(Not for the faint-hearted, or under-18 crowd)
The Whatcom Excavator |
|
Science realists, conservation challengers, climate change skeptics, anyone who dares to suggest that greenhouse gas emission goals are a load of hot air ... not getting with the program? No pressure. (HAPPY HALLOWEEN) (Not for the faint-hearted, or under-18 crowd) FYI - this, believe it or not, was produced and released some time ago in Europe as an effort named 10:10 Global.org. It was intended to bring humor to the eco-activist cause, but it created such an uproar it's been pulled (blocked) repeatedly. It disappears [KABOOM!] from YouTube due to (no pressure!) "political correctness." But it keeps popping back up.
1 Comment
It's good to know that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case about land use mitigation fees. What's really important, it's a case that involves mitigation demands related to a "wetland" that look like clear-cut extortion. For more than ten years, Whatcom County has established a growing number of regulations, policies, and plans based on environmental theory. And our Planning & Development Services department operates on the assumption that all land within the county's boundaries - both public and private - is a "natural resource" that the county has not only the right but a duty to manage. An increasing number of permit approvals require "mitigation." In most cases, little tangible scientific proof of harm done is proven by the government itself. Planners glibly write about creating regulatory "tool boxes" to expand the public use of private property. How justifiable is their stance? Citizens' private land (or the use of their land) should not be taken wrongfully, without site-specific proof that damage has occurred or will occur. On-site and off-site mitigation, if justified, should be soundly based on facts and be proportionate to impact. The general demand for agricultural, watershed and wetlands "protection" and restoration, and for numerous other kinds of public use (such as transportation and recreation), is expanding here in leaps and bounds without the specificity it should. Whatcom County legal's opinion always leans in favor of expanding county powers - but is that constitutionally correct? If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Koontz family as it may, could this case make a difference? Yes, absolutely. Watch the video below. Background, from Pacific Legal Foundation: PLF's new case at the Supreme Court asks: Can government extort money from property owners? The Koontz family merely wanted to develop the family's land in legal and responsible ways," said PLF Principal Attorney Paul J. Beard II, who wrote the successful petition asking the Supreme Court to take the case. "But the St. Johns River Water Management District saw a chance to make all kinds of unrelated, outrageous demands." In particular, the agency demanded that the Koontz family pay for up to $150,000 in improvements on 50 acres of the district's own land --- miles away from the Koontz property! "This permit condition bore no connection to the project that Mr. Koontz proposed," said Beard. "This is a classic case of an unconstitutional shakedown. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that government can't use the permitting process to extract conditions that aren't related to the impact of the proposed development." As PLF supporters know, that ruling came in PLF's 1987 victory, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission. In this new case, we're asking the Court to rein in agencies that ignore Nollan --- and to make it clear that Nollan forbids extortion of money, not just real property. With ballots hitting the mailbox October 19, WE figured it was high time to dredge Initiative 502 (I-502) “on marijuana reform.” Liberty-minded folks committed to preserving individual rights ask, “Who owns our bodies anyway? Us, or the state?" and many wonder, "Maybe it’s time for legalization - we’re adults." But even pro pot forces have their knickers in a knot over this holdover from last year. Wikipedia offers a pretty solid background article, and here’s the official verbiage (tons to read). You should know what the fine print actually says before voting. Also know that there’s one heck of a dogfight inside the pro-marijuana community. According to this recent article in the Seattle P.I., the law enforcement community has been split on it. The Wikipedia piece does such a good job of presenting a section-by-section rundown on the initiative with a good comparison of pros and cons we won’t restate them. We'll point out a few things to consider that aren’t apparent in the ballot title: · This would defy federal law. How that shakes out is uncertain, but it raises questions about states' snubbing Congress. People with a liking for federal laws and regulations should consider the implications of ignoring them piecemeal. Do state-versus-federal law conflicts lead to bad precedent? It’s worth pondering. States’ rights challenges don't always end well. · It may not matter to you, but the plan places marijuana and related “controlled substances” under the management of the Liquor Control Board – bureaucrats. Most of the initiative talks about production, manufacture and sales without addressing home herb gardens (the number of plants people can have is limited). There's talk about THC concentration (how does a person determine that?), what a person can carry, etc. and parts of this could create an enforcement nightmare. There may be tension between the new liquor control board business and what's already on the books about medical marijuana. · This would present entirely new regulatory and law enforcement challenges. Unsafe behavior "under the influence," public inebriation, and DUI won't be judged or tolerated much differently than they are now. Know that levels of THC in your system can be tested, just as for alcohol. · WE honestly don’t know how businesses would have to adapt their drug testing and employment policies and standards if marijuana is "decriminalized" on the state level, but people working for federal agencies and maybe even those doing work funded by federal grants would probably have to abide by federal workplace laws and regs to avoid jeopardy. · This state has the rabid munchies for cash, and the proposed tax on grass would be huge. Did you know this would impose a 25% tax on every stage of handling: production to wholesale, wholesaling to retail, and the final retail sale? Those taxes would add up a mighty heavy hit. Once rolling, this sin-tax could get bodaciously high (pardon the endless stream of puns). If "legal" grass becomes outrageously expensive thanks to taxes on handling by middlemen plus the final sales tax, street grass could be a lot cheaper. Thus "legalization" may do little to meet the official goal to "take marijuana out of the hands of illegal drug organizations." Don’t know, can’t say – but there’s little reason to believe any part of this initiative will empty jails overnight, if at all.
