# Weighing Risk and Readiness — Bellingham's Water Board Faces Complex Challenges ## Meeting Overview The Bellingham Water Resources Advisory Board gathered on a chilly Tuesday evening before Thanksgiving, November 26, 2024, at the Pacific Street Operations building for their monthly meeting. All nine board members were present, joining a robust crowd of city and county staff to tackle two major agenda items that would shape the future of Lake Whatcom's protection. The meeting centered on two critical decisions: whether to endorse the Lake Whatcom Management Program's ambitious five-year work plan for 2025-2029, and whether to support increased permit fees for boats using the lake as protection against aquatic invasive species. Both items reflected the ongoing challenge of balancing public access with environmental protection, fiscal responsibility with community equity, and long-term planning with adaptive management in an era of increasing environmental threats. What emerged was a detailed examination of how government operates when faced with complex technical challenges, competing values, and the need to make decisions under uncertainty. The board's deliberations revealed both the strengths and limitations of citizen advisory bodies, as well as the delicate balance between staff expertise and community input in shaping public policy. ## The Lake Whatcom Five-Year Plan Debate The evening's most substantial discussion focused on the Lake Whatcom Management Program's draft five-year work plan, a comprehensive 64-page document that represents the coordinated efforts of the City of Bellingham, Whatcom County, and the Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District. Jason Porter, the city's Storm and Surface Water Manager, led the presentation, noting his 15-18 years of involvement with Lake Whatcom issues and acknowledging the plan's evolution through extensive public input. "We had 307 comments from 37 different individuals and 6 organizations," Porter explained, describing how staff had spent the last several months working through this feedback. "This would be a really long presentation if I was to go over all those comments. So what staff did is we found common themes in these comments." The plan itself represents a significant undertaking, involving 20-30 staff members across the three jurisdictions and serving as both a roadmap for work and a communication tool for the public. Porter emphasized that this wasn't a progress report but rather "a roadmap that guides the work that we're going to do," while maintaining flexibility for adaptive management as new information and priorities emerge. The staff response to public comments had been thorough, resulting in a 75-page spreadsheet documenting each comment and how it was addressed. "I think one thing you'll see is that we did we listened," Porter said. "We've got a lot of comments, but we also incorporated a lot of these comments into the work plan. This is an iterative process. We don't do it alone." Among the major changes Porter highlighted: - Restructuring to 12 goals with each objective tied to those goals - Adding "SMART goals" (strategic, measurable, relevant and time-bound) framework where applicable - Including hyperlinks within the online version to connect readers with detailed supporting information - Adding an adaptive management section to clarify how the plan can adjust to new circumstances - Creating a new management challenges section that addresses State and Federal agency involvement - Adding metrics for the land acquisition program, including tracking how many property owners the city contacts annually ### The Clash Over Specificity and Smart Goals The board's discussion revealed a fundamental tension between the technical complexity of Lake Whatcom management and the desire for clear, measurable goals that the public and decision-makers could easily understand. Several board members pressed for more specific targets and clearer benchmarks for success. Board member Laura Weiss raised concerns about the lack of concrete goals: "I feel like there's this provides a really good overview... but what I still would love to see somewhere is what? Where are we going? What do we want? We want the dissolved oxygen to be at this level, and are we going in the right direction, or are we not going in the right direction?" Weiss continued, drawing a comparison to the Puget Sound Partnership's approach: "It would just be helpful to know where are we in this spectrum? How far away are we meeting our goals like the dissolved oxygen... it would be nice to have that reflected somewhere." The discussion intensified when board member Rick Eggerth challenged the metrics as insufficient measures of progress: "A lot of these metrics... there's no way to assess what they mean. Most of these are numerical metrics, not percentage metrics. And without that kind of overall background, it's hard to know what does that mean?" Porter and staff defended their approach, explaining the complexity of the Lake Whatcom system. "This is one of the most challenging programs that