Would you want your government to spend $7.5 million per pound each year to help remove phosphorus from the Lake Whatcom watershed? Here’s hoping they don’t pick that option, but the City of Bellingham has contracted CH2M Hill to perform a cost-benefit study of Lake Whatcom, published November 3, 2011. The report summarizes,
As part of the City of Bellingham Project EW-180 related to mitigating impacts of filter-clogging algae in Lake Whatcom, the project team evaluated lake and watershed management. As part of addressing lake and watershed management, the project team estimated the phosphorus reduction and associated costs of specific in-watershed activities identified by City staff from the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program 2010-2014 Work Plan.
The summary specifically mentions filter-clogging algae. WE have a gut feeling that addressing problems with clogged filters could be managed much more directly and inexpensively, without the need for eliminating phosphorous from the watershed, even if it were practical.
The complete report is available here, but for those of you who do not have time to take in the entire thing, we will summarize the highlights. For those of you who are really pressed for time, this is it, in one line: Environmental mitigation does not come cheap, in monetary or libertarian terms. The authors do not analyze whether the work is necessary and proper (and the city did not ask them to – that’s the city’s job).
Here is the list of activities that a working group consisting of staff from the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County, based upon the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program 2010-2014 produced, and CH2MHILL, the City, and the County collaboratively refined:
Exhibit 4 – Education, Incentives and Enforcement Matrix, is especially interesting. Here is how this project would be implemented:
Since We the People probably do not understand the problem, we need education:
Realizing that you might not be anxious to do this (all else being equal) they will sweeten the deal with incentives:
So, what does it all cost? The report breaks it down by dollars per pound of phosphorus removed from the Lake Whatcom watershed per year. Some of the mitigation involves cost per acre as well. Please refer to the report for details. The report does not say how many pounds require removal, but at $6.00 per pound, we can develop (the developable land) in accordance with city ordinance. Then there’s “Transition from Ecology Water Quality Assurances of Forest Practices to predevelopment conditions” (re-wilding). That goes for $81.00 per pound per acre. You can keep developable land undeveloped for $561.00 per pound. Residential lot consolidation is $14,420.00 per pound. It starts going up fast, now: Building new roads from “pervious” materials (that water can seep through) costs $1,111,000.00 per pound. Retrofitting existing roads will cost $2,000,000.00. Skipping ahead, we find retrofitting lawns and landscaping will cost $5,000,000.00 and vegetated swales and re-configuring roadside ditches will both cost $6,000,000.00. Capping it all off, bioretention rain gardens would cost $7,500,000.00 per pound of phosphorus removed from the watershed per year. We can hope the city planners would heed this cost-benefit analysis, and use only the remedies that have the biggest bang for the buck. They did reject the idea of controlling the goose droppings in the area. Humans are probably easier for the government to control than geese.
Did anybody consult you, taxpayer or landowner, at any time during the development of this project? Will they allow you to vote or have a voice in how much of this you want to participate in, or pay for, or how much it will affect your property value or its usability? As a citizen, where do you prioritize environmental issues with all of the other human needs and wants? An environmental extremist would put the environment at the very top of the list. A conservationist might consider a reasonable balance between a pristine environment and other human needs and wants, including our civil liberties. How much government would you purchase if you had the freedom to choose?
As part of the City of Bellingham Project EW-180 related to mitigating impacts of filter-clogging algae in Lake Whatcom, the project team evaluated lake and watershed management. As part of addressing lake and watershed management, the project team estimated the phosphorus reduction and associated costs of specific in-watershed activities identified by City staff from the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program 2010-2014 Work Plan.
The summary specifically mentions filter-clogging algae. WE have a gut feeling that addressing problems with clogged filters could be managed much more directly and inexpensively, without the need for eliminating phosphorous from the watershed, even if it were practical.
The complete report is available here, but for those of you who do not have time to take in the entire thing, we will summarize the highlights. For those of you who are really pressed for time, this is it, in one line: Environmental mitigation does not come cheap, in monetary or libertarian terms. The authors do not analyze whether the work is necessary and proper (and the city did not ask them to – that’s the city’s job).
