False Assurances About Massive Upzoning

False Assurances About Massive Upzoning A City Council Member Recently Tried to Deflect Concerns Over the City’s Push for Massive Upzoning in Winslow During a Comp Plan Steering Committee Meeting. Growing numbers of Bainbridge Islanders are concerned about the City of Bainbridge Island’s push for massive upzoning in Winslow. They’ve heard the City's pro-growth messaging and increasingly see it for what it is: a blatant attempt to undermine local control and promote growth. In response to increased community pushback, more than one city council member has attempted to assuage growing community concerns with a fundamentally flawed argument: "We don’t need to worry about it. Maybe it won’t get built. We can upzone now and put the brakes on growth later if and when we get close to sewer capacity." This is a variation of a line use by many a teenage boy for coaxing their girlfriends into the back seat of a car: “Don’t worry. Nothing is going to happen. I just wanna snuggle”. Like teenage boys—who obviously have more on their minds than just snuggling— councilmembers telling us not to worry about upzoning know perfectly well how hard it would be to undo it once the zoning map and development regulations have been changed. Their reassurances show a fundamental disregard for requirements of the Growth Management Act. In this case, a requirement for zoning to be concurrent with the provision of adequate capital facilities—sewer, water, roads, etc. The following is from RCW 36.70A.070 Comprehensive Plans—Mandatory Elements—of the Growth Management Act: (3) A capital facilities plan element consisting of: (a) An inventory of existing capital facilities owned by public entities, including green infrastructure, showing the locations and capacities of the capital facilities; (b) a forecast of the future needs for such capital facilities; (c) the proposed locations and capacities of expanded or new capital facilities; (d) at least a six-year plan that will finance such capital facilities within projected funding capacities and clearly identifies sources of public money for such purposes; and (e) a requirement to reassess the land use element if probable funding falls short of meeting existing needs and to ensure that the land use element, capital facilities plan element, and financing plan within the capital facilities plan element are coordinated and consistent. Park and recreation facilities shall be included in the capital facilities plan element. [emphasis added] The massive upzoning being pushed by the City of Bainbridge Island over the past three years would need to be supported by adequate sewer, water, and transportation facilities when and if the zoning map is significantly changed; or provisions for those facilities would at least need to be included in the City’s Capital Improvements Plan, with funding sources identified. This involves consideration of the feasibility of infrastructure upgrades and their cost—and how that impacts the Island and its residents. Sewer and water utility fees are already going up in Winslow, and that’s impacting housing affordability. Increased Development Capacity, Once Given, Isn’t Easy to Take Away The assurance cited above assumes the City could realistically put the brakes on growth when the limits to sewer capacity become apparent: that it would be feasible to tell all those whose property values have risen through upzoning —and have seen their property taxes increase as well— that they could no longer realize the potential monetary benefits gained through upzoning. This is a highly problematic proposition, both legally and politically. The correct way to balance development capacity with infrastructure is to determine its capacity—and have plans and financing for it in place for those improvements—BEFORE massive upzoning happens. Bainbridge Island Has a Finite Carrying Capacity Groundwater is the primary limiting factor The ability of Bainbridge Island’s aquifers to sustain growth far into the future is the main key to determining the Island’s carrying capacity. This includes following the precautionary principle as called for in the Island’s comprehensive plan: erring on the side of caution to protect our aquifers. There are also inherent limits when it comes to expanding the capacity of important capital facilities such as: extraction and distribution of domestic water; transportation; and sewage treatment. Inherent Limitations to Bainbridge Island’s Infrastructure Water, sewer, and transportation facilities Domestic water infrastructure The infrastructure required to supply Bainbridge Islanders with domestic water includes: wells for extracting groundwater; big expensive storage tanks; water treatment; and miles of pipes to distribute water to households and businesses. New wells are expensive to drill and aren’t always good producers. Duds are common. The just completed water storage tank near the high school cost $25m. The cumulative costs for of all this water-related infrastructure needs to be determined before making significant changes to the Island’s zoning map and development regulations. Required projects then need to part of the City’s capital improvement plan and funding sources identified. Not to be overlooked, the costs to be born by utility customers and taxpayers also need to be identified and considered. This process applies to all of the capital facilities improvements required to accommodate increased zoning densities and associated development regulations. Bainbridge Island’s constrained transportation system Bainbridge Island’s has a system of roads and intersections mostly inherited from our history as a farming community. Very few new roads have been built over the past fifty years, with extremely limited options for new ones. This is due to established patterns of development, property rights, limited funding, and resistance to the use of eminent domain. The City has not explained how these inherent limitations would be overcome in order to prevent a significant decline in levels of service as a result of expansion and massive upzoning of Winslow. Limited sewer capacity in Winslow Prospects for increasing sewage treatment capacity in Winslow is also a big question mark. Setting aside the issue of adequate treatment—primarily in regards to the removal of nutrients that reduce dissolved oxygen levels in Puget Sound—the Winslow sewage treatment plant is old and nearing its capacity. Major upzoning would almost certainly require the City to acquire property for a new sewage treatment plant. That might only be possible through the use of eminent domain, which Bainbridge Islanders are strongly opposed to and would be very expensive. Considering the amount of upzoning being pushed, the City needs to have plans for a new sewage treatment plant, complete with a feasibility study—including identification of new site—and an estimate of costs and where the funding would come from. So why does all of this need to be said? Because the City of Bainbridge Island wants to ignore or trivialize the Growth Management Act’s requirements for adequate capital facilities. The city knows that once they get the massive zoning increase they want they’ll have the inside track on making us pay for it after-the-fact. The only way the City is going to stop ignoring the capital facilities requirements of the GMA is if it’s forced to do so by enlightened city council members supported by informed citizens. Our City Council Needs to Do Better As the New Year begins, it's time for our City Council to collectively up its game when it comes to good governance and requirements of the Growth Management Act. Focusing on supposed growth mandates while ignoring or downplaying the GMA’s other requirements—such as protection of groundwater and adequate capital facilities—is not acceptable.

