Letterbox: Squalicum Mt Brouhaha, and Blanchard Mt

To the Editor:

To bring you up to date about the Squalicum Mountain and environs brouhaha, here are the facts that we learned just before going to press. You may have wondered why the city government allowed water to be supplied to the proposed developments. The fact is, they didn’t.

It was Water District #7 that allowed water to be supplied, but they had no authority to do so without notifying the city of Bellingham. The last I heard, Bellingham attorneys were discussing what to do about it.

To the Editor:

While the paid mouthpieces continue to trumpet the “glories” of the Blanchard Strategies Group (BSG) agreement in the pages of Whatcom Watch (e.g. “Chuckanut Decision Announced,” June issue, page 6), a group of citizen volunteers is working to ensure that this proposal does not result in unmitigated environmental disaster for Blanchard Mountain.

The Chuckanut Conservancy, North Cascades Conservation Council, Sierra Club Mount Baker Group, North Cascades Audubon Society, Bellingham Mountaineers and Coast Watch Society jointly commented on the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) proposal to give the BSG agreement a SEPA Determination of Non-Significance (DNS). Our comments resulted in the DNR announcement on June 18 that its SEPA determination will be delayed — a small victory for the Blanchard Mountain ecosystem.

To some of us it is clear that this proposal would result in significant environmental harm, and that any management proposal for Blanchard Mountain deserves the preparation of a full environmental impact statement encompassing a range of options, rather than the adoption of a singular proposal concocted by a committee handpicked by Doug Sutherland. We can only hope that the DNR will, upon reconsideration, agree.