Here is the list of activities that a working group consisting of staff from the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County, based upon the Lake Whatcom Reservoir Management Program 2010-2014 produced, and CH2MHILL, the City, and the County collaboratively refined:
- Reducing development potential / developable land
- Restoration of natural functions on acquisition properties
- Bio-filtration: vegetated swales
- Bioretention: rain gardens
- Bio-filtration: street trees
- Lawn replacement & landscaping: retrofit to provide bioretention
- Infiltration: dry wells
- Infiltration: trenches
- Infiltration: pervious pavement
- Infiltration: basin
- Rainwater reuse
- Onsite dispersion
- Media filters
- Sizing culverts to eliminate erosion
- Street sweeping
- Controlling erosion through streambank stabilization or restoring stream buffer vegetation
- Regulations: Phosphorus fertilizer ban
- Education: Watershed signs
- Education: Mass mailings
- Education: Online information
- Education: Newspaper ads
- Education: Video presentations
- Education: Community events (public meetings)
- Education: Onsite training/workshops
- Education: Resident contact
- Education: Project consultation
- Incentives
- Transition from Ecology Water Quality Assurances of Forest Practices to pre-development conditions
- Design standards for new and retrofitted roads
- Reconfigure roadside ditches
- Reconfigure streets
- Vehicle trips - reduce and redirect
- Recreational facility design and use (Improving existing facilities)
- Watershed-wide enforcement
- Animal waste: wildlife (goose)
- Septic system transition to sewer connection
Exhibit 4 – Education, Incentives and Enforcement Matrix, is especially interesting. Here is how this project would be implemented:
Since We the People probably do not understand the problem, we need education:
- Watershed interpretive signs
- Mass mailings
- Online information (website)
- Newspaper ads
- Video presentations (or TV ads)
- Community events (public meetings)
- Resident contact (home visit)
- Onsite training/workshops
- Technical assistance
Realizing that you might not be anxious to do this (all else being equal) they will sweeten the deal with incentives:
- Convenient disposal
- Store coupons
- Yard waste pickup
- Rain barrel
- Food waste pickup
- Compost bin
So, what does it all cost? The report breaks it down by dollars per pound of phosphorus removed from the Lake Whatcom watershed per year. Some of the mitigation involves cost per acre as well. Please refer to the report for details. The report does not say how many pounds require removal, but at $6.00 per pound, we can develop (the developable land) in accordance with city ordinance. Then there’s “Transition from Ecology Water Quality Assurances of Forest Practices to predevelopment conditions” (re-wilding). That goes for $81.00 per pound per acre. You can keep developable land undeveloped for $561.00 per pound. Residential lot consolidation is $14,420.00 per pound. It starts going up fast, now: Building new roads from “pervious” materials (that water can seep through) costs $1,111,000.00 per pound. Retrofitting existing roads will cost $2,000,000.00. Skipping ahead, we find retrofitting lawns and landscaping will cost $5,000,000.00 and vegetated swales and re-configuring roadside ditches will both cost $6,000,000.00. Capping it all off, bioretention rain gardens would cost $7,500,000.00 per pound of phosphorus removed from the watershed per year. We can hope the city planners would heed this cost-benefit analysis, and use only the remedies that have the biggest bang for the buck. They did reject the idea of controlling the goose droppings in the area. Humans are probably easier for the government to control than geese.
Did anybody consult you, taxpayer or landowner, at any time during the development of this project? Will they allow you to vote or have a voice in how much of this you want to participate in, or pay for, or how much it will affect your property value or its usability? As a citizen, where do you prioritize environmental issues with all of the other human needs and wants? An environmental extremist would put the environment at the very top of the list. A conservationist might consider a reasonable balance between a pristine environment and other human needs and wants, including our civil liberties. How much government would you purchase if you had the freedom to choose?
RSS Feed