Continue reading

Town Hall Presentation by Mike Nelson 2025

On October 13, 2025 city council candidate Mike Nelson presented a plan for meeting requirements of the State's Growth Management Act—which include comprehensive planning for affordable housing—in a way that will minimize zoning increases by focusing only on affordable housing, respect Bainbridge Island's finite carrying capacity, and not result in higher taxes for Bainbridge Islanders. Here is the PowerPoint presentation Mike used as he addressed an audience gathered at the historic Lynwood Center Theatre. As Mike Nelson now begins his 4-year term on the Bainbridge Island City Council, you will be hearing more about Mike's plan for navigating State GMA requirements sustainably and in a way that respects Bainbridge Island's special character. You can contact Mike Nelson at mnelson@bainbridgewa.gov for more information.

Continue reading

Blair King is Leaving: What do we want in a new city manager?

Blair King is Leaving: What do we want in a new city manager? Blair King is Leaving: What do we want in a new city manager? Bainbridge Island City Manager Blair King recently announced his retirement, effective at the end of January 2026. The process to replace him has begun. Blair King has been our city manager for about 4-1/2 years. The process for bringing his replacement on board has begun and is expected to take 90 to 120 days. The Prothman Company has been hired to assist in that process. Council members tasked with interviewing search 6irms reported in late December that Prothman was recommended because of its experience with Paci3ic Northwest communities, its proposed outreach, cost, DEI background, and the genuine authenticity of Cliff Moore, who subcommittee members felt was experienced, 3lexible, and someone they could work with. Council member Kirsten Hytopoulos encouraged Blair King to set up a meeting between the City Council and Prothman in early January to provide input into the candidate development process. Hopefully citizen input will be given serious consideration. Looking Back on Blair King’s tenure as city manager As we look forward to the city council’s search for a new city manager let’s 7irst take a quick look back at the City of Bainbridge Island over the past 4-years with Blair King as city manager. Signifcant room for improvement when it comes to good process Under Blair King there’s been some bad process at the City of Bainbridge Island. Among the most notable were instances of the city council presuming to change the municipal code when ordinances—and the additional process they provide—were required. Those instances included: 1. Presuming to change the municipal code’s provisions regarding the Winslow subarea planning process. In early 2022 the City Council approved a simple motion to remove the requirement for appointing a citizen steering committee to oversee the Winslow subarea planning process. This appeared to be done to remove citizen involvement from the process and allow staff and consultants to work out of public view to grease the skids for massive upzoning in Winslow. Because simple city council votes don’t legally change the municipal code, the City essentially conducted an illegal Winslow subarea planning process for a year before admitting their mistake and amending the municipal code with an ordinance in early 2023. 2. Presuming to change the process for appointing members of the Planning Commission. In 2022 the City Council once again presumed to use a simple city council motion and vote to change the selection process for planning commission applicants. A representative of the Race Equity Advisory Committee was added to the selection committee to help with the interview process. That process featured a new set of questions emphasizing scrutiny of each applicant’s race equity credentials. One question asked applicants if they agreed with a statement describing single-family zoning as racist. This process was used to appoint new planning commissioners highly supportive of massive upzoning. Questionable process used for rezoning specific properties The municipal code provides a process for rezoning specific properties: the site-specific rezone— BIMC 2.16.140—a quasi-judicial process. To ensure that the process of rezoning a specific property it not an illegal spot zone, the site-specific rezone requires application of the appearance of fairness doctrine, disclosure of ex parte communications, and an analysis for consistency with the comprehensive plan. Under Mr. King, the City dodged the transparency requirements of the site specific rezone process by using simple ordinances to change the zoning regulations for two specific properties. Fewer City Council meetings resulting in less public input During City Manager King’s tenure there were fewer city council meetings with more items sent to the consent agenda after fewer “touches”. There were also fewer ward meetings, with none in 2025. At least one member of the City Council gave reasons for this departure from what was a longstanding norm of having yearly ward meetings: 1) 2025 was an election year and ward meetings would provide an advantage to councilmembers running for reelection, and; 2) ward meetings require