One of these two men is a humble public servant and the other is our nation’s president.

WTA is coming to the taxpayers for more money.  In their words, they say they need the increase to “maintain the existing amount of bus service or expand service.” My belief is that WTA is overspending it’s public funding right now, so I’d certainly hate to see them expand their overspending.

WTA is not self supporting by a country mile and I see no indication that they are trying to move that direction.  Whether you use WTA or not, tax payers cover roughly 90% of WTA’s revenue, while actual riders only cover 10% for a service that they use.  For perspective, consider that the even the often maligned Lummi Island Ferry collects fares which cover half of their expenses.  WTA’s financing strategy is outrageously out of balance.

Expanding WTA service will only cost taxpayers more money because the routes with the highest ridership and therefore, most effective use of taxpayers money are already covered.  Additional routes will have less ridership and therefore be the most heavily subsidized routes.  WTA should be favoring the most ridden routes if they truly wish to both serve the public and be good stewards of our taxpayer dollars.

Our state and federal tax dollars also help prop up WTA. That’s right. While rider fares account for only about $2-$3 million per year towards operating expenses, we taxpayers are kicking in another $20 million or so for expenses and we are also paying another 5-6 million in state and federal taxes for capital projects like new buses and transit stations.

WTA is not an essential service in the same respect as Fire, Police, Medical.  I’d say that for the elderly and disabled, WTA’s Para Transit is leaning that direction, but in general though, not having bus service poses no threat to our immediate well being and there is no 911 option to have a bus dispatched to your home.  Yes, as much as WTA and many of their supporters would like us to believe, there are other ways to get around.   Scooter, friends, family, taxi, biking, walking and let’s face it, your car.  For many in Whatcom County a car in the driveway is way more essential than a bus that passes a mile away from your home.

WTA is not servicing the average person in Whatcom County.  Recently WTA conducted a survey which was to “measure the satisfaction of the general public and riders with services.” Yet the Herald article covering the survey failed to mention that half of the “general public” they surveyed live in Bellingham and almost half the riders of WTA were found to be WWU students.  If more money is to be sought for operating costs, WTA should look to those who are using their service.

WTA doesn’t have any publically stated goal of reducing their financial burden on the average Whatcom resident and they have no track record.  So, in a time when we are all taking a critical look at how we are spending our limited resources, WTA is asking us to dig into our pockets and pull out a  33% increase for them.

I am in no way opposed to WTA nor public transit systems in general, but my intention is to vote NO to this measure on April 27.

link to WTA budgets

Since moving to the area 9 years ago, I’ve gotten used to bickering, accusations, partisan slams, and science nitpicks, all surrounding the issue of Lake Whatcom water quality.  As someone who spent my first few college years studying chemistry with the intent of  spending my career life outdoors, I am somewhat familiar with the subject and so found it interesting.  The science is interesting, not the bickering and partisan stuff.

In my opinion it would be foolish to argue that the problems with Lake Whatcom are not due primarily to we people.  It seems intuitive that if man had never visited this lake, the water quality would generally be much better.  The area ecosystem would also be much more robust and able to handle periodic heavy rains, occasional dry spells, and a mud or land slide here and there.

Last time I checked there were people living around the lake and it didn’t look like they were packing to leave.  So the problem we have is the problem we have.   There are too many nutrients and too little oxygen.  Too much phosphorus in various forms.  Too much fecal coli form.  Too many algae blooms and too many dead fish.  And the list could go on.   I read various shades of partisanship when experts and officials study pollution sources, but whether it’s bird poop or human poop, it’s still too much poop.  And whether soils entering the lake come from natural slides or excavators getting stuck, it’s still soil that wasn’t in the lake before.

We should encourage responsible use around Lake Whatcom as well as every other piece of land or water in the county, but encouragement alone won’t solve the problem and neither will draconian measures regarding sewage treatment, dishwasher soaps, etc.   And finger pointing is pretty counter productive unless everyone redirects their finger away from each other and towards the problem that we have created.

