Whatcom County Council Special Committee of the Whole

The Whatcom County Council's Special Committee of the Whole convened for 54 minutes to tackle complex comprehensive plan issues, focusing primarily on agricultural lands policy in Chapter 8 of the county's comprehensive plan update. The meeting revealed significant tensions between stated agricultural preservation goals and practical farming realities, with Council Member Ben Elenbaas delivering pointed criticism of county policies he argued undermine the very agricultural economy they claim to protect. The session centered on Planning Commission recommendations for Chapter 8 Resource Lands, including a new policy requiring mitigation when agricultural lands are converted to urban growth areas (UGAs). Three small cities—Everson, Nooksack, and Sumas—would be affected by this acre-for-acre mitigation requirement, paying fees into a Conservation Futures Fund when they annex designated agricultural lands. Elenbaas, speaking as both a council member and active farmer, delivered an extended critique of what he characterized as contradictory county policies. He argued that while the county talks about preserving 100,000 acres of agricultural land, its own policies systematically remove farmland from production through restrictive definitions of "ongoing agriculture," mandatory buffers that expand over time, and drainage restrictions that prevent farmers from maintaining productive fields. The discussion also touched on controversial proposals for small cities to expand into agricultural lands and floodplains, with Council Member Todd Donovan expressing concerns about legal vulnerability at hearings boards. Planning Director Mark Personius provided updates on ongoing negotiations with affected cities, noting movement toward extinguishing development rights in flood-prone areas and implementing mitigation measures.

No formal votes were taken at this committee meeting. All items were designated for discussion only: - **AB2025-843** (Chapter 8 Resource Lands): **DISCUSSED** - Planning Commission recommendations on resource lands policies, including new agricultural mitigation requirements - **AB2025-513** (UGA EIS alternatives): **DISCUSSED** - Urban growth area expansion proposals and environmental impact considerations - **AB2025-701** (Council amendments): **NOT ACTED UPON** - Comprehensive plan amendment proposals, postponed due to time constraints The committee agreed to continue Chapter 8 discussions at future meetings, with Elenbaas promising to submit specific amendment proposals similar to those he offered for Chapter 7.

**Ben Elenbaas, on policy contradictions:** "We make this whole chapter is about preserving land and then we fool ourselves about talking about how we're, we're going to do so well at it that we're going to bring. We're going to convert other land and land and then we literally have. A plan to flood the planes." **Ben Elenbaas, on drainage restrictions:** "I find that language, just that word existing drainage system. Problematic because that's not enabling language. That's actually the language that is keeping. You know, if somebody comes in for a permit to do some drainage." **Ben Elenbaas, on county vs. city threats to agriculture:** "Whatcom county policy is a bigger threat to agriculture than the growth of our small cities." **Mark Personius, on agricultural land significance:** "All ag lands, right? Are important and. But some are more important than others are more significant than others. And so that's the balancing that the council has to consider when you're looking at potential expansions." **Ben Elenbaas, on ongoing agriculture definition:** "So, like, if you guys know what ongoing agriculture means, Mark, can you define ongoing agriculture for us?" **Todd Donovan, on legal concerns:** "I'm not sure if we change the language about the designating those. Ag lands, we're still not vulnerable at the hearings board for. Accepting is going to areas where they probably legally can't."