· It’s always seemed hypocritical that many who vehemently oppose smoking tobacco and obsess about organic food and fitness go totally brain-dead where it comes to public health consequences and the physical effects of smoking weed. Whether or not you believe grass is harmful, the state will continue to officially categorize marijuana use as a problem. Millions will be spent on programs to discourage abuse at the same time that it's skimming taxes on sales and handling. The tax revenue (at least at this point) is mostly slated for health and drug-treatment, but WE also suspect that - like always - those funds will be raided for other things. At a minimum, readers should take time to understand what this initiative actually says before voting. The "decriminalization" of pot has been proposed before, and not all opponents have been squares. The situation is not a dead ringer for prohibition. Don't be fooled into thinking this is legalization in the true sense, it's not. Have ads been honest? Here in Whatcom County we haven't seen too many. However positive the spin, no one should expect this to be a joyride with Cheech & Chong. It will take few to the happy place they'd really like. Go - Google, Wiki, and learn what you can about what may be nothing more than another 66 pages of bad regulation. Here’s to the 1st Amendment. Ooh-rah. Free speech lives. Conservation Northwest (one of the lead Park Department “partners”) continues to fly lowbrow, doing its best to denigrate everyone and anyone who dared raise questions at the first ever public hearing about this huge park expansion proposal on September 11. Lobbing inane and sophomoric insults, boy have they ramped up the drama. Despite the group’s claim that it seeks civil discourse (see their blog’s “Scat! Guidelines”), Con. Northwest has sunk to sleazy tactics to divide the community, branding all critics as late-coming, mean-spirited, tin foil hat throwbacks. And in a series of lame editorials, the website has bandied cracks like this (from “A new soundtrack for Lake Whatcom”) since the hearing: “Last night’s meeting was so packed that downtown Bellingham’s taverns reported weak sales, though they made up for it in the hour after the midnight adjournment.” Tsk-tsk. As for substance, let’s take a stroll through Conservation Northwest website’s recurring themes by giving them a little “fisk”: “A Lake Whatcom Forest Preserve Park offers local control of natural resources and world-class outdoor recreation while maintaining quality municipal drinking water. In time, the park will mature into old-growth forest for future generations. In a recent poll, 74% of residents supported the park,” and “The proposed new Lake Whatcom Forest Preserve Park would protect more than a quarter of a local watershed, which supplies water to half of Whatcom County's residents.” Here we go, starting with the claim that the county needs to do this to protect Bellingham's water supply: Bellingham’s 2010 population was 81,000 according to Wikipedia. That’s 20,000 shy of half the county’s residents, but who’s counting. “More than a quarter” of the watershed they say. It's not much over, so for this exercise we’ll go with one quarter. IF making this land a “preserve” did anything to improve the lake’s water quality (something Washington Ecology keeps evading), how much watershed or lake water quality improvement or protection would the park provide? Using a McDonald’s type “customers served” approach, 81,000 “served” by the lake divided by four (a quarter of the watershed), that comes to the protection of water used by 20,250 people. That “service” would proportionately equate to protection of water-improvement for about 1/10th of the county’s population of 203,000 - not half. Something like that. The numbers are practically meaningless in any case, but this big-deal benefit is blown way out of proportion, dramatic as Lady GaGa. “A Lake Whatcom Forest Preserve Park offers local control of natural resources...” Local control, how? By all accounts, proponents say they don’t trust either the state or county council (present or future) to manage this land. So they want “local control” by whom? The Whatcom Land Trust, of course. Now that’s a private non-profit, run by people who are not elected and therefore not actually accountable to the public. How much did the land trust want a role in controlling the park? Enough