SVCR-0711-FishTacos-770x150-CW.jpg

The Gristle

Letters From Lummi
  • Google+

LETTERS FROM LUMMI I: Mayor Kelli Linville pulled from the Bellingham City Council agenda this week two agreements that could potentially serve city water drawn from new diversion points on the lower Nooksack River to the City of Lynden and the Public Utilities District #1 of Whatcom County. In pulling the items, the mayor explained that the dynamics and details of those agreements were not made sufficiently clear by staff in their original presentations to council. The purpose and the controls that might govern such agreements were therefore not sufficiently clear to council, and the state agencies that had originally approached the city and suggested that the city’s large municipal water right might help solve countywide water problems needed to step up and more transparently and fully make their case to the public.

“There needs to be more public discussion about the framework by which these two items were requested by the Dept. of Ecology and the Dept. of Health” as part of overall watershed planning, Mayor Linville told council. “There seems to be a little confusion, and I would prefer that there be no confusion about what the city is trying to do.”

The proposal predates Linville’s administration and several others, described in a May, 2000, paper jointly produced by the cities of Bellingham and Lynden, the PUD, and Dept. of Ecology. The PUD updated its assessment of north county water problems in 2010.

“The idea has been around a while,” Linville admitted afterward. “I just nudged it forward. Now I prefer the state to take the next steps.”

Essentially, the agreements would allow the City of Bellingham to move its existing right to draw large quantities of water from the Nooksack River to the places where Lynden and the PUD also currently draw their water. In exchange for that capacity, the city could lease back to these entities water for beneficial purpose. One beneficial purpose outlined by staff would be to improve—through direct service to water associations or recharge of aquifers or other means—the water quality of numerous household wells in the rural county that currently exceed health standards for nitrates. Nitrate levels increase as a consequence of over-withdrawal from aquifers, the over-subscription of groundwater withdrawals in Whatcom County. In putting its right to Nooksack River withdrawals to immediate and beneficial use, Bellingham would, in turn, assert and protect its continued water right into the future.

Properly constructed, the agreements could be of benefit to improving instream flows and access to water by agriculture. Improperly constructed, with insufficient safeguards, the agreements could worsen Whatcom’s water woes, potentially delivering to land speculators continued license to sprawl.

Lynden has a sorrowful history of inadequate water supply and water treatment, and has proven unable to solve the neighboring nitrates problem on its own. In June, Lynden broke ground on construction of a new water treatment plant at an estimated completed cost of $26.9 million, funded in part through a loan from the county’s Economic Development Investment program, exhausting EDI for other purposes. In a potential alternative to Lynden, the PUD could wheel drinking water into the north county from Sumas to supply those homes and associations. Bellingham’s withdrawals could augment either plan.

Skeptics and critics fear the plan would simply encourage more growth, more over-subscription and continued noncompliance with state growth goals. Indeed, the county’s problem with the water quality in wells flows directly from decades of the county’s scofflaw indifference to planning for growth in areas actually supplied by water. Even at its most benign, the plan papers over the county’s folly and kicks the consequences of water supply down the road a few more years.

Lummi Nation, in particular, sent the City of Bellingham a strongly worded letter earlier this month, objecting to the proposed agreements as they foreclose upon ongoing tribal assertions over water rights.

“Until our senior water rights are protected, Lummi Nation will oppose a proposed change in place of use of the City of Bellingham water right permit,” wrote Tim Ballew, chairman of the Lummi Indian Business Council.

While Linville admitted she had not spoken directly to the Nooksack Indian Tribe, both tribes seek a ruling in federal court that would assert their right to a non-consumptive use of water to enhance their fisheries. Nooksack Chairman Bob Kelly speculated that unilateral action by the cities and PUD could harm a more comprehensive discussion of water rights and water use.

“The proposed change would be a shortsighted and exclusive solution only for a few,” Ballew warned. “It could essentially solve Lynden’s water supply needs and cure Lynden’s past and present water rights violations, while reducing instream flows in a section of the river that presently fails to meet minimum flow requirements for fish.

“The Lummi Nation suspects that the cost of reclaiming and reusing water by the City of Lynden or treating contaminated wells near Lynden has been judged to be too expensive,” Ballew speculated. “As a result, the City of Bellingham and the City of Lynden are now proposing to shift costs from the people who will benefit from the use of the water to the natural resources that will suffer from the loss of the water.

“The entire amount of water represented by the City of Bellingham’s water right is currently instream and the existing flow levels are still not being met—simple math demonstrates that the proposed additional points of diversion will make matters worse.”


blog comments powered by Disqus

 

Past Columns

August 18, 2015

NO CLARITY IN MCCLEARY: Little illustrates the tone-deaf dysfunction and gridlock of state government more than Sen. Doug Ericksen calling for a tax cut as the Washington Supreme Court hands… more »

August 11, 2015

PUSHMI-PULLYU: A low turnout (25 percent) yet an election outcome that skewed strongly liberal? The August primary is an unheard-of beast, like some two-headed creature interviewed by Dr. Dolittle. On… more »

August 4, 2015

COAL DUMP: What if you spent a fortune to queer an election and kneecap local government in order to build a coal pier, and for all that trouble didn’t get… more »

July 28, 2015

DEFLATING EXPECTATIONS: What a difference an economic downturn makes!

Bellingham City Council this week listened to extensive public comments but took no immediate action on estimating growth in the city’s… more »

July 21, 2015

CHARTER BARTER: Whatcom County Council continues to tug on the fuse in the moldy stick of dynamite left over from the construction site of the county’s home rule charter in… more »

July 14, 2015

THE DRIVE FOR FIVE: Like a stick of dynamite left behind at a construction site, the periodic review of the Whatcom County Charter has probably outlived its original purpose of… more »

July 7, 2015

JAIL BREAK: Monday marked Bellingham City Council’s first official opportunity to respond to the divided decision of their counterparts on Whatcom County Council to place a .2 percent sales tax… more »

June 30, 2015

FOUR PROMOTING FIVE: Despite the long and pretentious, preening moment of silence and quiet reflection the conservative caucus of the Whatcom Charter Review Commission invokes at the start of their… more »

June 23, 2015

WINNING THE WAR, LOSING THE BATTLE: Whatcom County needs a new jail and at some point will have a new jail. On that, there is little doubt and—among opinion leaders—no… more »

Cascadia Weekly

Home | Views | | Archives | Advertising | Contact | RSS

© 1998-2015 Cascadia Newspaper Company LLC | P.O. Box 2833, Bellingham WA 98227-2833 | (360) 647-8200