City of Bellingham Water Resources Advisory Board

The Bellingham Water Resources Advisory Board held an extended meeting that featured significant discussions on two major policy initiatives and internal governance processes. The most substantial agenda item was an in-depth presentation on the Nutrient Reduction Evaluation (NRE), a federally mandated study that will determine how the city addresses nitrogen discharge from its Post Point wastewater treatment plant into Bellingham Bay. This technical discussion occupied much of the evening as consultants and staff walked board members through a complex decision-making framework for evaluating treatment alternatives. The meeting took an unexpected turn during the final agenda item when three board members—Laura Weiss, Kirsten Bayne, and Rick Edgar—presented concerns about the board's process for reviewing the Lake Whatcom Five-Year Work Plan in November. Their written memo, which had been sent to the Mayor and City Council, sparked the longest and most engaged discussion in the board's brief history. The conversation revealed fundamental disagreements about the board's advisory role and the depth of review expected for major policy documents. Mayor Kim Lund attended the meeting and participated actively in the governance discussion, emphasizing that constructive disagreement is healthy but should be conducted transparently within the full board. The discussion highlighted growing pains for this relatively new advisory body, which was established after the dissolution of the Lake Whatcom Policy Group. Due to term expirations and the ongoing process discussions, the board voted unanimously to delay officer elections until February and amend their bylaws accordingly. The meeting ran over its scheduled time, concluding at 8:02 PM after what Chair Brett Payne characterized as the board's most substantive discussion to date.

**Nutrient Reduction Evaluation Framework (No formal vote - consultation only)** - Board provided input on decision-making criteria for evaluating nitrogen treatment alternatives - Consultants presented framework distinguishing between "scored" community values and separate financial/performance considerations - Staff will return March 25th with affordability analysis and watershed assessment results **Bylaws Amendment (Unanimous approval)** - Motion to move annual officer elections from January to February - Rationale: Allow time for new member appointments before selecting leadership - Amendment addresses staggered term structure where some positions expire in January **Water System Plan Update (Information only)** - Agency review draft to be distributed March 17th - Public meeting on water use efficiency chapter scheduled February 25th - Final plan submission to state agencies by end of March 2025

**John Bricklin, on the nitrogen reduction project:** "I think it's more like if you took a bunch of salt out of the bay, you're gonna change the salt in the ocean. I don't think so... I don't see the connection between those two." **Council Member Lisa Anderson, on affordability concerns:** "As someone who hears every day about the affordability crisis in our community, I do think it is fair for this group to consider impacts for the utility customers on what this means to them, because we don't have other means or avenues to fully fund the costs for this." **Laura Weiss, on the board's advisory role:** "If what I'm hearing is some people saying, well, you have the ability to comment as a member of the public, that's absolutely true. But then, what's the point of a water resources advisory board?" **Council Member Lisa Anderson, on advisory board expectations:** "When I was on the planning commission, I wasn't a planner, but I was a community advocate... I was able to change direction on the comp plan... based on my insight, things that they didn't see on the ground level." **Mayor Kim Lund, on constructive conflict:** "We don't have to have consensus on everything. It's okay to have full engagement and a spirit of disagreement. Constructive conflict is often our goal. And then we move forward." **Chair Brett Payne, concluding the meeting:** "Talent wins games, but teamwork and intelligence wins championships... The point being is that we've got a lot of talent, but we need to start working together as a team."

