# When Science Meets Stewardship: Bellingham's Water Future Takes Center Stage On a warm July evening at Pacific Street Operations, the Bellingham Water Resources Advisory Board convened for what would prove to be one of their most substantive meetings of the year. With eight board members present and one excused, the 7:43 PM adjournment time would tell the story of a packed agenda that touched on everything from customer satisfaction to emergency preparedness for aquatic invaders. ## Meeting Overview The July 22, 2025 meeting brought together water utility customers' voices through survey data and the urgent reality of invasive species threats. Chair Bret Beaupain guided the board through presentations from DHM Research on customer satisfaction and Four Peaks Environmental on rapid response planning for invasive mussels. The meeting represented a convergence of community feedback and scientific planning — the kind of intersection that defines modern municipal water management. Present were board members Carl Benson, Martin Kjelstad, Fiona McNair, Kirsten McDade, John Peppel, Alicia Toney, and Francesca White, along with city staff including Communications Manager Riley Grant and Public Works Deputy Director Mike Olinger. Dr. Erika Rubenson from Four Peaks Environmental joined remotely to present the invasive species response plan. ## Utility Customer Survey: The Community Speaks The evening opened with Riley Grant presenting the comprehensive utility customer survey conducted by DHM Research from April 29 to May 9, 2025. The survey reached 400 residential utility customers through a mixed-mode approach that included phone and text-to-online options, with translations into the top five languages spoken in Bellingham beyond English. Hannah Borenstein and Devin Bales from DHM Research walked the board through findings that painted a picture of a community generally satisfied with their water services but increasingly concerned about affordability. The data revealed that 83% of residential utility customers rate their quality of life in Bellingham as excellent or good, with nearly one in four rating it as excellent — a number that impressed the researchers. "We don't have apples-to-apples numbers that we can share, not all the communities like their data to be public," Bales noted, "but this year we've done work in Tumwater and Bellingham and Vancouver, and you guys are bumping up against sort of the high end of the scale in terms of quality of life responses." When it came to utility services specifically, the survey found that water and sewer services ranked in the middle of the pack among city services. While 64% felt the city was doing a good or excellent job with utilities, parks and trails, environmental protection, and public safety ranked higher in public perception. The awareness gap emerged as a significant finding. While 73% of customers knew drinking water was included in their utility service, awareness dropped for wastewater (57%), stormwater (48%), and Lake Whatcom watershed preservation (42%). Only about one in three customers were aware of all four services included in their utility bill. "That's something that we can track over time to see if there's any initiatives that you're working on to try to increase awareness in certain areas," Borenstein explained. The data showed homeowners were more aware of services than renters, particularly regarding drinking water and Lake Whatcom watershed preservation. Satisfaction levels told a positive story overall, with 81% satisfied with their utility service. The 35% who were "very satisfied" represented strong support, with customers praising reliability and water quality. "Works well, reliable, no outages," emerged as the top reason for satisfaction, along with clean, safe, high-quality water that tastes good. Some customers even specifically mentioned the protection of Lake Whatcom and the city's focus on sustainability. But the shadow of affordability concerns loomed large. The 16% who expressed dissatisfaction focused overwhelmingly on billing costs, with complaints about rising rates despite what customers perceived as low usage compared to neighbors. "There's really this theme throughout the report that you'll see that the strains that people feel about cost of living right now are sort of bleeding over into all different areas of different services that they interact with," Borenstein observed. "Cost is something that people are just struggling with in general, and it's going to come up everywhere." The importance versus performance analysis revealed the tension at the heart of municipal utility management. Customers rated providing safe drinking water, ensuring reliable supply, and keeping bills affordable as the most important services. While the city excelled at the first two, affordability emerged as a key area for improvement alongside maintaining and upgrading infrastructure. Looking ahead, customers wanted the city to prioritize staying ahead of regulatory requirements (55%) and planning for climate resilience (51%). Just under half supported assistance programs for customers struggling with bills, though some specifically called for keeping rates fair for everyone rather than targeted assistance. Grant shared staff's takeaways from the survey. "We're doing a pretty good job meeting some of the key priorities, which is actually