Groundwater Management and Growth – A 2025 Survey of Candidates for Bainbridge Island City Council

BAINBRIDGE CONSERVATION COALITION Groundwater Management and Growth A 2025 Survey of Candidates for Bainbridge Island City Council As the 2025 election for Bainbridge Island city council members draws near the City is in the midst of three planning processes with potentially serious implications for quality of life on Bainbridge Island far into the future. Those plans include: An update to the Winslow Subarea Plan; The Comprehensive Plan periodic update; and A long-awaited Groundwater Management Plan for Bainbridge Island. These three plans are inextricably linked by the demands and impacts of growth on the Island’s finite groundwater resources (aquifers). The relationship between groundwater and land use is made even more urgent by the City of Bainbridge Island’s current push for massive up-zoning in Winslow. There are four basic basic ways that growth impacts our aquifers: Increased pumping of groundwater for domestic and commercial use; The increased potential for groundwater pollution from under-treated stormwater, additional vehicles, and other sources related to development; Increased dependence on wastewater treatment facilities, which don’t recharge aquifers and speed up conversion of freshwater into salt water; Increased impervious surfaces, which reduce groundwater recharge. Bainbridge Island is an EPA designated Sole Source Aquifer Why is this significant? As a Sole Source Aquifer, Bainbridge Island depends upon its system of aquifers for over 50% of the domestic water supply. In fact, Bainbridge Island is 100% dependent upon our aquifers for freshwater. The ability of those aquifers to support us—and to support the health of streams and wetlands—is finite. Exceeding that finite capacity results in declining groundwater levels. Bainbridge Island is the only Sole Source Aquifer island-city surrounded by salt water in the entire United States. Bainbridge Conservation Coalition believes all of this is important to Island voters and that they want our system of aquifers to be managed for long-term sustainability as opposed to managing their gradual depletion in order to accommodate endless growth. With that in mind, Bainbridge Conservation Coalition sent out a survey on groundwater management and land use planning to the six candidates running for city council this year. They all responded. Here is the survey, followed by responses from each of the six candidates: 2025 Bainbridge Island City Council Candidates, As election day draws near Bainbridge Conservation Coalition is requesting your time for a statement on the interrelated issues of land use and groundwater management. Growth and groundwater management are of great interest to Island voters and BCC wants to provide you with an opportunity to help inform voters on your positions. When preparing your statements on growth and groundwater management please address the following sub topics: Finite carrying capacity: Bainbridge Island's current comprehensive plan recognizes that Bainbridge Island has a limited carrying capacity (Goal Lu-2 and sub policies) and mentions water resources. LU-2.1 states the following: 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. How do you plan to update data on and address the limited carrying capacity of Bainbridge Island? Sustainability. Simulations prepared for the City show steady declines in aquifers associated with projected growth. In your view can the sustainability for the Island be consistent with a planned decline of the Island’s aquifers? The fundamental purpose of a groundwater management plan. The City’s July 2025 draft groundwater management plan is premised on much-touted state “mandates” for accommodating specific numbers and types of housing that are generic to the state and not specific to islands. The GMA explicitly requires the protection of groundwater resources, however the City’s draft GWMP barely mentions GMA requirements for protecting groundwater. Do you believe that a comp plan can address issues like housing before first addressing the Island’s groundwater limitations? Mitigations. The draft GWMP identifies several potential ways to mitigate pressure on the Island’s groundwater, including: drilling more wells to spread out the impacts on aquifers; water conservation (including public education); and the reuse of treated sewage effluent for recharging aquifers. Do you believe these mitigation measures have been adequately studied, including the feasibility of implementation (cost and effectiveness) and the potential for groundwater pollution? If not, what is your view on the effectiveness of the identified mitigations? Please provide your statements to Bainbridge Conservation Coalition by October 15, and please limit them to 350 words or less. BCC will then distribute your consolidated statements to Bainbridge Island voters via our website, our email list, and social media. HERE ARE THE CANDIDATES’ RESPONSES SOUTH WARD Sarah Blossom: The Comprehensive Plan (CP) guides land use regulation and links the community’s future vision to regulatory action. The Groundwater Management Plan (GWMP) states that while development regulation is a goal, its primary purpose “is to establish a comprehensive framework for cooperation between regulatory agencies and utilities to protect the island’s EPA-designated Sole Source Aquifer system”. To be effective, the