The Department of Ecology’s recent report on Lake Whatcom didn’t yield new information. In fact, both county and city governments have been waiting for the study for several years. The question has not been whether the study would yield phosphorous levels over the department’s limit, but how much.

Both city and county officials have known phosphorous would exceed regulated levels since the lake was listed on the 303(d) list for dissolved oxygen in 1998. For 10 years, they have known taxpayers would be responsible for mandatory compliance to lower phosphorous levels.

The continued degradation of Lake Whatcom has been an issue since the 1980’s. Lake activists have come and gone, burned out by failed attempts to get local government to take responsible and legitimate action to protect and preserve the watershed. While downzones and stormwater retrofits have occurred, they often come too little, too late, and lacking impetus to reverse the downward trend. Council members, the previous mayor, and the county executive may take offense regarding pointed criticism, but the fact remains that the lake continues to get worse, and their preservation efforts haven’t fixed the problem.

The chief contributor to phosphorous is urban development. When stormwater from lawns and homes carries sediment and other organic material into the lake, it deprives the lake of oxygen and causes warming and algae growth. Essentially, the lake begins to die. Annual reports on Lake Whatcom have shown continued decline in the health of the lake since the mid-nineties.

It’s puzzling why our elected officials have not taken greater steps to protect the lake. Four years ago, another citizen and I met with then mayor Mark Asmundson for 12 months, preparing a federal request for land acquisition monies to purchase and preserve watershed lands. Land acquisition is a win-win for property owners and Lake Whatcom. Landowners receive fair market reimbursement, while the watershed increases its undeveloped acreage.When the request period came, Asmundson changed his mind and asked for federal monies for the port renovation instead.

Several individuals, including myself, spearheaded the Lake Whatcom Comprehensive Stormwater Plan with the county, a comprehensive resolution to decrease stormwater in the watershed. Signed three years ago, it has never been funded. Nearly 200 county water projects currently remain unfunded.

Since the Ecology Department’s study began, we’ve known the compliance costs would be staggering. Delaying any meaningful change has only increased the pricetag.

One wonders whether continued build-out and development in the watershed was an attempt to increase the tax base once the bill came due.

Or, perhaps it is now easier to blame the department for the upcoming economic hardship than accept political responsibility. Either way, both the city and county conceded their responsibility.

While some have tried relentlessly to protect Lake Whatcom, the building industry and land developers have threatened the city and county with legal skirmishes to protect their right to develop in the watershed.

Taxpayers have picked up the tab for their infrastructure such as roads, utilities and schools. We’ll now pay for their stormwater retrofitting and the damaging phosphorous these homes have put in the lake.

While the city’s recent moratorium won’t make a significant difference at this point, maybe the new mayor and council will herald a shift in a new direction. However, the city and county have allowed continued development without even assessing the costs of the DOE’s requirements. There is no financial mechanism or plan to begin meeting both immediate and far-reaching mandates.

Eutrophic or dead lakes cost a lot to rehabilitate. We can make any water drinkable, but water treatment comes at a price and with health risks. Over the last ten years, these costs have skyrocketed. Stormwater projects and land acquisition that could have been enacted a few years ago now cost millions more.

Preserving Lake Whatcom isn’t a partisan issue, it’s a financial issue. In the current culture of economical stress, taxpayers should be concerned that the rising stormwater retrofit costs could have been minimized had our elected officials taken proactive steps earlier. Effective governance takes hindsight, insight, and foresight. Instead, our governing bodies can beg forgiveness and issue rhetorical excuses while we pay the price.