providing safe, clean drinking water and reliable drinking water source," she noted. "That's really our essential function, so we feel pretty reassured that the community recognizes that we're meeting those needs." The city had already responded to affordability concerns by expanding customer assistance programs as part of recent rate increases. But Grant emphasized another key opportunity: "It also really gives us an opportunity to help our customers better understand how their money is invested in their community. What do you get for your water bill every month?" ## The Invasive Species Threat: Planning for the Unthinkable The meeting's second major presentation shifted from customer satisfaction to crisis preparedness as Dr. Erika Rubenson from Four Peaks Environmental presented the draft Lake Whatcom Invasive Freshwater Mussel Rapid Response Plan. The context was sobering. Lake Whatcom faces increasing risk from quagga, zebra, and golden mussels — invasive species that could devastate both drinking water infrastructure and the lake ecosystem. The proximity to recent quagga mussel introductions in Idaho's Snake River, combined with Lake Whatcom's extensive recreational use and boat traffic, has elevated the threat level. "We kind of watched that event unfold and realized the implementation of a rapid response plan upon detection of an invasive species was essential to actually being able to control a population," explained Mike Crosston, the city's natural resource field manager. "The quicker you respond, the more effective your mitigation can be of that new species." The plan development involved extensive collaboration between the City of Bellingham, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Whatcom County Natural Resources, and Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District. Additional input came from City Parks and Recreation, the Institute for Watershed Studies at Western Washington University, and Whatcom County Health and Community Services. Rubenson walked the board through the plan's structure, which would activate only after the statewide mussel response plan implementation. The trigger point: two verified detections of invasive freshwater mussels in Lake Whatcom, which would classify the lake as "positive" and initiate the site-specific response. The response would unfold in rapid succession. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife would initiate an Incident Command System (ICS), with the director requesting the governor to order emergency measures. A unified command structure would bring together WDFW, the city, county, and Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District, while a multi-agency coordination group would provide input from elected officials, tribal entities, and other stakeholders. "Range delimitation efforts" would begin immediately — intensive sampling at all public access points, with additional focus around motorized boat launches. The work would include shoreline surveys, plankton tows to capture microscopic juvenile life stages, benthic sampling of lake bottom sediments, environmental DNA testing, and water chemistry analysis. Simultaneously, efforts to minimize spread would include posting warning signs, closing the detection location, removing and decontaminating watercraft and infrastructure where possible, and — permits allowing — deploying containment curtains around the detection site. "What a containment curtain is, is it extends from the surface of the lake all the way to the bottom, and it prevents water exchange from inside of that curtain to the rest of the lake," Rubenson explained. "So everything within that curtain is contained and won't filter out into the rest of the lake." Board member questions immediately focused on permitting challenges. "What permits do you have to get to be able to do that?" asked one member. "That's a great question," Rubenson replied. "That's one of the next steps, is to have all the legal entities starting to engage, like the Army Corps, for placement of materials in the water and other entities that might be regulating placement of materials." The plan calls for permit-ready materials to be prepared in advance, with emergency processes potentially speeding approvals. But the complexity was evident — a decision-making workshop would need to occur within six weeks of detection to weigh treatment options. Those options ranged from doing nothing to intensive intervention. Treatment possibilities included bacterial products like Zequanox, chemical treatments like potash or copper-based EarthTec QZ, physical removal by divers, or benthic mats that would smother infected areas. Any chemical treatment would be limited to behind containment barriers due to drinking water concerns and Lake Whatcom's massive volume. The June 2, 2025 initial decision-making workshop had already established some working preferences. Participants felt all invasive mussel species should be treated equally despite varying establishment risks. Physical removal alone was deemed too risky, though divers should support treatments. Zequanox was preferred over chemical options, with copper treatments rejected due to long-term sediment and water quality impacts. The plan called for closing the boat launch nearest any detection while keeping other launches open with mandatory inspection and decontamination. But this