staff time and are expensive. These reasons were given with the implication that the decision whether or not to conduct ward meeting had been made by City Manager King. The decision not to conduct ward meetings in 2025 was not discussed and voted on during a public meeting of the City Council, adding to concerns that Council has been making decisions outside of public view. This could also be a case of the City Council allowing City Manager King to make decisions for them outside of public meetings. That would be a violation of the City Manager’s authority. Either way, a decision on ward meetings by the City Council outside of a public meeting— whether they deferred to the city manager or not—would be a violation of the Open Public Meetings Act. The elimination of ward meetings was likely motivated by a desire to protect councilmembers from uncomfortable questions from members of the public in the relatively intimate setting of ward meetings where there is considerable back. Protecting council members from scrutiny, while also exaggerating their accomplishments, was a hallmark of Blair King’s tenure as city manager. It resulted in less accountability and less transparency. Being fair to Blair King, blame for these instances of bad process, lack of transparency, and reduced accountability, ultimately belongs to the City Council, which has willingly ceded some of its authority to City Manager King. The City’s Historic Preservation Program kicked to the curb for expediency Under Blair King the City’s Historic Preservation Program was sidelined for being an obstacle to demolishing the old police station where plans were being developed for an affordable housing complex. This included abrogating the terms of the City’s certification as a Certified Local Government Program for Historic Preservation. In protest, the City’s entire Historic Preservation Commission resigned. The HPC was later impugned during a City Council meeting for being “dysfunctional”. The marginalization of the Environmental Technical Advisor Committee (ETAC) Under Blair King members of City staff, along with members of the City Council, marginalized ETAC by blocking interviews for new members and canceling all of their meetings over the span of two years. Why would they do that: because ETAC members were critical of the City for attempting to reverse-engineer Bainbridge Island’s new groundwater management plan to pave the way for massive upzoning, by using questionable science and biased messaging. Public records request obtained by a former ETAC member show that council members discussed removing ETAC as a City advisory committee outside of public meetings. Blair King’s weekly meetings with members of the city council One of Mr. King’s practices has been to meet regularly with council members. Given the reduction in public meetings, and what sometimes appears as a lack of discussion on important issues during public meetings, the practice of regular private meetings between the city manager and council has the appearance of backroom consensus building that’s reduced transparency and arguably violates the spirit and purpose of the Open Public Meetings Act. Preferred City Manager Qualities Now that we’ve highlighted some of the undesirable aspects of Blair King’s tenure as city manager, here are Bainbridge Conservation Coalition’s recommendations for a preferred city manager candidate profile. 1. Will be diligent in promoting good governance and proper process. This includes strict adherence to the City’s municipal code and State Law. City practice over the past 4-years has included instances of the municipal code being ignored for expediency with attempts to change it via simple City Council motions and votes (ordinances are required). The City has also engaged in what many regard as spot zoning without observing proper process for rezoning specific parcels of property. None of this should be repeated with our new city manager; 2. A city manager who requires city staff and consultants to be honest and provide elected officials with unbiased and accurate information and opinions; 3. Promotes transparency; 4. Will respect the spirit of the Open Public Meetings Act; 5. A city manager not prone to exceeding his or her authority: the city manager should not be making decisions behind closed doors that are the legal purview of elected officials; 6. A city manager who values Bainbridge Island’s history and historic preservation, and will actively support the City’s status as a local government with a certified historic preservation program and Historic Preservation Commission; 7. Respects and promotes local control and will strive to unify the interests of City government with the interests of the community. Let the City Council Know What You Want in a City Manager You can email the entire city council at council@bainbridgewa.gov or individual council members at the following email addresses: Ashley Mathews: amathews@bainbridgewa.gov Brenda Fantroy-Johnson: bfantroy-johnson@bainbridgewa.gov Clarence Moriwaki: cmoriwaki@bainbridgewa.gov Kirsten Hytopoulos: khytopoulos@bainbridgewa.gov Lara Lant: llant@bainbridgewa.gov Leslie Schneider: lschneider@bainbridgewa.gov Mike Nelson: mnelson@bainbridgewa.gov

