Vanishing Science, Vanishing Fairness, Judicial Bias
- Amy O.
- 6 hours ago
- 3 min read
Greenlighting Risky Projects with Junk Science: Inside City of Blaine’s SEPA Hearing - Video Explainer
Takeaway: This powerful 5-minute video shows how that science vanished inside the City of Blaine’s quasi-judicial SEPA appeal for a $0.5B Avista subdivision above Birch Bay. See what happens in a case of land-use regulatory capture. Learn how the City of Blaine’s Planning Department acts as a dual agency, both developer partner and environmental judge, while the ‘neutral’ examiner is paid by the City. Learn how regulatory capture, dual‑role city agencies, and paid hearing examiners can turn junk science into permit approvals and what reforms residents in Whatcom County and beyond can demand for truly science‑based, flood‑safe development.
Judicial Bias
This video looks inside the City of Blaine’s land-use tactics during a three-month State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) appeal in late 2025. In January 2026, Blaine City Council denied the citizen appeal and approved the 181-acre, ~$0.5 billion, 490-unit Avista at Birch Point development above Birch Bay, the largest in Whatcom County today.
The appeal drew over 200 written comments, five days of testimony, and hundreds of pages of exhibits. Birch Bay, Blaine and Semiahmoo residents crowdfunded the $2,500 fee through WaterPlanningMatters.org (WPM). Their top concerns: worsening flooding in Birch Bay Village, cumulative stormwater pollution impairing shellfish beds, wetland shrinkage, protection of Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas that keep the bay clean, frequently flooded areas, traffic, and shifting infrastructure costs onto existing homeowners through higher utility bills.
When a half-billion-dollar high-end subdivision (Avista) was proposed above Birch Bay, neighbors thought science would protect them from worsening floods and polluted shellfish beds.
Flooding from atmospheric river events now happens frequently in Whatcom County. The developer’s stormwater model relied on old rainfall data, assuming a 100-year storm meant about 5.2 inches of rain. Updated University of Washington Climate Impacts Group projections show that the same storm could drop nearly 9.26 inches by the 2040s, almost 80% more water than the proposed ponds and downstream ditches to Birch Bay were built to handle.
Instead of weighing best available science, the hearing examiner excluded admitted evidence, including state water protection maps on technicalities. He then wrote there was “no credible evidence” of increased flood risk about Avista.
The response raised questions of fairness and triggered an audit. Volunteers ran a sentence-by-sentence review of the 58-page ruling using open-source tools (no AI). The tool flagged 43 indicators of bias across seven tactics; from “procedural manipulation” (admit the evidence, then pretend it doesn’t exist) to “scope narrowing” that pushed aside Clean Water Act and 303(d) impaired waters concerns.
The video explains how legal “substantial weight” to city staff morphs into structural prejudice, especially when the same city acts in dual roles as both project promoter and environmental judge and when hearing examiners are paid by the jurisdictions they’re supposed to scrutinize.
It shows how misstated claims (like “we can’t adjust the stormwater model for climate change”) go unchallenged by the Examiner, even though the model’s own manual allows climate multipliers.
Why it Matters / Why Citizens Should Care
If you live in Whatcom County or care about responsible development and flood protection, this is worth watching. It gives you the clear warning signs of the tactics and judicial bias along with practical reform ideas for more science-based, responsible development.
Comments