# A Technical Challenge and Growing Pains: Bellingham's Water Board Grapples with Nitrogen Reduction and Process The January 28, 2025 meeting of Bellingham's Water Resources Advisory Board stretched well past its scheduled end time, becoming the most engaged and substantive discussion in the board's young history. What began as routine presentations on nitrogen reduction requirements and water system planning evolved into a deeper examination of the board's role, expectations, and internal dynamics—with tensions that had been simmering since November finally surfacing in a frank and sometimes heated exchange. ## Meeting Overview The meeting convened at 6:00 PM with Chair Brett Vail presiding over nine members present, including two participating remotely via Zoom. Mayor Kim Lund attended in person, along with a full complement of city staff and consultants working on various water system projects. The agenda covered three major items: a nutrient reduction evaluation update, the water system plan timeline, and what was listed as "RAB process"—an innocuous title that would prove to be the evening's most significant discussion. The meeting stretched to over two hours, with the final agenda item—board elections—pushed to February as members worked through fundamental questions about their advisory role and decision-making processes. ## The Nitrogen Reduction Challenge: A $100 Million Question Consultant Tad Newsbrook returned to update the board on the nutrient reduction evaluation (NRE), a complex technical and financial challenge facing the city due to new state requirements for reducing nitrogen discharge into Bellingham Bay. The presentation laid out a decision-making framework that will guide the city toward selecting preferred alternatives for nitrogen treatment—decisions that could cost tens of millions of dollars and fundamentally change operations at the Post Point wastewater treatment plant. Newsbrook explained that the city must choose between two approaches by the end of 2025: an "ACART" alternative (All Known, Available, and Reasonable Treatment) that allows the city to define what's "reasonable" based on local conditions, and a water quality-based alternative that must achieve a specific target of three milligrams per liter of total inorganic nitrogen. The challenge is substantial. Current nitrogen levels leaving the plant are around 30 milligrams per liter, meaning the city would need to achieve a 90% reduction to meet the strictest standard. Post Point was not designed for nitrogen removal, so current costs for this function are essentially zero. Board member John questioned the fundamental premise, expressing skepticism about whether such expensive treatment would meaningfully impact Bellingham Bay given that Post Point contributes only about 20% of the nitrogen entering the bay annually. "I think it's more like if you took a bunch of salt out of the bay, you're gonna change the salt in the ocean. I don't think so," he said, articulating doubts about the cause-and-effect relationship between plant improvements and bay water quality. The cost implications dominated much of the discussion. Board member Fiona McNair, participating remotely, raised concerns about affordability, noting "as someone who hears every day about the affordability crisis in our community, I do think it is valid" to consider impacts on utility customers who will ultimately bear these costs through higher rates. Assistant Director Mike Wilson acknowledged the financial reality: "this will be funded" through utility rates, as the city lacks other funding mechanisms despite potential grant opportunities. The project team is keeping affordability considerations separate from technical criteria to avoid overshadowing other community values in the evaluation. ## Criteria and Community Values The bulk of the technical presentation focused on establishing evaluation criteria that reflect community values. Consultant Susanna outlined criteria in two categories: broader "off-site" impacts like energy efficiency, climate impact, and truck traffic; and "Post Point impacts" covering operational complexity, maintenance requirements, and construction challenges. Energy efficiency emerged as a key concern, with the recognition that nitrogen removal will require significantly more electricity and create larger greenhouse gas emissions. The treatment plant's location in Fairhaven also raises concerns about truck traffic for chemical deliveries and solids processing. Environmental sensitivities at Post Point include wetlands, a lagoon, and a great blue heron colony, all within a 100-foot buffer that constrains expansion options. The presentation noted that the existing tiny home village on the expansion site will eventually be displaced, though relocation plans remain unclear. Technology maturity proved to be another constraint. The evaluation limits consideration to technologies with proven performance at municipal scale within North America, though board member Martin expressed concern that this backward-looking approach might miss emerging innovations. "Typically a maturity curve will have what's coming down the road," he noted, questioning whether the city should consider a "strategic pause" for advancing technologies. Board member Tom raised fundamental questions about the chemistry involved, asking whether the problem was essentially one of pH balance. Susanna explained that the issue is more complex—involving oxidation processes and dissolved oxygen consumption in the bay—and can't be solved simply by adjusting pH levels. ## A Watershed Approach and Regional Context The discussion touched on the broader watershed context, with recognition that 80% of nitrogen entering Bellingham