Continue reading

It’s not a plan for the sustainable management of Bainbridge Island’s aquifers

The City of Bainbridge Island’s Draft Groundwater Management Plan:   It’s not a plan for the sustainable management of Bainbridge Island’s aquifers The City of Bainbridge Island’s groundwater management plan is emerging, not as a plan for the long-term sustainable management of Bainbridge Island’s groundwater, but rather as a plan to manage the depletion of Bainbridge Island’s aquifers to accommodate accelerated growth. —Newsletter, September 1, 2025— The City of Bainbridge Island’s groundwater management plan is emerging, not as a plan for the long-term sustainable management of Bainbridge Island’s groundwater, but rather as a plan to manage the depletion of Bainbridge Island’s aquifers to accommodate accelerated growth. There are three fatal flaws in the City’s draft groundwater management plan: It prioritizes growth over the sustainable management of groundwater; It contains a skewed interpretation of the Growth Management Act focused on housing while completely ignoring GMA protections for groundwater; It fails to recognize the important role land use zoning and regulations play in sustainable groundwater management. When you hear the words groundwater management plan you might assume it’s a plan for the long-term sustainable management of groundwater. After all, isn’t that the purpose of a groundwater management plan? The City’s draft GWMP, however, is primarily about managing the depletion of Bainbridge Island’s freshwater aquifers so that massive up zoning and growth can proceed unimpeded. It does that, in part, by leaning heavily on supposed growth mandates from the State. So what are the solutions for fixing the City’s deeply flawed GWMP? It’s going to require a significant amount of public pressure to budge the City off its current position of prioritizing growth over the sustainable management of Bainbridge Island’s groundwater.Here’s a summary of what would make a good groundwater management plan for Bainbridge Island: Change the draft GWMP to become a genuine plan for the long-term sustainable management of Bainbridge Island’s groundwater consistent with long-standing comprehensive plan goals and policies. It needs to call for serious actions, including land use controls, to prevent declines in the Island’s aquifers. The City’s disinformation campaign regarding the requirements of the Growth Management Act needs to stop. Bainbridge Island is the only EPA certified Sole Source Aquifer island-city surrounded by saltwater in the entire United States. Protection of Bainbridge Island’s groundwater resources is not preempted by GMA housing requirements. Claiming otherwise is dishonest and poses a dire threat to the future of Bainbridge Island, our quality of life, and the health of the Island’s natural environment. The City needs to delay any plans for up-zoning parts of the Island until increased pumping can be evaluated for consistency with the LONG-TERM sustainable management of Bainbridge Island’s groundwater resources. The GWMP needs to explicitly provide for potential future land use restrictions to mitigate groundwater drawdowns. Potential future restrictions need to consider impacts of pumping from aquifers, loss of recharge due to development activities, and potential pollution of groundwater. Land owners and developers need to know that future development is contingent upon sustainable groundwater management and not the other way around. A balanced representation of GMA requirements need to run through the final GWMP, highlighting the GMA’s requirement to protect groundwater and with fewer references to HB 1220 and no statements saying or implying that growth requirements preempt the City’s obligation to promote the long-term sustainable management of Bainbridge Island’s groundwater resources. The GWMP needs to include consideration of tribal treaty rights, mainly potential impacts to stream levels that marine species migrating to and from Bainbridge Island’s streams depend on. The GWMP needs to include a more realistic description of mitigation measures, including conservation, without exaggerating their benefits. The City of Bainbridge Island’s Long-standing Commitment to Sustainability From the Guiding Principles and Policies found in the Introduction to Bainbridge Island’s comprehensive plan: Guiding Policy 2.1 Manage water resources for Bainbridge Island for present and future generations, recognizing that the Island’s finite groundwater resources [aquifers] are the sole source of our water supply. Guiding Policy 2.2 As part of long-range land use planning, consider the impacts of future development to the quality and quantity of groundwater that will be available to future Islanders and to the natural environment. To that end, strive for sustainable groundwater withdrawal, conserve aquifer recharge, guard against seawater intrusion and prevent adverse impacts to ground water quality from surface pollution. Guiding Policy 2.3 Preserve and protect the ecologicalfunctions and values of the Island’s aquatic resources. Guiding Policy 2.5 Create a Bainbridge Island groundwater management plan for the purpose of maintaining the long-term health of our fresh water aquifers. Guiding Policy 2.6 Recognizing the importance of our ground water and other water resources to present and future generations of Bainbridge Islanders, apply the precautionary principle. Guiding Principle #5 The use of land on the Island should be based on the principle that the Island’s environmental resources are finite and must be maintained at a sustainable level. Guiding Policy 5.1 Regulate all development on the Island consistent with the long-term health and carrying capacity of its natural systems. Guiding Policy 5.3 Preserve and enhance the Island’s natural systems, natural beauty and environmental quality. Guiding Policy 5.4 Protect and enhance wildlife, fish resources and natural ecosystems on Bainbridge Island. Guiding Principle #6 Nurture Bainbridge Island as a sustainable community by meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Here’s what the comp plan’s Land Use Element has to say about respecting the Island’s carrying capacity: GOAL LU-2 This Comprehensive Plan recognizes and affirms that as an Island, the city has natural constraints based on the carrying capacity of its natural systems. The plan establishes a development pattern that is consistent with the Goals of the community and compatible with the Island’s natural systems. Policy LU 2.1 Recognizing that the carrying capacity of the Island is not known, the citizens of Bainbridge Island should strive to conserve and protect its natural systems within the parameters of existing data.Revisions to the Plan should be made as new information becomes available. The carrying capacity of Bainbridge Island is determined by many factors including the supply of limited resources (particularly water), changes in