Whatcom County Council Planning and Development Committee

**Meeting ID:** WHA-CON-PDV-2025-12-09 # Whatcom County Planning and Development Committee — December 9, 2025 ## Meeting Overview The Whatcom County Planning and Development Committee convened on December 9, 2025, for a packed 97-minute session that tackled some of the county's most complex land and water challenges. Committee Chair Ben Elenbaas presided over the hybrid meeting with all three committee members present: Todd Donovan, Jon Scanlon, and Elenbaas himself. Also attending were Council members Barry Buchanan, Tyler Byrd, Kaylee Galloway, and Mark Stremler. The meeting centered on three major items: a comprehensive presentation on water availability for agricultural lands, a contentious debate over mining regulations and agricultural lot clustering, and a discussion about new state requirements for accessory dwelling units. What emerged was a portrait of a county grappling with fundamental questions about growth, water scarcity, and how to balance competing interests in land use planning. ## The Water Crisis Reality Check The centerpiece of the meeting was a detailed presentation from the Washington Water Trust about their Land and Water Integration Study — research that delivered sobering conclusions about the county's agricultural future. Jason Hatch and Solvei Metcalf from the Water Trust, along with Planning Unit representatives Kaia Hayes and Henry Bierlink, presented findings that fundamentally challenge assumptions about farmland preservation in Whatcom County. The study examined three Rural Study Areas (RSAs) — Custer Grandview, Guide Aldridge, and Ten Mile — areas designated for potential agricultural use but currently zoned rural. These areas contain parcels ranging from small 5-acre plots to larger 20-acre tracts, with significant development potential still unrealized. Guide Aldridge alone has 196 potential development units available under current zoning, while Custer Grandview has 329 potential units. The water situation proved stark. "There are insufficient irrigation water rights currently to support agriculture," Metcalf reported. The study found that existing water systems — Lake Terrell Water Association, Custer Water Association, and Deer Creek Water Association — have only 136 available connections combined, with unclear availability within the RSAs themselves. Most concerning, existing PUD infrastructure doesn't reach these areas, and additional infrastructure would need to be built to deliver water to any of the three study areas. Hatch explained the broader context: "Climate change will further constrain water availability. That means the hydrograph will have greater availability in the winter and early spring months and less in late season when consumptive demand, agricultural and other demand is needed." This timing mismatch between water availability and agricultural need compounds the existing shortage. The presentation explored alternatives — an agricultural water bank similar to one in the Snoqualmie Valley, potential PUD capacity expansion, even the theoretical availability of Bellingham's unused Middle Fork water right. But all solutions faced the same fundamental challenge: conveyance. How do you move water from source to farm? "Conveyance, the ability to move water around from if the source is the Nooksack River, you have to be able to move it around to these RSAs," Hatch noted. The study identified existing drainage ditches and canals as potential rights-of-way for water distribution infrastructure, but acknowledged this would require major investment. The discussion took a philosophical turn when Chair Elenbaas pressed the core question: was the study essentially concluding that these rural areas cannot support viable commercial agriculture without major water infrastructure investment? "So was the purpose of this study to look at the feasibility of small lot ag, or was the purpose of the study — what was the stated purpose?" Hatch's response was nuanced but clear: viable commercial agriculture in these areas would require either securing substantial new water sources or developing alternative agricultural practices using less water-demanding crops. "There may be a need to adapt some practices which rely on less water demand crops that also provide high value," he explained. Henry Bierlink, representing the agricultural community on the Planning Unit, emphasized the urgency: "The future of ag for sure is in jeopardy with the adjudication. We have a number of people that are having inadequate water rights. A couple summers ago they were actually out of water, some of the farms." ## Mining Regulations and Agricultural Clustering Controversy The second major agenda item sparked intense debate over two proposed amendments to the county's land use code. Council member Mark Stremler proposed allowing vertical expansion of mines through administrative permit revisions, while Ben Elenbaas suggested changes to agricultural lot clustering rules to allow wells on reserve tracts. The mining amendment drew strong opposition from Planning and Development Services staff. Amy Keenan explained their concerns: "The ADM revision criteria do not allow for public noticing, an open public hearing. These issues certainly are of interest to the neighboring properties and whenever we have a surface mine permit proposal, we get lots of comments and people attend the public hearings." Andy Wiser added that a recent hearing examiner decision had specifically ruled against allowing vertical mine expansion through administrative revisions, citing potential environmental impacts and the lack of public participation in the administrative process. Stremler defended his proposal with economic arguments: "The industry is saying that if vertical is included in this, it's going to be more burdensome. There's more cost. And they may just say, in a sense, the heck with it, it's not worth it. The result of that is the cost of these materials is going to go up because there will be less access to it." He emphasized the practical reality of mine operations: "There's only 2 ways for mining operations to go — out and down. What I hear from that industry is they understand that if they're going to go out or lateral that there are definitely more considerations to look at, but going down is a different