”  Here’s the article.

Less than 100 feet!  In Whatcom County, make that five feet!   And we'll call it "rural character."

Whatcom County’s Rural Element: The Sequel

Apparently the Arab Spring, and every successful uprising since then, was masterminded by people who knew how to make revolt fun.  Get garbage cans, paint faces on them and let people bash them with sledgehammers.  Baffle the CIA by organizing the revolt via Twitter.

What can we bash, to make the rural element fun? Can we paint a face on something?  No scurrilous suggestions here, please. 

Because – let’s face it -- Whatcom County’s fifth or sixth or eight or tenth or twentieth year (who’s counting) of not adopting a legal Comprehensive Plan is not inherently full of fun. 

Last Thursday evening, David and I attended the kick-off for the County’s current effort to try to adopt a Rural Element that complies with the Growth Management Act.  Planning Commissioners, 7 out of 9 of whom were not on the Planning Commission when it last went through this exercise in 2009, listened politely to a PowerPoint presentation.  The event would not, I’m afraid, make much of a splash on YouTube.

But it occurred to me that the Rural Element does have one thing going for it:  It’s a SEQUEL. Americans love sequels!  Most of the top ten grossing films in 2012 were sequels! 

If we don’t want endless sequels, we need to make sure that the County does it right this time.  And there isn’t much time.  Here’s the schedule that the County has proposed:

Feb 28th – Draft published

March 8th – Planning Commission Public Hearing (Note:  this is only 5 work days after the draft is published)

March 22nd – Planning Commission Work Session

April 12th – Planning Commission Work Session

April 26th – Planning Commission Work Session

It sounded like all of the Planning Commission sessions will be held in the County Council chambers.

May 8th – Council Planning & Development Committee

July 10th – Compliance Deadline

Because the only public hearing is proposed at the beginning, presumably planning staff are under the assumption that the Planning Commission will not make any changes to the proposal that is supposed to come out the day after tomorrow.. 

This may make it appear that public testimony is merely window-dressing, but the public needs to participate anyway.  The need to hold additional public hearing(s) was raised at the meeting, and the County needs to hear that this is a good idea.

REMEMBER – the County Council can adopt the Planning Commission’s proposal without any public hearing.  So it’s possible that the March 8^th public hearing will be the ONLY public hearing on this issue!  

Now, on this awards day, it also occurs to me that we should give our awards for good actors during our Rural Element sequel.  And by that, I mean people whose actions are good.

I’m going to call this award the Lammie, in honor of everyone’s favorite Growth Management Act acronym:  LAMIRD (limited area of more intense rural development).

(As an aside, when you put the search term “lamb statue” into Google Images, a frightening array of possibilities assaults your screen.  Apparently America is full of lawns graced by life-sized statues of sheep and lambs.)

The Lammie for February 23^rd goes to our new County Executive, Jack Louws, who gave a very thoughtful opening speech to the Planning Commission.  He is, as he said, a “cheerleader” for compliance.  Here are the highlights of his speech, as closely as I could get them down – if you want to listen to the original, click here for the online audio.  

I think that it’s a real priority for Whatcom County to get into compliance with the GMA.

This continued noncompliance is definitely putting the County at a disadvantage at the state level when it comes to funding, especially the Public Works Trust Fund money and Centennial Clean Water fund money, both of which we use.  And as an aside to that, the Public Works Trust Fund is going to get expanded, appears that it’s going to get expanded, so that we can borrow money for projects such as JAILS and other infrastructure projects.  That’s half-percent money, but one of the keys for us is to get into compliance with GMA to be eligible for that.

It’s important to get this behind us if we can so that we can take a methodical look at where we’re going for 2016 [when the Comprehensive Plan has to be updated].  What I just, in short, want to say is to encourage you to do everything that you can to take a real hard look at what the ruling was, and maybe swallow twice if you’re not in agreement with it, but look at it from a public servant’s perspective and realize that we need to get into compliance and the ruling gives us a pretty good indication of what we need to do to get there.

There may be some challenges with what the ruling is with respect to your personal views of what land use should be in Whatcom County, but we need to take a good look at what the ruling is and get it solved. . .

