A Roller Coaster Ride: The Proposed Second Sudden Valley Sewer Line

S.A. Hewitt was born in Seattle and has lived in Bellingham since 1984. She has a B.A. in English literature from the University of Washington and a B.A. in art from WWU.

Last month's Part One, began with the construction of the trunk sewer line along Lake Whatcom Boulevard and Sudden Valley collector sewer system which were completed by 1974. In those early sewer construction days, no inspections were done, infiltration and inflow from stormwater were not considered, and sewage spills were reported as early as 1975 which led to a moratorium on new sewer hookups in Sudden Valley and Geneva in 1976. Water District #10 purchased the Sudden Valley sewer system in 1977 and lifted the moratorium on new hookups.

During the 1990-92 real estate boom in Sudden Valley, Water District #10 requested an increase in the contracted sewerage capacity from 3,200 to 4,334 gallons per minute, which was denied by the City of Bellingham in 1991. Not about to miss out on the real estate frenzy, the district applied for a permit to construct a second sewer line, or interceptor, from Sudden Valley to Bellingham in 1992 and the application was denied by Whatcom County Hearing Examiner Ed Good. The uncertainty over the outcome of the sewer dispute fueled a run on the 84 remaining sewer line hookup permits (allocated to the existing line's carrying capacity), and a second moratorium on new sewer hookups was announced in September, 1992.

Four to five sewage spills per year had occurred regularly since 1975 causing the State of Washington Department of Health to declare in 1992 that the "ongoing and periodic discharge of untreated sewage from Water District #10's sewer system manholes" created a severe health hazard. Nonetheless, Water District #10 appealed the 1992 Hearing Examiner decision to Whatcom County Council, which upheld Ed Good's decision. Like a raging bull, not to be stopped by mere mortals, the district appealed the "no second sewer line" decision to the Washington State Shoreline Hearings Board. Part One ended with the October 28, 1993 Washington State Shoreline Hearings Board decision which upheld the original Hearing Examiner Decision of May, 1992. No new sewer line.

The wild and bumpy roller coster ride continues. Not content to become a sinking ship or backsliding roller coaster, in December 1993 Water District #10 fought back once again by appealing the affirmed denial of the Shorelines Substantial Development Permit by the Shorelines Hearings Board to the Whatcom County Superior Court. At that time a district Memo was sent to the Water District #10 mailing list entitled Frequently asked questions regarding Sewer Capacity Limitations. The memo included a clearer look at the direction of Water District #10 and the second sewer line (interceptor):

• Will the rehabilitation of the Sudden Valley sanitary sewer system create additional capacity for new hookups? No. The district's engineers determined that the theoretical capacity under maximum flow demands has been reached without taking into consideration the excessive infiltration and inflow (from stormwater) that exists in the system.

• Will construction of a new interceptor relieve the infiltration and inflow problem? No. The interceptor is required to transport sewage flows resulting from future service connections to be made to the sanitary sewer collection system within the Geneva and Sudden Valley service areas of the district's boundary.

• What negotiations have taken place with the City of Bellingham for increasing the 3200 gpm limitation contained in the sewage treatment contract? In 1990, the district requested the city to increase the capacity for sewage treatment to 4,334 gpm under the January 1, 1974 contract. This request was denied.

In a letter from then council president, Don Gischer, the city formalized their position by stating: "The Council as well as the community at large is very concerned about the effects of continual growth in the Lake Whatcom Watershed. Additional growth, beyond the substantial amount already provided for in the existing contract, would have adverse impacts on water quality, traffic congestion, and other quality of life issues. While we recognize that future difficulties may arise in the development of land and the provision on utility service, we are not willing to go beyond our existing contract obligations."

The district will make requests to the city for reconsideration of this position at appropriate times and when new Council members take office.²²

In the new political climate on September 15, 1994, Whatcom County Superior Court Judge David Nichols overturned the 1992 Hearing Examiner decision and issued a permit for a second Sudden Valley sewer line.

Persistent and not easily defeated, the same dedicated group of concerned citizens who were the intervenor-respondents in the Shoreline Hearings Board case--Jay Taber, the Whatcom Falls Neighborhood Association, and Sherilyn Wells--appealed the 1994 hearing examiner decision to the Washington State Court of Appeals in 1995. The Court of Appeals overturned Judge Nichols' decision on January 4, 1996.

In the meantime, it appeared that the 1990-1991 and 1991-1993 Water District #10 contracts to survey and repair 1,100 manholes covers23 did not work, as two sewer spills of approximately a quarter million gallons each took place on November 30th and December 27, 1994. A 1996 Water District #10 draft environmental impact statement, edited by Robert Petersen, the district general manager, stated that "sewage overflows usually occur at pump stations, although small overflows may occur from manhole covers. Pump station overflows can also occur during power outages or debris blockage of outgoing pipes of force mains.