story." The discussion revealed the complexity of mine regulation. Council member Donovan asked whether vertical expansion meant going up or down, prompting clarification that it typically means digging deeper, often below the groundwater table — precisely the situation that raises the most environmental concerns. Council member Scanlon questioned why vertical expansion should bypass public notification requirements: "If I'm a neighboring business, say it's another mine next door, I would want to know what my neighbor is doing. If it's a commercial business, a home, a farm, I would want to know what's going on next door. So I would want to maintain that." On the agricultural clustering issue, Elenbaas proposed allowing wells that serve clustered development to be located on the reserve agricultural tract, rather than requiring them on the development parcels. His argument focused on efficiency: if you could shrink development lots by putting wells elsewhere, more land would remain available for farming. Amy Keenan from planning staff expressed concerns about protecting wellhead areas on agricultural land: "If we put wells for cluster lots on the reserve track, we need to have, we need to be sure that we can protect those well radiuses and those would be then removed from agriculture." Elenbaas countered with practical farming knowledge: "100 feet is the area that a tractor can turn around in. So if it's in, say, the corner or like a triangle shaped portion of the property, which ends up happening the majority of the time in these cluster divisions... You gain more land on the reserve track than you give up with the buffer for the wellhead." After extensive debate, the committee voted 2-1 to remove both controversial amendments from the ordinance package, allowing the remaining code changes to move forward while giving staff more time to study the mining and clustering issues. Donovan cast the lone dissenting vote, supporting one amendment but not both. ## Housing Density and State Mandates The final major discussion centered on new state requirements for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and co-living housing. The state is mandating that urban growth areas allow up to two ADUs per lot and eliminate certain development restrictions, effective December 31st. Two competing approaches emerged. Planning staff proposed requiring connection to public sewer systems for second ADUs, while Council member Galloway's alternative version would allow them on septic systems and expand permissible structures to include barns. Maddie Schacht from planning staff explained their reasoning: "We were proposing that in order to have that 2nd ADU on a lot, it would need to be hooked up to a public sewer system. That's because in urban growth areas, you're wanting to try and develop the areas that have public services first and reserve those areas that don't for higher density later once they get incorporated into cities." The debate revealed competing philosophies about urban growth area development. Deputy Executive Aly Pennucci articulated the planning concern: "If you allow that development to occur before sewer and those sorts of things have been extended, it could make it even less likely that it will ever get annexed or fully developed." Chair Elenbaas pushed back with practical arguments: "If you want to functionally disallow ADUs in a UGA, the first thing you would do is require city services like water and sewer because they don't extend the services out to the UGA... by definition, that's why they're still not built out." He emphasized the real-world impact: "People aren't going to build ADUs in this area like brand new builds. They're going to find the barn or the shed that's already there and modify it as cheap as they can to make a room for their 22-year-old that can't find $180,000 a year job in this county." The septic system question drew technical input from the health department. Hayli Hruza noted complications: "With the new septic code changes, based on the square footage of the lot determines the amount of nitrogen that can be produced from the sewage on the property... folks will have to basically install a new septic system, either for all the use on the property or for just the new ADU." Council member Galloway defended her more permissive approach: "My intention for allowing 2 ADUs would still assume that the septic and the sewer and the well and all that would have capacity for the unit. I wouldn't want it to be out of compliance there." The discussion also covered co-living housing — arrangements where people rent individual rooms in a house while sharing common areas. Galloway's version would extend this option beyond urban growth areas to all residential zones, while staff recommended limiting it to areas already allowing multifamily housing. ## Closing and What's Ahead The meeting concluded with both housing ordinances scheduled for public hearings that same evening — an unusual situation that highlighted the pressure to meet state deadlines. The land and water study presentation, while requiring no immediate action, set the stage for fundamental conversations about the county's agricultural future and water policy. The planning unit extended an invitation for future joint meetings with the council to delve deeper into the water integration challenges. As Kaia Hayes put it: "We would love to, through whatever channels are most appropriate, decide whether that makes sense in a future council meeting or committee meeting, or if it makes sense for council members to join us at a future planning unit meeting." The mood as the meeting adjourned was one of unfinished business and looming decisions. The water study had laid bare the constraints facing agricultural preservation efforts. The mining and clustering amendments were tabled but not resolved. And the housing regulations faced immediate public hearings with significant policy implications still under debate. These issues — water scarcity, growth management, housing affordability, and economic development — represent the interconnected challenges that will dominate Whatcom County's policy discussions in the coming year. As Chair Elenbaas noted, "All of this stuff ties together," and the decisions made in the coming months will shape the county's landscape for decades to come.