Bay comes from sources other than the treatment plant. While the city is conducting a separate watershed assessment to identify potential "low-hanging fruit" for non-point source reductions, the permit structure doesn't currently allow credit for such reductions against the plant's requirements. This limitation frustrated some board members, who questioned the logic of expensive plant upgrades when potentially more cost-effective watershed-wide solutions might be available. Rush Duncan from the city's Natural Resources Division explained that while they're exploring watershed options, "there is no program currently certified or in place for ecology to do water quality nitrogen" trading that would allow the city to claim credit for non-point source reductions. ## Future Considerations and Emerging Contaminants The evaluation criteria include consideration of "effluent water quality" beyond nitrogen, recognizing that some technologies—particularly membrane systems—can remove other contaminants of emerging concern like endocrine disrupting compounds. While these substances aren't currently regulated, several board members saw value in getting ahead of likely future requirements. This forward-looking approach contrasts with the constraint on technology maturity, creating some tension between proven reliability and anticipating future needs. Board member Brett asked whether the evaluation considers "other emerging contaminants" that might require treatment in coming years, with staff confirming that membrane technologies would provide this additional benefit. ## The Process Debate: Advisory Role in Question The evening's most significant discussion began innocuously as agenda item "RAB process" but evolved into a fundamental examination of the board's role and effectiveness. The catalyst was a two-page memo written by board members Laura Weiss, Kirsten, and Rick Edgar following their dissatisfaction with the November discussion of the Lake Whatcom five-year work plan. Laura, participating remotely, introduced the issue by explaining their concern wasn't with the plan's content but with the process. "We felt pretty strongly that our expectation was that we were going to be asked for our advice and input on the plan. And what actually happened was we had maybe a half hour conversation about it and then ran out of time. Essentially, we're asked to just support the plan as is." The memo had been sent not just to staff but copied to the mayor and city council—a decision that immediately drew criticism from other board members. Martin Calderon objected strongly: "our bylaws state that no RAB member may speak on behalf of the board unless explicitly authorized by majority vote. And so I felt like that document was speaking on behalf of the RAB without the majority." Rick Edgar defended the memo as a "minority report" that by definition doesn't speak for the board as a whole, noting that minority reports have been used by other advisory bodies. But Martin pushed back: "We don't have the authority to do minority report. It's not in our bylaws." This procedural disagreement opened into a broader discussion about the board's appropriate level of engagement. Martin argued that the RAB should provide "high level review and comments" rather than diving into detailed wordsmithing: "If we're diving into that level of detail, we got a water system plan coming, sewer system plan coming, stormwater plans, got this nitrogen reduction, we're never going to get anything done. We've got an hour and a half once a month." John Anderson offered a different perspective, comparing the board's situation to being "the tail of a dog that makes them get waggy, but can't swing the whole dog." He suggested the board should accept a more limited "touch point" role rather than seeking deeper influence over city decisions. ## Expectations and Expertise The discussion revealed fundamental disagreements about the board's purpose and the depth of engagement expected from members. Mayor Lund, who had remained largely quiet during the technical presentations, became actively involved in this process discussion. She acknowledged the challenge: "I think a little bit of what I'm hearing is just a difference in expectation. So from the city standpoint, city staff advisory groups are meant to be at 30,000 level...when we bring things to advisory groups, it's because we want larger picture view. Did we miss any big picture issues?" But she also recognized the frustration: "I think what we're hearing from the conversation is that the three of you are feeling like you want more technical detail, you want to be able to wordsmith documents. And so I think there's a difference of expectation." Former Planning Commissioner Council Member Pinky Vargas offered a contrasting vision based on her experience: "I spent years on the planning commission and we were more than a tail waggin' dog. We could tell staff when we didn't like something, we wanted them to bring something back." She described how planning commissioners could meaningfully influence plans through their expertise and community knowledge, even when staff had invested significant time and resources in development. "I was hoping it was going to be a board of various experts who were weighing in on the policy," Vargas said. "And that when they recommended it, they had the option and the opportunity to truly weigh in on it and say, I agree with this, or I'd like to see more of this, this could change." ## Time and Process Solutions Several practical solutions emerged from the discussion. Multiple members requested that agendas be less packed to allow for more substantive discussion. Brett suggested breaking presentation time and question time into separate