patterns of consumption and technological advances. This Plan acknowledges that with current information, the carrying capacity of the Island is unknown. During the timeframe of this Plan, additional information on the carrying capacity of the Island should be developed. The plan takes a balanced and responsible approach to future development. As our understanding of the Island’s capacity changes, the recommendations of this Plan should be reconsidered to ensure they continue to represent a responsible path for the long-range future of the Island. The City of Bainbridge Island’s switcheroo So why is our city government straying so far from its long-held commitments to sustainability, to the point of prioritizing growth over sustainable management of Bainbridge Island’s groundwater? The issue of groundwater on Bainbridge Island has long been a point of contention between those who want to promote the long-term sustainable use of groundwater for both people and the natural environment verses those who are more interested in the money to be made from growth and development on Bainbridge Island. The latter unfortunately includes the City of Bainbridge Island with its desire for ever-increasing revenues. Add to this the natural desire by more and more people to call Bainbridge Island home. Not only have the comp plan’s lofty ideals about sustainability not been universally embraced, long-standing policies of preserving Bainbridge Island’s special character and promoting the sustainable use of its finite natural resources are now being described by some as exclusionary. The tipping point between sustainability and growth came mainly because of two things: 1) Appendix F—Housing Allocation Through 2044— of Kitsap County’s countywide planning policies and; 2) House Bill 1220 (HB 1220), signed by Governor Inslee in 2021. The stated purpose for Appendix F’s housing allocation is: … for jurisdictions to provide capacity for housing and to remove barriers to developing housing. Here are Appendix F housing allocations for Bainbridge Island: Total allocation for 2020-2044: 1,977 new housing units; Permanent supportive housing: 166 units; >30-50% adjusted median income (AMI): 324 units >50-80% AMI: 272 units; >80-100% AMI: 140 units; >100-120% AMI: 138 units; >120% AMI: 560 units; Appendix F is reinforced by HB 1220, which is implemented by RCW 36.70A.070(2) of the Growth Management Act. HB 1220 language from the GMA includes: (2) A housing element ensuring the vitality and character of established residential neighborhoods that: (c) Identifies sufficient capacity of land for housing including, but not limited to, government-assisted housing, housing for moderate, low, very low, and extremely low-income households, manufactured housing, multifamily housing, group homes, foster care facilities, emergency housing, emergency shelters, permanent supportive housing, and within an urban growth area boundary, consideration of duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes; An underlying assumption of both Appendix F and HB 1220 is that barriers to housing, be it resistance to up-zoning or the desire to retain the special character of a community, are exclusionary. City of Bainbridge Island officials have, for example, described single-family zoning on the Island as racist. This view has even been used as a litmus test for applicants to the City’s planning commission. Recently, the phrase, “Winslow’s small-town atmosphere and function”—long-standing language from the Guiding Principles of Bainbridge Island’s comprehensive plan—has been described as exclusionary and flagged for removal. We’re told the same equity lens will be used to flag other supposedly offensive language in Bainbridge Island’s comprehensive plan. Will this include phrases like “carrying capacity” and “sustainability”? The problem with using Appendix F and HB 1220 as a holy grail for groundwater management and future development on Bainbridge Island is that they represent only one set of requirements from the Growth Management Act. Part of the GMA’s emphasis on protecting the natural environment, here’s what it says about protecting groundwater resources. RCW 36.70A.070 Comprehensive Plans—Mandatory Elements Each comprehensive plan shall include a plan, scheme, or design for each of the following: A land use element … The land use element shall provide for protection of the quality and quantity of groundwater used for public water supplies. Nothing in the GMA prioritizes housing over the protection of groundwater resources. In the City’s draft groundwater management plan (GWMP), however, the City mentions HB 1220 housing requirements eleven times. It doesn’t mention the GMA’s requirement for the protection of groundwater even once. That seems a bit odd considering it’s a groundwater management plan. The draft GWMP also fails to mention any of the City’s long-standing commitments to the sustainable use of the Island’s groundwater and other natural resources contained in Bainbridge Island’s comprehensive plan. This bias isn’t new. It’s always been there. Now it’s being given encouragement and cover by HB 1220 and other extreme legislation coming out of Olympia. Affordable housing is expensive and challenging to produce. Zoning for and creating affordable housing is extremely difficult, especially in highly desirable places like Bainbridge Island. The City’s Planning Commission, which has been grappling with this issue for the last few months, has come to that realization. The only way to ensure the creation of affordable housing is through inclusionary zoning, which results in no more than 10% affordable along with 90% market rate housing units in a housing project, and expensive subsidies and programs. With limited public funds, meeting the supposed housing mandates of HB 1220 and Appendix F can only happen with massive up-zoning for inclusionary zoning—lots of market rate housing for a small amount of affordable housing. That’s what the City is pushing for through updates to the Winslow Subarea Plan and the Bainbridge Island Comprehensive Plan. Adding to this challenge is the fact that the City’s groundwater modeling shows significant declines in Bainbridge Island’s aquifers associated with continued growth. To resolve this conundrum the City has decided to disregard its goals related to the sustainable use of the Island’s finite groundwater resources. Projected declines in Bainbridge Island’s aquifers are now described at the City as a “sustainable outcome” and “manageable”. The Science While there is some disagreement among scientists, especially around future impacts to recharge and projected rainfall, the science provided in the draft groundwater management plan clearly predicts serious drawdowns of important aquifers, mainly in the deep Fletcher Bay Aquifer. The following is from the City’s July 2025 draft of Bainbridge Island’s groundwater management plan (GWMP). Page 2-46: Table 2-5. Findings 2011 USGS