to pay the Mt. Baker School District $500,000 to change its position from “oppose” to “support.” Whomever the movers and shakers were (ever see Spielberg’s “Pinky & the Brain”?), the half-mil deal was concocted at the same time the trust was penning a deal for itself. Just the facts, man. “...world-class outdoor recreation...” While tongues wag about eco-tourism, mountain biking, horse riding, camping and fishing, the hard core want “wilding” and “quiet recreation" meaning passive activity only. That would leave world class what? Hiking, and nothing competitive. Archie Bunker would say “Whoop-tee-do.” WE hope the mountain bikers don't get their hopes up too high. That descent might be a lot less fun than the ones they're used to. “...while maintaining quality municipal drinking water...” Again, there’s no reason to believe this would be "maintaining quality municipal drinking water." Despite the talk, staff (not a retiree) at the Department of Ecology has continued to ramble on about TMDL and development. But logging under the Landscape Plan has never allowed development so the whole thing's a "straw man" argument. Furthermore, the Audubon Society has questioned for years that a park would cause more environmental harm than logging does. They posted Tom Pratum's concerns repeatedly. “In time, the park will mature into old-growth forest for future generations...” How many generations would it take this productive fir forest to become real “old growth”? According to Wikipedia, a Pacific Northwest forest would need something like 250 years to achieve old-growth characteristics. The wiki also says old growth forest can only have “minimal signs of human disturbance.” At a minimum, it would take 120-150 years to reach pristine pre-development condition if the land weren’t used (a conflict with the “world class recreation” industry claim). Last but not least, Conservation Northwest (and others, like Pete Kremen) continue to say, “In a recent poll, 74% of residents supported the park...” What “recent poll”? Name it. Show it. Everybody is tired of hearing this. If somebody knows what poll that was, send a note to "contact us" or leave a reply below. Disproving balderdash is like shadow boxing. WE question why council should find ways to “make this move forward” when the need has never stood up to real scrutiny. WE know reason doesn’t matter to some. It’s all about the environment, man. This "park" will be discussed at this morning's "Committee of the Whole" meeting at 9:30 a.m., County Council chambers. Attend if you can; if not, stay tuned. Meanwhile, enjoy a little chuckle from the past. A little over a week following a contentious hearing and a hurricane of fiery emails surrounding the Lake Whatcom Reconveyance, Whatcom County executive Jack Louws sent a memo to the county council on 9/17 asking them to consider several items:
Up until the hearing, many presumed the reconveyance was done deal. So surprised were the proponents, that they characterized the sudden resistance as “last ditch” and desperate. WE saw it differently. WE thought outcry was deserved. The silent majority was awakened abruptly, and they’re not hitting “snooze.” While some newcomers arrived at the podium poorly informed, and a few made notable factual errors, most were not opposed to parks, recreation or clean water. They simply demanded due diligence, proper accounting and honesty. Some pointed out accurately that the proposed land use is inconsistent with a number of laws and policies. Statements in the article that followed the hearing in the Bellingham Herald would lead readers to believe that opponents raised unjustified fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) based on misinformation. But the article failed to mention anything about the desperate FUD campaign that proponents led through rabble-rousing messaging like “Defend the Lake Whatcom Forest Preserve,” suggesting that council had already approved the park, which is simply not so. Here's a peek at a campaign webpage: As WE previously shared, proponents have built an artful narrative. Some talked about the need for a high-traffic mecca for commercial recreation, some promise the park will solve water issues as a “clean water preserve” with low-impact activities, and some want no less than to recreate a wild and untouched old-growth forest: Pro-park messaging has been so variable and