# Road Vacations and Sewage Systems: A Morning in Whatcom County Committee Work ## Meeting Overview Tuesday morning brought a routine but important session of the Whatcom County Council Public Works & Health Committee to order at 11:37 a.m. in the familiar hybrid format that has become standard — some members gathered in council chambers while others joined online. Committee Chair Jon Scanlon presided over the February 11, 2025 meeting with committee members Mark Stremler present in person and Ben Elenbaas participating remotely. Also observing were council members Barry Buchanan, Tyler Byrd, Todd Donovan, and Kaylee Galloway. The agenda carried two items, both bound for introduction at that evening's council meeting — a straightforward road vacation request and a comprehensive update to county sewage regulations mandated by new state rules. What unfolded was a window into the detailed, technical work that underlies much of local government: ensuring property rights align with reality on the ground, and adapting local code to evolving state environmental standards. The meeting moved efficiently through both items, with staff providing clear explanations and council members asking practical questions about implementation and costs. There was an underlying current of concern about affordability — whether these regulatory changes, however well-intentioned, might create additional financial burdens for property owners and businesses. ## The Camp 2 Road Vacation: When Houses Don't Match Maps Andrew Hester from Whatcom County Public Works began the meeting by explaining what seemed like a simple request that revealed a not-uncommon property ownership puzzle. A portion of Camp 2 Road, located off Kane Lake Road near the county's southern boundary, needed to be vacated because a homeowner had discovered their house was partially sitting within the county's right-of-way. "The reason they want the vacation is when they purchase the property after they had done a survey, they found out that a portion of their actual house was within the right away," Hester explained to the committee. "So a pretty obvious reason for wanting a vacation and we saw nothing necessarily against recommending it." The situation illustrated a reality that property owners sometimes discover to their dismay: official maps and on-the-ground reality don't always align. Council member Todd Donovan pressed for clarity, noting that the county's parcel viewer showed no house where the engineer's report indicated one existed. "So is this they want to build a house on this land or you're saying the house is already there?" Donovan asked, zooming in on the digital maps during the meeting. Hester confirmed the house had been there "for a while" and included building permits in their vacation petition. The discrepancy between the GIS mapping and actual conditions, he explained, wasn't unusual. "Sometimes those lines are getting a lot better than they used to be, but there are still discrepancies, especially around bodies of water, which there is that lake by there." The conversation took on a practical tone as Hester acknowledged this wasn't an isolated incident. "There's been at least one or two other road vacations I've worked on that are kind of similar circumstances," he noted, while also sharing wisdom from his former supervisor: "The only advice I always got from my old boss was never trust the aerial maps. Always go and look at the property because you never can trust those aerial maps." The county had worked with the property owner to minimize the vacation area, preserving additional right-of-way for potential stormwater drainage needs while providing just enough space to resolve the house's encroachment. Staff recommended approval, and the item would proceed to a public hearing, likely at the first council meeting in March due to additional notification requirements for road vacations. ## Comprehensive Sewage Code Updates: Balancing Environment and Affordability The meeting's more substantial discussion centered on proposed amendments to the county's onsite sewage system regulations. Hayli Hruza from Health and Community Services walked the committee through an extensive presentation detailing changes driven by new state rules and refined through months of local stakeholder engagement. The process Hruza outlined demonstrated the county's methodical approach to regulatory updates. After receiving final state rules in March 2024, the county formed a technical advisory group comprising "onsite sewage system industry professionals designer, oh, and I'm specialist so that like is an evaluation specialist and maintenance specialist. Pumpers and installers." The group reviewed proposed changes for clarity and practical implementation, then the draft was shared with four community groups including shellfish advisory board committees, the realtors association, and the building industry association. ### Land Requirements and Environmental Protection One of the most significant changes involved increased land area requirements for new development — an additional 500 to 1,000 square feet depending on water source and soil type. More substantially, the state was introducing an entirely new concept called "minimum usable land area." "You might have a five acre parcel, but you actually only have one acre that's usable," Hruza explained. "So say that five acre parcel has a lake on it or a small pond. That land area is actually like not usable for sewage disposal. So it's removed out of what's considered or required for land development." The change reflected growing environmental concerns, particularly around nitrogen contamination of groundwater. Property owners could work around the usable land requirement by choosing septic systems that specifically treat for nitrogen, providing a technological solution to the environmental challenge. ### Practical Implementation Changes The code updates included numerous practical adjustments. Homeowners would face new restrictions on self-installation of septic systems, now prohibited within 200 feet of marine shorelines and 100 feet of any surface water. The county was formalizing its existing practice of requiring a "homeowner exemption packet" to prevent improper installations. For restaurants, a new requirement for waste strength sampling would affect those using onsite systems. Hruza was direct about the cost implications: "I want to be really transparent about that. And that could be an impact." The sampling would help ensure that restaurants' high-strength waste was being properly treated, particularly important in areas with permeable soils where inadequate treatment could impact groundwater. ### The Affordability Question Council member Ben Elenbaas raised the fundamental question that underlied much of the discussion: "Do any of these proposed changes make things less costly for the homeowner or because I just sat here and listened to it and everything I read. I'm just like, that's just going to cost more money." Hruza acknowledged the cost concerns while explaining the long-term benefits. Better nitrogen treatment would protect well water quality, she noted, and reducing nutrients going to drain fields could extend system life by preventing the buildup of bio-mat that eventually causes system failure. "If there's less nutrients going to that, then that drain field is not going to build up a bio mat as fast," she explained. "But yeah, those are things to consider and just want to be really transparent about all those processes." The county maintained programs to help offset costs, including rebates for required evaluations and low-interest loans through CRAFT3, along with grants from the Department of Ecology for homeowners required to upgrade failing systems. ### Meeting State Deadlines The urgency of the discussion was driven by state-imposed deadlines. April 1st would bring most changes into effect, with additional requirements phasing in through February 2027. The county was also required to update its local management plan within two years, a process that would involve county council approval and public input. "A local management plan essentially helps us administer our resources where we're going to focus efforts and what will require in different geographical areas," Hruza explained, noting the plan would need to address phosphorus and nitrogen contamination concerns and consider sea level rise impacts. ## Process and Public Input Considerations As the sewage code discussion concluded, committee members considered whether a public hearing was needed beyond the standard introduction and adoption process. While legal staff had indicated it wasn't required, Scanlon noted that "a lot of our other big code amendments, typically go before public hearing." The question was left for further consideration, with Scanlon suggesting it could be discussed during that evening's introduction. The approach reflected the committee's attention to public engagement on regulatory changes that would affect property owners, businesses, and the development community. ## Closing and Next Steps The meeting adjourned at 12:09 p.m., both items having received thorough discussion and moving forward to evening introduction. The road vacation would proceed through its required public hearing process, while the sewage code amendments faced the April 1st deadline for compliance with new state environmental standards. For observers, the session provided insight into the detailed technical work of local government — ensuring property rights, protecting environmental resources, and balancing regulatory compliance with practical implementation concerns. The discussions revealed ongoing tensions between environmental protection goals and affordability concerns, challenges that local governments across Washington state were grappling with as they adapted to evolving state environmental standards. Both items represented the routine but essential work of local government: resolving property conflicts that arise from imperfect mapping, and updating regulations to protect public health and environmental resources while considering the practical impacts on property owners and businesses. The committee's methodical approach and attention to stakeholder input demonstrated the deliberative process behind regulatory changes that might otherwise seem bureaucratic to outside observers.