Too much outside funding. Too many planners. Too little local food.

An enterprising grass roots group stirred controversy a couple of days ago. Shoppers returning to their cars parked in the Lakeway Fred Meyer parking lot Saturday afternoon found a snappy advertisement mini-flyer sticky tabbed to their windshields, inviting them to a balloting party. Free food. A free concert. Local candidates on hand to help answer sticky questions. A group dance taking the ballots to the mail box.

Political activist reactions from glee to outrage to the un-politicized urge to simply litter have surely given way to deeper musings. Some one must have a fair bit of cash to throw away in a far away city on parties and short lived friendships. Why the carrots? What is the back game?

Strategies. Goals. Influence. “Almost buying” votes. PDC filing violations.

Facebook pages of political activists these days are crawling with posts, fearing, anticipating, trying to foresee the results of the election in eight days. “These are terrible people…” “I am afraid we have overplayed our hand…” “We need more government—vote for…” “We need less government—vote for…”

Strategies. Votes. Representative candidates. The raw struggle between an increasingly polarized Whatcom County electorate.

A stunningly short planning commission meeting this last week left Planning and Development Staff gasping for air as the Planning Commission tabled their recommended rule changes without so much as a presentation. Was the issue really procedural restraint to protect the appeal over the Growth Management Hearings Board arbitrary water ruling last summer? Was the issue the clarification of impervious surfaces language and regulations in the County Code? Or was the issue the contentious insertion of sweeping well drilling restrictions within the rule changes.

Strategies. Rules. Rulings. Legal wranglings. Environmental precedent settings. Property rights protections.

An article by Ed Kilduff in the fall Business Pulse magazine spotlights the enormously successful Washington Growth Management Act—if measured by the exponential increase in public planners and planner wannabee activists.

Strategies. 1989. Grants. 2013. Large transfers of decision making powers from local to regional, state and federal bodies. An awakening electorate fumbling for their pens and phones and car keys; sharing shock over the reality of gross government over reach, waste and freedom takings; rediscovering public meetings and challenging the swarms of environmental protectionists that hover in the halls of power.

This Thursday, Oct 31/13, food growers, buyers, activists—it’s open to the public—can attend a symposium entitled Recipe for Tomorrow: Climate Change and the Future of Food. A large of slate of presenters representing farm, science, education, tribal and government agencies does not increase my peace of mind. The sponsorship of hardline environmental groups such as ReSources only steels my resolve to probe deeply into—you guessed it—strategies.

Strategies. Climate Change. Pollution. Grants!!! Radical environmentalism grows as long as there are grants for staff projects. Planner jobs proliferate as long as there is grant money to plan. Precautionary environmental protectionism provides an inexhaustible seedplot of grant ready projects. This is a public planner’s heaven. Total job security. An October 24/13 Washington State Commerce Department e-mail advertises, (broader web page here)

”Departments of Ecology and Commerce are offering funding through a competitive grant program for projects that fit under one of the following themes:

“Eligibility: Local governments, federally-recognized tribal governments, and special purpose districts are eligible to apply for all themes. In addition, non-profit non-governmental organizations and academic institutions of higher education are eligible to apply for Theme 3.”

Strategies. People. Food shortages. Family food sustainability. If a man does not work plan, he should not eat.

Retired WWU professor Don Easterbrook has survived the recent gang mugging by current WWU non-climate change experts, and posted a scathing review of both the 2013 IPCC report on climate change and the Oct’13 National Geographic featurearticles on rising seas.

Strategies. Facts. Fears. Politicized science. Media and academic suppression of genuine debate. Free internet speech. Angry embarrassment. Protecting tenured teaching posts.

May I suggest that a much bigger problem than climate change is dependence on non-local food distribution systems. We don’t grow local. We don’t eat local. But, planners and scientists write grants local and do property takings local.

Strategies. Working. Growing with your own hands. Value added locally grown food must be economically sustainable. Farmers will not grow what does not pay. Environmental takings do not grow food. Public planner oversight armies do not grow food.

Strategies. Environmentalist lawsuits. Buying votes. Happy face farm/environment symposiums. Academic muggings. Grants to fuel environmental takings. As Pete Kremen recently said, “Whatcom County is under seige by regulations.” So—when the outside environmental grant money runs out?? When scientists are paid to solve farm to table problems instead of ramping up UN change agency environmentalist hot buttons?? Probably, only then will a reduced roster of public planners figure out how to encourage a simply regulated local marketplace that provides truly value added locally grown food. -- JK

• Balloting Party Flyer
• Whatcom County Planning Commission 10/24/13 – Audio
• Edkilduff: Success Of The Growth Management Act
• Birch Bay Watershed And Aquatic Resources Management District (Sub-Zone 1 Of Flood Control Zone) Invites The Public To “Climate And Change And The Future Of Food”
• Climate Change And The Future Of Food – Agenda 10-31-13
• EPA Grant Money Available Through WA DOE And WA COM
• IPCC Vs NIPCC: Whose Peer Reviewed Climate Change Conclusions Are Based On Facts?
• Don Easterbrook Challenges National Geographic Sensationalism Over Rising Sea Levels (Oct/13 Issue)

Local Farmers vs the Environmental Bureaucracy

Surprise Property Use Ruling Stuns Farmers, Emboldens Dept Of Ecology

The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 against a Dayton, Wash., rancher who says the state failed to prove his cattle polluted a nearby creek.
The Washington Department of Ecology appealed a decision by a Columbia County superior court judge, who reversed an order by the state Pollution Controls Hearing Board that Lemire needed to build a fence to avoid pollution by his 29 head of cattle into Pataha Creek. Lemire argued that there was no evidence his cattle caused the pollution. - See more at: http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20130820/ARTICLE/130829971#sthash.SkjgkvpW.dpuf