In November 1995 a large storm event resulted in an overflow at the Sudden Valley sewage lift station (near Austin Creek). During this event, sewage overflowed from the pump station wetwell, eventually flowing into Austin Creek. During a later storm in November 1995 sewage overflows occurred at the Sudden Valley lift station, airport lift station, and a manhole along Lake Whatcom Boulevard near Strawberry Point.

Overflows again flowed into Austin Creek. A total of about 741,000 gallons overflowed over two days during this storm event. A manhole in Lake Whatcom Boulevard near Strawberry Point (the same one?) overflowed into a ditch and then into Lake Whatcom. The district's sewer system is typical of many systems in that infiltration and inflow can occur to such a degree as to produce overflows. What is distinct about the district's system is that these overflows occur in the watershed of a drinking water source."²⁴

Back on the battlefield, Water District #10 appealed the January 4, 1996 Washington State Court of Appeals decision to the Washington State Supreme Court. Another bumpy part of the ride came on June 8, 1996--the Supreme Court refused to hear the matter and the 1992 Whatcom County Hearing Examiner decision disallowing the construction of the second sewer line was upheld.

Their final appeal rejected, Water District #10 found another path through the maze and pursued a plan to build a 700,000-gallon sewage detention tank. In May of 1998, Whatcom County Hearing Examiner Michael Bobbink issued a conditional-use permit to the district for the 700,000-gallon tank. The purpose of the tank was to eliminate raw sewage overflow into Lake Whatcom and allow 600 new sewer hookups at a rate of 150 per year over a four year period.²⁵

A December 10, 1998 Bellingham Herald editorial opinion called the detention tank "a double-edged sword in the fight to protect the lake from mounting pollution. On the one hand, it largely resolves the disgusting, embarrassing, and unhealthy problem of sewage overflows into Lake Whatcom...The tank has the capacity to hold the excess (storm) water and sewage until it can be released back into the sewer system at off-peak hours."

The editorial continued by stating that "the environmental downside, however, is that the tank will permit construction of 600 new homes over the next four years if ongoing legal challenges filed by local environmental activists ultimately fail...As we've said before, the County Council should place a moratorium on new subdivisions in the watershed and commission a definitive study of the cumulative, long-term impacts of new housing on water quality...."²⁶

In March of 1998, the Watershed Defense Fund et al filed suit in U.S. District Court in Seattle alleging that sewage overflow into Lake Whatcom was a violation of the Clean Water Act. The plaintiffs in the case were Bill and Rose Black, Susan and John Kane-Ronning, Sherilyn Wells, and the Watershed Defense Fund of Bellingham. They cited numerous incidents of raw sewage spilling into Lake Whatcom, often through manhole covers.

In response to the suit, Water District #10 said that it was taking steps to improve its sewer system. The improvements would enable it to prevent overflows and lift the five-year moratorium on sewer hookups in Sudden Valley and part of Geneva. The district said it was retrofitting manholes and replacing and repairing problem lines where possible. It also proposed improving a sewage pump station at Euclid Street. According to Water District #10, building the detention basin in Sudden Valley and a sewage transmission line from Sudden Valley to Bellingham would serve dual purposes: containment of sewage overflows and allowing additional homes to connect to the system.²⁷

The plaintiffs opposed more connections to the district's system. It was their opinion that by lifting the moratorium on hookups, Water District #10 would allow for more development on a sewage system that was already ineffective and inadequate.

On November 23, 1999, Water District #10 and the Watershed Defense Fund et al. Reached a settlement in the Clean Water Act federal lawsuit filed in March of 1998. The settlement called for Water District #10 to give $220,000 to Whatcom Land Trust for the purchase of environmentally sensitive lands around the lake, reduce the number of new hookups allowed for the Sudden Valley Sewage Detention Basin from 600 to 310, and to pay penalties to the land trust whenever sewage spills from district facilities into the lake. In just four years, the penalties for overflows will terminate.²⁸

There has been one sewage spill since November 23--it occurred on December 10, 1999 from a manhole near Strawberry Point and will cost the district $5,000. Water District #10 has begun to use a trucking system to transport sewage when the stormwater inundates the sewer system, so perhaps there will be fewer spills in the future.²⁹ (The number of sewer overflows does, in fact, seem to be decreasing--there were four to five sewer spills per year from 1975 to 1992 but since 1992 there have been two to three reported spills per year. Is decreasing good enough, however, in terms of human health issues?)

A year prior to the aforementioned settlement, on November 25, 1998, Whatcom Hearing Examiner Michael Bobbink granted Water District #10 their Golden Fleece--a permit to build a second sewer line along Lake Louise Road instead of along Lake Whatcom Boulevard. Bobbink said Water District #10 and Whatcom County were obligated to provide services for the platted lots. He wrote: "Denial of utility services to existing property owners without compensation is not the appropriate way to protect Lake Whatcom."