allocations rather than combined blocks. Laura requested "10 or 15 extra minutes to have conversations and discussion would be really helpful. Because I do remember those past conversations with the nitrogen reduction and oh, there's so many other things I would love to ask, but oh no, we got to move on." Staff members Rush Duncan and Mike Wilson acknowledged they could provide more detailed information in advance and work to accommodate requests for additional discussion time, while also noting the challenge of balancing thoroughness with efficiency. ## Minority Reports and Moving Forward The procedural questions around minority reports remained unresolved but generated agreement that clearer bylaws are needed. Mayor Lund indicated that her office would work to develop more consistent guidance across all city advisory groups. "If this group agrees that there should be a minority report, I think the suggestion that there's a majority report too...would be helpful for council to understand the why for both positions," the mayor said. Renee Sinclair from city staff pushed back on some characterizations, arguing that the Lake Whatcom plan had been discussed at multiple RAB meetings and that many public comments addressed in the final plan had been repetitive and coordinated. She maintained that the plan underwent significant revision through the public process. But Laura Weiss disagreed with this characterization: "any of the meetings that the five-year work plan was brought up, there was a presentation by staff about what the status was, but there was never a conversation...in terms of any of the substance or content, there was...I do not recall anything, any meaningful conversation about that." ## A Board Finding Its Voice The discussion concluded with recognition from multiple participants that this represented the board's most engaged and substantive conversation to date. As Mayor Lund noted, "This is easily the most engaged and longest discussion this board's had so far, and I think that's really valuable." The mayor emphasized that disagreement and constructive conflict are healthy parts of the advisory process: "we don't have to have consensus on everything. It's okay to have full engagement and a spirit of disagreement. Constructive conflict is often our goal." Rick Edgar summarized the evening's significance: "what I take away is as a new board, there's growing pains...this was the first big project coming forward. How can we improve the process for the next big project?" ## Water System Plan Timeline Between the technical presentations and process discussion, staff provided a brief update on the comprehensive water system plan timeline. The plan, representing two years of work and hundreds of thousands of dollars in consultant fees, will be distributed for 90-day review (possibly extending to six months) beginning in late March. The agency review version will go to the Department of Ecology, Department of Health, water customers, the mayor's office, city council, and the RAB. A required public meeting on water use efficiency will occur February 25, with feedback incorporated into the final agency review draft. Rush Duncan acknowledged the challenge facing the board: "this is going to be like a thousand page document" requiring comprehensive review alongside the ongoing nitrogen evaluation and other major projects. ## Elections Postponed and Terms Ending The meeting concluded with a decision to postpone board elections from January to February due to ongoing transitions. Two current members—Brett Vail and Laura Weiss—have terms expiring, and the city is conducting interviews for new appointments. The bylaw change to move elections to February passed unanimously, providing a small example of the consensus that had been more elusive during the process discussion. ## Looking Ahead: March Affordability Discussion The nitrogen reduction evaluation will return to the board March 25 with crucial financial information. FCS Group, the city's rate consultant, is analyzing capital improvement plans across water, wastewater, and stormwater systems to project necessary rate increases. This will be paired with an affordability assessment comparing Bellingham's projected rates to similar utilities. The watershed assessment examining the 80% of nitrogen coming from non-point sources should also have initial results by late March, potentially providing context for the plant-focused improvements under evaluation. ## A Turning Point Meeting The January 28 meeting marked a clear inflection point for Bellingham's Water Resources Advisory Board. What began as a routine technical update evolved into the most substantive discussion of the board's short history, forcing examination of fundamental questions about advisory roles, community engagement, and decision-making processes. The technical challenge of nitrogen reduction—with its multi-million dollar implications and complex tradeoffs between environmental protection, affordability, and energy use—provided the backdrop for broader questions about expertise, process, and community input in municipal decision-making. As Chair Brett Vail concluded with Michael Jordan's quote about teamwork and intelligence winning championships, the board faces the ongoing challenge of channeling individual expertise and passion into effective collective advice for the community. The growing pains evident in January may prove essential for developing the board's long-term effectiveness and credibility. The March meeting promises to bring these questions into sharper focus as financial realities become clearer and the community grapples with what "reasonable" treatment means in the context of competing priorities and limited resources.

