Losing the Battle to Save Lake Whatcom

April Markiewicz is an environmental toxicologist and the assistant director of the Institute of Environmental Toxicology in Huxley College at Western Washington University. She is also an advocate for the protection of Lake Whatcom and is the secretary of People for Lake Whatcom

It seems that each year our community struggles over some issue related to protecting Lake Whatcom, the primary drinking source for the city of Bellingham and parts of Whatcom County. Some of the topics we debated have focused on reducing housing densities in the Lake Whatcom watershed through temporary building moratoriums and downzones, as well as implementing a land acquisition program and transfer of development rights (TDR) program.

Other topics have focused on reducing impacts to the lake by restricting land clearing in the watershed during the wetter months of the year, retaining trees on properties to prevent erosion, reducing the amount of impervious surfaces allowed on developed sites to reduce stormwater runoff in the watershed, and phasing out the use of the most polluting types of two-stroke engines on the lake.

In each instance we have tried to find a balance that provides the greatest protection to Lake Whatcom, while at the same time accommodating the diverse and often conflicting needs of our community, without violating anyone’s rights. The question is: have we done enough to protect Lake Whatcom and its surrounding watershed adequately, given the compromises we have made? According to the latest Lake Whatcom Monitoring Project 2002/2003 Final Report by Matthews et al. (2003), we have not. Moreover, the long-term data indicate that we are running out of time. Basin 3 (see chart on page 14, Trends in Water Quality 1988-2003), which contains 95.9 percent of the lake’s water and is considered to have the cleanest water, is now showing degraded water quality.

The first question that comes to mind is how did Lake Whatcom get to this state? Probably because we did not heed the warnings over the years from previous Lake Whatcom monitoring reports and take more effective steps to protect our valuable drinking water source. As early as the 1960s, the city of Bellingham and Western Washington University (WWU) conducted collaborative studies on the water quality in Lake Whatcom. In 1981 the city and WWU formally created the Lake Whatcom monitoring program that was designed to provide long-term data on the lake’s water quality. The major goal of the program was to provide a record of Lake Whatcom’s water quality over time so that short-term water quality issues could be addressed as needed and long-term trends in water quality could be more easily identified (Matthews et al., 2003). The intent was to take a proactive approach to protect our drinking water source rather than wait until it became degraded and needed “fixing.”

Matthews et al. (2000) conducted a review of long-term trends in Lake Whatcom water quality dating from 1988 through 1999. The most important trend they found was an increasing loss of dissolved oxygen in the deeper waters of Basin 1 during the summer months. Matthews et al. (2000) stated that, although there are many factors that can increase the rate of oxygen loss, the most likely cause was increasing biological productivity due to increased internal and external phosphorus loading.

They also found that some of the watershed tributaries feeding into Lake Whatcom should be listed as public health hazards. Matthews, et al. (2000) stated that the water quality degradation was likely due to pollution from development around the lake and in the surrounding watershed. At that time, however, there were few other consistent long-term patterns in the lake’s water quality data that could be linked to increasing lake productivity.

Matthews, et al. (2003) conducted a second review of long-term trends in Lake Whatcom water quality, looking at water quality data from 1988 through 2003 (see chart on this page, Trends in Water Quality 1988–2003). The results of this analysis are even more alarming. In the last five years the lake’s water quality has deteriorated at an even faster rate. Many separate biological and chemical indicators of the lake’s health show that it is being affected by continued loading of phosphorus and other pollution. The report identifies residential development around Lake Whatcom as the primary factor impacting the lake’s water quality.

Some of the major points made by the 2002/2003 report include:

•By late summer there is no dissolved oxygen in the water below a depth of 12 feet.

•The rate of oxygen depletion has been increasing since the late 1980s.

•Bottom phosphorus and ammonia levels and surface alkalinity, and pH levels have increased, while surface nitrate levels have decreased. These patterns indicate increasing biological productivity over time.

•By late summer there is no dissolved oxygen in the water below a depth of 15 feet.

•Hydrogen sulfide and ammonia levels in the anoxic zone are now usually higher in Basin 2 than Basin 1.

•Nutrients, alkalinity and pH levels have changed over time so that Basin 2 water quality is now more similar to Basin 1 than to Basin 3.

Basin 3 (Largest basin contains 95.9 percent of the water in the lake)

•An oxygen-depleted (3 ppm) zone often forms near the bottom (80’ depth) each summer.

•Nutrients, alkalinity, and pH levels have changed over time, indicating increasing biological productivity.

•Dissolved oxygen levels remain high (8 ppm) to the bottom (90’ depth).

•Nutrients, alkalinity, and pH levels have changed over time, indicating increasing biological productivity.

The entire Lake Whatcom Monitoring Project 2002/2003 Final Report is available online and can be downloaded from WWU’s Institute for Watershed Studies Web page at: http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~iws under Projects, Lake Whatcom Water Quality. Paper copies are available from the city of Bellingham Public Works Division Water Department.

Dr. Matthews recently summed up the situation stating, “Water quality degradation is now evident in Basin 3, which contains more than 95 percent of the lake water. Even if we stopped all new development in the watershed, the lake’s water quality would take years to stabilize, and would probably not return to its former condition. The analogy Dr. Matthews used was that of a soccer ball. When you kick a soccer ball it rolls along for a while, but eventually comes to a stop. The more times you kick the ball the further away it gets from where it started because it is the path it has traveled, not necessarily the distance it has gone, that is important.

We can think of the lake in the same context: continued construction of roads and houses around the lake contribute increasing amounts of contaminants into the lake. The more impacts (kicks) the lake receives, the less able it is to recover and function as a good quality drinking water source. As a consequence, the city has to do more things to the water to make it fit to drink before it comes out of our water taps. §

•Matthews, R.A., M. Hilles, J. Vandersypen, R.J. Mitchell, and G.B. Matthews. 2000. Lake Whatcom Monitoring Project 1998/1999 Final Report. Prepared for the city of Bellingham, Bellingham, WA. March 15, 2000. 243 pages.

•Matthews, R.A., M. Hilles, J. Vandersypen, R.J. Mitchell, and G.B. Matthews. 2003. Lake Whatcom Monitoring Project 2002/2003 Final Report. Prepared for the city of Bellingham, Bellingham, WA. April 5, 2004. 291 pages.