Lummi Island Subarea Plan Generates Controversy

Albert W. Marshall has been a board member the Lummi Island Conservancy for many years; he worked to promote the establishment of the state Peregrine Falcon Refuge on Lummi Mountain and on the conversion of school lands there to a conservation status.

Lummi Island is one of several areas in Whatcom County with a subarea plan to supplement the county’s comprehensive plan. The current subarea plan for Lummi Island, adopted in 1979, is now being revised. Revision, a time-consuming and difficult process for all involved, is not yet complete, and it continues to generate a considerable amount of controversy. Basic issues include questions about rural character, water quality and quantity, and property rights. These issues are elaborated on below.

The basic goal of the 1979 subarea plan was to preserve the islands rural character. But the zoning adopted at that time was based entirely upon estimates of the water available for domestic uses, without regard for impacts on the goal of the plan.

A vision statement drafted by islanders in 2002 essentially elaborates on the goal of preserving rural character. This vision statement has not been controversial. In the survey conducted to ascertain the views of property owners and registered voters, 77 percent of respondents gave preservation of rural character a high priority, and 86 percent want no increase in the island’s population.

Nevertheless, the proposed revision of the subarea plan (draft plan of November, 2003) was written with little regard for the vision statement, just as the 1979 plan ignored its own goal. Many islanders believe that the draft revision has no chance of making the vision a reality.

In any case the goal was (and still is) a difficult one because subdivision activity prior to 1979 created many small lots, especially along the shorelines. Nevertheless, when the county adopted a lot consolidation law, Lummi Island alone was exempted, and the draft plan does not correct this.

Lummi Island is composed of two geologically different islands brought together by plate tectonics. The southern half, rocky and mountainous, is zoned for rural forestry. A residential development on the northeast side of Lummi Mountain utilizes surface water for domestic purposes.

Most island residents live on the northern half of the island and depend upon groundwater (wells). In preparation for the 1979 plan, an expert on island hydrogeology conducted a study of the groundwater in 1978. Estimates of the carrying capacity of the aquifer were made.

Various aquifer recharge areas were identified and classified as “primary,” “secondary” or “sensitive.” Recommendations were made regarding the maximum density that should be allowed in these recharge areas to avoid groundwater contamination: one septic system per six acres in primary recharge areas, one per three acres in secondary recharge areas, and no septic systems in sensitive recharge areas.

County planners who wrote the 1979 plan rejected these recommendations. Instead, all three kinds of recharge areas were lumped together and zoned for a density of one septic system per five acres. Outside of recharge areas, a density of one house per three acres was established, with the idea that higher density could not be supported by the groundwater.

In 1997, when the Critical Areas Ordinance was adopted, an entirely different identification of recharge areas was made, based on maps of soil types unavailable in 1979. This conflict is best interpreted as indicating

that recharge areas on Lummi Island are not well understood. Indeed, a primary recommendation of the 1978 water study was for additional studies, as the author of the study highlighted its inadequacies.

Most islanders recognize the current need for more groundwater studies. But zoning on the island continues to be based upon the 1978 identification of recharge areas, without regard for recharge areas identified in the Critical Areas Ordinance.

Apart from contamination by septic systems, evidence of saltwater intrusion is more and more apparent. Naturally occurring arsenic is an additional problem in many locations. The issue of water quantity involves still more uncertainty. It is not reassuring to have wells go dry, as some did last fall. Saltwater intrusion is another indication that some current wells are pumping beyond the capacity of the aquifer they draw on.

The draft plan, written by a consultant hired by the county, takes some notice of this and calls for downzoning of the entire north end of the island to one house per five acres. It also calls for a limitation on building permits to keep growth rate consistent with the average growth rate over the past 20 years until better groundwater information is in hand.

Nevertheless, the Whatcom County Planning Department has concluded in their staff report on the draft plan that “Without additional groundwater information, it may be premature to downzone properties or limit building permits.”

Many of us suspect that groundwater availability varies greatly with the location on the island; perhaps an ongoing study for a Master’s Degree thesis in geology at Western Washington University will shed some light on this issue.

The complex issue of property rights has generated much controversy on Lummi Island. The downzone proposal of the November draft plan is at the center of this controversy.

No doubt, some property owners want to retain the option of subdividing their land in the future, and they could be impacted by the proposed downzone. Some islanders believe that a downzone would impose an unreasonable hardship on such people and they believe that a downzone would trespass on legitimate property rights. Others islanders believe that without a change in zoning, rural character of the island will soon disappear. Many think that a downzone to one per five units acres would be inadequate, and that some larger parcels need to be preserved.

Those of us who acquired land on the island precisely because of the island’s rural character find the continuing incursions of suburban sprawl disturbing. Light and noise from neighboring properties are unwelcome intrusions. Neighbors’ activities can disrupt the wildlife we enjoy and pollute our groundwater.

Does a neighbor, intent on making a buck, have a right to erode our ability to enjoy the use of our property? For some, a rural setting even is more important than the ability to subdivide. A balance may be needed between the right to unfettered use of a property and restrictions imposed as protection from intrusive activities of neighbors. Where is the appropriate balance point?

The issue of public vs. private rights also comes into the picture. Visitors come to Lummi Island in considerable numbers to walk or bike the roads. They come to enjoy the rural aspects of the island and the marine views offered from the roads along shorelines. Clearly the general public has an interest in what happens here. Should they have a voice in the current deliberations? To date, this issue has not been addressed or even raised.

Please call our County Council members and the County Executive and request a public debate on this issue. §