Water Resources Advisory Board

The Water Resources Advisory Board received comprehensive presentations on three interconnected and financially significant infrastructure challenges facing Bellingham's utility system. The evening began with concerning scientific data from Western Washington University showing continued degradation of Lake Whatcom water quality, followed by presentations on a $530 million water system capital improvement plan and a staggering $1.5 billion wastewater infrastructure program driven primarily by nutrient reduction requirements. The meeting's most sobering revelation was the projected utility rate increases: water rates would rise 11% annually for four years starting in 2026, followed by 9% increases, while wastewater rates would jump 18% for two years, then 14% for two more years. Combined utility bills for single-family customers would nearly triple from $135 per month today to $350 by 2035, reaching $600 by the mid-2040s. These dramatic increases are primarily driven by regulatory mandates from the Department of Health for water infrastructure and from the Department of Ecology for nutrient reduction at the Post Point wastewater treatment plant. Public comments focused heavily on the water system plan's treatment of Urban Growth Area reserve areas and compliance with Growth Management Act requirements. Multiple speakers, including professional planners and industry representatives, raised concerns that the draft water plan fails to adequately address potential annexation areas and doesn't properly coordinate with the city's comprehensive plan. The adjudication of water rights in Whatcom County was also highlighted as a major planning consideration missing from the analysis. The Lake Whatcom monitoring presentation revealed troubling trends including declining dissolved oxygen levels, increasing algae growth, and a concerning feedback loop where low oxygen conditions release more phosphorus from lake sediments, fueling additional algae growth. Nitrogen levels are paradoxically declining, which could shift the lake toward more problematic algae species that produce toxins. Staff emphasized that these rate increases are largely driven by regulatory requirements beyond the city's control, including Department of Health mandates for water system improvements and state ecology requirements for nutrient reduction. The timing is critical, as the city needs to establish rates soon to handle debt service on a $40 million emissions control project at Post Point going to bid next year.

No formal votes were taken during this meeting, as this was a presentation and discussion session. The Water Resources Advisory Board received information for review and comment but did not make formal recommendations. **Items for Future Action:** - Board will provide comments on the Water System Plan by June 6, 2025 - Final Board endorsement of Water System Plan expected after Department of Health review (potentially August 2025) - Rate increases will go to City Council for decision in June 2025 to allow implementation by January 2026 **Staff Recommendations vs. Board Discussion:** - Staff recommended Scenario 2 for water system capital improvements, which phases in projects to reduce rate impacts compared to Scenario 1 - No formal Board position taken, but discussion focused on concerns about Growth Management Act compliance

**Perry Eskridge, on water rights adjudication:** "This is probably the single largest event that will form Whatcom County for the foreseeable future. The planning horizon on this plan is for the next 20 years, in which the adjudication will be well underway." **Derek Spear, on GMA compliance:** "I am certified by the American Institute of Certified Planners, and I'm here primarily to assist the board members in your quality control in reviewing this water system plan... I have not seen that level of linkage yet in the current draft plan." **Michael Lander, on regulatory drivers:** "The water stuff comes along with getting a better model. We now found deficiencies that we have to address, and that's part of how DOH requires us. And ecology is mandating this nitrogen thing, which is a big driver of overall costs." **WWU Researcher, on Lake Whatcom conditions:** "We're in a bit of a vicious cycle in the sense that there's phosphorus. The phosphorus leads to more algae, the algae die, it uses up oxygen. And then creates this cycle where there's no oxygen, more phosphorus gets released." **Todd (FCS Group), on combined rate impacts:** "So that'd be in out years about double historical inflation per year... in terms of the combined single family bill, when you add it all together, it's about $135 per month today, and that would increase to $260 by 2031, $350 in 2035." **Staff member, on nutrient requirements inevitability:** "We're pretty certain that those requirements are not going away. It's just going to be how they're delivered to us."

