Bellingham City Council Proposes Closing Boat Launch @ Whatcom.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Parnicky on April 25, 2012 at 9:58am

I almost think if they want boats off the lake that bad, they should purposely infect the lake with zebra mussels!  Seems like a bigger risk to boats than to the drinking water quality!

Permalink Reply by David Parnicky on April 25, 2012 at 10:10am

Look at all the ridiculous comments!  People saying it isn't a "lake" but "their reservoir".  Isn't a reservoir a stream that has been dammed?  I am pretty sure Lake Whatcom is a lake.  When I think reservoir, I think impoundments on the Columbia, Snake, etc.  Bodies of water like that.

Permalink Reply by Erik Faiola on April 25, 2012 at 1:28pm

Copy and pasted.  Not my post. But full of interesting information.

Lake Whatcom is a navigable body of water. Always has been, always
will be. The bed of the lake is owned by the state, in trust for the
public at large, under the equal footing doctrine. Under our Federal
Constitution, navigable bodies of water (useful for public
transportation –i.e. – navigation) are owned by the public, and are the
original public roads. After GLO (Government Land Office) surveying,
Federal “uplands” were sold to the public in “fee simple”, i.e. as
private property, but all the beds of navigable waters could not be sold
and were held by the Federal government as “public trust” lands.

At the time of GLO surveying, which for Whatcom County was in the
1860’s - 1870’s, navigable waters were surveyed with surrounding
“meander” lines, or boundaries, to establish the boundary between the
“uplands” available for settlement and / or sale to the public as
private property, and the adjoining aquatic lands (beds under water)
that were not for sale but would always be public trust lands. Because
meander lines did not always follow every little turn of the waters
edge, the rule is that the upland owner owns to the meander line, or to
the normal high water line, which ever is located further waterward.
The point was that every waterfront owner who bought federal land on
navigable bodies of water was / is entitled to access that body of
public water for navigation purposes.

Not every lake or river is “navigable”. If the GLO surveyors did not
consider the small lake / river useful for public navigation, they would
not draw meander lines and the bed of the small body of water was sold
as part of the surrounding uplands. The buyer paid for the acreage under
the water as if it was dry, but also received “fee simple” title to all
the land. In comparison, meander lines were used to figure the upland
acreage of adjoining parcels, and you only paid for acreage to the
meander line (Federal land was sold by the acre, in ¼ Section or larger
parcels, and not based on “value”).

Of course, Lake Whatcom was meandered, and is a navigable body of water.

At the time of Statehood, in 1889, all public aquatic lands were
transferred to the State, in fee, to be held in trust for the public at
large. Not for Bellingham, not for the County, but for the public at
large – all citizens of the United States. Forever. In other words,
the beds of all navigable bodies of water – salt and fresh – are owned
by the State for the public.

The State of Washington, thru it’s Department of Natural Resources,
owns “Lake Whatcom” in fee, in trust for the public. You can find Lake
Whatcom on the DNR website as one of its (i.e. public) properties. The
determination as to whether a water body is “navigable” can be made by
looking at the original GLO surveys (all online), which should match the
DNR records.. Neither the Corps, EPA, Coast Guard, NMF, DOE, or
Fisheries have anything to do with this.

Now, the reservoir stuff. Since the turn of the century, the outfall
of Lake Whatcom has had some sort of a control structure on it to
regulate lake elevation and outfalls. First just a wood dam, and then a
larger or taller dam, and then the current steel control structure
located on Whatcom Creek in Whatcom Falls Park. Because Whatcom Creek
was not considered navigable (the Falls are really hard on propellers,
as well as on native canoes), the control structures did not block
navigation. When you control the elevation of a body of water by
blocking the outfall and controlling the outflows, for whatever reasons,
you create by definition a “reservoir pool”. It’s simply a technical
term, a definition – the regulated lake body is called a reservoir pool,
even though the lake is otherwise completely natural.

As surface waters of the State, the “water” in the lake is under the
authority of the Department of Water Resources, which morphed into the
Department of Ecology in 1971. The DOE has authority over the water,
the physical water and its uses, but not over the lake. Because damning a
lake and storing water is a use or withdrawal of surface waters of the
State, you need a surface water permit to operate the dam or outfall
structure, from DOE. If the dam raises the natural elevation at all (and
isn’t that the point), you need a reservoir permit with your dam
permit. The reservoir permit allows and sets the parameters for the
operation of the control structure, including the obligation to maintain
the lake elevation so as to not interfere with the public’s priority
right to use the lake for navigation.

In summary ………Lake Whatcom is not a Reservoir. Lake Whatcom is a
large, natural lake. Lake Whatcom is a navigable lake, under Federal
law and property ownership, and as such the lake is owned by the State
(DNR) in trust for the general public.

