County Councilmember Barbara Brenner Explains Her Opposition Votes

Barbara Brenner has represented the third district on the Whatcom County Council since 1992.

Your Whatcom County Council voting chart (Whatcom Watch, May 2002, pages 4 and 5) contained three votes that weren’t unanimous. Because the three issues are of environmental interest and the reasons for my opposition were not listed, I am presenting them here.

March 26 Meeting, Vote 54. Should the council approve the WRIA1 watershed management project? The summary went on to make it appear that the county will receive adequate answers to “surface water quality, including assessment of stream flow, estimation of monthly runoff, quantifying surface water balance and water use, and evaluation of different surface water quality modeling approaches.”

So far we have received little definitive information, but we have spent a lot of money attempting to address water quality and quantity problems. We are hundreds of thousands of dollars over budget. There is no auditing as to whether the money is being wisely spent. In fact there is no third party evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of money being spent to date.

Councilmembers, including me expressed some inability to adequately understand the technical jargon with which the county administration recently presented us. I requested the council step back before allocating any more money in order to receive understandable information to enable us to make informed decisions. The county administration argued against any delay in spending more money. This is the first time in all my years on the council that I do not adequately understand what I need to understand to make a costly decision.

The county administration told us they can’t make it very understandable and that we should just approve another large expenditure of money on a leap of faith. I believe the administration can make the information more understandable. I do not support expensive funding that can’t be adequately explained to me. I voted no.

March 26 Meeting, Vote 67. Should the county amend the interim moratorium on the acceptance of new applications for subdivisions within the Lake Whatcom Watershed? The amendment allows more development during the moratorium. Councilmember Dan McShane proposed this amendment. The explanation was that if there are already two houses on one lot, why not let someone divide the lot into two lots as long as the underlying zoning is not increased from what it was before the moratorium.

The second house on the same lot is an accessory dwelling, having many restrictions such as use of same driveway and very limited size. The problem is that once the lot is divided, the new lot can create much more impervious surface by increasing the size of the former accessory dwelling and adding a separate driveway, as well as other amenities.

We should treat all persons who have been impacted by the moratorium equally. It is unfair to give special treatment to any person while continuing to impact others. Besides we have no idea how many situations like this exist in the Lake Whatcom watershed. Three councilmembers, including me, voted no.

March 26 Meeting, Vote 68. Should the council amend Whatcom County Code, Title 20 and Title 21? The County Council voted for an ordinance relating to siting and operation of natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines. Unfortunately, the explanation given in the Whatcom Watch was “county will have oversight of siting and construction, and allow greater public access to information.”

I proposed over 50 amendments to strengthen the ordinance. For example, throughout the draft ordinance there were many references to “encourage” pipeline companies to do the right thing to protect public health and safety. We must not rely on the good will of pipeline companies to ensure public protection. “Encourage” should have been changed to “require” everywhere it appeared in the document.

There also was no requirement for pipeline companies to adequately compensate landowners who will be dramatically impacted. The draft ordinance was a “touchy-feely” document with no teeth. It may actually make things worse because people now assume they are being protected. I voted no. I hope people will take a look at the ordinance and at my amendments.

The Whatcom Watch is the fairest publication I know. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify my positions. I request giving the readers the other side of issues when they exist. u