## Meeting Overview The Bellingham Water Resources Advisory Board convened for its March 25, 2025 meeting, marking a significant milestone in the city's long-term utility planning. Present were board members including Commissioner McDade, along with city staff including Mike Wilson, Internal Director of Public Works, Steve Bracho, Superintendent of Plants, Brandon Brubaker, Operations Superintendent, and Brent Baldwin, Development Manager. Several consultants were also in attendance, including representatives from FCS Group and Cool Engineers who had been working on comprehensive studies that would define Bellingham's water and wastewater infrastructure future. The evening's agenda focused primarily on two major planning documents: a comprehensive Water System Plan and a financial forecast that would reshape utility rates across the city for the next two decades. What made this meeting particularly significant was the presentation of rate projections that would see dramatic increases — water rates climbing 11% annually for four years, and wastewater rates jumping 18% in the near term, eventually leading to combined utility bills that could reach $600 per month by the 2040s. This was the first public presentation of these findings, with City Council review scheduled for April 14th, setting the stage for what would undoubtedly be some of the most consequential utility decisions in Bellingham's recent history. ## Public Comment: Growth Pressures and Planning Concerns The public comment period revealed the intersection of development pressures and infrastructure planning that has long defined Bellingham's growth challenges. Bill Geyer, representing clients in North Bellingham, raised concerns about reserve areas that have been discussed for years. "You guys probably know better than me. I just understand that water and sewer has to have that in the water plan and sewer plan before it can get to the Comp plan," Geyer explained, emphasizing that his goal wasn't to force development but to ensure the city maintained flexibility for future options. Derek, a certified planner with 48 years of local experience, took a more technical approach, distributing guidelines to board members about Growth Management Act requirements. "The Water System plan for the Growth Management Act is required to be coordinated with the city's comprehensive plan," he stated, expressing concern about what he saw as insufficient linkage between the water system plan and comprehensive planning requirements. His critique was pointed: "I do not believe that path is being pursued." Perry Eskridge, representing the Building Industry Association and realtors, echoed concerns about urban growth area considerations while raising a more ominous specter. "I was reading through the environmental impact checklist and I saw no mention of the adjudication. In fact, I didn't see mention of the adjudication in the plan at all," he said, referring to the massive water rights adjudication process. "This is probably the single largest event that will form Whatcom County for the foreseeable future. The planning horizon on this plan is for the next 20 years, in which the adjudication will be well underway." The adjudication Eskridge referenced represents a fundamental reckoning with water rights in the region, with the state Department of Ecology potentially "pulling back some of the municipalities' inchoate water rights for future population growth." His warning was clear: without considering this massive legal and regulatory shift, the city might not be planning appropriately for what lies ahead. ## Lake Whatcom Research Update: A Troubling Ecological Picture Before diving into infrastructure planning, the board received a comprehensive update on Lake Whatcom's health from university researchers who have been monitoring the drinking water source since 1988. The presentation painted a picture of a lake system under increasing stress, with concerning trends that have implications far beyond water quality. The most alarming finding was the consistent decline in dissolved oxygen levels in the deeper portions of Basin 1, the lake's primary basin. "We see there's been significant declines in dissolved oxygen, and this is from site one at 14 meters deep, well into that bottom layer," the researcher explained. "It's just been a fairly consistent decline that's happened over time." By August, oxygen levels reach zero in the deepest waters, creating anoxic conditions that trigger a cascade of chemical changes. This oxygen depletion creates what researchers described as a "vicious cycle." When oxygen disappears, phosphorus that had been safely buried in lake sediments gets released back into the water column. "We're kind of in this positive feedback loop of more phosphorus, more algae, less oxygen, which just leads to more and more," the researcher explained. This internal phosphorus loading means that even if external sources were completely eliminated, the lake would continue to struggle with elevated nutrient levels for years to come. Perhaps most concerning was the nitrogen trend. While declining nitrogen might seem positive, it actually signals a potentially dangerous shift in the lake's ecosystem. "Under low nitrogen environments, it can shift to species that can make their own nitrogen, but also that produce harmful algal blooms — toxins," the researcher warned. These toxic algae species represent a direct threat to drinking water safety, requiring enhanced monitoring and potentially expensive treatment upgrades. The research team emphasized they don't make policy recommendations, only provide scientific data. But the implications were clear: Lake Whatcom is experiencing