Whatcom executive candidates differ on watershed land transfer

The future of a plan to transfer nearly 9,000 acres in Lake Whatcom watershed from state control for logging to county control for parkland may lie with whomever voters elect county executive.

The potential transfer touches on issues of government spending, lake protection, the wood-products industry and recreational opportunities, making it a high-interest issue in this year's election.

Whatcom County Executive Pete Kremen, who favors the transfer, said it would cost the county relatively little to secure local control of a large percentage of the watershed. Using the land as low-impact parkland would be better for the lake than logging it, he said. He compares securing it as parkland to the wisdom of New Yorkers in preserving land for what is now Central Park.

But Kremen, executive since 1995, isn't running for re-election to his position; instead, he's seeking a County Council seat.

Four men are vying for the nonpartisan executive position this year: Jack Louws, Doug Ericksen, Tom Anderson and David Stalheim. The Aug. 16 primary election will narrow the field to the top two vote-getters.

BACKGROUND

The state Department of Natural Resources manages different lands to raise revenue for different trusts. In the watershed, the different trust lands are scattered in a checkerboard fashion.

Legally, Whatcom County can have one type transferred for use as parkland, but transferring now would yield pieces of parkland scattered among pieces of logging land, not the best scenario for either the county or the state, county officials have said.

So the county agreed to pay the state's cost of preparing an exchange, essentially moving trust designations by exchanging lands of equal value. That would create large blocks of transferrable land on the west and east sides of the lake.

But the exchange process is behind schedule. The state Board of Natural Resources, which must approve the exchange, in June requested more information before it decides. That pushed its decision to September, at the earliest.

The delay means the county may not be in a position to request the transfer until after the new executive takes office in 2012.

ESTIMATED COST

Here are the direct expenses Whatcom County Parks & Recreation estimates the county would incur:

- Hire consultant to help develop vision, scope, etc., and work with state: $3,920 (already spent).

- Transfer costs (paid to DNR to reimburse for costs, including appraisals and surveys: $291,000 ($212,928 spent so far).

- Trail development on new parkland: $750,000 to $900,000 (doesn't take into account volunteer help, existing trail routes, or grants).

- Annual fire protection: $2,604.

- Annual county maintenance and operations: $120,000 to $150,000.

- Road maintenance: $2,354 per mile of road.

- Road abandonment: $17,388.

- Forest management plan: $16,000 to $18,000.

The transfer also would reduce timber revenue for various trusts, including Mount Baker School District. Some revenue would come to the county, including money from leases for communication tower use.

Here are the candidates' positions on the proposed transfer (in the order they filed to run):

JACK LOUWS

Louws, former president of Louws Truss and mayor of Lynden, said that with the current budget, now isn't the time for a transfer that would increase county expenses. Taxing districts can't afford the loss of revenue, he said, and the parks department has already been "decimated" by budget cuts.

Paying the expenses from the voter-approved Conservation Futures Fund would supplants opportunities for other purchases, including buying development rights on farmland and purchasing of other lands around the lake, he said.

"Ultimately we can do it, but there's going to be a financial offset somewhere else," he said.

With the land in state management, citizens of Whatcom County already have some ownership, and the state's not going to sell it to a private party, Louws said. Nobody wants to manage the land in a way that harms the lake, including the state, he said.

The county might be in better financial shape in the future, he said, suggesting it be considered again in five years. In the meantime, people can already use the land for recreation, including backcountry hiking.

DOUG ERICKSEN

Ericksen, currently Republican state senator for the 42nd District, was clear in stating that he doesn't support the transfer. His big point is that the property is already protected from residential or commercial development, and logging under current timber-management rules is protective of the lake, he said.

"It's in protected status," he said. "I can't emphasize that enough."

All actions need to be viewed through a cost-benefit analysis, and he doesn't think the proposal passes that analysis. Ericksen sees need for other lake-protection measures, including stormwater-treatment facilities and the installation of sewer lines to get people off of septic tanks.

"I just don't think this is the highest use of our tax dollars," he said.

TOM ANDERSON

Anderson, a business owner and former general manager of Whatcom County Public Utility District, said there should be an option between transferring the land for parks and leaving it all for state management.

"My position is, maybe there ought to be a third choice," he said. "Can we have a little bit more flexibility than that?"

Current management of all the land for timber isn't helping water quality, he said.

"I'm all for changing it from how it's currently managed," Anderson said, because the state is charged with maximizing revenue for trusts.

At the same time, taking all of the land out of timber production would affect the wood-products industry, which relies on the renewable resource, he said.

In transferring it all, Anderson said he would have to know it wouldn't be a financial burden on the county.

He said he realized he doesn't know as much about the proposal as he would like.

DAVID STALHEIM

Stalheim, former county planning director, was clear in his support for the transfer. Funding would come from the Conservation Futures Fund, which uses property taxes for land preservation, not the general fund.

Stalheim wants to allay concerns from some people in the environmental community that a park would harm water quality. What's proposed is a low-impact park, a forest preserve with trails and small parking lots, not anything with tennis and basketball courts, he said. And development of the park plan would include a public process.

Stalheim sees opportunities in the future to connect trails to Galbraith Mountain, creating public trail access from Bellingham through the watershed.

"It just would be a world-class, recreational-access opportunity that would be second to none in the United States," he said.

The transfer would show the community's values of protecting our quality of life and the environment, and would attract sustainable jobs from companies that share those values, he said.

MORE ON TRANSFER, ELECTION

- To see more on the proposed transfer, go to Whatcomcounty.us/parks/reconveyance/index.jsp.

- To learn more about the executive candidates in the Aug. 16 primary, go to bellinghamherald.com/2011countyexecutive/index.html.

Read more: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/08/02/2121955/whatcom-executive-candidates-differ.html#storylink=misearch#ixzz1Tu1uoiLm