# A Morning of Competing Visions: Whatcom County Grapples with Agricultural Land Protection The special Committee of the Whole meeting on December 2, 2025, began like many others in Whatcom County's comprehensive planning process — with technical presentations and policy discussions. But it quickly evolved into a revealing window into fundamentally different philosophies about how to protect agricultural lands in one of Washington's most productive farming regions. ## Meeting Overview The hybrid meeting convened at 9:02 AM in the County Courthouse council chambers, with Chair Kaylee Galloway presiding over six of seven council members (Tyler Byrd was absent). Despite an ambitious agenda with three major comprehensive plan items, the discussion centered almost entirely on Chapter 8 of the county's comprehensive plan update — the section dealing with resource lands, particularly agricultural preservation. What emerged was not just a debate about policy language, but a profound disagreement about whether regulatory frameworks help or harm the very agricultural economy they're designed to protect. ## Chapter 8 Resource Lands: The Technical Framework Lucas Clark from Planning and Development Services opened with a straightforward presentation of Chapter 8, describing it as "divided into 4 sections, agricultural lands, forest resource lands, marine resource lands and mineral resources." The chapter's purpose, he explained, is "to provide a clear set of guidelines that preserves the agricultural base in Whatcom county to prioritise the human need for food, fibre, shelter and energy and ensure both the agricultural industry and the cultural heritage thrive in the years to come." The presentation highlighted 18 recommended changes from the Planning Commission, incorporating feedback from numerous advisory committees including the Agricultural Advisory Committee, Climate Impact Advisory Committee, Food System Committee, Forest Advisory Committee, Surface Mining Advisory Committee, and others. But when Planning Director Mark Personius began explaining specific policy changes, the seemingly routine update took on greater complexity. ## The Mitigation Requirement: A New Approach to Urban Growth The first significant discussion centered on Policy 8A-15, which would require mitigation for the first time when agricultural lands are converted to Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). As Personius explained, "This would require mitigation acre on an acre by acre basis when, and if those agricultural lands are converted to UGA." The policy affects three cities in this update cycle: Everson, Nooksack, and Sumas. Personius described a process where cities would place covenants on converted lands, with fees paid at the time of annexation flowing to conservation easement programs to purchase agricultural development rights elsewhere. When Councilmember Todd Donovan asked about the legal framework for expanding UGAs into agricultural lands, Personius clarified that "the designation process is required if you're expanding a UGA into ag lands and it's just, it's a discretionary decision on council's part." He noted that while "all ag lands, right? Are important," some "are more significant than others," creating a balancing act for council decisions. This exchange revealed the tension facing the county's north county cities, which are "mostly surrounded by ag lands" and have limited growth options that don't involve agricultural conversion. ## Small-Lot Agriculture: Expanding the Supply Policy 8A-16 introduced another significant concept — the potential creation of additional agricultural lands through small-lot agricultural zoning. Personius described it as allowing "1 to 20, and we will be focussing on our 10 areas that had larger parcels, 10 acre, 20 acre parcels or larger that might be suitable for long term ag use." This policy represents an attempt to work toward the county's 100,000-acre agricultural land goal not just by protecting existing lands, but by actively creating new agricultural designations in rural areas. ## The Maps: Technical Questions with Policy Implications Councilmember Jon Scanlon's questions about mapping revealed the complexity of agricultural land classification. His focus on Map 8-1, showing different categories from "Prime farmland" to "Prime farmland if irrigated" and "protected from flooding," led to clarification that "prime farmland is the number 1 criteria that we use in designating those lands of long term commercial significance." This seemingly technical discussion touched on a fundamental question: How does the county prioritize lands that are immediately productive versus those requiring investment to reach their potential? ## Ben Elenbaas: A Farmer's Perspective on Policy Contradictions The meeting's most revealing moments came when Councilmember Ben Elenbaas, who farms in the county, provided an on-the-ground perspective on how policies actually affect agricultural operations. His concerns went far beyond the technical language to question the fundamental coherence of the county's approach. ### The Drainage Dilemma Elenbaas focused on what he saw as contradictory policies around drainage — essential infrastructure for much of the county's agricultural land. He pointed out that prime soils are often classified as "prime if drained and protected from flooding," but noted the conflict with the county's flood management approach: "our whole county concept right now towards managing our river is called what... flood plates by design, right?" "And so we're talking about protecting farmland from flooding on this side of our mouth, and on the other side of our mouth, we're saying, let's let her flood and kind of, you know, manage where it goes. Design where it goes," Elenbaas said. He described the practical impact: "I would much rather my cornfield be flooded all winter than it run through somebody's