the early stages of the kind of ecological degradation that has affected lakes throughout the region, and the trends are accelerating. ## Silver Beach Neighborhood Seeks Partnership Carrie Burnside, President of the Silver Beach Neighborhood Association, made a direct appeal for the board's assistance with Lake Whatcom protection efforts. The neighborhood association had developed Chapter 9 of their neighborhood plan specifically focused on lake protection, but recent changes in city planning processes had left them without clear implementation pathways. "Neighborhood plans have now been decoupled from the comp plan, so that process has stopped," Burnside explained. "We need some assistance with the pieces that are specific to Lake Whatcom, especially with what is the Neighborhood Association's obligation around preserving Lake Whatcom." Her request was specific: could the Water Resources Advisory Board create a subcommittee to collaborate with the neighborhood association? The need was urgent, she argued, because "we've had a lot of new people move into the area over the years that are not familiar with the responsibilities of living within the watershed. Rentals were never included within the neighborhood plan to help bring that awareness to the residents within rentals." The request highlighted a broader challenge in watershed protection: how to maintain community engagement and education when formal planning processes change, and how to reach transient populations who may not understand their role in protecting the drinking water source. ## Water System Plan: A Half-Billion Dollar Infrastructure Reality When consultants from Cool Engineers took the stage to present the Water System Plan, the scale of need became immediately apparent. The comprehensive analysis, built on a detailed hydraulic model that examined every pipeline in the system, identified deficiencies that previous planning efforts had missed or underestimated. "One of the big changes was really to the hydraulic model. The previous plan was based on this very skeletonized model that had kind of big chunks of pipe in the system, and this is like an all-pipe model that has every single pipeline in the system," explained project manager Orli. This increased level of detail revealed fire flow deficiencies that weren't identified before, requiring about 20,000 feet of existing pipe to be upsized at a cost of $19 million over 20 years. The total price tag was sobering: $530 million over 20 years, with projects spanning every aspect of the water system. The largest category was a risk-based repair and replacement program totaling $215 million — not based on capacity needs, but on the aging condition of infrastructure and likelihood of failure. "It's not looking at just capacity of the system. It's looking at condition, likelihood of failure of assets over time," the consultant explained. Storage needs represented another major cost driver, with $125 million identified for new reservoirs and tanks. The analysis revealed that several existing storage facilities had significant "dead storage" — water that couldn't be used because of elevation and pressure constraints. "There's certain tanks in the city that are held pretty tight because of that dead storage," the consultant noted, requiring complex re-zoning of customers and new booster stations to maximize existing capacity. The water treatment plant itself needed $128 million in improvements over 20 years, including feasibility studies for a new raw water intake. This represented one of the most significant long-term challenges, as the current intake system would eventually require major upgrades or replacement. ## Wastewater: The Nutrient Reduction Challenge The wastewater portion of the evening brought even larger numbers and more regulatory complexity. The Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit had been driving planning efforts, but recent legal developments had thrown the entire regulatory framework into question. In late February, the Washington State Pollution Control Hearings Board ruled that the permit was invalid, saying ecology couldn't layer a general permit on top of individual city permits. "This is not a legal opinion takeaway. This is just our team's kind of takeaway at this point," cautioned city staff. While the general permit approach faced legal challenges, a parallel regulatory pathway was developing through ecology's nutrient reduction plan, expected to be released in Q3 of the year. The nutrient reduction requirements, regardless of how they were ultimately implemented, drove massive capital needs. The 20-year wastewater capital program totaled $1.5 billion before inflation — well over $2 billion when escalated to actual construction costs. The largest components were nutrient removal projects estimated at hundreds of millions of dollars, plus solid waste handling improvements as the city's incinerators reached capacity limits. Mike Wilson emphasized the regulatory inevitability: "We're pretty certain that those requirements are not going away. It's just going to be how they're delivered to us." Whether through the general permit, individual NPDES permits, or the science-based nutrient reduction plan, Bellingham would eventually face requirements to dramatically reduce nitrogen discharges to Puget Sound. ## Financial Reality: Unprecedented Rate Increases When FCS Group's financial analysts took the podium to present rate projections, the room grew quiet. The numbers represented utility rate increases unlike anything in Bellingham's recent history. For water, the forecast called for 11% annual increases for four years, followed by 9% annually after that. "Currently, a