April 2002
Local Issues
Twenty Years Ago in the Lake Whatcom Growth Debate
by Tom Pratum
Tom Pratum is a Lake Whatcom resident who is very concerned about the future of the lake.
The year was 1982–Ronald Reagan was in his first term as president, the first widely available personal computer (the IBM PC) had been around for about six months, and we were debating growth in the Lake Whatcom watershed.
At the end of March of that year, the Lake Whatcom Subarea Comprehensive Plan came up for public hearing before the Whatcom County Council (which at that time consisted of Shirley Van Zanten, Don Hansey, Craig Cole, C.J. “Corky” Johnson, R.W. “Bob” Muenscher, J.V. “Jim” Hawley, and Will Roehl). The March 30, 1982 Bellingham Herald article about this hearing was written by Bob Partlow and is reprinted on the facing page.
Citizens Called for Moratorium on Further Development
The recorded minutes show that the testimony presented at the hearing, which covered nearly three hours, echoed many of the exact concerns expressed today. A number of people called for a moratorium on further development. Marine biologist Fred June, who is referred to in the article from 1982, recommended to the County Council that they:
1. Declare Lake Whatcom an Environmentally Sensitive Area and proclaim a temporary moratorium on further development in the watershed.
2. Proceed with the proposed study of the current condition of Lake Whatcom and make a provision to continue monitoring studies.
3. Prepare a full environmental impact statement.
4. Establish the legal authority necessary to control the introduction of chemicals and other contaminantes into the lake and to reverse the degradation process already underway.
Other comments expressed similar concerns.
Dim Future for Lake Protection
Mr. June was contacted recently in relation to this article, and he stated that he felt his testimony, and the written arguments he also presented in March of 1982, had little effect at that time, and he doubted they would be effective now. Apparently even then the situation appeared dim for advocates of lake protection.
One of the specific concerns to residents was the proposed urban level uses and densities allowed in the North Shore and Geneva areas. Several people requested downzoning, particularly of the North Shore area from Rural Residential (RR) – which is considered an urban level density in the plan—to Rural (R) designation. Others, such as Richard Giesbrecht, eventual developer of Richalou Estates in Agate Bay, argued against downzoning.
The ordinance eventually adopted (Ordinance Number 82-56, adopted August 17, 1982) amended the 1970 Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan to parcel designations shown in the figure below. For context, the map below also shows the current Comprenhensive Plan designations of the same area.
Lip Service to Clean Water
The amended plan was a vast improvement over that which preceded it, but it did very little to protect the watershed. The fruits of the resolution lie in developments such as Eagle Ridge and Richalou Estates along North Shore Road, and the higher density housing accessed from Coronado Avenue in Geneva.
The text of the ordinance paid lip service to concerns regarding the water quality of the lake by stating that “...further residential development within the Lake Whatcom watershed must be limited to a quantity and density which is consistent with the overall maintenance of a safe and adequate public water supply...”—but it postponed questions regarding the suitability of the urban level zoning around parts of the lake for a future time.
Further questions about effects of urbanization of the watershed were put off until the “Lake Whatcom Restoration Study” was completed. This study, which later came to be known as “Lake Whatcom Water Quality Protection Study: Whatcom County Washington–URS Corporation” was published in 1985.
Study Had Negligible Impact
The study declared the water quality in the lake as good at the time, but made a number of recommendations regarding future management. As can be seen from the comparison of the 1982 Comprehensive Plan designations with those currently present (see maps), the study had a negligible effect on the land use designations in the watershed.
A number of studies have followed, along with the continuing Lake Whatcom monitoring project done by Western Washington University. The data acquired in the years since 1985 shows that urbanization of the watershed is having a detrimental effect on the water quality of the lake. However, the question remains today as it did in 1982: are we ready to employ a long-term development moratorium and/or downzoning to protect the lake?
The following article is reprinted courtesy of The Bellingham Herald. It appeared in the Tuesday, March 30, 1982 issue, page B1.
by Bob Partlow/Herald Staff
About 350 people want a halt to building and development around Lake Whatcom until the effects of the building can be assessed.
Petitions seeking a moratorium around the lake were given to the Whatcom County Council Monday night during a public hearing on the proposed plan and zoning for the watershed.
Lake Whatcom is the water supply for Bellingham and thousands of Bellingham-area residents, including those who live around the lake.
The packed crowd of more than 100 people also made many of the same arguments about growth that have been made about the lake for years.
Representatives of development interests in the watershed urged greater density levels for their property, while the majority of residents who spoke urged a go-slow approach to building.
“There is a moral and legal responsibility for the county to assist property owners who made ULID 11 possible to help clean up Lake Whatcom,” said geologist Bill Purnell. He said money already paid into sewer assessments on the north shore for future growth near Agate Bay involved a commitment to allow that growth.
“I hope the council will not decide on the slow-death-by-nibbling-at-watershed-properties syndrome, but will accept the fact that Lake Whatcom is the most valuable resource in the county,” countered Strawberry Point resident Phyllis Barron.
She was one of those who spent the past two weeks circulating the petitions asking for a moratorium in the watershed. The petition contains signatures of many who live in Bellingham and Whatcom County outside the watershed, as well as lake-area residents, she said.
“We are concerned about the watershed urban plan and particularly the implementation of shared costs such as drainage, necessary road improvements and the whole range of necessary services,” the petitioners wrote.
Several people asked the county to do an environmental impact statement on the plan and zoning before it is put into effect.
County officials and officials of Water District 10, which provides sewer and water services around Lake Whatcom, have been arguing over whether such a statement is needed.
Marine biologist Fred June drew the biggest applause of the evening with his speech warning county officials to be careful what they did to the fragile water supply.
“Many Americans, and particulary those of us living here in the Pacific Northwest, operate on the delusive pioneer concept that another oasis with its crystal-clear pure water source lies just over the next hill and that technology can somehow repair any or all of our environmental abuses,” June said.
“I can assure you there is no contingent water supply in this region that is any better or more readily available than Lake Whatcom. But given continuing current practices around the lake, there is a point beyond which a technological fix will no longer be possible.
“The social goal of preserving this unique water source for the future generations is an integral and obligatory part of the decision making process,” June said.
He, and others, suggested several steps they thought should be taken to protect the lake.
Others, however, argued for their developments. Attorney Phil Serka and consultant Jim Wilson requested higher densities on Squalicum Mountain for a proposed large development there.
Purnell, consultant Harry Fulton, land owners Richard Giesbrecht and Frank and Ann Norman all argued for densities that would allow their developments near Agate Bay. They often cited the land-use plan done in the early 1970s allowing higher densities than the proposed plan. The commitments made in that plan led to their proposals and should be honored, they said.
But lake-area resident Ben Hinkle noted everyone who moved to the watershed knew its fragile nature and the constraints on growth when they moved there. He is opposed to any zoning, he said, but as long as it exists it should be enforced to the maximum to protect the water supply.
The council will keep the record of the hearing open through 5 p.m. Friday for any written comments on the plan and zoning.