changed so often that council chair Kathy Kershner made this observation the at the close of testimony at the 9/11 hearing, (4:31:22) "I am not sure that our community understands what this is going to be. We don’t even know what we’re calling it. We’ve got: Lake Whatcom Preserve, Lake Whatcom Reserve, Lake Whatcom Forest Preserve Park, Forest Preserve, Forest Preserve Park, Preserve Park, Forest Reserve, Whatcom Forest Reserve. We don’t know what it’s really going to be used for. We’ve heard: mountain biking, hiking, horseback riding, wind energy generation, untouched habitat, forest, logging, old growth, it’s a filter for Lake Whatcom, it’s a destination spot for mountain biking, it’s carbon sequestering, we’re going to do it for the views, attracting businesses, we’re going to have it to protect into perpetuity, we’re going to have a conservation easement, we’re going to have jobs for our recreational industries, jobs for our foresters, a low impact recreational area, a legacy, we’re going to have off road vehicles, I want to have a zipline, we’re going to have hunting, bird watching, wild food foraging – those were just some of the things that I took out of the countless e-mails.” Kershner hit the nail on the head. The testimony of 46 “opposed” and 36 “for” made it clear that this was not a community united (“with 74% support”) but a community in utter confusion. FUD is the inevitable result of murky policy and sloppy process. If reasonable doubt hadn’t been raised, there might have been an up-or-down vote on September 11th. The way to eliminate the FUD is for county government to specify exactly what we’re getting, what it will cost, and what the risks and benefits are, in terms that all concerned can verify is the truth. To this point, the project has been under the direction of the county Parks Department and a short list of organizations. For all their coalition building, supporter interests varied (some quite radically). When the general public attempted to research the proposal, they found tons of hyperbole but few facts to draw on. Those with a “dog in the hunt” left everyone in a difficult position. The sometimes-on sometimes-off proposal lurked elusively for years. Major consternation was sparked in May when word leaked that a letter billed as a “discussion item” would be voted without the courtesy of even one public hearing by council. WE’ve followed the public struggle to sift through mountains of chaff ever since. The question at the forefront is, “What’s the justification for so much parkland?” Whatcom County already has the highest park acreage per capita of any county in the state based on contributed data gleaned on the internet. See how holdings would spike remarkably if this 8,844 acres were added by the stroke of a pen: Both the general public and a fair number of county employees have questioned the need to double park holdings like this. Only eleven percent of Whatcom County land is put to productive use; the rest is already off limits. The growing “public-sector to private-sector” balance is a valid concern. Without question a lot of park property obtained in recent years is unfinished, many properties are under-utilized, and some facilities have maintenance problems like the senior centers. With so much work undone, a twofold increase in park acreage is more than a minor blip. Empire builders contend that parks are self-supporting cash cows that fill coffers with revenue from leases, grants and fees. If that were true, Parks would have a break-even budget. Of course it doesn't. The majority of its park costs are paid from the General Fund. Without much quality “public process,” the 2008 Park, Recreation and Open Space Plan contained level of service goals that came as a shock to quite a few who researched this department’s ambitions. Expansion plans blithely proposed a significant burden on everyone: That’s some serious spending. How affordable is the grand plan? Priorities pit one purpose against another (taxpayers foot the bill, outside money is not free). Park and trail promotion is constant (see Oct 11 "summit"). Is there any limit to expansion? Remember the post on Complete Streets? This is very big business, a goldmine for consultants and bureaus chasing grants for "quality of life" projects based on carefully framed feel-good visioning surveys of select target audiences. Watch out, Whatcom.