typical single family customer is about $47 a month for their water bill, and with the 11% increases that would go from 47 in this year up to 52, 58, 64," the analyst explained. While painful, these increases would maintain the water utility's financial health with strong debt service coverage ratios. Wastewater presented a more dramatic picture. The forecast called for 18% increases for two years, followed by 14% for two more years, then stepping down gradually. "The typical single family customer pays about $58 per month for wastewater today. That'd be exceeding a hundred dollars by 2029, and about $200 by 2037," the analyst reported. When combined with stormwater and Lake Whatcom surcharge increases, the total utility bill picture became staggering. "It's about $135 per month today, and that would increase to $260 by 2031, $350 in 2035, getting way out there about $600 per month," the analyst stated. Even adjusting for inflation, the increases represented a fundamental shift in utility affordability. Board member questions focused on the assumptions behind these projections. All numbers included 3% annual inflation but no assumptions about tariffs or other economic disruptions. The borrowing strategy assumed a mix of revenue bonds at current market rates (4-5%) and potentially lower-cost state loans or federal WIFIA loans where available. One particularly concerning aspect was the debt service coverage for wastewater. While the water utility maintained healthy ratios above 4.0, wastewater would see coverage drop below the city's 1.7 target in some years, though still above the legal minimum of 1.25. The sheer scale of borrowing required — hundreds of millions in revenue bonds — would push the utility's financial capacity to its limits. ## Regional Context and Affordability Concerns The rate comparison with other regional utilities provided some context but also highlighted Bellingham's unique challenges. Currently, Bellingham's rates fell in the middle of the regional pack. But the projected increases would quickly move the city toward the higher end, with wastewater rates potentially exceeding most comparable jurisdictions. "I think today we don't have anything. But we know for a fact that the nutrient requirements that are being placed on us, those other cities are in phase 2. So we'll get it first on our permit. Four years later they're going to get it. They're going to be in the same boat with us," Wilson explained. This meant Bellingham was essentially a canary in the coal mine for nutrient reduction costs throughout the region. The affordability implications were not lost on city staff. "We've been asked by council and by the mayor to make that program more robust," Wilson noted regarding customer assistance programs. The challenge was fundamental: "Nothing's free. So if we, for lack of a better word, subsidize these rate payers, then other ratepayers have to pay more." The existing customer assistance was described as "an affordability measure within our rate structure," but the scale of projected increases would require a much more comprehensive approach. Staff were working with consultants to develop options, but the mathematics were unforgiving — significant assistance for low-income customers would require even higher rates for others. ## Technical Questions and System Realities Board members pressed consultants on technical details that revealed the complexity of the planning process. Questions about dead storage led to discussions of individual booster pumps for customers in challenging locations. "Sometimes if it's like a single customer, it just makes sense, and they're totally okay with that," the consultant explained, noting these solutions might be temporary until broader system improvements allowed for different approaches. The question of whether growth would pay for growth-related infrastructure revealed the mixed funding reality. While connection charges from new development would contribute about 5% of water system capital funding and 2% of wastewater funding, the vast majority of costs would be borne by existing ratepayers. "It's actually both," Wilson acknowledged, but the proportions made clear that current customers would shoulder most of the burden. One board member raised the possibility of regional cooperation to reduce costs. While the city participates in purchasing consortiums for some equipment and supplies, the major infrastructure projects were "purely bid based" and constrained by state and federal procurement requirements. The scale of individual projects — many in the tens of millions of dollars — limited opportunities for cost-sharing with other jurisdictions. ## Regulatory Uncertainty and Long-Term Planning Perhaps the most sobering aspect of the evening's discussion was the acknowledgment of regulatory uncertainty layered on top of massive infrastructure needs. The adjudication process mentioned in public comment represented just one of several potential game-changers that could fundamentally alter planning assumptions. The recent Supreme Court ruling in the San Francisco case added another layer of uncertainty. While focused on wet weather issues rather than nutrients, the Court's emphasis on demonstrating specific water quality impacts and proving that required improvements would actually solve identified problems could influence how nutrient reduction requirements are ultimately implemented. "We just wanted to make you aware of this recent ruling. And of course we'll be monitoring this as well to see to what extent, or if it does impact the direction of the permit landscape here in Puget Sound," staff noted. The nutrient reduction requirements themselves remained