## MODULE S1: STUDY GUIDE **Meeting ID:** BEL-WRA-2025-01-28 A structured study guide helping readers understand the meeting's content and context. ### Meeting Overview The Bellingham Water Resources Advisory Board met on January 28, 2025, with the main focus being a nutrient reduction evaluation for nitrogen removal from wastewater, required by state ecology permits. The meeting also included significant discussion about the board's process and effectiveness following disagreements over a previous Lake Whatcom management plan vote. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Nutrient Reduction Evaluation (NRE):** A comprehensive study required by Washington State ecology to evaluate and plan how to reduce nitrogen discharge from wastewater treatment plants into Puget Sound. **ACART (All Known, Available, and Reasonable Treatment):** A Washington state standard allowing cities to define what is "reasonable" treatment based on their specific circumstances, considering factors like cost, existing footprint, and proven technology. **Water Quality Based Alternative:** A treatment approach that must achieve the specific target of 3 milligrams per liter of total inorganic nitrogen in effluent discharge during the April-October season. **Post Point:** Bellingham's central wastewater treatment facility that currently processes 72 million gallons per day, with 40 million gallons going through secondary treatment. **Minority Report:** A formal document expressing dissenting views from board members who disagree with the majority decision, which became a contentious topic regarding proper board procedures. **Total Inorganic Nitrogen:** The specific form of nitrogen that must be reduced from approximately 30+ milligrams per liter to 3 milligrams per liter, representing a 90% reduction. **Community Values Criteria:** Factors beyond cost and performance that guide decision-making, including environmental impact, energy efficiency, climate impact, and community effects. **Optimization:** The first requirement of the permit, involving maximizing efficiency of existing treatment systems before implementing new technologies. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Rush Duncan | Assistant Director of Safety and Natural Resources Division | | Mike Wilson | Assistant Director of Public Works Engineering | | Tad Hugenbruch | Consultant presenting nutrient reduction evaluation | | Susanna | Engineer with consulting team | | Mayor Kim Lund | Mayor of Bellingham | | Laura Weiss | RAB member (online, co-author of minority report memo) | | Fiona McNair | RAB member (online) | | Rick Edgar | RAB member (co-author of minority report memo) | | Brett Vail | RAB member (term expiring) | | Martin Kelstead | RAB member | | John Kane-Ronning | Vice President, Silver Beach Neighborhood Association | ### Background Context This meeting occurred against the backdrop of a state-mandated nutrient reduction program affecting 58 wastewater dischargers into Puget Sound. The program stems from concerns about dissolved oxygen depletion in marine waters, though the effectiveness and cost-benefit of the approach remains controversial, with multiple lawsuits challenging the requirements. Post Point contributes only 20% of nitrogen entering Bellingham Bay annually, with 80% coming from natural sources, raising questions about the cost-effectiveness of the required improvements. The city faces potentially massive expenses for technology that may have minimal environmental impact, creating tension between regulatory compliance and fiscal responsibility. The board is also navigating its own identity crisis, with disagreement about whether it should provide high-level advisory input or detailed technical review. This tension came to a head with a minority report about the board's process, highlighting different expectations about the depth and influence of board engagement. ### What Happened — The Short Version The meeting began with routine business and public comment, including a request from the Silver Beach Neighborhood Association for assistance with their Lake Whatcom stewardship planning. The main presentation covered the nutrient reduction evaluation process, explaining that the city must choose between two alternatives: ACART (a "reasonable" standard the city can define) and a water quality-based approach (meeting the strict 3 mg/L standard). Consultants presented a decision-making framework using community values criteria like energy efficiency, climate impact, and environmental sensitivity, separate from cost and performance considerations. Board members asked pointed questions about the effectiveness of reducing nitrogen from the treatment plant when it represents only 20% of total nitrogen inputs to the bay. Several members expressed skepticism about whether the massive costs