Guest writer: Pay close attention to candidates’ stances on Lake Whatcom water quality

The lake needs recovery action, not lip service and promises of 'responsible development'

The upcoming city council election can have a monumental impact on Lake Whatcom. The lake, the drinking water source for over 100,000 residents, is on the 303(d) list of the Clean Water Act as a threatened and impaired water body. While positive steps have been taken to reduce phosphorus in the lake, such as retrofitting stormwater and purchasing undeveloped land, lake restoration is slow and inadequate.

City and county officials cite slightly decreased total inorganic nitrogen levels as improvement. However, algal blooms and cyanobacteria, known as blue-green algae, continue to rise and may be harmful. Excessive phosphorus is the key nutrient in the lake that increases algae blooms and consumes oxygen in the water. Lake Whatcom has experienced unchanged oxygen dead zones during August and September for the past 20 years. Those dead zones are now larger, harming fish and other aquatic species that need oxygen to survive.

Since not all development in the watershed has been mitigated for stormwater runoff, roofs, roads, driveways, and lawns speed the flow of stormwater to the lake without filtering out phosphorus and bacteria. This slows recovery and continues to degrade the lake.

Residential developments within the city limits on the non-lake side have been retrofitted to remove phosphorus, but development along the waterfront lacks the required stormwater mitigation. Stormwater runoff from multi-family housing developments like Old Mill Village flows directly into the lake. These loopholes allow phosphorus-laden runoff to seep into creeks, ditches, and into the lake. Runoff includes fertilizers, rodenticides, oil, benzene, and other heavy metals, fecals, and other pollutants.

Recovery actions came late in the game, bending for years to developers’ whims until public pressure and the 303(d) listing required formative action. Because Lake Whatcom continues to miss the state-regulated mark for dissolved oxygen, recovery is expensive. At least $50 million has been spent on Lake Whatcom work plans, and another $70.9 million will be spent over the next five years. Some council members question whether enough progress has been made to shift away from Lake Whatcom and on to other city and county priorities.

The answer is an unequivocal ‘no.’

Lake Whatcom is our drinking water reservoir and a popular recreation venue. Studies show that boat activity on the lake can stir up phosphorus-laden sediment and increase algae growth. Wakeboard boats should operate in depths of 20 feet or greater, and other powerboats should operate in depths of 10 feet or greater to avoid phosphorus release.

Phosphorus fertilizer is banned in the watershed, but there is no widespread education or enforcement. New tenants and homeowners are not routinely provided with educational information and are often unaware that they live in the watershed. Glyphosate and rodenticides are not banned in the watershed, with no estimates of their use. Invasive species such as milfoil, Asian clams, Zebra, and Quagga mussels will disrupt entire food webs, impair drinking water, and harm water intake structures.

As climate change persists and worsens, the demands placed on Lake Whatcom will accelerate. Lake Whatcom may be forced to shoulder the burden for county dwellers whose water sources dry up. Prolonged and elevated temperatures will raise water temperatures, threatening aquatic life, such as kokanee. Algal blooms will increase, and oxygen levels will decrease. Oxygen dead zones will expand.

Some candidates running for both city and county councils tout the need for “responsible development” in the watershed, using a false narrative that the lake is sufficiently recovering. According to computer predictions by the Department of Ecology, the lake would meet state standards for dissolved oxygen if there were 87 percent less development than existed in 2010. Since then, zoning laws have allowed more development in the watershed!

More development means more benzene in the lake. The city’s water treatment is not designed to remove benzene; we need to decrease, not increase, cars on watershed roadways.

We cannot allow the discussion of Lake Whatcom’s continued degradation to be falsely replaced by the narrative that the lake has sufficiently “recovered” and can tolerate more development. We must demand that the city and county continue to invest in restoration and broaden recovery efforts that go beyond dissolved oxygen and phosphorus. Increased retrofitting of homes on the shoreline, the city’s five multi-housing parcels, and expanding county restrictions are essential.

Retrofitting neighborhoods cannot replace natural, undeveloped land to improve water quality. Undeveloped areas of the Lake Whatcom watershed allow phosphorus to slowly seep into the ground, where it’s filtered naturally before it reaches the lake. We must continue to expand watershed acquisition to allow for natural phosphorus filtration.

City and county council members must expand recovery efforts with increased action, not lip service and “responsible development.”

Dr. Susan Kane-Ronning is a Bellingham resident and licensed psychologist. She has been a Lake Whatcom activist for three decades. She is co-chair of the Washington Sierra Club Wildlife Committee and a member of the local Sierra Club Mt. Baker Group.