in flux. While staff expressed confidence that some form of requirements would eventually be implemented, the specific limits, timing, and technical approaches remained undefined. This uncertainty made long-term financial planning particularly challenging, as different scenarios could result in vastly different capital requirements. ## The 20-Year Horizon and Beyond As the presentation moved toward conclusion, the long-term implications became clear. The rate projections only covered the first decade for water and 20 years for wastewater, but major infrastructure needs extended well beyond those horizons. The raw water intake project alone, estimated at $100 million, sat in the second decade of the water plan. "Whether the 4% covers that probably not likely that it's gonna cover all that. So there's even more upward pressure in that second decade," Wilson acknowledged. Similarly, stormwater needs included potential fish passage requirements that could add another $300 million over a 60-year period. The regional context was equally challenging. Wilson noted that if point source reductions achieved 100% efficiency, they might reduce overall nitrogen inputs by only 20%, given the significant role of non-point sources that weren't being addressed by current regulatory approaches. Board member questions touched on this broader context. "Even if we're a hundred percent effective in theory and keeping the nitrogen reduction down to where we want to, we're only fulfilling 20%. How much of a difference would that make in Bellingham Bay, given that general non-point sources aren't going to be changed?" one member asked. "We might reduce nitrogen by 20%. As John's pointed out many times, there's not a lot of science on that. We all know that Puget Sound is moving a lot," Wilson responded, acknowledging the fundamental uncertainty about whether massive local investments would produce measurable environmental benefits. ## Closing and Next Steps As the meeting drew to a close, the process timeline became clearer. The water system plan would go to other reviewing agencies starting the next day, with City Council review scheduled for April 14th. The Department of Health review process would take 90 to 180 days, with final adoption potentially occurring in late summer or fall. The rate implementation process would run in parallel, driven by immediate capital needs including the $40 million emissions control project at the wastewater plant. "We need to make sure that we have those rates established so that we can handle the debt service on that," Wilson explained. Board members were encouraged to submit written comments through the chair, with a June 6th deadline for input collection. The board would reconvene to make a final recommendation on the water system plan once the Department of Health review was complete. The meeting adjourned with an acknowledgment of the sobering realities presented. As one board member noted, the discussion represented "false kindness" if it suggested the challenges were anything other than what they appeared to be. The numbers were stark, the regulatory pressures real, and the affordability implications unprecedented. Yet the infrastructure needs were equally undeniable. Decades of deferred maintenance, aging systems, new regulatory requirements, and growth pressures had converged into a perfect storm of capital requirements that would reshape how Bellingham residents think about basic utility services. The question was no longer whether dramatic rate increases were necessary, but how the community would adapt to a new reality where water and wastewater services represented a much larger portion of household budgets. The March 25th meeting would be remembered as the moment when those realities were first laid bare to public scrutiny, setting the stage for months of difficult decisions ahead.

## MODULE S1: STUDY GUIDE **Meeting ID:** BEL-WRA-2025-03-25 The Bellingham Water Resources Advisory Board met on March 25, 2025, to review the draft Water System Plan and hear presentations on Lake Whatcom water quality monitoring and major utility rate impacts. This meeting covered critical infrastructure planning that will affect water and wastewater rates for the next 20 years. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Water System Plan:** A comprehensive 20-year planning document required by the Department of Health that identifies infrastructure needs, capacity requirements, and capital improvements for the city's water system. This plan must be updated every 10 years. **Capital Improvement Plan (CIP):** A prioritized list of infrastructure projects totaling $530 million over 20 years for the water system, including treatment plant upgrades, pipeline replacements, storage tanks, and pump stations. **Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit (PSNGP):** A regulatory permit requiring wastewater treatment plants to reduce nitrogen discharge into Puget Sound. Recently invalidated by the Pollution Control Hearings Board but still driving planning efforts. **Nutrient Reduction Evaluation:** A study examining how to reduce nitrogen in wastewater discharge, potentially requiring $1.5 billion in capital improvements over 20 years. **Growth Management Act (GMA):** State law requiring coordination between water system planning and comprehensive land use planning, including Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). **Lake Whatcom Stratification:** Summer layering of lake water where warm surface water sits above cold bottom water, preventing oxygen mixing and creating conditions for phosphorus release from sediments. **Debt Service Coverage:** A financial ratio measuring the utility's ability to pay bond obligations, with 1.25 being the legal minimum and 1.7 being the city's internal target. **WIFIA Loans:** Federal low-interest loan program (Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act) that can defer payments up to 5 years to help utilities ramp up rates. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Derek King | Chair, Water Resources Advisory Board | | Alicia Tony | Board Member (new, environmental consultant) | | Bill Geyer | Public speaker, consulting engineer | | Perry Eskridge | Public speaker, Building Industry Association | | Kerri Burnside | Public speaker, Silver Beach Neighborhood Association President | | Mike Wilson | Director of Public Works | | Jim Bergner | City staff, Global Engineer | | Dr. Robin Matthews | WWU, Lake Whatcom water quality researcher | | Orly (from Cool Engineers) | Water System Plan project manager | | Tad | Nutrient reduction evaluation presenter | | Todd (FCS Group) | Rate impact analyst | ### Background Context Bellingham faces unprecedented utility rate increases driven by three major factors: aging water infrastructure requiring $530 million in improvements over 20 years, potential nitrogen reduction requirements for wastewater costing up to $1.5 billion, and deteriorating Lake Whatcom water quality showing declining oxygen levels and increasing algae. The Water System Plan uses a new detailed hydraulic model that identified previously unknown fire flow deficiencies throughout the system. Meanwhile, state environmental regulations are pushing costly wastewater treatment upgrades to protect Puget Sound, though recent legal challenges have created uncertainty about specific requirements. These regulatory and infrastructure pressures converge at a time when the city must balance environmental protection with affordability concerns. ### What Happened — The Short Version The board received extensive presentations on three connected issues that will drive major rate increases. First, a university researcher showed Lake Whatcom's declining water quality, with dangerous oxygen depletion in deeper areas and increasing phosphorus levels creating more algae. Second, consultants presented a $530 million Water System Plan identifying needed infrastructure improvements including new storage tanks, pipeline upgrades, and treatment plant renovations. Third, staff explained potential $1.5 billion wastewater system costs if nitrogen reduction requirements proceed, though recent legal challenges have created uncertainty. The financial analysis showed combined utility bills rising from $135 monthly today to potentially $600 monthly by 2043. Several public speakers raised concerns about growth planning coordination and regulatory impacts on development. ### What to Watch Next • City Council presentation on April 14th where these rate impacts will be discussed • Department of Health review of the Water System Plan (90-180 days) • June 6th deadline for collecting public comments on the plan • Ecology's response to the invalidated nutrient permit and next steps on wastewater requirements ---

## MODULE S2: FLASH CARDS **Meeting ID:** BEL-WRA-2025-03-25 **Q:** What is the total cost of the 20-year Water System Plan? **A:** $530 million over 20 years, including treatment plant upgrades, storage tanks, pipeline replacements, and pump stations. **Q:** What are the proposed water rate increases under the preferred scenario? **A:** 11% per year for four years (2026-2029), followed by 9% per year after that. **Q:** Who chairs the Water Resources Advisory Board? **A:** Derek King, though most people just call him Derek. **Q:** What is Lake Whatcom stratification and why does it matter? **A:** Summer layering where warm surface water sits above cold bottom water, preventing oxygen mixing and creating conditions that release phosphorus from sediments. **Q:** What is the Puget Sound Nutrient General Permit status? **A:** Recently invalidated by the Pollution Control Hearings Board but ecology is expected to continue pursuing nitrogen reduction requirements through other pathways. **Q:** How much could wastewater improvements cost over 20 years? **A:** Up to $1.5 billion, primarily driven by potential nitrogen reduction requirements and solids handling upgrades. **Q:** What percentage of water system capital projects will be funded by borrowing? **A:** About 40%, with 55% funded by cash and 5% by growth-related connection charges. **Q:** What Lake Whatcom trend is Dr. Robin Matthews most concerned about? **A:** Declining dissolved oxygen levels in deeper water, reaching zero oxygen conditions in summer months at monitoring sites. **Q:** What is the city's target debt service coverage ratio? **A:** 1.7, which is higher than the legal minimum of 1.25 required for revenue bonds. **Q:** How often must the Water System Plan be updated? **A:** Every 10 years, as required by the Department of Health. **Q:** What will a typical single-family customer pay for water by 2034? **A:** About $72 per month, up from $47 currently. **Q:** What regulatory law requires coordination between water planning and land use? **A:** The Growth Management Act (GMA), which requires water system plans to be consistent with comprehensive plans. **Q:** How much of Lake Whatcom's water is contained in Basin 3? **A:** Approximately 97% of all water in the lake, despite Basin 3 being just one of three basins. **Q:** What could combined utility bills reach by 2043? **A:** About $600 per month for water, wastewater, stormwater, and Lake Whatcom surcharge combined. **Q:** Who regulates and approves the Water System Plan? **A:** The Washington State Department of Health, which has 90-180 days for review. ---