As for this, some say the reconveyance is a once-in-a-lifetime deal. How so? In what universe? The public already owns this, why spend more to continue to use it? Although some claimed the transfer from DNR would be a bargain at twice the price, cheap, or even free, rough estimates to add 50 miles of trail and complete the park are as high as $1,600,000. Are there priorities higher than parks? “Nice to have” doesn’t mean you can afford to do something, or afford to keep it -- especially when many other, legitimate government functions could languish. What about our critical jail and related mental health needs, homelessness, and hunger? WE found newcomers' demands to create a "legacy" more than little insensitive if not outright insensible. The land in question is already in the public’s hands, and it currently provides a positive cash flow for taxpayers. After the reconveyance, it will have a negative cash flow. That should rightly concern everyone. Proponents do a lot of hand waving about tourism and new, “sustainable” business, but without a bird in the hand, or at least a concrete, tangible plan -- the business case is just vaporware. Some hold that the reconveyance idea was environmental perfection at conception, the perfect solution for improving Lake Whatcom’s “impaired condition” if logging ended and roads were removed. Some have gone so far to say that (how many?) hundreds of years from now the forest could be “old growth” again. The truth, we find, is that the science behind those promises is far from certain. An impeccably qualified scientist who reviewed a number of popular local theories reflected, "Ecologists usually neglect to include all the facts and should not be practicing geology. The roads are so minor and insignificant that they have very little impact to what is naturally going on in forested areas. … ignore simple geologic processes of erosion (landslides are a part of erosion). They believe that anything humans do is bad, even though it is insignificant and the slope will continue to erode with or without the roads (roads will actually reduce some of the erosion, because it will have controls to slow the water that runs down this slope during the rainy season). Any natural forest with steep slopes will have mass wasting and when you look at the size of the forested areas, the amount of mass wasting is significant. Forest roads create negligible sediments and erosion problems and the modern day roads are designed to prevent these problems (they have BMP storm water controls). I do not know of any old growth forests anywhere in the Puget Lowlands and forest land by definition is not old growth (this is set aside for harvesting activities). ... LiDAR imagery ... would see the geomorphology of these areas and the historic landslides that have and will continue to occur in these areas, especially those with streams in the valley floors. The main reason for the failure is undercutting of the slopes by these streams, although these streams will swell a bit larger because of the additional runoff, this is minor compared to the entire watershed." The precautionary principle is alive and well ...! And after reviewing a slide show theorizing that logging inevitably leads to slides and water degradation, "I do note that ... discussion is on geologic hazards and surface and groundwater hydrology, which is somewhat interesting, because … need to be licensed to present their scientific opinion to the general public, and more importantly, to present to policy makers. This is what happens when you have those who practice geology without bothering to actually learning it. ...approach makes too many assumptions and does not consider all of the factors associated with landslide events. Additionally, landslides occur all of the time on steep slopes (we see them every time we conduct studies in areas with steep slopes). Just look at the trees and you can see that they are not perfectly straight, they are bent at the lower trunk levels, this is evidence that the ground they were growing on moved. This is not a very scientific study, what about forest fires and other natural problems such as diseases that wipe out entire stands? Also, landsliding typically only occurs in small areas where the slopes are steep, I doubt that all of the forested land is like this, so ... numbers are off by a large factor. Surface erosion can cause landslides, especially if the toe of a slope is cut (this is what causes many of the shoreline landslides). What is much worse is what we see all of the time, the construction of stormwater infiltration facilities above steep slopes. Also ... misses the unsaturated zone flows (which is how much of the infiltration facilities actually “infiltrate, especially on ridges above steep slopes). Everyone knows that when an area is deforested that there is an increase in surface and subsurface flow, however, this does not last for much more than about 10 years, because the understory and young trees will cover much more area than the large trees and will remove just about as much water as a stand of mature trees. Also erosion is reduced pretty quickly as grasses, herbs, shrubs, and immature trees (red alder saplings are usually very dominant initially). ... overlooked how quickly mother nature can fix these problems, after all she has had a lot of practice and forest fires denude area around the world every day. Also, landslides do occur on completely forested areas that were never touched by loggers. These is a whole section of a forest sitting in Lake Sammamish that slid there about 1,100 years ago." Council acknowledged in May that the Washington Department of Ecology has been cautious about overselling the proposed park's environmental improvement promise. Even Cascadia Weekly just ran an article explaining the weakness of claims that the park will fix the lake. While WE think that no-net-loss demands go too far, at least a little realism seems to be kicking-in on this issue. Will it last? WE think responsible adults would demand proof that the proposed action will actually have the desired effect, whatever it is claimed to be. And there needs to be accountability and an exit strategy if crystal ball prescience (in the absence of scientific proof) fails to materialize. WE are concerned about who will control this land, and for how long. Proponents accused the opposition of calling Whatcom Land Trust “an evil bogeyman”. That seems like a mis-characterization of legitimate questions: Should future decisions about the fate of this land be ceded to a private, agenda-driven organization (or their assigns)? Should anyone without direct responsibility to the voters -- the land’s true owners -- force us to pay for whatever they decide? WE thought Mother Nature might be giving us all a little wink when Marbled Murrelets reportedly appeared in this working forest. Ma Nature is a tough cookie, and seems to recognize that the stewardship of humans has a rightful place in the order of things. After all, we’re her children too. WE care about truth, and most readers know there's far too little clarity or application of the scientific method in government work. Honest science demands that hypothesis (theory) must be tested and confirmed to correctly identify cause and effect, to respond reasonably when necessary. What we face nowadays is a tsunami of regulations based more on zealous beliefs than fact-checked science.
