Behind the Scenes: The Lake Whatcom Property Acquisition Program

One of the initial subscribers to Whatcom Watch, Barbara made it a New Year’s resolution to get more involved in the publication, so this is her first contribution. She has taught writing for years at Whatcom Community College and written articles for other publications such as Business Pulse and Ranger Communications. When researching this article, she found out that the topic of watershed management is deeper than the deepest part of the lake!

April’s issue of Whatcom Watch had excellent articles covering the watershed challenges facing the county. This is a slightly different angle on the issue, which will provide more information about who is working behind the scenes to improve water quality. At the March 21 Bellingham City Council meeting, the Lake Whatcom Watershed Advisory Board made five recommendations for use and protection of watershed property purchased by the city and described the property acquisition program.

This piqued my interest, as it seems more should be known about a group charged with such an important responsibility. Who is on this advisory board? How do they select properties to purchase? Do they have any real clout? What I found was somewhat reassuring.

Historically, the current advisory board and the watershed property acquisition program have their roots in a 1991 list of 21 goals created by the Lake Whatcom Management Committee composed of the County Executive, Bellingham mayor and the manager of Whatcom County Water District #10 (now called the Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District).1 The city and county councils as well as the water district commissioners then approved these goals. The second goal was to “pursue public ownership and protection of the watershed whenever possible through private/public partnerships, tax incentives, transfer of development rights, land trusts, grants, etc.”

Since there were no funds for this lofty goal, nothing was done until after a contentious citizen-led initiative (by The Initiative Group: Marian Beddill, Tim Paxton and Larry Williams) was proposed to add a fee to water bills to buy watershed properties. Although this initiative was narrowly defeated in November of 1999, it did spur subsequent action, such as the adoption of a five-year work plan for the watershed and the development of criteria for selecting properties to purchase (more on those criteria later).

As was reported in a 23-page summary presented by Clare Fogelsong, manager of environmental resources for Public Works, the Lake Whatcom Watershed Property Acquisition Program officially began in October 2000 when an ordinance was finally passed that established a $5 per month water usage fee (graduated for metered properties) for the purpose of buying watershed properties.2 At this time that fee generates $1.8 million dollars per year.

I wondered what motivated Bellingham to institute the very funding mechanism narrowly defeated at the polls. Did they figure out that protecting the watershed would be best served through land acquisition? Marian Beddill, one of three citizens who sponsored the initiative, does not give the city much credit. “I went to every City Council meeting for six months [after the initiative was defeated] and hounded them about their responsibility to protect the watershed,” she said. Her persistence, and the help of John Watts and Barbara Ryan, finally resulted in the ordinance, giving the city a funding source to buy property in the watershed.

In August 2001, the [property acquisition] program made its first purchase—35 forested acres above Basin 2 and near other preserved properties—for $400,000. To date, the program has acquired 1,073 acres for $11.4 million in land value and $398,000 in timber (see property acquired table on page 5).

The city also accepts donations of conservation easements, which allow owners to keep their property with a promise not to develop it. The largest of these occurred in 2001 when 90 acres north of Agate Bay were donated. In 2002, the city decided to borrow $4 million dollars from the Wastewater Fund so they could purchase high priority lands without waiting for the waterfees to trickle in. This loan is being repaid at a rate of $900,000 over five years, so most of the current water fees go to repay this loan. That explains why 15 properties were purchased in 2002 and only two last year.

Even though the city was purchasing property and collecting fees beginning in 2001, the Watershed Advisory Board didn’t meet for the first time until August 2003. A skeptical citizen might question why it took two and a half years from authorization to finally appoint this board, a period of time when many land purchases were finalized with the help of Public Works staff but with no input from an official advisory committee.

Fortunately, in Bellingham a skeptic can ask such questions directly to the mayor. I received an answer to my email query the same day, from Betsy Bierer, executive assistant to the mayor, who said there were two main reasons for the delay. First, it took time to build a consensus and “develop a clearly defined role for the board,” and “since roughly 90 percent of the watershed is in the county, there was strong hope that the county would partner with the city and that the board would be a joint city/county program and board…. The ordinance then needed to be further revised when the county did not join the city on the issue.” 3

Everyone has an opinion about the topic of county involvement in land acquisition and watershed protection. Some see their commitment as woefully lacking, others as newly awakened, with others somewhere in between. But that is the topic for another article. The more pertinent question to this discussion is how is the current city advisory board working.

First, when choosing properties to purchase, they work with city staff using a well developed numerical system that objectively allocates points based on several criteria developed over time, including proximity to the lake, potential land use and contiguity with already purchased land. “We rarely buy individual lots,“ explained Advisory Board Chair Susan Taylor, “unless they adjoin something else we own. We try to buy land that will give the most protection for the money involved.”