Front door on Main Street and Everson, right? So, like. Sure, let's make that plan, have it flood into the farm lands, but then we got to make sure that we have the tools to be able to deal with that." ### The "Ongoing Agriculture" Problem Elenbaas highlighted what he sees as a particularly problematic policy around "ongoing agriculture" — the requirement that land be actively farmed three out of five years to maintain certain protections. Under current policy, if someone claims ongoing agricultural use, staff "would look back if someone claims that we look back at the aerials and try to determine if that particular piece of property was in ag use at that time." "This ongoing agriculture definition as the same type of thing, like, you're forcing a farmer all the time. To farm fence line defence line ditch to ditch and it doesn't leave any, um. Ability to do some form of conservation. Voluntarily or willingly," Elenbaas explained. He compared it to water rights law: "It's kind of like the whole user, you lose it with your water rights deal. Like, it doesn't promote. Conservation of the resource." ### Infrastructure Maintenance Elenbaas also addressed drainage infrastructure maintenance, noting that historical cedar box drainage systems break down over time. He criticized policy language supporting only "existing drainage systems," calling it "not enabling language" but rather "language that is keeping" farmers from necessary improvements. "That's actually the language that is keeping. You know, if somebody comes in for a permit to do some drainage. I could see staff going. No, no, see right here. It says existing," he said. ### The Broader Critique Elenbaas's most striking comment came near the end of the discussion when he told Councilmember Donovan: "to me, Whatcom county policy. Is a bigger threat to agriculture than the growth of our small cities." This represented a fundamental challenge to the premise underlying much of the comprehensive planning process — that regulatory protection is the key to agricultural preservation. Instead, Elenbaas argued, "We make this whole chapter is about preserving land and then we fool ourselves about talking about how we're, we're going to do so well at it that we're going to bring. We're going to convert other land and land and then we literally have. A plan to flood the planes." ## Administrative Challenges and Clarifications The meeting also addressed several administrative questions that revealed the complexity of implementation. Donovan questioned Planning Commission additions that seemed to commit county resources to a forest collaborative and delete requirements for mineral resource land designation. Planning Commission member Dan Dunne, attending the meeting, clarified that the forest collaborative language responded to Forest Advisory Committee requests, and the mineral resource deletion simply removed "duplicative language." Similarly, questions about gravel extraction policy led to discussion of the practical impossibility of private gravel extraction due to the permitting process. As Elenbaas noted, "there's like 9 permits that are required and by the time you get your 9th, 1, the 1st, 1's already expired. So you have to start over." ## The Flood Plain Challenge The meeting's final substantive discussion addressed concerns about cities expanding into flood-prone areas. Personius provided updates on which proposals remained active, noting that Nooksack "is no longer proposing expansion into floodplain" while "Sumas has the proposed biggest expansion, both into floodplain and into ag lands." The discussion of flood mapping revealed additional complexity, with draft FEMA maps serving as "best available science" for planning purposes, supplemented by climate change modeling that shows potential additional flooding in low-lying areas. ## Planning Commission Progress Personius updated the council on Planning Commission progress, noting public hearings scheduled for December 4 on the final two UGA proposals (Blaine and Birch Bay) and Chapter 2 of the land use chapter. He projected that final Planning Commission recommendations would reach the council "sometime in January," though acknowledged some work might roll over into January. ## Unfinished Business The meeting concluded with acknowledgment that much work remains. Chair Galloway noted they would "block out another hour at our final council meeting next week. And a lot more time in the new year." Elenbaas promised to provide additional amendments "that are going to look a heck of a lot like the chapter 7 amendments. Same type of theme and that theme is that... We just, we do a real good job of preserving the land. We need to preserve the ability to farm." ## What's at Stake This special committee meeting revealed fundamental questions about agricultural land protection that go beyond zoning and designation processes. The tension between Elenbaas's on-the-ground farming perspective and the regulatory framework designed to protect agriculture highlights a central challenge in comprehensive planning: ensuring that protection policies don't inadvertently harm the activities they're meant to preserve. The discussion also showed the complexity facing north county cities trying to grow responsibly while surrounded by agricultural lands, and the county's attempts to balance growth needs with resource protection through mitigation and innovative approaches like small-lot agricultural zoning. As the comprehensive plan update moves toward final council consideration in 2025, these conversations about the relationship between policy and practice will likely prove central to the plan's ultimate success in preserving Whatcom County's agricultural heritage. The meeting adjourned at 9:56 AM, but the questions it raised about balancing protection with productivity will continue to shape the comprehensive planning process in the months ahead.