San Juan County is a near neighbor with islands in the same chain as ours. With a small population, they're only now facing the adoption of their first CAO, which means "critical areas ordinance." Whatcom County has had a CAO since 2005, revised in 2007. Ours - WCC 16.16 "Critical Areas" (WCC means Whatcom County Code) - has always been plagued by lack of definition, and it's loaded with obtuse terminology and descriptions of "values" that are impossible to measure. Of course, those weaknesses didn't stop its being adopted. We share the pain of our San Juan neighbors who find themselves caught in the same web of pseudo-science and fog, often spun deliberately to achieve undefined ends for "reasons" that make no scientific sense at all. The following post (one of a series) offers more than a little insight into a situation we face together in the constant struggle against the eco-activist spin machine. Countdown to CAOmageddon Flaw #9 – Gamesmanship from The Trojan Heron August 11, 2011 Will you please tie my shoes? That was the question posed to several people during a research experiment on the "art" of persuasion. Here's what they found: You start by asking for something outrageous; when that's turned down, you then ask for something reasonable. A boss may ask an employee to work weekends for a whole year, for example, and when that request gets turned down, the manager might ask for a report to be turned in by Friday. The outrageous request reframes the real request to make it sound reasonable. And so it goes with buffers in the San Juan County CAO. During various forums, there has been talk of buffers as large as 800 feet. Then, the Planning Commission draft of the CAOs had buffers up to 260 feet. These "outrageous" requests were tweaked to something more "reasonable"... 230 feet. Nevertheless, we still hear the Friends wanting more from buffers. Janet Alderton ended her most recent CAO paean with the un-paean-like punchline: But the numerous activities permitted in buffers by the proposed Critical Area Ordinance update interfere with buffer function and fail to protect our valuable Critical Areas. In other words, consider yourselves lucky, peasants, that you're getting any use of your land at all. You should feel grateful! Never mind that no one can seem to adequately quantity or explain what "buffer function" actually means anyway. The difficulty with all this reasonableness is that the purpose of buffers has been completely lost amidst the bazaar haggling over their size. We don't even know what we're haggling over anymore. What are buffers for? To reduce pollution? What pollution? Paraphrasing Jerry Maguire, show me the pollution. Show me the pollution! Without de manifestis levels of pollution, there is no need for a remedy. Without a need for a remedy, there is no need for pollution-removing buffers, assuming buffers work as a primary pollutant remedy at all, and it's not clear that they do. It turns out that our own consultant, Dr. Adamus, wasn't even able to describe how buffers work exactly. He declined to explain, for example, the statistics in the Mayer paper, which formed the pollutant-removal basis for the buffer calculator he developed. We can land a plutonium-powered rover on Mars using a crazy sky-crane contraption and nail the landing within a couple of miles of the target, but we can't get our highly-compensated wetland consultant to explain buffer statistics in the paper he used for our buffer design. Does that sound reasonable? This story is mighty revealing:
State won’t fund phosphorus research in Spokane River Becky Kramer The Spokesman-Review August 2, 2012 The Washington Department of Ecology has opted not to pay for additional research by a University of Washington professor whose earlier work suggested that not all of the phosphorus discharged into the Spokane River leads to rampant algae growth and poor water quality. Michael T. Brett, the professor, had strong words about the agency’s recent decision not to contribute to a second study costing $75,000. “I think Ecology is aggressively trying to put the kibosh on the science,” said Brett, an environmental scientist in UW’s engineering department. “… Because the results are complicating their policy, they’re trying to make the science go away.” Brett said that he and his fellow researchers believe they are close to discovering why some types of phosphorus promote algae growth while others don’t. The work could have ramifications for cities, Spokane County and companies that discharge treated wastewater into the Spokane River. The dischargers face multimillion-dollar plant upgrades to meet strict new limits aimed at reducing the phosphorus flowing into the river by 90 percent. Department of Ecology officials, however, said while Brett’s research is academically valuable, the science hasn’t advanced enough to relax phosphorus limits in discharge permits. A second study isn’t likely to change that, said David Moore, Ecology’s watershed unit supervisor. “Bioavailability (of phosphorus) may be a good tool in the future, but the science