the city and county Water district work on," Porter said. "Lake Whatcom is one of the most challenging programs... because it is so complicated. And to get answers to the questions you're seeking literally requires years in the program." ### Business vs. Environmental Management Philosophies Board member John Peppel brought a business perspective to the discussion, arguing for more aggressive goal-setting: "If you have an objective of 4% improvement, most people say, Okay, we're all gonna work a little harder... You say, I want 50 or 100% change, people think differently. They think, okay, what's it really gonna take?" Peppel continued with pointed questions about priorities: "Do this thing where we emphasize everything, we emphasize nothing... What are the 5 things or something that are really big? Assuming there's some limit to resources... This is very aspirational, and I don't know where a shotgun approaches appropriate." He challenged staff with a hypothetical: "People are concerned about boats. We're gonna educate on boats. We're gonna do this. We're gonna do that. Okay. Now, spend our $200,000 on boats. What was a million dollars. Would you just say screw boats?" ### The Information Gap Between Expert and Public Knowledge Rick Eggerth raised perhaps the most substantive critique, arguing that the document failed to adequately frame problems for public consumption: "In a half hour talking about it here, we've heard more about the problems you're facing than comes out of this document. There's hardly anything in here about issues concerns." Eggerth pointed to the aquatic invasive species program as an example: "Someone who read that who didn't know about the program wouldn't realize it's not year round, which raises huge issues... If this is the document that is the entry point for the public... they're not going to go read progress reports every quarter. They're going to read this, and this does not give any kind of detail about the issues or concerns that are out there." Staff pushed back on this characterization. Porter argued that the plan does address concerns but in a different way: "When I look at the plan, those things are in there... We've got a set goal at the top that we're preventing aquatic invasive species. New introductions. We've got specific, measurable things that we're doing... We put that in there, because we know we need to do that. That's a gap." ### The Limits of Public Planning Documents The exchange revealed a deeper philosophical question about what public planning documents should accomplish. Porter suggested that the comprehensive detail Eggerth sought would require "a treatise on everything like Whatcom" and compared the work plan to a comprehensive plan, noting that many issues are addressed through "a lot of different avenues" rather than being captured in a single document. Renee LaCroix, the city's Environmental Policy Analyst, supported this view: "I have to agree with Jason. It's really... viewing this plan in the same way that you would view a comprehensive plan level document is more appropriate. It's not meant to be a treatise on everything like Whatcom." However, Eggerth countered that even brief acknowledgment of challenges would be helpful: "It doesn't have to be a treatise, but it should indicate when there's in a program area when there's concerns or problems... You can make a short note and say these things are things we're struggling with, or that we're trying hard to fix." ### Board Member Experience and Perspective Board member Weiss, who described herself as "a citizen involved in Lake Whatcom for 5 or 6 years" who has attended "every single annual Joint Council meeting," offered a critique based on her extensive engagement: "I feel like there's a reluctance to share... You guys know so much more than anybody else about what's going on here... I'm certain that you know where the gaps are... but I haven't ever heard that presented in a way that I've been in a meeting." She argued that specific goals would create accountability opportunities: "Having smart goals gives you an opportunity to say, Okay, our goal was this, we set a number. We set a goal. And then, 2 years from now, we're going to go to our policy group or our elected officials. And we're going to say, Okay, we set this goal and we didn't meet it... because we didn't have enough money... It tells decision makers where the gaps are." ### The Vote and Its Meaning When the vote came, the board split 6-3 in favor of supporting the plan, with Rick Eggerth, Kirsten McDade, and Laura Weiss dissenting. Weiss explained her vote: "I don't feel like we've had an opportunity to really weigh in... Our name is in this document as weighing into this... I don't feel like we're a contributing entity. I feel like this is just a Oh, yeah... it doesn't feel right to me... I think this is very close to being done. And but I don't feel comfortable saying it's ready for prime time." Board chair Bret Beaupain offered the counter-perspective: "I don't know how you could write all the cliff notes for every report that's ever been written