Cracking Open Closed Doors

Last night, participants and observers at the WRIA 1 Planning Unit meeting were given a teller size window peep at what has happened in Whatcom County ground and surface water actions between 2009 and 2013.  A brief, tiny postage stamp of a report. But, what a glorious flash of information!

The hot question in my mind this morning is what do the “dear leaders” want? It is obvious that the processes of water management take time, dedication, negotiation, money, skill, information… the list of costs and qualifications is big. Water rights and usage touches everyone, all the time. Do local leaders want to draw qualified local citizens in, to increase the “bench strength” of the local public policy team? Or do they prefer to let citizens snooze on while opportunistic agents feed on the public purse?

In spite of the civil dialogue of last night, the Planning Unit appears to be a foster child in the eyes of the most vested interests. It took threats of a lawsuit to force the County Executive’s office to even consider the role of the planning unit. The setting of legal fractures poked through briefly last night, as reference was made to the working out of PU procedural suggestions between the lawyers of the Whatcom Water Districts Caucus and the Whatcom County Executive Office.

What is my point? The reconvening of the Planning Unit has required threat of legal force. The public policy leaders of water management in Whatcom County have been dragged kicking to the table. If their work is so beyond question, why the secret executive sessions? Oaths of confidentiality? Failed spin campaigns like the WIT process that blew up recently? If the Vibrant Futures of Uniting Creatives is such a juicy piece of toast for public well being and input, why has that model not been applied in water management?

Local water management is a huge chess game, and stake holder outcomes could be spoiled by public pervue. In the public comment period last night, Greg Brown reported on his attendance at a statewide meeting last week of representatives of 35+ WRIA boards in Washington State. What was the key concern of other WRIA boards? A flood of regulations emanating from state level departments that is overwhelming local water public policy boards. Wake up, Whatcom County! There are state departments that want to gain and maintain control of local water policy. The PUD and the tribes may seek local oversight and jurisdiction, but the Puget Sound Partnership of the Governor’s Office, and the State Department of Ecology are pushing very hard behind the veil of media silence here.

The child of favor in Whatcom water management has been the Joint Board. Last night, the representative PUD District 1, Stephen Jilks, made it clear that the PUD does not want to become just an equal member of a Planning Unit with teeth. He inferred that the it was the Joint Board that created the PU, and that the PU is only advisory to Whatcom County Council. PUD District 1 has had a favored seat in the Joint Board, and is up to speed on everything that has transpired behind the closed doors of the last four years of water management activity. Are they willing to let other caucuses join them at the table?

Behind closed doors. Last night we heard a very, very brief recounting of how the water management projects of today flowed from the Bertrand Creek and the Nooksack Middle Fork pilot projects that were the last sighting of the PU open process in 2009. Emphasized was the frustration of the 2009 PU participants as closed door negotiations sealed by oaths of confidentiality burrowed on in 2009.

In conclusion: what goes into minutes of public meetings is only part of the record. The speeches at the meetings may be encapsulated nicely in minutes, but the attitudes in the faces and voice tones of the speakers and moderators are what is burned in the memories of the observers.

A sticky item last night was public input. Is the Planning Unit subject to the Open Public Meetings Act? Must there be a period for public comment? Claire Fogelsong of the City of Bellingham objected very intensely to public comment. Perry Eskridge, the political consultant for the Whatcom Realty Board objected less strenuously. What do they fear? A motion Perry made during the meeting was turned back. Roberts Rules of Order are not part of the consensus process. What is this consensus process? How really does it work? How can the procedural problems of 1999 – 2009 be avioded this time around? Could public comment help keep things on track?

The public comment period happened at the end. Claire Fogelsong (COB) and Greg Young (small cities) and Kasey Cykler (DOE) walked out just before public comment was approved. By design? I do not know. The tribes were absent. The Herald, the Tribune, and the Cascade Radio Group were absent. Stephen Jilks stayed to listen. There is hope. There is also a long road ahead to regaining public consensus.

The body language is speaking. What do you hear? Wake up, Whatcom County. It is your water. It may not be your water for long. This PU process is one more chance for American citizens to do more than just memorize baseball scores.                           -- Submitted by John Kirk for Whatcom Works.