isn’t there to support it,” he said. “The science would need to be overwhelming for us to make that change.” Ecology, dischargers split bill for pilot study The Ecology Department paid for about half of an earlier, $110,000 pilot study by Brett, which tested effluent from six sewage treatment plants that discharge into the river. Dischargers picked up the rest of the tab. Brett said the pilot results, released last year, indicated that some forms of phosphorus don’t spur the algae growth that leads to low oxygen levels and water-quality problems in the reservoir behind Long Lake Dam. “For some reason, the algae and the bacteria just can’t use it,” he said. “The analogy I use is sugar-free gum. It has a lot of energy in it, but our bodies don’t have the enzymes to use the carbon” in the gum. Sid Frederickson, Coeur d’Alene’s wastewater utilities superintendent, said he’s disappointed that Ecology won’t ante up for additional research. “He (Brett) has every right to be upset, and so do all the rest of us who participated in the funding of round one,” Frederickson said. “Do we have enough data right now to go out and rewrite discharge permits? No, I don’t think we do … (But) I think the research should be funded as expeditiously as possible. If the permit limits can be relaxed, that will be a great boon to ratepayers.” (...more) . . . . "Trying to make the science go away," that's troubling. And this comes from an impeccably qualified scientist, not the right-wing fringe. Maybe this research would be useful in understanding the 'phosphorous problem' in Lake Whatcom. It's not ethical or constructive for government to impose heavier regulatory burdens on citizens without the willingness to prove scientifically that a problem exists that needs to be mitigated, can be mitigated (practically or theoretically), or that the burden will even accomplish anything. Why is this powerful agency turning a blind eye to better science? It certainly raises questions about the department's agenda. Are they working to help us or to hobble us unnecessarily? Ecology has a huge budget, and $75 thousand is a miniscule amount to spend compared to what they blow on other things. BaldGuy has posted more video just today to help folks understand just how dirty the water flowing into Lake Whatcom has been. These two videos were taken in the same place, but on two different days:
This official diagram helps a person visualize how this system works: A lot of reasonable people are wondering:
(a) Are the agencies doing the pumping and flushing performing the measurements and tests that their permits require? (b) How does this flushing and turbid water affect the "lake science" data? If the lake data doesn't note this, are land use and stormwater management conclusions correct? (c) Are watershed and lakefront property owners bearing the brunt of the burden for water quality in the lake? Do these practices impact the lake as much or more than customary land use does? Those are pretty good questions. It would be unjust for the general population to have to "restore," "mitigate," "enhance," and suffer crippling moratoriums for harm not actually related to their own actions (to make up for the actions of others). There's a critical principle about damage that requires a direct connection (link or tie) to be proven between action, damage and remedy. A remedy must be proportionate to be fair. In the case of Lake Whatcom, is all the damage done by homeowners ("development")? Just yesterday the Washington Department of Ecology announced new state LID (low impact development) regulations that will require people to install rain gardens, severely limit impervious surfaces, obtain off-site mitigation, and a long list of other actions, even though a recent cost-benefit study prepared for the City of Bellingham revealed that many "best management practices" (BMP's) for handling stormwater to reduce phosphorous appear to be so outrageously expensive that they probably shouldn't be recommended. WE understand those BMP's are still being enthusiastically pushed by outfits like ReSources and their "Baykeeper" people. Customary land use, including the advanced forestry practices that have been in place on DNR land in the watershed since the "Landscape Plan" was adopted, may have substantially less impact on the condition of Lake Whatcom's water than what we've been led to believe. WE look forward to learning more about what's going on, and if the "remedies" being imposed in the Lake Whatcom watershed are proportionate. Stay tuned. Readers - feel free to comment. "Bald Guy" submitted this today, pointing out that it's one of the most striking of the videos available (see the earlier post) (YouTube caption) Taken 7-17-12 at the mouth of Anderson Creek the outlet into Lake Whatcom which is the point Bellingham water districts diversion enters Lake Whatcom. Bellingham was pumping as this video is taken. See for yourself what it looks like on the other videos posted the same day. Or look for yourself. It’s easy to see along the Parks Road just above Mirror Lake.