Lake Whatcom has a controlled outfall, regulated by a State (DOE)
surface water permit, called a reservoir permit as it allows for control
within a small range of the lake’s surface elevation. As an
artificially controlled body of water, the pool of water held behind the
dam or control structure is called a reservoir pool. A reservoir
pool can be in a man-made basin, in a natural non-navigable basin
(lake), in a stretch of natural, navigable or non-navigable, river, or
in a natural, navigable basin (lake).

It is proper to use the designation “Lake Whatcom reservoir” (or,
more accurately, reservoir pool) when referring to the surface elevation
of the lake, or some other reservoir permit condition or issue.

It is not correct to call Lake Whatcom “Bellingham’s City
Reservoir”, or “Lake Whatcom Reservoir”, or any designation where the
term “reservoir” is capitalized. Bellingham has no ownership of any
sort in Lake Whatcom as a water body. Bellingham simply has State
permission, under surface water permits, to regulate the lake surface
elevation, and to withdraw State (public) water from the lake.

The water does not belong to Bellingham until it is withdrawn from the lake.

For Lake Whatcom to be “Bellingham’s Water Reservoir”, or
Bellingham’s “Lake Whatcom Reservoir”, Bellingham would need to own
the water body and own the water – which it can not, for Lake Whatcom is
a large, natural, navigable lake.

The source of Bellingham’s water is, simply, Lake Whatcom. Not the
“Lake Whatcom Reservoir”. Bellingham does not “store” its water in
Lake Whatcom; Bellingham does not own even one drop of water located in
Lake Whatcom. Bellingham has a permit to withdraw water from Lake
Whatcom; only after the water enters the pipeline does Bellingham “own”
the actual water.

The Corps has absolutely nothing to do with any of this – don’t be
mislead by the Corps authority over interstate or other commercial
navigation asserted under the commerce clause. Ownership of Lake Whatcom
by the State (DNR) in trust for the general public as a navigable body
of water (public highway) is Constitutional, and a property rights
issue, and not related to who asserts permitting jurisdiction over
structures and obstructions. The Corps could assert Federal jurisdiction
over Lake Whatcom, as it does over Lake Chelan (also land – locked),
but let’s not encourage more problems. You think Bellingham is bad
………….

No one calls Lake Chelan “the Lake Chelan Reservoir”. No one calls
Lake Washington “the Lake Washington Reservoir”. No one calls Lake
Tahoe “the Lake Tahoe Reservoir”. They all have regulated outfall
structures. To call Lake Whatcom “the Lake Whatcom Reservoir” is just
foolish.

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012/04/25/2494796/bellingham-counc...

Permalink Reply by Chris Blandi on April 25, 2012 at 2:49pm

If that launch is in threat of be closed, then I'm using it before that happens.  Screw the motor restriction.  Any open spots for the tourny this sunday ?

 

Permalink Reply by David Parnicky on April 25, 2012 at 3:12pm

Sure are! You are more than welcome on Sunday if you want to fish Chris!

Chris Blandi said:

If that launch is in threat of be closed, then I'm using it before that happens.  Screw the motor restriction.  Any open spots for the tourny this sunday ?

 

Permalink Reply by David Parnicky on April 25, 2012 at 3:13pm

Thanks for sharing your findings Erik! Very good information!

Permalink Reply by Keith Brooks on April 25, 2012 at 3:46pm

WDFW already has signs posted at all points of entry to WA notifying all vessels be inspected for invasive species. It is against state law to knowingly spread invasive species. Bellingham is being purely alarmist on an issue that is already being addressed at a higher level.

Permalink Reply by Jordan Doucet on April 25, 2012 at 5:06pm

Tree huggers -must be that they are so close to Canada...

Permalink Reply by Jordan Doucet on April 26, 2012 at 9:05am

Well said Dana, I wouldn't expect anything else from ya!

Permalink Reply by Chris Hollick. on April 26, 2012 at 9:16am

Instead of buying up all the land around Lake Whatcom and wasting the Tax Payers money on land thats going to just sit there and not be allowed to be used for housing or what ever, why don't they use that money to pipe water from the Nooksack river. That way it would be a win win situation, the boaters and water craft gets to use the lake, and the City gets there supposedly polluted free water for consumption.

Second thought:-

                        If the City of Bellingham restricts boats unless they have been decontaminated, does that mean if my boat which has NOT been in an area where these mussels have been found, and it gets contaminated from Lake Whatcom and does damage to my boat motor are they libel for any damage caused.  Food for thought.

Permalink Reply by Chad Eidson on April 27, 2012 at 12:37pm

Dana Steiner for president

Permalink Reply by Jon Sessler on April 27, 2012 at 9:59pm

......or Govenor, or State Rep, or State Senator, or Councilman.

Dana - 

Prior to my endorsement, can we get your take on taxes, welfare, land rights, gay rights, affirmative action, same sex marriage, terrorism, Islam, domestic oil production, nuclear energy, main stream media, Seattle, King County,  Barrack Hussein Obama (mmm-mmm-mmm), and any other thing that may cause a mild stroke.

Chad Eidson said:

Dana Steiner for president

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page