and done for these things. I don't know that we can quantify every goal that's out there... You just can't wait for all the lights to be green to go... I think it's a good plan. And I would definitely recommend to approve this to council." ## The Aquatic Invasive Species Fee Restructuring Proposal The meeting's second major item addressed a more straightforward but equally important issue: restructuring permit fees for boats using Lake Whatcom to better reflect the cost and risk of invasive species inspections. Michael Parelskin, the city's Natural Resources Field Operations Manager, presented the proposal against the backdrop of an escalating threat. The urgency was underscored by the 2023 discovery of quagga mussels in the Mid Snake River in Idaho, connected to the Columbia River system. "They deployed their rapid response plan, and then in 2024, they went ahead and retested after treating the quagga mussels with matrix, a chemical... and they still had a positive detection a year later," Parelskin explained. The economic stakes are enormous. "It's estimated that about it would take about 100 million dollars to manage our water and power infrastructure in Washington state with quagga mussels in our freshwater bodies," Parelskin noted. ### The Current Fee Structure and Proposed Changes The current permit structure, largely unchanged since 2014, charges flat fees regardless of where boats originate: $10 for non-motorized vessels, $30 for small vessels (under 16 feet and under 10 horsepower), and $60 for registered vessels. The system also offers one-day and three-day permits. Parelskin's proposal would create a three-tier risk system based on vessel origin: - Tier 1 (in-state, Lake Whatcom): lowest risk - Tier 2 (other in-state locations): medium risk - Tier 3 (out-of-state): highest risk The new fee structure would combine vessel complexity with origin risk. For example, a registered vessel from out-of-state would pay $120 instead of the current $60, while an in-state registered vessel would pay $75. "What we're aiming to do is taking kind of a base cost that we've increased with inflation... And we're gonna factor in level of risk of water body origin more or less to disincentivize use," Parelskin explained. ### The Economics of Risk Management The proposal generated pointed questions about the economics of the program. Board member John Peppel asked directly: "Aren't you still losing money on the out of State boats like you're subsidizing?" When Parelskin confirmed that even the higher fees wouldn't fully cover inspection costs, board members pressed for more substantial increases. The discussion revealed that the program costs approximately $750,000 annually but generates only a fraction of that in permit revenue. "Even if we went up to 150, that's not gonna completely cover the cost of that program," Parelskin acknowledged. Peppel pushed the point further: "What was the risk reward on that we're actually losing money in order to take the risk... I bet they'd come back with a higher number" if the public understood the full financial implications of an invasion. Board member Benjamin Cairns supported higher out-of-state fees: "Raising the out of state fee... at least to, you know, break even makes perfect sense to me. And I also could see more locals finding ways around the registration process anyway. So I wouldn't really want to raise the cost to them." ### The Resolution and Final Vote The board's resolution supported "implementing increased ais program permit fees using cost of service and risk reduction model," language that gave staff flexibility to adjust actual numbers within those frameworks. Board chair Bret Beaupain cautioned against getting "too much in the weeds," noting that "Council is very sensitive to" socioeconomic conditions and "could just throw the whole thing out" if the proposal became too complex. The resolution passed unanimously, 9-0. ## Closing and What's Ahead The meeting revealed the ongoing tension in natural resource management between technical expertise and democratic input, between comprehensive planning and public accessibility, between fiscal responsibility and community equity. As the Lake Whatcom work plan moves to the December 4th Joint Policy Group meeting and eventually to the three governing councils, these tensions will continue to shape how the region balances protection of its primary drinking water source with public access and use. The aquatic invasive species fee restructuring will follow a similar path, with staff taking the board's support to policymakers who will make the final decisions. Both issues reflect the growing complexity of environmental management in an era of climate change, invasive species threats, and increasing public awareness of environmental challenges. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 PM, with board members wishing each other happy Thanksgiving. The next scheduled meeting is January 28, 2025, giving members December off but ensuring they'll return to continue grappling with the complex challenges facing Bellingham's water resources.