Whatcom County Council Special Committee of the Whole

**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 pot

# 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.

A structured study guide helping readers understand the meeting's content and context. ### Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Council met in special Committee of the Whole session on December 2, 2025, to discuss preliminary Planning Commission recommendations on the county's Comprehensive Plan Chapter 8 (Resource Lands) as part of the 2025 comprehensive plan update. The meeting focused heavily on agricultural land preservation, flood management, and urban growth area expansions. ### Key Terms and Concepts **Growth Management Act (GMA):** Washington state law requiring counties to plan for growth while protecting natural resources and agricultural lands. **Urban Growth Area (UGA):** Designated boundaries within which urban growth is encouraged and outside of which growth is generally prohibited under the Growth Management Act. **Agricultural Lands of Long-Term Commercial Significance:** Prime farmland that counties must identify and protect under state law, typically including the best soils and most economically viable farming areas. **De-designation:** The process of removing agricultural land from protected status, typically required when cities want to expand their urban growth boundaries into farmland. **Ongoing Agriculture:** A regulatory definition requiring land to be actively farmed 3 out of the last 5 years to maintain certain agricultural protections and exemptions. **Conservation Futures Fund:** A county program that uses property tax revenue to purchase development rights or conservation easements on important natural resource lands. **Mitigation (Agricultural):** New requirement that cities pay fees or provide conservation easements to offset the conversion of agricultural land to urban use. **Critical Areas Ordinance:** County regulations protecting environmentally sensitive areas including wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat, and flood zones. ### Key People at This Meeting | Name | Role / Affiliation | |---|---| | Kaylee Galloway | Council Chair | | Todd Donovan | Councilmember | | Ben Elenbaas | Councilmember, farmer | | Jon Scanlon | Councilmember | | Mark Stremler | Councilmember | | Barry Buchanan | Councilmember | | Lucas Clark | Planning & Development Services staff | | Mark Personius | Planning & Development Services Director | | Dan Dunne | Planning Commissioner | | Rollin Harper | Planner for cities of Everson, Nooksack, and Sumas | ### Background Context Whatcom County is updating its comprehensive plan, a long-range planning document required by state law that guides development and resource protection for the next 20 years. Chapter 8 deals with resource lands—agricultural, forest, marine, and mineral lands that provide economic benefits and need protection from urban development. The county faces tension between preserving its agricultural base (with a goal of maintaining 100,000 acres of farmland) and allowing small cities to grow. Three cities—Everson, Nooksack, and Sumas—want to expand their urban growth boundaries into agricultural land, which requires complex legal processes and now, for the first time, mitigation payments. Flooding adds another layer of complexity. Some proposed development areas are in flood-prone zones, and climate change is making flooding worse. Meanwhile, farmers struggle with drainage issues and regulations that make it difficult to maintain the infrastructure needed for viable agriculture. ### What Happened — The Short Version Staff presented the Planning Commission's recommendations for Chapter 8 of the comprehensive plan, which covers agricultural, forest, marine, and mineral resource lands. The biggest change is a new requirement that cities pay mitigation fees when they convert agricultural land for urban development. Three cities—Everson, Nooksack, and Sumas—want to expand into agricultural land. Under the new policy, they would have to pay fees that go toward purchasing conservation easements on other farmland, creating no net loss of agricultural acreage. Councilmember Elenbaas, who is a farmer, raised concerns that county policies intended to protect farmland actually make farming harder. He cited issues with drainage maintenance, flood management, and regulations that force farmers to use every acre or risk losing agricultural protections. The discussion also covered flood maps, with staff clarifying that they must use new "draft" FEMA flood maps rather than older "effective" maps when making planning decisions. ### What to Watch Next • Planning Commission will hold final hearings on remaining urban growth area proposals on December 4 and aims to finish recommendations by December 18 • Full Planning Commission recommendations expected to reach Council in January 2026 • Council will consider member amendments to the comprehensive plan in upcoming meetings • Critical areas ordinance update planned for 2026, which could address some farming-related regulatory concerns ---

**Q:** What new requirement was proposed for cities that want to expand into agricultural land? **A:** Cities must provide acre-for-acre mitigation by paying fees to the Conservation Futures Fund to purchase agricultural conservation easements on other properties. **Q:** Which three cities are affected by the new agricultural mitigation policy? **A:** Everson, Nooksack, and Sumas—all of which want to expand their urban growth boundaries into agricultural land. **Q:** What is the county's goal for agricultural land preservation? **A:** Maintaining 100,000 acres of agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance. **Q:** What does "ongoing agriculture" mean in county regulations? **A:** Land must be actively farmed 3 out of the last 5 years to maintain agricultural protections and exemptions. **Q:** What did Councilmember Elenbaas identify as the biggest threat to agriculture in Whatcom County? **A:** County policies that make farming difficult, which he considers a greater threat than urban growth into farmland. **Q:** What are "draft FEMA maps" and why do they matter? **A:** New flood maps that show more accurate flood risks including climate change impacts, which the county must use instead of older "effective" maps for planning decisions. **Q:** Who is Lucas Clark? **A:** Planning and Development Services staff member who presented Chapter 8 of the comprehensive plan to the Council. **Q:** What is Policy 8A-15? **A:** The new policy requiring mitigation for conversion of agricultural lands to urban growth areas, affecting three cities in this update cycle. **Q:** What concern did Councilmember Donovan raise about city proposals? **A:** That expanding into agricultural land and floodplains may be legally problematic and could lead to hearings board challenges. **Q:** What is the Marine Resource Committee and why was it mentioned? **A:** A county advisory committee that made recommendations on Chapter 8 that weren't included in the staff memo or draft language. **Q:** What did the Planning Commission add regarding forest management? **A:** Language committing county staff time and resources to support a forest collaborative for expanded timber harvest and restoration. **Q:** What is Policy 8A-16 about? **A:** A potential program to create additional agricultural lands through small-lot agriculture zones in areas with larger parcels suitable for farming. **Q:** How many permits does gravel extraction from rivers typically require? **A:** Nine permits, according to Councilmember Elenbaas, who noted that by the time you get the ninth permit, the first one has expired. **Q:** What is the significance of prime agricultural soils being "drained"? **A:** Much of the county's best farmland requires drainage systems to be productive, but drainage maintenance faces regulatory obstacles. **Q:** When does the Planning Commission expect to finish its comprehensive plan recommendations? **A:** December 18, 2025, with final recommendations forwarded to Council in January 2026. **Q:** What is the "floods by design" concept? **A:** A flood management approach that allows controlled flooding of agricultural areas to protect developed areas, which creates tension with agricultural drainage needs. **Q:** What did cities indicate they're willing to do regarding floodplain development? **A:** Extinguish development rights in flood-prone areas or use restrictive covenants and fees to address flood risks. **Q:** How many councilmembers were present at this meeting? **A:** Six councilmembers were present, with Tyler Byrd absent. **Q:** What is the Future Shorelines Project? **A:** A study on sea level rise and flood rise that created additional flood mapping showing climate change impacts beyond draft FEMA maps. **Q:** When is the critical areas ordinance scheduled for update? **A:** 2026, which could provide an opportunity to address farming-related regulatory concerns raised in the meeting. ---