And shortly afterwards, on December 3, 1998, Sherilyn Wells and the Clean Water Alliance (formerly the Watershed Defense Fund) filed an appeal of Bobbink's decision with the Whatcom County Council.³⁰ This time, in a different political climate than 1992, the County Council upheld the hearing examiner's decision. Yes to the second sewer line.

Standing firm in their effort to protect Lake Whatcom, Ms. Wells and the Clean Water Alliance made an appeal to Skagit County Superior Court and the decision was handed down on December 7, 1999. Judge Susan Cook ruled that a plan to build a new sewer line to Sudden Valley should not have received a permit from the Whatcom County hearing examiner. She said that hearing examiner Michael Bobbink should not have considered property rights when considering environmental impacts of the proposed sewer line. In addition, the judge said that Water District #10 must do a supplemental environmental impact statement on the project in light of the changes at the city of Bellingham's water diversion dam on the middle fork of the Nooksack River.³¹

The environmental impact statement prepared by the district had not considered how the lake would react to pollution if the Middle Fork diversion, used to flush and supplement the reservoir, were reduced or eliminated. Endangered Species Act (fisheries) issues in the Nooksack River have already resulted in an agreement changing the way Bellingham has historically used the diversion. The agreement made in August 1998 is subject to further modification if the catastrophic fisheries decline in the Nooksack requires further concessions. Also, there are unresolved tribal water rights issues which could affect use of the diversion.³²

Two days after the Skagit County Superior Court ruling, on December 9, 1999, lawyers for Water District #10 asked Judge Susan Cook to reconsider her decision that an supplemental environmental impact statement be done before a new sewer line can be built along Lake Louise Road. Water District #10 attorney Brian Hansen thought the judge made a mistake in demanding the supplemental environmental impact statement because the permit for the second sewer line was awarded before the city started discussing changes to the Middle Fork Nooksack diversion dam.³³

In January 2000, Judge Cook denied the Water District #10 motion to reconsider her decision. As this article heads for publication, Water District #10 must either prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement, appeal the motion denial to the Court of Appeals,³⁴ or give up on the second sewer line. Time will tell if this means another battle, and then another, and...

To read the 1996 Water District #10 draft environmental impact statement is to understand the district's first priority, which is not necessarily healthy drinking water: "The purpose of this environmental evaluation is not to resolve or re-analyze regional land use planning which has already occurred. Rather the purpose of wastewater facilities planning is to accommodate growth as already approved through the planning process in the most environmentally and economically sound manner...Construction of the interceptor would allow for full buildout of Sudden Valley and Geneva."³⁵

Impatience reigns on all sides. Property owners have waited for nearly a decade to build their dream homes. Developers loom nervously over the valley lots like vultures, ready to pick and pluck their prey. Environmentalists perceive the degradation of their drinking water the same way they perceive a ragged nightmare and read reports about caffeine levels in Lake Whatcom (what dogs and geese drink coffee?). They wonder: will estrogen and antibiotic levels be reported next? Tribal leaders and members feel the decline of the salmon in their own heartbeats, in the flow of their blood which is one with the flow of water in the Nooksack River.

Towards the end, as we impatiently destroy ourselves with these brutal bruising battles, as we stream over the years in the same old rusted roller coaster, as we become pared down to the naked core of the matter, there seems to be but one nagging and eminently clear question. The question stands out like a festering maroon scar. It is blaringly loud--how could anyone miss it? It reads, Can Living Forms Survive Without Clean Water?

22 Water District No. 10 Memo: Frequently asked questions regarding Sewer Capacity Limitations, 1993.
23 Water District No. 10, Sewer Inflow/Infiltration (I/I) and Overflow Mitigation Efforts, February 19, 1998.
24 Whatcom County Water District No. 10, draft environmental impact statement, December 13, 1996.
25 Aubrey Cohen, "Sewage tank will clear way for 600 new homes," The Bellingham Herald, 18 November 1998.
26 Editorial, "Sudden Valley detention tank was necessary," The Bellingham Herald, 10 December 1998.
27 John Harris, "Group: Water district fouls Lake Whatcom," The Bellingham Herald, 19 March 1998.
28 Watershed Defense Fund et al v. Whatcom County Water District No. 10, No. C98-1631R (1999).
29 Personal communication from Paul States, plaintiff's designee, January 10, 2000.
30 Aubrey Cohen, "Sudden Valley ready to move forward with sewer," The Bellingham Herald, 9 December 1998.
31 Scott Ayers, "Ruling postpones Lake Louise sewer line," The Bellingham Herald, 7 December 1999.
32 Sherilyn Wells, "Skagit Court Denies Permit for Sudden Valley Sewer Line, Whatcom Watch, January 2000.
33 "Water district renews sewer effort," The Bellingham Herald, 9 December 1999.
34 Personal communication with Sherilyn Wells, February 8, 2000.
35 Whatcom County Water District No. 10, draft environmental impact statement, December 13, 1996.