Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Reservoir Fire Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge saving 1,000,000‑gallon tank; neighbors, county engineers say it must be replaced
Summary
Property owners and residents at the Sudden Valley board meeting debated whether to preserve a 1,000,000‑gallon reservoir as an emergency water source for fire protection. Water district engineers and nearby neighbors said the tank is seismically unsafe and is being replaced with two new ferro‑cement tanks.
Joe O’Keefe, a longtime Sudden Valley resident, urged the board to pressure the regional water utility to preserve an old 1,000,000‑gallon tank as an emergency firefighting resource.
"Save the tank," O’Keefe said, arguing the existing structure could be cleaned and used to provide high‑altitude water in a wildfire or other emergency.
Neighbors and representatives of the water utility pushed back. Robin, a resident who lives two houses from the tank, said the structure is not seismically safe and that engineers and Whatcom Water and Sewer (the regional water utility referenced in public comments) are replacing it for safety reasons.
"The tank itself is not seismically safe," Robin said. She told the board the tank was built in the 1970s and said neighbors and utility engineers have been in regular contact about the replacement project.
A caller identified as James Johansson, speaking from outside the meeting, said the reservoir has been the subject of years of engineering study and is the water district’s top priority for replacement because it has both a high probability of failure and a high potential consequence if it fails. Johansson said two new tanks being built in the project are designed to modern seismic standards and include automatic shutoffs.
Why it matters: residents who live downhill from the tank and many Sudden Valley property owners voiced concern about wildfire preparedness and access to water in emergencies, while utility engineers and neighbors said the tank’s structural condition makes keeping it in service unsafe. The board heard both perspectives but did not take formal action to direct next steps at this meeting.
What was said and by whom: O’Keefe framed his appeal around firefighting utility, saying a filled tank "could still be cleaned out, re slurry, filled up with water" for emergency pumping. Robin said, "keeping a 1,000,000‑gallon tank full that's not seismically safe is not in the best interest" of those who live closest to it. Johansson summarized the technical record and funding background, saying the water district prioritized replacement and the project had received FEMA funding and engineering review.
Context and limitations: meeting comments make clear the replacement work has been underway for months and involves the county, the utility and state funding sources; speakers identified the new tanks as ferro‑cement and said the county and utility are leading the engineering and permitting. The board did not adopt a resolution or vote on demanding preservation; the meeting record shows the matter was presented as public comment and discussion, not a formal action item.
Next steps mentioned at the meeting: speakers suggested residents contact the water district (Whatcom Water and Sewer) and the project managers; the board discussion flagged the item for possible future oversight but no formal direction was recorded.