Groundwater Model A 2008 simulation found the following for pre-development to 2008: A “General decline in water level altitudes in deeper aquifers (0-10 feet in Sea Level Aquifer and 10-35 feet in the FBA (Fletcher Bay Aquifer)”. P. 2-49: Table 2-7. Key Findings 2015 Bainbridge Island Groundwater Model A simulation of the Island’s groundwater system found the following regarding how long it takes for rainwater to percolate down through the earth to aquifers. The information cited below fails to acknowledge that recharge from groundwater coming from off-island was determined by the USGS in 2009 to comprise only about 5% of Bainbridge Islands groundwater: Wells in deep aquifers (including the Glacio-Marine Aquifer and the FBA) may withdraw water that originates as recharge relatively distant from the wellhead and is greater than 100 years old. Not all groundwater on Bainbridge Island comes from recharge on Bainbridge Island. Model results indicate several wells tapping the deeper aquifers withdraw water that originates as recharge from areas on the Kitsap Peninsula and is greater than 1,000 years old.“ Page ES-7: From the Mid Impact Planning Scenario Summary Table Sea Level Aquifer (SLA) Groundwater levels are simulated to decrease by 6 feet after 100 years. This is primarily located around the South Bainbridge Well field, suggesting the increase in mean sea level offsets effects of decreased recharge and increased pumping in the SLA. Glaciomarine Aquifer (GMA) Groundwater levels are simulated to decrease by 46 feet after 100 years. This is primarily centered around Island Utility Well field, due to FBA wells creating drawdown in the aquitard separating GMA and FBA. The portion of the aquifer with groundwater elevations below mean sea level expands past the footprint of the island faster and to a greater overall extent than the Low Impact simulation results. Fletcher Bay Aquifer (FBA—deepest aquifer) Groundwater levels are simulated to decrease by 71 feet after 100 years. 80-100 feet of drawdown are simulated within approximately a 2,000-foot radius around Island Utility Wells 1 and 3 and approximately a 1,000-foot radius around Sands Road wells 1 and 2. The northern part of the island experiences less drawdown, 60 to 80 feet and 40 to 60 feet, due to being less proximate to the Island Utility, Sands Road, and Fletcher Bay wells. These modeling results clearly indicate that continued growth, and especially accelerated growth, is not compatible with the long-term sustainable management of Bainbridge Island’s groundwater resources. Long-term mining of Bainbridge Island’s aquifers do not bode well for the future. It includes an increased potential for saltwater intrusion, declining well levels, failed new wells, water-starved streams and wetlands, and potentially expensive water from our neighbors to the West after we overshoot the capacity of Bainbridge Island’s freshwater aquifers. It won’t happen right away but this is the path our city want to put us on in its quest to push for accelerated growth. Mitigation As illustrated by Vashon Island’s groundwater management plan, land use controls are the primary way to mitigate projected declines in groundwater levels. Vashon’s GWMP was approved in 1998 by King County. It’s been successfully used to inform land use densities, limit groundwater pumping, reducing the potential for saltwater intrusion, and to promote aquifer recharge. Vashon is not an island-city but it is an EPA designated Sole Source Aquifer Island similar to Bainbridge Island. Both islands are designated as critical aquifer recharge areas (CARA), a critical area as defined by Washington’s Growth Management Act. Land use restrictions not included as mitigation in Bainbridge Island’s Plan. Bainbridge Island’s draft GWMP preempts the important connection between the health of the Island’s aquifers and land use zoning by citing state growth requirements and accepting them as mandates. This is a biased interpretation of the Growth Management Act and potentially turns Bainbridge Island’s GWMP into a groundwater mining plan that protects growth as opposed to the long-term health of Bainbridge Island’s groundwater resources. At the very least, Bainbridge Island’s GWMP must explicitly provide for potential future development restrictions, including down-zoning and development moratoriums, to mitigate continued drawdowns in Bainbridge Island’s aquifers.  Identifying these actions as possible future mitigation in Bainbridge Island’s GWMP would weaken and discourage challenges by development interests over zoning changes and restrictions needed to sustainably manage Bainbridge Island’s groundwater resources. How do you mitigate something that’s already happened? Once properties have been up-zoned, with no explicit provisions for potential down-zoning, it’s highly unlikely those additional developments rights would ever be taken away. That seems to be part of the City’s strategy: Pave the way for up-zoning, with biased interpretations of the GMA and overstated promises to mitigate drawdowns of the Island’s aquifers. Once up zoning is done it will become the new normal, extremely difficult to undo. This attitude, and the City’s desire for major up-zoning, is at the heart of the City’s overall approach to groundwater management. The draft GWMP relies on relatively weak mitigations: Monitoring water levels in streams: Table ES-2 outlines a process for monitoring stream levels and potentially limiting nearby pumping based upon state” in-stream flow rules” and critical areas regulations. This would likely have no impact on the City’s plans for massive up-zoning and expansion of Winslow. Early Warning Levels (EWL): EWL sets arbitrary limits for increased levels of chloride and maximum 0.5 foot/year declines in water of monitored wells. No scientific basis has been provided to support the assumption that anything less than a 0.5 foot decline per year decline in water levels equals a “safe yield”. Exceeding EWL requires additional sampling and field investigation. The draft GWMP calls for adjusting EWL standards relative to the thickness of aquifers and how well levels recover after being rested following the triggering of EWL. Absent precautionary policies related to growth and zoning densities, the probability of saltwater intrusion and over-pumping of aquifers will essentially be baked into Bainbridge Island’s land use zoning. In that scenario, the ability of EWL to protect groundwater is questionable. Water Conservation: Besides land use restrictions, water pricing is the primary tool available for the City to reduce water consumption. Other conservation measures cited in the draft GWMP include: public education; lower water pressures; leak detection and repair; responsible landscaping and irrigating; alternative water sources, such as rainwater harvesting; and water use restrictions. No estimates are provided for the extent to which these mitigation measures would offset increased