The real problem is that the natural state of the lake, which took thousands of years to develop, was forever altered about 70 years ago when we installed an intake pipe and a dam.  These two measures were taken to provide a consistent water supply both for drinking and industry.

1937, Control Dam installed on upper Whatcom creek to regulate level of lake

1939, new 7460 foot cement-lined 6.5 foot-diameter tunnel dug between treatment plant and lake. By early 40’s, joined to 1260-foot wooden intake pipe extending into basin 2

This solution to their water supply issue at the time, created a 2-fold interrelated problem that we are still suffering from today.  The natural flow of the lake and the natural level of the lake were significantly altered.

Prior to these events all water coming into the lake went out over Whatcom Falls alone, creating a natural South to North flow and consistent mixing throughout the whole body of water.  The lake level was also regulated by the shelf at the falls which is at about 308 ft. above sea level.

The legal maximum lake level was established at 314.94 feet by Whatcom County Superior Court in 1953.  The City of Bellingham controls lake level by a control dam at the head of Whatcom Creek

Considering that Lake Whatcom has about 30 miles of shoreline, how much new soil was introduced into the lake as the water level was raised?   Just a rough order of magnitude calculation suggests millions of cubic feet.  One of the arguments against development in the lake area has to do with the potential damage from soil erosion.  Again, I’d be foolish to argue that development won’t have any impact on the lake, but any normal development issues would seem to pale next to 30 miles of shoreline mixing in the lake.

It may not have been a coincidence that one historical source I looked at noted that during the “1940’s and since: there has been about one fish-kill per decade “

Historical information also pointed out a big issue regarding water flow through the lake.  Prior to the COB pipeline, when the lake flow was natural, as little as 5-8 million gallons of of water flowed through the creek during much of the year.   I can’t find a definitive number, but it looks like the COB and others are draining anywhere from 5-20 million gallons per day from near the middle of the lake.  The net effect during much of the year would be the creation of backwater areas with relatively little flow.  To add insult to the condition of the lake, these backwater areas are also the shallowest and most developed areas of the lake.  Anything, natural or unnatural that enters the lake in these areas during warmer weather will just sit there simmering in a big crock pot.

I’m not advocating flushing the lake with extra water to remove pollutants, however restoring normal flow would both move the warmest water off the surface and down the creek as well as helping to mix the layers of water that remain in the lake.

So what’s wrong with Lake Whatcom is that we screwed it up trying to make it water reservoir.  We put in the dam and we put in a new drain.   We can stop all development, fine people who won’t use eco-friendly soap, bring litigation on parents who let their kids pee while learning to swim, heck we could even diapers the ducks, but the lake won’t be fixed unless we undo our screw ups; plug the hole and remove the dam.  Restore the lake to restore the lake.

Plugging the drain would initially leave a lot of thirsty and ripe smelling hamsters who could either leave or come up with a solution that keeps the lake healthy.  One solution would be to remove the water after it leaves the lake and storing it in a reserve that is protected from landslides, diaperless ducks and other previously mentioned calamities.  And perhaps some progressive thinker would figure out a way to glean a little hydro power from the water as it travels down the hill to the holding pond.

I’ll grant that this is a costly solution, but it is the only real solution seen.   And it’s not like their hasn’t been a lot of money thrown at studies, experts and enforcement, we just need to redirect the aim towards a solution.

links,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Whatcom

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0803024.pdf

http://www.cob.org/services/environment/water-quality/lake-whatcom.aspx

http://lakewhatcom.org/faq4.shtml

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0403015.html

http://www.acadweb.wwu.edu/cpnws/RWC/Draftnar.htm

Pacific Reporter

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~gmyers/ehe/lake.whatcom.timeline.html

http://cob.org/

What went on in Vancouver with the black bloc protestors does not look like a freedom of speech issue to me. It looks childish and criminal.