I’m an encourager and a cheerleader to ask you to do everything we can to get there. We have some big projects coming up, and it’s imperative that we get the state’s help to get them done.

Of course, David and I have been saying for years, literally, that the County’s continuing noncompliance with the Growth Management Act imposes real costs.  But I suppose that it’s like Nixon in China – a former Mayor of Lynden may be believed by those who habitually scoff at Bellinghamites. 

And of course, the looming omnipresence of the need for a new jail, in conjunction with the County’s complete lack of available funding, adds urgency.

My fear is that the County’s going to use this sudden “discovery” of the fiscal implications of noncompliance to push through yet another noncompliant plan.  But maybe this sequel will break the mold and the County will actually Get Whatcom Planning. 

For that to happen, we need all of you to help.  

Let's Do the Time Warp Again

Happy belated birthday to us!

I was thinking that somebody (preferably David) ought to write a year-end retrospective about all of the de-planning that's gone on in Whatcom County in 2011.

And I thought to myself, when did David start this blog?

The answer is:  October  16, 2011.  So we missed our own birthday.  And I would point out that nobody threw us a party.

What really caught my eye, though, was the very first comment on this very first blog entry.

What has changed in the year-plus since then?

• The County still has an "emergency" windpower moratorium.

• The County Council keeps approving development that chips away at our agricultural base.

• Wetlands and trees destroyed, with nobody there to stop it and just a little fine and stop-work order. . . .hmmm. . . .did SSA use this comment as a how-to manual for its illegal clearing at Cherry Point?  

• Caitac -- well, Caitac got its upzone at the last County Council meeting, but anyone who thinks it's all over now, please raise your hand.  Don't see any hands. 

Since Whatcom County appears to be caught in a time warp,  maybe this will do the job as our year-end retrospective: an excerpt from the comment that "Whatcom Rural Citizen for 30 Years" wrote on October 16, 2010.

I have lived/farmed in rural Whatcom County for 30 years. It is so heartbreaking to watch everyone talk about avoiding sprawl; we have meetings and meetings to come up with zoning laws and long term land-use plans in order to protect the AG lands and our rural character; but then exception after exception is made by the Council and we watch the continued sprawl creep over our rural lands. Some developers know that enforcement is non-existent so they roar in and knowingly break the laws. A fine and a little stop-work order won't put the trees and wetlands back after they destroy them. So a few neighbors complain, the developer gets a little fine and maybe a delay but those wetlands and trees are already gone now and noone at the zoning department saw what was there before. So it works out way better for the developer to trash it first and deal with the problems later.

I remember attending the first public rezone meetings for the Caitac property a long time ago. David Syre of the Trillium Corp. was very involved in it then. So many people turned out and look at Cordata now. City! . . .

Then to top it off, the Council puts an EMERGENCY moratorium on Wind Generators to stop community owned wind energy projects! My goodness, it's a true emergency! A windmill might ruin our County! But rezoning and clustering our County to death with more unneeded houses and shopping areas with a tourist hotel is exactly what we need!

We live in such a special place and I watch this insanity while the sprawl continues. The County government announces it is cutting over 100 jobs because we are low on funds. But remember- Growth is good for our economy! Yeah! Right!

I don't really have an uplifting conclusion for this blog.  So I'll just end it.  Happy New Year!

C. Dean Martin

"That's just crazy!"

These are the words I'd often hear from C. Dean Martin when talking about Whatcom County Planning these past two years.  Dean passed away in his sleep last night.  The cause of death is unknown, but Dean was hit by a car the day before Thanksgiving while crossing Northwest and Illinois.  He suffered four fractures from that accident.

I was fortunate enough to have had the pleasure of working with Dean at Whatcom County.  Dean was hired on in early 2008 as the Senior Planner responsible for the county's agricultural program.  Dean had a great career already, having been a lead conservationist in the State of Missouri (if memory serves me well) and was an elected official.  Dean was passionate about agriculture and passionate about conservation.

And he was passionate about local conservation and good planning.  Since being laid off by the County in June 2010, Dean had volunteered his time through his church (Unitarian), neighborhood (Columbia) and with several local election campaigns.  Dean could be seen answering the door in Christina Maginnis' campaign video, and was a regular volunteer knocking on doors for candidates that supported conservation efforts. 

