Letterbox

Dear Watchers:

What if someone told you that you could only answer “yes” or “no” to the following questions: Have you stopped abusing your children? Will you continue murdering homeless persons? Are you still using heroin?

If that sounds ridiculous it’s because you can’t accurately use simplistic answers for complex issues, especially if you never did the deeds.

I am very disappointed in “People for Lake Whatcom’s” extremely simplistic and inaccurate portrayal of my answers as a County Council candidate. I did not abstain from answering any questions!

When asked if I would support a fee for owners of new homes to protect the watershed, I pointed out that many older residences contribute more to problems than newer low impact development. That was not an abstention.

My “no” answers had explanations. But those very important words were not included. Here are some of them.

When answering “no” to the question as to whether I would support a complete ban on extension of water and sewer into or outside the urban growth boundary in the Lake Whatcom watershed, I answered “no” followed by the words, “only outside the urban growth boundary.”

Urban growth already exists within Lake Whatcom’s urban growth area (UGA) and we can’t make it go away by sticking our heads in the sand. In many cases it would be much more environmentally sound to hook existing residences up to public water and/or sewer. I would even sometimes support a rural level of extended public service outside the UGA in the case of a public health or safety crisis as happened west of Lynden when pesticides contaminated residential wells.

I answered “no” to the question about only extending services to existing homes. In the areas where public services are extended, it would be financially and likely environmentally poor to extend those services without including properties in between. More wells and septic systems are certainly not always better where public services are available. Better solutions in those areas might be to purchase as many development rights as possible or trade the public services for a reduction of existing undeveloped lots.

One question had two parts. Yes, I support low-impact recreation in the watershed. No, it shouldn’t preclude motorized recreational vehicles. Electrically motored boats are low impact!

Simplistic answers do more harm than good. Complicated issues deserve comprehensive answers. Call me at 384-2762 and I’ll share more of my ideas and opinions.

Following are the candidate questions. My answers and comments are in bold uppercase letters. My deletions are indicated by an ellipsis (...).

1. I support the WWU Institute for Watershed Studies’ almost thirty years of research on Lake Whatcom and believe they have been and still are the most credible and professional scientific source of information on the lake’s water quality.

IT IS ALMOST THE ONLY INFORMATION WE HAVE.

___X__YES ______NO

2. I believe the actions taken by our elected officials to protect Lake Whatcom and our drinking water source have been inadequate, as evidenced by the ... decline in the lake’s water quality.

PLEASE NOTE I DELETED SOME WORDING

____X__YES ______NO

3. I pledge to take substantive actions to reverse the decline in the lake’s water quality that includes committing ... resources to reduce net phosphorus loadings to the lake by 2009.

PLEASE NOTE I DELETED SOME WORDING

___X___YES ______NO

4. I believe and will work to implement a drinking water protection fee paid by property owners of new homes being built in the watershed to use specifically for offsetting the harmful effects of that development on the lake’s water quality.

SOME OF THE OLDER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE WATERSHED ACTUALLY CAUSE MORE PROBLEMS THAN NEW LOW-IMPACT DEVELOPMENT.

______YES ______NO

5. I believe additional downzoning in the Lake Whatcom watershed is necessary to protect the lake.

I DON’T KNOW

______YES ______NO

6. I support and will sponsor a ban on extending any future water and sewer services into and outside of the urban growth areas within the Lake Whatcom Reservoir watershed.

ONLY OUTSIDE THE URBAN GROWTH AREA.

______YES ____X__NO

7. I believe the Lake Whatcom Water & Sewer District (formerly Water District #10) and Water District #7 should not extend services to new developments and only provide service to existing homes.

THEY SHOULDN’T EXTEND SERVICES OUTSIDE THE URBAN GROWTH AREA. THEY CAN’T JUST SKIP HOMES IN-BETWEEN OTHER HOMES.

______YES ___X___NO

8. I support the use of some ... revenue and/OR utility funds to assist willing homeowners in the Lake Whatcom watershed who want to implement on-site stormwater runoff infiltration projects (e.g., rain gardens, rain barrels, replanting lawns with native plants, etc.) on their own property ... .

PLEASE NOTE I ADDED AND DELETED SOME WORDS.

___X___YES ______NO

9. I believe that recreation in the Lake Whatcom watershed should be low-impact in nature and prohibit motorized recreational vehicles.

THERE ARE TWO QUESTIONS IN THIS QUESTION. YES FOR THE FIRST PART AND NO FOR THE SECOND PART.

___X___YES ___X___NO

10. Because purchasing the remaining developable properties in the watershed provides the most cost effective protection to our community’s drinking water source, I believe and will support having Lake Whatcom as ONE OF the ... priorities for Federal Appropriation (Earmark) Funds.

PLEASE NOTE I ADDED AND DELETED SOME WORDS.

___X___YES ______NO

Dear Watchers:

I refer to “Fossil Fuels at Peak: Nuclear Power — No Solution to Peak Oil” by John Rawlins. I find much in his article with which I agree. My theme here is this. The most dangerous day in our lives is the day we are born. All we get is a trip. Would I extend my Trip? You bet I would.

So too with civilizations. All they get is a trip. Unfortunately democracies are governed by crises. It will be too late to do what should have been done earlier. In my opinion disaster will come earlier than it should have. We won’t get the extended trip our civilization could have had. 

If interested in some of the things I believe could be done to extend that trip, go to http://www.whatcomwatch.org and search for “Our Long-Term Energy Future” — April/2006 and “A Sequel to Our Long-Term Energy Future” — June/2006 by Al Hanners. You might also be interested in some of my articles dealing with energy since then.