groundwater pumping and reductions in recharge associated with the City’s current plans to massively up-zone Winslow and possibly other parts of Bainbridge Island. Water reuse: The City recently hired a consultant to develop plans for reusing treated sewage to recharge aquifers. The resulting scenarios were expensive and the benefits appeared minimal in comparison. Like much the City’s discussions about water conservation, the whole exercise appeared more performative than serious. Drilling new wells: One mitigation strategy to address declining aquifers identified in the City’s draft GWMP is to drill more wells around the island. The theory is that by distributing drawdowns over a wider area there will be less impact to aquifers. This is an expensive and unproven mitigation measure. So what are the solutions for fixing the City’s deeply flawed GWMP? It’s going to require a significant amount of public pressure to budge the City off its current position of prioritizing growth over the sustainable management of Bainbridge Island’s groundwater. Here’s a summary of changes needed to make a good groundwater management plan for Bainbridge Island: Change the draft GWMP to become a genuine plan for the long-term sustainable management of Bainbridge Island’s groundwater resources consistent with long-standing 2016 comprehensive plan goals and policies. It needs to call for serious actions, including land use controls, to prevent declines in the Island’s aquifers; The City’s disinformation campaign regarding the requirements of the Growth Management Act needs to stop. Bainbridge Island is the only EPA certified Sole Source Aquifer island-city surrounded by saltwater in the entire United States. Protection of Bainbridge Island’s groundwater resources is not preempted by GMA housing requirements. Claiming otherwise is dishonest and poses a dire threat to the future of Bainbridge Island, our quality of life, and the health of the Island’s natural environment; The City needs to delay any plans for up-zoning parts of the Island until increased pumping can be evaluated for consistency with the LONG-TERM sustainable management of Bainbridge Island’s groundwater resources; The GWMP needs to explicitly provide for potential future land use restrictions to mitigate groundwater drawdowns. Potential future restrictions need to consider impacts of pumping from aquifers, loss of recharge due to development activities, and potential pollution of groundwater. Land owners and developers need to know that future development is contingent upon sustainable groundwater management and not the other way around; A balanced representation of GMA requirements need to run through the final GWMP, highlighting the GMA’s requirement to protect groundwater (see earlier citation) and with fewer references to HB 1220 and no statements saying or implying that growth requirements preempt the City’s obligation to promote the long-term sustainable management of Bainbridge Island’s groundwater resources; The GWMP needs to include consideration of tribal treaty rights, including adverse impacts to Bainbridge Island’s streams, which marine species migrate to and from; The plan needs to include a more realistic description of mitigation measures, including conservation, without the City’s typical exaggeration of their benefits. Another reason a good groundwater management plan for Bainbridge Island is so important—Comp Plan certification by the State A good groundwater management plan will set the tone for future City actions. It will also inform Bainbridge Island’s updated comprehensive plan and serve as a backstop against the state’s aggressive housing requirements. When Bainbridge Island’s comprehensive plan goes to Puget Sound Regional Council’s Growth Management Policy Board for consideration, there will need to be a rationale for limiting growth on the Island. That rationale mainly needs to come via a good groundwater management plan that prioritizes long-term sustainable management of our groundwater resources for both future generations of Bainbridge Islanders and the natural environment. Now is a good time to comment on the current draft GWMP The City would like us to wait and comment after the final groundwater management plan is developed and released but they will accept comments now. You can send your comments to: pwadmin@bainbridgewa.gov To obtain a copy of the 2nd draft of Bainbridge Island’s Groundwater Management Plan use this link (https://cityofbainbridgeisland.civilspace.io/en/projects/groundwater-management-plan) Development of the City’s groundwater management plan for Bainbridge Island will continue into the Fall with a public meeting date yet to be determined. BCC will provide more information as the process moves forward. Please remember that your attention to what the City is doing on our behalf will not only affect our quality of life, it will also affect future generations and the Island’s natural environment for many years to come. Join BCC for a Sustainability Intervention at City Hall Starting on September 9th and 23rd at 5:30pm there will be a series of demonstrations at city hall led by Bainbridge Conservation Coalition highlighting the importance of Bainbridge Island’s aquifers and how they would be impacted by the City of Bainbridge Island’s plans for massive up-zoning and continued growth. It’s not clear that our city council members are aware of these basic facts about the Island and its freshwater aquifers: Massive up-zoning is not compatible with the sustainable management of Bainbridge Island’s freshwater aquifers. The City’s own modeling proves it. Bainbridge Islanders are solely dependent upon rainwater charged aquifers for our domestic fresh water supply. According to the USGS, only 5% of Bainbridge Island’s groundwater originates from the Kitsap Peninsula. Bainbridge Island’s groundwater is a finite resource subject to degradation in terms of quantity and quality due to impacts associated with growth; Pumping from shallow aquifers from growth adversely impacts streams and wetlands with low flows in the summer. Bainbridge Island’s current comprehensive plan from 2016 is unequivocally committed to the sustainable management of the Island’s groundwater for both people and the natural environment. Modeling by a City consultant shows concerning future drawdowns of the Island’s aquifers from increased growth and climate change; The City of Bainbridge Island’s draft groundwater management plan (GWMP) prioritizes growth over long term groundwater sustainability, based on the City’s biased interpretation of the Growth Management Act; Missing from the City’s GWMP: Any mention of the GMA’s requirement for the protection of groundwater resources. Join BCC on September 9th and 23rd at 5:30 pm at city hall to remind our elected officials about the paramount importance of protecting Bainbridge Island’s Aquifers Contact BCC at biconservationcoalition@gmail.com for more information.

