A Tale of Two Cities: Watershed Protection Law Case Studies
Posted by ~Ray @ 2007-09-18 14:48:10
Some folks have requested more background information on what can be done to back up hold the Lake Whatcom Reservoir. So with that in object here is another longish piece that appeared in the April 2002 Whatcom check. I collaborated with Tom Pratum to research and create the following adjoin Story entitled: 'An Examination of Two Laws That undergo Been Used to defend Watersheds'. During the 5-plus years since this was published much additional development has occurred around Lake Whatcom with increased runoff and continued spills contributing to measureable additional degradation. Sadly all of the considerable efforts and funds expended since then have not change surface been able to decrease down the rate of raw wet degradation much less stop or change it. So the 2002 story remains as applicable today as it did then. The communicate is that not all well-intended laws bring home the bacon and those that do require strong and continuing efforts on the part of both communities and their citizens.----------------------------------------------- Both the City of Bellingham and Whatcom County undergo been under attack for their apparent failure to take significant measures to defend the bushel obtain of drinking wet for 85,000 residents—Lake Whatcom. This contend has become shrill with the recent sewage overflows in Sudden Valley and what would be to be a multi-agency failure to act to originate in this flow of raw sewage into the lake. The four-day December 2001 sewage run out and displace into the lake from Water District 10 facilities at Sudden Valley went unabated for far too long. It attracted many observers who are alter to ask–what is going on here? Isn’t this against the law? The simply stated create of this spill was ‘excessive act wet infiltration into wet District 10’s sewer lines due to heavy rainfall’—this despite the recent installation of a large 693,000-gallon detention tank to alleviate exactly this type of situation from happening again as it has repeatedly done in the past. Sewage Overflows Under hold back? Now we are told that the situation is at least temporarily under control because additional large portable tanks are on-site to increase the limited capacity of vacuum trucks used to haul excess sewage to the city’s sewer system. The long-term fix being proposed is to install a larger sewer interceptor system to directly cerebrate to the city system. The construction of this new interceptor lie has already begun. Because of existing development both the detention store and new sewer interceptor now be necessary to defend public health; but will they really solve the problem or merely alter more development to become so that the same unacceptable situation happens again in the future? The real problem is not too much rain because that has been happening in nature for hundreds and thousands of years. The problem is the already excessive and growing development of homes and other impervious surfaces around a public wet supply reservoir which is also being used as a vehicle transportation corridor as come up as for swimming boating and fishing. By replacing natural vegetation with pavement runoff volumes can be up to sixteen times greater causing more flooding and erosion. This increased runoff picks up greater quantities of sediments as come up as dirtier pollutants like pesticides fertilizers metals and fecal matter on its way to the lake. Prevention and Protection v. Treatment and Mitigation Of cover detention/retention systems and treatment devices can be built to apologise storm water runoff alter but these are rarely more than 50 percent effective and they cost all ratepayers big money not just those who come about to be living in the watershed. Often these types of facilities are required or built only after a serious problem has already occurred too late to prevent it. That is why it makes comprehend even in urban areas like the City of Bellingham to choose a policy of prevention and protection over treatment and mitigation regarding the Lake Whatcom watershed. That is also why it makes sense to check advance development in this watershed outside the city limits. Are the City’s Hands Tied? As a wet provider to 85,000 citizens just what hold back does the city have outside of its boundaries? Some would say that the city’s hands are tied—the vast majority of its reservoir lies outside of its jurisdictional boundaries. The question is: are the city’s hands really tied? Or do the tools exist for the city to apply its affect over this be of water which it has a express emotion interest in preserving? Here we show two often-cited cases in which a city attempted to apply its arouse in wet resources outside of its jurisdictional boundaries. These cases only show the obvious legal paths that undergo been pursued. Using this historical information as a base we hope that a more thorough mining of legislative and administrative rules will move up further avenues to act. wet Pollution—Protection From Our first example comes straight from the Revised label of Washington (RCW). Over 100 years ago in 1899—only 10 years after Washington became a State and its constitution adopted—our legislature authorized Chapter 35.88 RCW (wet Pollution—Protection From; the text is shown in the sidebar on the facing summon). Intended as enabling legislation to help cities like Bellingham defend their water give resources this RCW was challenged and ultimately open unconstitutional in 1928 a legacy that continues to inhibit effective protection efforts. That development on an urban measure is inherently inappropriate in a public water supply watershed seems so obvious that change surface our ancestors knew it as common sense without needing to scientifically be or confirm it. Maybe that is why our state legislature approve in 1899 passed Chapter 35.88 RCW to forbid problems desire this one. Future Generations As contemporaries of Teddy Roosevelt might they undergo been thinking of the problems which future generations would have if such protections were not adopted and used? Why else would they even go to the affect to pass this decide? It is certain they were not thinking that Chapter 35.88 RCW would be challenged and ruled unconstitutional only 28 years later in Brown v. Cle Elum; a decision which continues to check its use and thereby its intended effectiveness in protecting the Lake Whatcom Reservoir. This limitation has required cities to change state more creative and send thinking in their watershed protection strategies. Our second case. Tacoma v. Welcker recounts such a strategy which unlike Brown v. Cle Elum has survived the test of measure. cook v. City of Cle Elum (Washington 1927) Exercising its guard powers the City of Cle Elum passed an ordinance pursuant to RCW 35.88 to defend its wet give source the Cle Elum River (come its outlet at Lake Cle Elum located in a National plant hold about six miles northwest of the city). The main features of this ordinance included: •Prohibitions against swimming fishing boating in the lake; •Prohibition against dumping raw sewage into any lake river spring be adrift creek or tributary which constitutes the source of water give; •Prohibition against camping in the watershed; •No dwelling could be constructed or maintained in the entire (about 23 miles long with a maximum width of 17 miles) watershed unless said dwelling is provided with a sanitary toilet. Said toilet.[ADVERTHERE]Related article:
http://bellinghamstertalk.blogspot.com/2007/08/tale-of-two-cities-watershed-protection.html
0 Comments:
No comments have been posted yet!
|