strategies from the GWMP must be integrated into the CP so that groundwater sustainability directly informs decisions about growth patterns and land use. Without this, the CP could assume levels of growth that our aquifers can’t sustain. To support this, I propose restructuring the Water Resources element of our CP. Instead of a “Vision” section, it should begin with a clearly stated “Goal”: Ensure the long-term sustainability of the island’s aquifers. That Goal should be supported by Objectives and accompanying Policies. Objectives define the strategy; Policies establish the tools and actions required to implement it. This creates a clear policy framework that can shape land use and capital decisions. For example, an Objective could be to “Manage Aquifer Recharge”. Policies under this Objective could include evaluating the feasibility of a membrane bioreactor (MBR) plant capable of producing water clean enough to recharge groundwater or support stream flows. Growth patterns, impervious surface coverage, vegetation removal and well placement all influence aquifer recharge and groundwater quality. If the GWMP’s tools and strategies are not embedded into the CP, land use approvals and capital decisions could unintentionally work against groundwater protection goals. Integration ensures consistency across policy documents and implementation tools. For instance, if data shows that directing growth in Winslow conserves water because average household use there is lower than in the Conservation Area, that only works if development capacity is intentionally “shifted” from the Conservation Area to Winslow. That shift could increase wastewater treatment needs, potentially requiring a new facility. However, a new facility could result in treated water being discharged to the sound rather than recharging the aquifer through drainfields. Integrating groundwater policy would require the City to evaluate beneficial wastewater reuse to maintain or improve groundwater recharge. Mike Nelson: 1. Finite carrying capacity. How do you plan to update data on and address the limited carrying capacity of Bainbridge Island? Response: Policy LU 2.1 in the current Comprehensive Plan recognizes that “with current information, the carrying capacity of the Island is unknown.” I believe we must work harder to make the carrying capacity known. In my view, the carrying capacity of Bainbridge Island is directly tied to the finite nature of our water supply. This is also reflected in Policy LU 2.1, which states that the “carrying capacity of Bainbridge Island is determined by many factors including the supply of limited resources (particularly water) . . . .” With this is mind, my approach would be to focus on the finite nature of our water supply to determine the carrying capacity of the Island. In addition to calling for the completion of the Groundwater Management Plan and having it peer reviewed prior to completing the Comprehensive Plan, I am also calling on the City to complete a Comprehensive Water Study to determine the exact carrying capacity of the Island. While there are important modeling studies in the draft Groundwater Management Plan, these studies do not include a conclusion regarding the Island’s carrying capacity. We need to go further and deeper to better understand the answer to this question, and new development and population growth must ultimately yield to the carrying capacity we find. 2. Sustainability. In your view can the sustainability for the Island be consistent with a planned decline of the Island’s aquifers? Response: No. Our groundwater aquifers are experiencing net drawdown now. In addition, the modeling studies in the draft Groundwater Management Plan also show significant net drawdown moving forward. This is an unsustainable path. In my view, we must course correct now. Goal WR-1 in the current Comprehensive Plan says is best: “New development and population growth are managed so that water resources remain adequate and affordable for the indefinite future.” (Emphasis added). It is not good enough that we will have enough water for the next 20 or 50 years. We are charged with making sure that we have enough water for the “indefinite” future, and new development and population growth must yield to this goal. 3. The fundamental purpose of a groundwater management plan. Do you believe that a comp plan can address issues like housing before first addressing the Island’s groundwater limitations? Response: No. These issues must be taken together, and they must be given equal weight. My approach is to plan for reasonable growth, not massive growth. This means the 4,524 new people and 1,977 new units that we have been allocated. We can do that under existing zoning. However, that doesn’t mean that we are required to ultimately grow that much; we are just required to plan for this growth. If as we move forward over these next 20 years, the water situation becomes even more dire, new development and population growth must yield to protection of the aquifers. We may even need to consider a moratorium on future growth. To that end, we must make sure that the Groundwater Management Plan prioritizes sustainable management of our groundwater aquifers over growth. We must make sure that our Comprehensive Plan prioritizes the “availability of water” above all else. And, we must complete a Comprehensive Water Study to determine the exact carrying capacity of the Island. 