SVCR-0163-JollyRogers-770x150-012616-CW.png

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

February 3, 2016

FICTIONS IN COLLISION: Whatcom County Council held a long and crowded, rancorous session on the update of the county’s Comprehensive Plan last week. The Comp Plan update is intended to… more »

January 27, 2016

‘YOU HAD ONE JOB’: Two weeks into their short 2016 session, and the Washington State Legislature is already bogged down. The 60-day session is ordinarily designed for adjustments to the… more »

January 20, 2016

A MATTER OF CONVICTION: Problems with the jail did not end when voters rejected a proposal to construct a new justice facility in November; in fact, the problems are just… more »

January 13, 2016

GO ASK ALICE: A groundbreaking study released this week finds that nearly one in three households in the Pacific Northwest struggles to afford basic standards of living, a remarkable commentary… more »

January 6, 2016

ALL CHARGED UP, NO GAS: A new year begins, and with it the oaths of office and the swearing ceremonies of new public officials elected last November. Among these, the… more »

December 30, 2015

AULD ACQUAINTANCE FORGOT: Will 2016 be the year Whatcom County finally achieves compliance with the Growth Management Act, enacted a quarter of a century ago? Perhaps; but it’s doubtful.

Whatcom… more »

December 23, 2015

COAL IN YOUR STOCKING: ’Tis the season for retail sales. Following that, the weakened Canadian dollar coupled with the closure of a major industry and its associated payroll could send… more »

December 16, 2015

Farewell: At the end of their legislative year, city and county councils took time to bid farewell to extraordinary departing members with whom they’ve collaborated and (at times, and with… more »

December 9, 2015

HOLDING PATTERNS: Fallout continues from the county’s calamitous failure to pass a funding package for additional corrections capacity. A 0.2 percent sales and use tax to construct a new facility… more »

Cascadia Weekly

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

© 1998-2016 Cascadia Newspaper Company LLC | P.O. Box 2833, Bellingham WA 98227-2833 | (360) 647-8200