Continue reading

Kitsap County Community Survey Now Open: Your Voice Shapes Our Future

Continue reading

Only YOU can prevent wildfires- Smokey Bear

We've learned a lot about wildfires since 1944, when Smokey Bear first debuted in what would become the longest running public service announcement in US history. (Find historic posters and radio/television announcements at smokeybear.com) We have learned that fire plays an important cultural and ecological role. Historically, fire is nature's way of thinning forests, opening up clearings for more plant and animal diversity, nutrient recycling and other conditions that contribute to forest resiliency. Over time, the patchwork of clearings caused by naturally occurring fires can have a protective effect, as well as reduce the number of water-thirsty plants competing for water in a smaller area. (Why wildfires have gotten worse and what we can do about it TED Talk) But wildfires also threaten life and property, as well as introduce ash, sediment and pollutants to our air and waterways. In addition, the absence of vegetation after a fire event can cause erosion and runoff that exacerbates water quality issues. (Wildfire and Water Quality Research EPA ) In recent years, wildfires have been increasing in size and intensity. Wildfire risk in densely forested western Washington is real and once fires start here, they can grow in size rapidly and be especially difficult to contain. State and Federal agencies constantly work to suppress fires that threaten public safely while working for the health of forest eco-systems. A tricky balance. (Washington State Braces for 'Inevitable' Megafire... New York Times) This month, take time to educate yourself about the opposing impacts of wildfires and explore wildfire tracking and preparation resources. AirNow - Fire and Smoke Map - View extent of smoke over North America Forest Active Plan Annual Report, 2024 - WA Dept of Natural Resources Kitsap County Burn Ban Information Smoke - Ready Toolbox for Wildfires Watch Duty - Descriptions and updates of current fire events Washington Air Quality Index & Map - WA State Dept of Ecology Washington Smoke Blog - Partnership of county, state, federal and tribal agencies In this issue, look for lots of volunteer opportunities and self-education events. Some areas of particular from our partners: Kitsap Stream Bug Sampling - July through September Forest Habitat Stewards Workshop - September Float with a Scientist - September 4 - Come learn about invasive species management, rare plant surveys, vegetation classification, and wetland delineation in our waterways. Plan to grab your favorite floating device and come float 'n learn! WSU Water Stewardship As always, thanks for all you do to steward the land and water of Kitsap County. We hope to see you soon. Anna McClelland & Sharon Pegany WSU Kitsap Extension, Water Stewardship Visit our Website

Continue reading

BI Comp Plan’s DEIS full of misinformation

By Melanie Keenan and Malcolm Gander • January 31, 2025 1:30 am The city of Bainbridge Island is updating its Comprehensive Plan, as required by the state Growth Management Act. As part of that process, COBI issued a Draft Environmental Impact Statement listing three possible alternatives for future growth. Alternative 1 plans for 4,524 new residents by 2044, conforming to the growth allocation for BI under the existing GMA scheme. The DEIS incorrectly asserts, however, that Alternative 1 fails to satisfy the affordable housing “mandate” of the GMA. It therefore advocates for Alternatives 2 or 3, which plan for over 11,000 new residents (more than double the GMA requirement, increasing BI population by over 40%). Alternative 2 contemplates 11,601 new residents; Alternative 3 plans for 11,061. COBI would facilitate that dramatic growth by rezoning for greater density, building height and/or expansion of Winslow and Neighborhood Centers like Lynwood, Rolling Bay and Island Center. As BI residents and professional hydrogeologists serving on the city’s Environmental Technical Advisory Committee and Groundwater Management Plan Subcommittee, we are alarmed by COBI’s failure to understand the significance of our status as a Sole Source Aquifer. The US Environmental Protection Agency designated Bainbridge as an SSA in 2013, in response to a petition that we authored. That designation comprises several aquifers of different depths and locations on BI. All of our aquifers, however, are reliant on precipitation, protection of wetlands and other critical areas, and stormwater management for aquifer recharge. Bainbridge does not have mountain snowmelt or large rivers, which other cities in Washington rely on for water supply and aquifer recharge. Instead, we are totally reliant on the aquifers, and over-development and excessive water extraction threatens their recharge and sustainability. A drop in aquifer levels could result in seawater intrusion and contamination of the BI water supply. Despite purporting to address “environmental impacts,” the DEIS fails to mention our SSA status, much less grapple with the implications of that hugely significant fact for the pro-growth Alternatives that it advocates. Likewise, its gloss on the GMA fails to acknowledge that the statute respects our SSA status, by including a section (RCW 36.70A.635) that exempts BI from certain housing density requirements applicable elsewhere. That provision was passed in 2024 and therefore controls over any conflicting provisions passed earlier. The DEIS relies on a housing amendment passed in 2021. But, contrary to the DEIS assertion, even that amendment does not impose “mandates” that nullify protection for critical resources like aquifers. The DEIS also lacks a finalized Groundwater Management Plan and Groundwater Model Update. It does not discuss the constraints on water supply and depleted aquifers as reflected by BI’s declining streams and drawdown of the deep Fletcher Bay Aquifer. Nor does it address the need for significant improvement of water infrastructure (currently unfunded), much less the enormous costs of mitigation measures if the pro-growth Alternatives are adopted. While our City Council authorized the preparation of a GWMP over six years ago, it has not pushed it to completion. The DEIS should not be finalized without the completion of a GWMP, which is a prerequisite for any responsible growth planning. ETAC and the GWMP Subcommittee have not seen a draft GWMP since the previous COBI hydrogeologist left COBI employment two years ago. We have only had discussions concerning the contractor’s preliminary modeling updates, and so far we believe the model is being “reverse engineered” with selected data to support high-growth Alternatives advanced in the DEIS. This politicized process subverts basic scientific standards, undermines confidence in local government and threatens the well-being of the community. Fresh, clean water is the most important resource we have on BI, and it is a vulnerable and limited resource. Its availability will determine the future quality of life for residents, and the value of their homes and businesses. Please consider contacting City Council members to request a revised DEIS that includes a GWMP and rejects irresponsible population increases in the absence of adequate information about the sustainability of BI’s water supply. Melanie Keenan and Malcolm Gander of BI are members of Bainbridge Conservation Coalition.

Continue reading