measured approach drew sharp questions from board members. "I see just an insane asymmetric bias towards recreational use over any other use here," observed one board member. "I just don't see this being protective... It seems like a bizarre last-ditch effort to protect drinking water for 100,000 people." The response revealed the political and legal constraints: "The answer is still the same. Legal and political will does not exist today to close the boat launches," staff replied. "The city could potentially have to buy out every resident on the lake, every one of those multimillion-dollar homes that bought to recreate on the lake." The cost question loomed large throughout the discussion. Board member John Peppel pressed for specifics: "What's the wild-ass range of costs of each of this military operation?" "It varies depending on what exactly... I've not seen numbers that high, but certainly, you know, hundreds of thousands of dollars," Rubenson replied, noting that costs would depend on the scope of response needed. The financial reality shaped the entire discussion. With an emergency declaration, much of the response cost would fall to the state, but local entities would face additional expenses through interlocal agreements. The alternative — long-term management of an established infestation — would cost millions annually, as seen with Northern Pike management in Lake Roosevelt. Board members struggled with the balance between recreation and drinking water protection. "Why isn't a cost put on the people who are the potential causes?" asked Peppel, suggesting much higher boat fees to discourage risky watercraft. The political reality was stark: even modest fee increases had faced resistance. "The political will, even that fee structure was questioned," staff noted. ## The Resolution and Looking Ahead Despite the challenging questions and concerns about recreational versus drinking water priorities, the board unanimously approved a resolution supporting an interlocal agreement for the rapid response plan. The 8-0 vote (with Rick Eggerth excused) reflected recognition that some plan was better than no plan, even if the political constraints limited more aggressive prevention measures. "I think we should have a plan," summarized one board member's reluctant support. "They need a plan." The resolution authorized the city to enter into an interlocal agreement with Whatcom County, Lake Whatcom Water and Sewer District, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife for implementing the rapid response plan. The final plan would continue evolving through tribal consultation and additional stakeholder input. ## Closing & What's Ahead The meeting concluded with brief discussion of old business, including a request from the Silver Beach neighborhood for assistance with their neighborhood plan. Board members deferred the request to staff, noting it fell outside their advisory role focused on water resources. As the meeting adjourned at 7:43 PM, the evening had captured the essence of modern water management: balancing customer satisfaction with fiscal reality, recreation with protection, and preparation with hope that emergency plans will never be needed. The utility survey offered reassurance that Bellingham's water customers generally appreciate their service quality, even as affordability concerns grow. The invasive species plan provided a framework for response, even if political realities limit prevention options. The next Water Resources Advisory Board meeting was scheduled for September 23, 2025, where presumably the board would continue grappling with the complex challenges of managing a precious water resource in an era of competing demands and emerging threats. The July meeting had shown that good governance requires planning for both satisfied customers and emergency response — sometimes these goals align, and sometimes they reveal the difficult choices that lie ahead.

### Meeting Overview The Water Resources Advisory Board met on July 22, 2025, to review results from a citywide utility customer survey and discuss a draft Aquatic Invasive Species Rapid Response Plan for Lake Whatcom. The board approved a resolution supporting an interlocal agreement between multiple agencies to implement the invasive species response plan. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB):** City advisory body that provides input on water, sewer, stormwater, and Lake Whatcom watershed protection policies to City Council and staff. **DHM Research:** Portland-based research firm hired by the City to conduct a statistically valid survey of 400 residential utility customers about satisfaction and priorities. **Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS):** Non-native freshwater mussels (quagga, zebra, and golden) that threaten Lake Whatcom's drinking water supply and ecosystem. **Incident Command System (ICS):** Emergency management framework led by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife that would coordinate rapid response to invasive mussel detection. **Multi-Agency Coordination (MAC) Group:** Body of elected officials, tribal entities, and other stakeholders that provides input during an invasive species emergency response. **Lake Whatcom:** Primary drinking water source for 120,000 people in Bellingham and surrounding areas, managed jointly by the City and Whatcom County. **Customer Assistance Program:** City program providing water bill discounts (25%, 50%, or 75%) to households earning 40%, 60%, or 80% of Area Median Income based on household size. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Bret Beaupain | WRAB Chair | | Riley Grant | Public Works Communications and Outreach Manager | | Hannah Borenstein | DHM Research | | Devin Bales | DHM Research Director | | Dr. Erika Rubenson | Four Peaks Environmental Consultants | | Mike Olinger | Public Works Deputy Director | ### Background Context Bellingham recently passed utility rate increases to fund infrastructure upgrades, making customer satisfaction data crucial for understanding public acceptance. The utility survey revealed generally high satisfaction but concerns about affordability, reflecting broader cost-of-living pressures across the region. Meanwhile, the city faces growing risk of invasive mussel introduction to Lake Whatcom through recreational boating. Recent detections in Idaho's Snake River have heightened urgency for a coordinated response plan. The city already operates prevention programs including boat inspections and decontamination, which have successfully deterred high-risk boats and generated additional revenue through new fee structures. ### What Happened — The Short Version DHM Research presented findings from a survey showing 83% of residents are satisfied with quality of life in Bellingham, with 81% satisfied with utility services. However, affordability concerns dominated dissatisfaction responses. The city is expanding its customer assistance program in response. Dr. Rubenson then presented a draft rapid response plan for invasive mussels, detailing how multiple agencies would coordinate emergency response including containment curtains, boat launch closures, and chemical treatments. Board members questioned the plan's emphasis on preserving recreational access over drinking water protection, citing legal and political constraints that prevent lake closure. The board unanimously approved a resolution supporting the interlocal agreement. ### What to Watch Next - Implementation of expanded customer assistance program for utility bills - Final adoption of invasive species response plan by City Council - Installation of automated gates at Lodell Donovan Park boat launch - Ongoing tribal consultation on invasive species response plan ---

**Q:** What percentage of Bellingham residents are satisfied with their quality of life? **A:** 83% rate their quality of life as excellent or good, with 23% rating it excellent. **Q:** How many people rely on Lake Whatcom for drinking water? **A:** 120,000 people in Bellingham and surrounding areas depend on Lake Whatcom for processed drinking water. **Q:** What triggers implementation of the invasive species response plan? **A:** Two verified detections of invasive freshwater mussels in Lake Whatcom would classify it as "positive" and trigger the site-specific response plan. **Q:** Which agency leads the incident command system during an invasive species emergency? **A:** Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) leads the incident command system with support from local agencies. **Q:** What are the three types of invasive mussels threatening Lake Whatcom? **A:** Quagga, zebra, and golden mussels - all non-native freshwater species that can clog infrastructure and alter ecosystems. **Q:** How many utility customers were surveyed by DHM Research? **A:** 400 Bellingham residential utility customers completed the mixed-mode survey conducted April 29 - May 9, 2025. **Q:** What percentage of residents are aware that drinking water is included in their utility service? **A:** 73% of residents know drinking water is included, but only 34% are aware of all four services (drinking water, wastewater, stormwater, Lake Whatcom protection). **Q:** How many high-risk boat decontaminations occurred this season? **A:** Five decontaminations of high-risk boats, which is typically the average for an entire season. **Q:** What is the new customer assistance program income threshold? **A:** Households earning up to 80% of Area Median Income qualify, with an 8-person household eligible at $114,000 annual income. **Q:** How much additional revenue did the new boat fee structure generate? **A:** About $100,000 increase in revenue for the season from the new fee structure that charges higher rates for higher-risk boats. **Q:** What treatment is preferred for invasive mussel eradication? **A:** Zequanox (bacterial treatment) is preferred with minimal water quality impacts, followed by Potash; copper ion treatments are not wanted. **Q:** When must a decision-making workshop be held after mussel detection? **A:** No later than 6 weeks after initial detection, hosted by Incident Command with ICS staff and MAC group participants. **Q:** What was the resolution vote outcome? **A:** The resolution supporting the interlocal agreement passed unanimously 8-0, with Rick Eggerth excused. **Q:** What are residents' top future priorities for water utilities? **A:** 55% want the city to stay ahead of regulatory requirements, 51% want climate resilience planning, 47% want customer assistance programs. **Q:** What communication method do residents prefer for utility updates? **A:** Email is most preferred (54%), followed by letters/bill inserts (40%) and text messages (38%). ---