Says drinking water must be top priority


A recent letter complained about costs to reduce phosphorous runoff from new developments in the Lake Whatcom watershed. I believe the letter ignores important issues.

First, the lake provides drinking water for half the county's residents; surely, the health and safety of citizens is a top priority for local governments, trumping the property rights of a few landowners.

Second, the lots in question were bought in 2004, six years after the state officially declared Lake Whatcom "impaired." The buyers knew that actions would be taken to reduce runoff into the lake. They chose to ignore both science and law and made, what now looks to them, a poor investment. Government has no role in ensuring that investments pay off. Some of my stock-market investments have done poorly; can I ask government for compensation?

Finally, the letter asserts that "the Nooksack is the problem." Regardless of whether diversion from the Nooksack River adds phosphorous to Lake Whatcom, years of research from WWU shows clearly the importance of runoff from developments around Lake Whatcom. To protect our drinking water and restore the lake's ecology, we must limit development in the watershed, reduce runoff from new developments, and require existing developments to cut runoff from their properties to meet the goals established by the state Department of Ecology.

Eric Hirst


Bellingham Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service