Dean also challenged Whatcom County on several growth management cases -- and I believe won every one of them.  Last Monday, if Dean was there at the latest Growth Management Hearings Board case, he would have just shook his head when the County said that "rural lands ARE the buffer to agriculture."  That's just crazy. 

Dean's lovely wife, Carol, resides here in Bellingham.  Dean is also survived by two accomplished daughters.  He was a great man, committed conservationist, and friend.  In signing out of any email, this is what Dean had to say:

"The land ethic simply enlarges the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land"

"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and the beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise." Aldo Leopold, A Sand County Almanac. 1949.

Thanks for all you did, Dean.  We'll keep up the good fight for conservation, because "its just crazy" not to.

Ferndale UGA: Round 3

In response to our successful challenge of the Ferndale UGA expansion, Ferndale and Whatcom County are undertaking a process to address the recent Growth Management Hearings Board decision.  The Hearings Board set a compliance deadline of August 8, 2011.

UPDATE:  The City of Ferndale has put a page together on their UGA review.  Click here. 

What do you think it will take for them to consider placing the UGA where it does less harm to sensitive watersheds, agricultural land, or critical areas?

What do you think it will take for them to identify the most efficient and effective places to extend public facilities and services, without diminishing levels of service below established minimums?

What do you think it will take to size the UGA based on the adopted densities in the plan, and to adopt mechanisms that ensure those densities are achieved?

As you can guess, what I have read from the city (Bellingham Herald link) and the county (Ferndale page) fails to meet these expectations. 

I know that the city can do it right (not sure about the county council).  I'm hoping that concerns are addressed in the process, or we will be back in front of the Hearings Board again.    

The Environment Matters:

The first city staff report (Bellingham Herald link) shows alternatives UGA proposals, but fails to discuss any environmental factors that might influence the choices.  The area to the north (Vista Malloy) includes the upper parts of the Drayton Harbor Watershed, which due to water quality problems, has been declared a Shellfish Protection District.  The area to the west is within the Birch Bay Watershed, also declared a Shellfish Protection District.

·         If there are viable alternatives, should growth be directed away from impaired watersheds and water bodies?  If the desired densities are used based on real growth projections, how much less of an impact into these watersheds would be necessary?

·         Whatcom County has special stormwater standards and financing mechanisms for Birch Bay and Drayton Harbor.  What are the city standards, and are they equal or better? Show us those standards. 

Why doesn't the city and county show the mapped environmental resources on alternatives before decisions are made?  Here is a simple map that shows watersheds and the proposed Vista Malloy addition to the UGA. 
Capital Facilities:

Reportedly, the city has now completed updated public facility and service plans that cover the planning period and all urban facilities and services, including fire.  Unfortunately, the staff report or web page of the city and county don't identify where this information can be obtained.  The choice of urban growth boundaries should be dictated also by the efficient delivery of public facilities and services without service levels falling below locally established minimums.

Density Matters:

The Hearings Board found that the expansion of the Ferndale UGA was internally inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.  The size of the urban growth area is directly related to how many dwellings per net acre are planned.  The comprehensive plan expects that Ferndale plan at densities averaging five to ten units per net acre.  The current analysis continues to size the urban growth area at less than five units per acre. 

The comprehensive plan says "Ensure that cities have adopted mechanisms which will encourage densities at desired levels."  In a separate part of the Board's decision, they note that the term "ensure" is stronger than the term "should" or "encourage".  The question is whether at the time the County authorizes a UGA expansion it had "ensured" that the city has adopted mechanisms which will encourage densities at the desired levels.

To be fair, I think Ferndale is making great progress in this area.  The city rightfully boasted several measures that they have taken over the past several years to ensure that densities do occur at higher levels.  But, they have not extended those requirements to the lower density, single family zones -- exactly the sprawl creating zones that will cause further urban expansion if the city (and county) don't adopt measures to "ensure" that densities occur at desired levels. 

Ten or twenty years from now, when another round of expansions into our resource lands are proposed, these stands on density and choices of where to grow will matter. 

I trust that Ferndale will help Get Whatcom Planning by making this plan right this time.  Take the time to do it right so resources aren't wasted.  Check in with the City and County to see if they have any updated information as they go through this review process.