Dear Watchers

Western Washington University’s College of Sciences and Technology is introducing its new science and the “univerCity” community science lecture series during the 2006-2007 academic year, a series of engaging talks on nanotechnology, our energy future and biodiversity.

All talks will be held from 7 to 8:30 p.m. in the Bellingham Public Library lecture room, 210 Central Ave., and are free and open to the public.

Professor Brad Johnson, chair of Western’s Physics/Astronomy Department, discussed “Nanotechnology: What’s So Big About Small?” This talk provided an introduction to various meanings of the now-ubiquitous word “nanotechnology,” as well as the historical developments that led to the coining of the word, the science behind and beneath it, and prospects — good and bad — for the future.

Chemistry Professor Mark Bussell will discuss “Oil? Get Over It — One Chemist’s Road Map to Our Post Petroleum Energy Future.” Global oil production appears to be going the way of U.S. petroleum production, which peaked in 1970. With worldwide oil consumption increasing dramatically, oil production nearing its peak, and evidence for global warming mounting, it’s time to take a hard look at our post-petroleum energy future. This talk will examine the history of oil and the controversy of “Peak Oil,” as well as present a possible road map for weaning the world from fossil fuels.

Biology Associate Professor David Hooper will discuss “The Good, the Bad and the Beauty: How Changing Biodiversity Affects You.”

David Hooper, in his ninth year at WWU, earned a Ph.D. in biological sciences from Stanford University and was the recipient in 2000 of the George Mercer Award, with Peter Vitousek, for an outstanding publication in the field of ecology, Ecological Society of America.

His research has included assessments of the changing plant diversity in California grasslands, and the influence of climate warming on carbon dioxide uptake and release by Arctic tundra. Hooper also is studying the effect of streamside vegetation and watershed land use on salmon habitat in the Pacific Northwest.

Contact: Arlan Norman, Dean, College of Sciences and Technology, (360) 650-6400 or email: Arlan.Norman@wwu.edu.

Last year’s County Council race elicited considerable discussion over what to do to protect Lake Whatcom. As the major source of drinking water for Bellingham, the long-term protection of our watersheds has lasting environmental and economic impacts on our county. Less than a year from the election we already seem to have forgotten the promises and debate that occurred.

The Vineyard Development is quickly making its way through the development process and sets a dangerous precedent for the future. Sixty-three homes clustered on the top of Squalicum Mountain is the focus of this discussion. This proposed development is in an area that provides significant watershed recharge for Lake Whatcom, as well as feeding two other crucial watersheds. Although 63 homes seems innocent enough at first, the problem is that once the infrastructure is in place then more land becomes economically feasible for development. Although the developers are willing to place restrictions around the rest of the area they own, outside of doing a conservation easement, once started there is little that can be done to insure no further development takes place. Deed restrictions can be changed through a zoning overlay and once water and sewer are at the top of the mountain, it becomes much easier to go a few extra feet to other properties in the area.

This development opens up two issues that need to be addressed in the near future. The first is whether the playing field has gotten where wealth and inside influence is now a requirement for doing business in Whatcom County. If the average developer had proposed the same project, it’s unlikely they would have been given the time of day. It seems that the right connections and attorneys can eliminate any barrier to development. This creates a dangerous precedence that seems to be playing out in our community. If the average citizen loses their voice then the chance of achieving a sustainable community is very small.

The second issue is around what is actually required to protect Lake Whatcom. It’s clear that zoning and other typical restrictions can easily be changed with little input from the community. The County Council placed a moratorium on development and now even that seems to have fallen by the wayside.

It has become increasingly clear that the only true form of protection is through conservation easements. Although it has been suggested that government ownership will provide protection, even they can dispose of property to the right developer at the right price. It may be time to marshal the resources of the community and get serious about watershed protection.

This will require tremendous work on everyone’s part, but permanent protection will only come through conservation easements. The Pingree easement in Maine is an example of a large-scale easement that has provided significant protection. Although we have different issues to face than they had, it does show that community vision and work can overcome numerous barriers.

The system that controls zoning and development has gotten out of control for the average citizen. It will take work to fix the system to make sure that we have a future that is defined by the citizens, but it can be done. Lake Whatcom needs to be the starting point to make sure we protect our most critical asset in the county.