4.Mitigations. Do you believe these mitigation measures have been adequately studied, including the feasibility of implementation (cost and effectiveness) and the potential for groundwater pollution? If not, what is your view on the effectiveness of the identified mitigations? Response: In general, I am concerned that the conservation strategies that have been put forward will do very little to change the unsustainable path that we are currently on. At best, in my view, they may act to put us on a more sustainable path for the current population level. However, they cannot and should not be used as justification for a significant increase in growth. The most important mitigation measure we can take now is to not significantly grow the population. As far as the specific measures mentioned, I am most interested in studying and learning more about wastewater beneficial re-use. If we found a way to pay for this, without increasing taxes on Islanders, it may have the potential to save a significant amount of water. NORTH WARD Joe Deets: 1. Finite carrying capacity. How do you plan to update data on and address the limited carrying capacity of Bainbridge Island? My Response to #1 It won’t be Councilmembers who will be updating the data. My plan is to ensure that we have the expertise available to accomplish that. 2. Sustainability. In your view can the sustainability for the Island be consistent with a planned decline of the Island’s aquifers? My Response to #2 The sustainability of water on Bainbridge Island is directly correlated to the draw of water from the aquifers (i.e. if we stopped drawing water from the aquifer today it would stop declining). There are already 25,000 people on the Island and it is a good assumption that most of them are drawing water from the aquifer every day. So, is our current level of water-use by the population we already have sustainable into the future? I have my doubts. Please see my comments on water conservation, #4 below. 3. The fundamental purpose of a groundwater management plan. Do you believe that a comp plan can address issues like housing before first addressing the Island’s groundwater limitations? My Response to #3 I believe that we must complete the Ground Water Management Plan before the Comprehensive Plan Update. 4. Mitigations. Do you believe these mitigation measures have been adequately studied, including the feasibility of implementation (cost and effectiveness) and the potential for groundwater pollution? If not, what is your view on the effectiveness of the identified mitigations? My Response to #4 Water is our most precious resource. It is critical and finite. On Bainbridge Island, we have monitored and measured it, we’ve recognized the importance of storing it and we’ve studied the potential for re-using it. What has not happened nearly enough in my view is the implementation of water conservation measures. So, at my request, water conservation was discussed at the April 15th, 2025, Council Study Session. At that meeting there was universal acknowledgement by Councilmembers on the importance of water conservation, that implementation of measures is the key to success, and that a discussion on creating a water conversation plan can occur once the Groundwater Management Plan has been completed. I will be vigorously pursuing the creation of such a plan. Lara Lant: Finite carrying capacity. How do you plan to update data on and address the limited carrying capacity of Bainbridge Island? Lara’s response Before we update our Comprehensive Plan, the City of Bainbridge Island needs to adopt an updated Groundwater Management Plan. Ideally, this plan would create a water budget that integrates groundwater data, climate projections and land-use policy. Details that can address some of the carrying capacity limitations include: • Approvals for subdivisions and upzones should contain water-capacity and conservation language to ensure that growth aligns with resources. • The City should coordinate data and messaging with Kitsap Public Health, Kitsap PUD, Kitsap County, Department of Ecology and other agencies to promote consistent public communication. • The City should educate, encourage and reward residents and businesses that conserve water. • Landscape standards should be updated to require efficient irrigation and rainwater capture (if feasible) and we should incentivize drought tolerant planting. • City projects (including all taxing districts) should be designed with low-impact development principles to protect recharge areas. Until we have a current groundwater plan, we cannot confidently plan for sustainable development. Sustainability. In your view can the sustainability for the Island be consistent with a planned decline of the Island’s aquifers? Lara’s response: Before we can claim to be “sustainable,” we need to define what that really means for Bainbridge Island. What are we adding, and what are we taking away, to keep the wheels on the bus? An updated Groundwater Management Plan—reflecting current climate projections and land- use trends—will help us determine our sustainability “tolerance.” If the data confirms our water supply is expected to diminish, then we must take conservation seriously and align land-use policy so we don’t over-stress the aquifer. The fundamental purpose of a groundwater management plan. Do you believe that a comp plan can address issues like housing before first addressing the Island’s groundwater limitations? Lara’s