would produce meaningful environmental benefits. The meeting's most significant discussion involved three board members who had submitted a memo criticizing the board's process during the Lake Whatcom management plan review. They felt rushed through a complex document without adequate opportunity for input. Other members disagreed, leading to a heated but constructive debate about the board's role, minority reports, and meeting procedures. The meeting concluded with postponing officer elections until February due to expiring terms and ongoing process discussions. ### What to Watch Next - March 25, 2025: Consultants return with financial analysis including affordability assessment and watershed study results - February 25, 2025: Public meeting on water system plan water use efficiency chapter - March 17, 2025: Agency review draft of water system plan distributed to board - February 2025: Board officer elections and potential new member appointments - End of 2025: NRE report due to state ecology ---

## MODULE S2: FLASH CARDS **Meeting ID:** BEL-WRA-2025-01-28 **Q:** What is the target nitrogen reduction required by the water quality based alternative? **A:** Reduce total inorganic nitrogen to 3 milligrams per liter during April through October, down from current levels of 30+ mg/L (about 90% reduction). **Q:** What percentage of nitrogen in Bellingham Bay comes from Post Point treatment plant? **A:** Only 20% comes from Post Point annually, while 80% comes from other natural sources like rivers and runoff. **Q:** What does ACART stand for and what does it allow? **A:** All Known, Available, and Reasonable Treatment. It allows cities to define what "reasonable" means based on their circumstances, potentially resulting in less expensive alternatives. **Q:** What was the main controversy discussed in the minority report memo? **A:** Three board members felt they didn't have adequate time to review and provide input on the Lake Whatcom management plan, receiving only 30 minutes for a 51-page document. **Q:** How much wastewater does Post Point currently process daily? **A:** 72 million gallons per day total, with 40 million gallons going through secondary treatment. **Q:** What are the two main permit requirements cities must meet? **A:** First, optimize existing treatment systems. Second, complete a nutrient reduction evaluation (NRE) to plan for nitrogen reduction. **Q:** When is the nutrient reduction evaluation due to state ecology? **A:** The end of 2025, though implementation timing has not been specified by ecology. **Q:** What was the Silver Beach Neighborhood Association's request? **A:** They asked for a RAB subcommittee to help them revise their neighborhood plan to become better stewards of Lake Whatcom. **Q:** What are community values criteria in the decision-making process? **A:** Factors like energy efficiency, climate impact, truck traffic, environmental sensitivities, and land acquisition that guide decisions beyond just cost and performance. **Q:** What will happen to the tiny home village at Post Point? **A:** It will be displaced as the area is designated for plant expansion, though relocation plans are being discussed. **Q:** What technology maturity threshold was used for evaluation? **A:** At least one or more municipal treatment installations in North America with years of operational experience and data. **Q:** Why were board officer elections postponed? **A:** Because some terms expire in January and new appointments are pending, making it unclear who would serve in officer roles. **Q:** What is the main legal challenge to the nutrient reduction program? **A:** Multiple lawsuits question whether removing nitrogen from treatment plants will actually solve dissolved oxygen problems in Puget Sound. **Q:** What will the March 25th presentation focus on? **A:** Financial analysis including affordability assessment and results from watershed study looking for alternative nitrogen reduction opportunities. **Q:** How many wastewater dischargers are subject to this nutrient permit? **A:** 58 dischargers throughout the Puget Sound region are subject to the state's nutrient reduction requirements. **Q:** What was Mayor Lund's main message about board disagreements? **A:** She emphasized that constructive conflict is healthy and the board doesn't need consensus on everything, but everyone should have a chance to be heard. **Q:** What space constraints exist at Post Point? **A:** The facility has environmental sensitivities including wetlands, a lagoon, and a great blue heron colony with a 100-foot buffer that limits expansion options. **Q:** What is the current cost of nitrogen removal at Post Point? **A:** Zero, because the plant was not designed for nitrogen removal and has no existing nitrogen reduction technologies except basic optimization. ---