The Lake Whatcom Watershed Advisory Board consists of seven members, appointed by the mayor for three-year terms. Rather than appoint members with varying points of view, the approach seems to be to select people with knowledge in watershed issues who are supportive of the concept of purchasing and protecting land as a central solution to water degradation. This approach has created an advisory board with much expertise. According to Chair Taylor, the group dynamics have been positive. “We are so lucky to have such qualified people volunteer for this board,” Taylor admitted.

The board has two central mandates: protect water quality while providing public access to the land acquired. They spent the last year and a half drafting bylaws and becoming informed about the issues. Their effort culminated in a work plan accepted by the City Council at the March 21 meeting where they outlined five problem areas and goals for addressing them.

In brief, current problems involve how to best manage the properties the city has already purchased. The city owns over 1,000 acres of land that need to be well managed in terms of protecting Lake Whatcom, a goal often at odds with public use. For example, right now large tracts are being used for dirt bike racetracks, with users removing trees and other vegetation.

What the Lake Whatcom Watershed Advisory Board realized was that as the city has successfully accumulated land to protect, a whole new set of needs has surfaced. There is no enforcement, management plan or personnel to put up signage, replant native vegetation or otherwise educate the public as to best and proper uses of these properties.

The board recommendations would provide, among other things:

•a watershed stewardship program using volunteers,

•an emergency plan for watershed properties,

•enforcement of existing ordinances to regulate activities on watershed properties in the city limits,

•coordination of various governments and organizations to educate the public and post signs about watershed principles.

Another primary charge of the Lake Whatcom Watershed Advisory Board was to determine the best uses for the properties already acquired. They developed a Use Matrix, which encouraged uses that would provide the most watershed protection (forestry, open space and bird habitat) while rejecting uses such as Christmas tree farms and community gardens that could harm water quality. Board member Myron Wlaznak said creating this Use Matrix was a challenge. Categories that were marked “No action,” such as dog walking on formal trails, are already allowed where appropriate, so the board did not need to make any recommendations.

“We didn’t all agree on how much public use there should be of the land,” he said. But after much discussion, they did agree that uses which protected water quality had to take priority over public access. “Each person on the board has a role and even if I don’t always agree with them, I respect them and the amount of time and effort they put into this obligation,” Wlaznak said.

The board also recommended to the City Council an accelerated purchase schedule because of pressure to develop the watershed. They estimate it will take between $80 and $100 million dollars to buy the rest of the undeveloped parcels in the watershed. Interestingly, this is about the same amount of money a filtration system could cost if water quality continues to degrade, as estimated by former Superintendent of Public Works Bill McCourt in last month’s Whatcom Watch. The report does a good job of outlining why spending money for acquisition is the best alternative.2

To critics who say purchasing watershed properties removes the properties from the tax rolls: many studies have shown the cost of providing utilities and infrastructures to outlying areas, if these properties were developed, outweigh the income provided from property taxes. “We believe that the cost of providing . . . services to support the 260 development units that the program has so far removed from the watershed would exceed the value of the taxes collected on these properties,” the report concludes.

So the question becomes, where do we find the money for purchasing more land? One source the Lake Whatcom Watershed Advisory Board has been examining is what is called ‘congressional pass through’ funding, meaning a line item in the federal budget. Rick Larsen’s office expressed interest in helping the city develop this option, but the mayor balked, feeling that his inter-governmental pact with the Port of Bellingham specifying the waterfront as the city’s number one priority pre-empted the board’s ability to ask for money for the watershed.

This example, perhaps, shows the effectiveness of this citizens’ advisory board. Unhappy with Mayor Admunson’s unwillingness to even ask for federal funding, board members approached the City Council, who agreed with them. At the meeting on Feb. 28, the City Council directed city staff to make a formal proposal to Rick Larsen and pursue this avenue as a possible money source. Unfortunately, they may have missed the deadline for this year, causing the council to consider other options.

”We can’t wait for the land acquisition funds to build up over the next five to 10 years, “ said Chair Taylor. Land is getting more expensive every year, plus 400 building permits were applied for after the county’s moratorium was announced, double the number of building permits issued last year.

The city has an excellent credit rating and has borrowed little, so the City Council is also considering selling bonds to be used for watershed property acquisition. “The council has been very supportive in prioritizing Lake Whatcom and examining options to protect our water source,” said Taylor. The mayor doesn’t seem to share the council’s concern regarding watershed property acquisition funds.

So my research into this rather new, little known advisory board has shown what appears to be a very knowledgeable group of citizens, with clear goals and objectives, making important decisions toward some positive results. But their ability to move forward effectively will depend on a combination of individual tenacity, the City Council’s success in finding funds and the continued vigilance and hard work of many Whatcom citizens. §