(Again, here's a link to the whole group of videos.) As for what's allowable, we've learned that there actually are regulations that apply, even to government: "...if the receiving water is a Section 303 (d) impaired water, the COCs that impair the water must also be monitored..." (COC = contaminants of concern) "...you can find the standards at the following URL: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/swqs/index.html "...This URL also discusses the “antidegradation” policy, which means no matter what the source, you cannot impact the water quality of the “receiving water” "Bottom line, per the water quality codes, no human can impact the water quality of a surface water feature ..." We'll keep sharing what we learn. Here's to science, reason, and truth. We were tipped off recently that a series of videos on YouTube show massive plumes of sediment-laden water (containing who-knows-what) gushing from the Nooksack River through Mirror Lake, then on by way of Anderson Creek into the south end of Lake Whatcom. The official line may be to call this "maintenance," which would be exempt as a NPDES (pollution discharge) violation, but WE can't help but wonder what affect this sediment has on the lake's health. Check out a few of the key videos: (YouTube caption) View of water pumped by the City of Bellingham at the outlet pipe just above Mirror Lake from the road. This is river water pumped to supply the City of Bellingham. The water flows from this point into Mirror Lake and on to Lake Whatcom. Does this water look like it contains sediment? (YouTube caption) Turbid looking water flows into Lake Whatcom from Mirror Creek, the outlet into Lake Whatcom from the City of Bellingham’s diversion from the Nooksack River. Bellingham is pumping upstream of this as shown in the previous videos. Take a look for yourself. Does this look like sediment laden water entering our watershed? Does this sediment contain phosphorous? Sediment is claimed to be the cause of introducing phosphorous into the lake and degrading water quality. Okay - so how dirty is this water? Watch this next video, min. 1:22 - wow! (YouTube caption) This is a view taken at the mouth of Anderson Creek on 7-17-12 with a reference disk mounted 18 inches in front of the camera to allow for better judgment of the clarity of the water. The video starts in water about 15 yards to one side of the water flow from the Bellingham diversion and passes through to the other side. Watch as the disk just disappears as it enters the turbid water flowing from Bellingham’s water diversion route. The pumping volume looks like it has doubled back at the outlet pipe from a few days ago. While extreme measures have been demanded by the City of Bellingham, Washington Ecology and the EPA for years to "restore" the lake and maintain it as a reservoir, you can see that a huge amount of turbid water is being flushed into "Bellingham's vital water supply." Has this been routine? Is this tested and measured? How long has this been going on? And, do the panicky studies and reports about water degradation reflect the whole truth about stormwater, landslides, human impacts, and forestry in the watershed? We have every right to know. WE will report all we can as facts surface. For now, go and watch all the videos. These are short (and current). Then ask yourself - what goes? At this writing, the dominoes seem lined up and ready to fall for Conservation Northwest's pushy demand for the transfer ("reconveyance") of over 8,000 acres of land from productive DNR management to the county - when everybody knows (including our Executive and council) that there's no real need to double parkland here. The City and proponents #1 selling point is that this will be a "clean water preserve." Have the City and ecology camps been aware of this sediment purging? It's likely they don't care. Heaven forbid truth about anything should get in their way. General location of these plumes, water flow, etc.
|
WE Dredge!
Posting Rules:
This forum is moderated. Please make an effort to substantiate claims that support opinion. Gratuitous profanity and ad-hominem attacks will not be accepted. You can create a "nickname" if you'd like, and you don't have to reveal your e-mail address. Feel free to share information and your honest thoughts. Categories
All
Archives
January 2022
Automatic Updates Do you want to be notified when new content is added to this newsfeed? Most browsers allow you to subscribe to our Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feed. Click on the RSS link below, and follow the instructions. |