response: NO – the Comprehensive Plan cannot address issues like housing before addressing groundwater limitations. Good planning requires good data. An updated Groundwater Management Plan will give the city and its stakeholders the information needed to make informed choices about how we want development to happen. Mitigations. Do you believe these mitigation measures have been adequately studied, including the feasibility of implementation (cost and effectiveness) and the potential for groundwater pollution? If not, what is your view on the effectiveness of the identified mitigations? Lara’s response: The draft Groundwater Management Plan identifies potential ways to reduce pressure on our aquifers—drilling more wells to spread out impacts, promoting water conservation, and exploring the reuse of treated effluent for recharge. I appreciate the range of ideas, but the draft offers more theory than concrete next steps. Health risks, financial feasibility, and realistic timelines for implementation are not clear. I think more information on mitigation measures is needed before the city spends resources to implement them. We are part of a larger system, and fully understanding our water supply depends on stronger coordination with partners. In the meantime, a conservative approach to water use—and a robust commitment to conservation—will buy us time as we figure out next steps (if any). CENTRAL WARD Clarence Moriwaki: There are many differing opinions, analysis, and debates in our community over the assumptions, data, projections and accuracy of the Groundwater Management Plan. Instead of picking and choosing what's perceived or believed to be correct, I prefer to see the answers and facts as determined by the expert peer review, and I will base my thoughts accordingly from their report. I suspect that the peer review report will be debated, of which demonstrates that we have an active and engaged community. Peter Raffa: 1. Finite carrying capacity: How do you plan to update data on and address the limited carrying capacity of Bainbridge Island? Peter’s response I am disappointed that the Comprehensive Plan has expired in December 2024 and it still has not been updated costing the taxpayers even more money extending the consultants contract. I have and always have been concerned about the water supply on the island. Of course there is a limit to the water in a single source aquifer like we have on the island. My understanding is that it is currently being depleted and the debate is by how much, for how long, etc. There again we do not have a current water management plan either. 2. Sustainability. In your view can the sustainability for the Island be consistent with a planned decline of the Island’s aquifers? Peter’s response NO. We have to see what the current water management plan has to say before we can grow and develop further, especially since we have an unfunded mandate by the state to grow beyond what I think is sustainable given the limited resources of an island such as ours. 3. The fundamental purpose of a groundwater management plan. Do you believe that a comp plan can address issues like housing before first addressing the Island’s groundwater limitations? Peter’s response NO. Groundwater should lead the way in making decisions for growth in housing, density, development, etc. Once you have the groundwater management plan it can help dictate the overall Comprehensive plan. 4. Mitigations. Do you believe these mitigation measures have been adequately studied, including the feasibility of implementation (cost and effectiveness) and the potential for groundwater pollution? If not, what is your view on the effectiveness of the identified mitigations? Peter’s response NO. I don't think these things have been adequately studied as they need to be especially for effectiveness and cost and I don't think the public has been properly educated despite your great work in trying to get the word out. People are not paying enough attention. We also have to do a better job maintaining our sewer and waste management systems. As my late father always told me, "Peter you don't miss the water til the well runs dry!" Big Thanks to All the Candidates Bainbridge Conservation Coalition thanks all of the candidates for their thoughtful responses to our survey. We hope the views and information provided here are helpful as Bainbridge Island voters as prepare to cast their votes. To learn more about the candidates’ positions on important issues you can visit their campaign websites, call them on the phone, or send them an email. Here is their contact information: Sarah Blossom Website: https://www.blossom4bicouncil.com/ Campaign email: blossom4council@gmail.com Mike Nelson Website: https://votemikenelson.com/ Campaign email: mike@votemikenelson.com Joe Deets Website: https://www.joedeetsforcouncil.com/ Campaign email: deetsforcouncil@gmail.com Phone: 206-855-4893 Lara Lant Website: https://www.laraforcouncil.com/ Email: laralantforcouncil@gmail.com Phone: 206-502-7584 Clarence Moriwaki Website: https://www.clarenceforbainbridge.us/ Campaign email: info@clarenceforbainbridge.us Phone: 206-556-1758 Peter Raffa Website: https://www.peterraffaforbainbridge.com/ Campaign email: praffaforbainbridge@gmail.com Bainbridge Conservation Coalition We’re holding our city and ourselves accountable—because the choices we make today will shape the island we pass on for tomorrow.

Continue reading