Bellingham Growth Plans Involve Middle Fork of the Nooksack

Wendy Harris is a retired citizen who comments on development, mitigation and environmental impacts.

Should you believe what you are told, or should you believe what you read? This was the dilemma for those listening to an explanation by Mayor Linville and her staff, who were seeking city council approval of two unusual contracts during the August 12 Bellingham City Council meeting. The City Council was comfortable believing what they were told, while members of the public were more concerned about what they read. Based on respect for public concern, the council extended action on this matter until its next meeting on September 16. Maybe then the Mayor will explain why we have been presented with a public process version of “Sophie’s Choice.”

The problem arose when the city administration asked council to approve two Memoranda of Agreement (MOA), one with Lynden and one with the PUD No. 1, regarding access to, and use of, water from the Nooksack. The contracts would provide Bellingham with access to two new withdrawal sites further downstream on the middle Nooksack River, and allow Lynden to obtain water from Bellingham.

The language drafted into the MOAs provided for approval conflicts with the explanation by staff of the agreement terms. Adding to the problem, the public was uninformed about the administration’s plans for the Nooksack until the two agreements appeared on the August 12 city council agenda. This was rather surprising for a matter of such pressing importance in Whatcom County.

After reviewing the council’s August 12 agenda and reading the MOAs, my interest was piqued and I watched the televised Public Works Committee meeting prior to that evening’s council meeting. In fact, I watched it twice, just to make sure that the staff was saying what I heard. (http://www.cob.org/services/education/btv10/videos/council/2013-08-12-council-committee-meeting.aspx at 1:45 through 8.)

Staff explained that these agreements provided the city with two new downstream water withdrawal sites, in Ferndale and Lynden, for purposes of submitting a change order to the Department of Ecology. This was intended to protect Bellingham’s “options for the future,” and would not result in current changes to the city’s water services. While staff noted that this could lead to future discussion about providing water to Lynden, it was deemed an unlikely outcome that neither the city nor Lynden has interest in.

Satisfied with staff explanation (and apparently not having bothered to actually read the MOAs), the three members of the Public Works Committee sent this forward for full council consideration. At the evening meeting, some members of council were clearly frustrated with an untrusting public, who, they believed, were not listening to the staff’s explanation. (http://www.cob.org/services/education/btv10/videos/council/2013-08-12-council-meeting.aspx starting about 145.)

The MOA states that in exchange for access to Lynden’s water diversion/intake facility, “Bellingham will provide Lynden with compensation solely in the form of an annual quantity of untreated water (Qa) for a negotiated period of time under the terms of the Future Agreement.” (emphasis added) This language is specific and deliberate. The use of the word “solely” means that other forms of compensation, such as money, are precluded.

While the MOA is “conceptual,” its purpose is to “outline the mutual understandings and framework under which Bellingham and Lynden will work together to achieve common objectives.” The MOA states that “Bellingham and Lynden are taking steps to address their future water system demands.” I read the Lynden MOA as authorizing the mayor to proceed with water supply negotiations, returning at a later date with the referenced “Future Agreement.”

It is noteworthy that the MOA with the PUD No. 1, moving forward concurrently, does not reflect an arrangement for provision of water. Rather, the compensation for city water withdrawal is the full cost of using and improving PUD property (allowing the PUD to benefit from the costs borne by Bellingham residents).

In the aftermath of the August 12 council meeting, there has been rampant speculation regarding the city’s intentions and long term plans. The city administration appears to be operating on a “need to know” basis, telling council and the public the minimum necessary to obtain the legal authorization to move forward with its secretive planning efforts. This violates the letter and the spirit of Washington laws promoting open government and public transparency. And it leaves unanswered many important questions.

The MOA states that Bellingham and the PUD are working collaboratively to address “Whatcom County regional water issues.” Why is the city spending its time, and the public’s money, addressing matters under regional jurisdiction? Why is this being done now, when the county will begin working on a 2016 County Comprehensive Plan update, which is a comprehensive planning effort with a public process?

There will likely be impacts to county growth if Bellingham provides water to Lynden. Currently, Lynden lacks adequate water rights for large expansion under the Growth Management Act. Will this water support urban residential development or will it be used to sustain agricultural activities?

Has the city consulted the tribes? How will the city’s water supply be impacted by potential adjudication to quantify tribal in-stream flow rights? How does the city know what the environmental impact of these actions will be?

The MOA notes that “Bellingham will require one or more alternative points of withdrawal to provide necessary system redundancy and to meet future municipal water system demands.” I am unaware of any legal requirement that makes water system redundancy “necessary.” What is the basis of this assertion? And most importantly, what does the city intend to do with the water it allegedly requires from downstream? It has no current means to transport the water back to the city. What are the staff’s estimates of the public cost this involves, and does this offset the alleged benefit of accessing water downstream?

Among all these questions, one thing is certain. The city knows much more than it is telling us. The administration needs to be more forthcoming before the MOAs are approved.