The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 against a Dayton, Wash., rancher who says the state failed to prove his cattle polluted a nearby creek.
The Washington Department of Ecology appealed a decision by a Columbia County superior court judge, who reversed an order by the state Pollution Controls Hearing Board that Lemire needed to build a fence to avoid pollution by his 29 head of cattle into Pataha Creek. Lemire argued that there was no evidence his cattle caused the pollution. - See more at: http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20130820/ARTICLE/130829971#sthash.SkjgkvpW.dpuf

The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 against a Dayton, Wash., rancher who says the state failed to prove his cattle polluted a nearby creek.
The Washington Department of Ecology appealed a decision by a Columbia County superior court judge, who reversed an order by the state Pollution Controls Hearing Board that Lemire needed to build a fence to avoid pollution by his 29 head of cattle into Pataha Creek. Lemire argued that there was no evidence his cattle caused the pollution. - See more at: http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20130820/ARTICLE/130829971#sthash.SkjgkvpW.dpuf

The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 against a Dayton, Wash., rancher who says the state failed to prove his cattle polluted a nearby creek.
The Washington Department of Ecology appealed a decision by a Columbia County superior court judge, who reversed an order by the state Pollution Controls Hearing Board that Lemire needed to build a fence to avoid pollution by his 29 head of cattle into Pataha Creek. Lemire argued that there was no evidence his cattle caused the pollution. - See more at: http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20130820/ARTICLE/130829971#sthash.gkCKqYza.dpuf

The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 against a Dayton, Wash., rancher who says the state failed to prove his cattle polluted a nearby creek.
The Washington Department of Ecology appealed a decision by a Columbia County superior court judge, who reversed an order by the state Pollution Controls Hearing Board that Lemire needed to build a fence to avoid pollution by his 29 head of cattle into Pataha Creek. Lemire argued that there was no evidence his cattle caused the pollution. - See more at: http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20130820/ARTICLE/130829971#sthash.gkCKqYza.dpuf

The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 against a Dayton, Wash., rancher who says the state failed to prove his cattle polluted a nearby creek.
The Washington Department of Ecology appealed a decision by a Columbia County superior court judge, who reversed an order by the state Pollution Controls Hearing Board that Lemire needed to build a fence to avoid pollution by his 29 head of cattle into Pataha Creek. Lemire argued that there was no evidence his cattle caused the pollution. - See more at: http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20130820/ARTICLE/130829971#sthash.gkCKqYza.dpuf

The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled 8-1 against a Dayton, Wash., rancher who says the state failed to prove his cattle polluted a nearby creek.
The Washington Department of Ecology appealed a decision by a Columbia County superior court judge, who reversed an order by the state Pollution Controls Hearing Board that Lemire needed to build a fence to avoid pollution by his 29 head of cattle into Pataha Creek. Lemire argued that there was no evidence his cattle caused the pollution. - See more at: http://www.capitalpress.com/article/20130820/ARTICLE/130829971#sthash.gkCKqYza.dpu

Washington Cattleman Call Out DOE Windshield Surveys
The Washington Cattlemen’s Association (WCA) would like to submit the following comments on the 3DT BMP Implementation Approach, Teams 1 & 2 Recommendations to the Directors, DRAFT.  The WCA would like to voice its strong opposition to the 3DT DRAFT.  The WCA believes the 3DT Draft represents a new layer of regulation and bureaucracy that will result is massive economic hardships for livestock producers throughout Washington State without any clear expectation of improving water quality.


Read more here.


Business Hard Ball Decisions for Local Dairies.


Local Whatcom County Council Candidates Claim to Support Farms


Local "Sustainable" Farmers Endorse "Sustainable" Whatcom County Council Candidates


Whatcom County Condemns A Wetlands Project

Enjoying the views out his back deck, Joe decided to improve the wildlife habitat on his property. He didn’t apply for a grant or take taxpayer dollars. He just spent his own time and money to improve the habitat for the birds, amphibians, insects, and other critters by building a pond. He was careful in his pond construction. He did not interrupt the flow of a stream (also known as an “instream flow” violation).  State Fish and Wildlife biologists even reported that his pond was a clear and obvious wildlife enhancement project.

Read more here.

Lummi Tribe Declares War on Cherry Point Industrial Zone

In a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Lummi Nation Chairman Tim Ballew says the tribe "has unconditional and unequivocal opposition" to the Gateway Pacific Terminal coal export pier that SSA Marine hopes to build at Cherry Point.

Read more here.

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/08/02/3126384/lummi-nation-sees-no-compromise.html#storylink=cpy

Council Candidates Shun Tax Funded Environmental Litigant Forum

There has been a lot of media focus on a cancelled candidate forum for this evening, which was to be hosted by Futurewise of Whatcom County.  Apparently the so-called conservative candidates had declined to participate in the forum.  The reasons given for that decision were based on the ongoing litigation between Futurewise and RE Sources for a Sustainable Community, and the potential conflict that would likely occur at a forum sponsored by these litigants:...

To read more, go here. 

SSA Marine Lawsuit Settlement Refills Coffers of ReSources and Puget Sound Environmentalists

Pacific International Terminals, the SSA Marine subsidiary pursuing the Gateway Pacific coal export terminal at Cherry Point, has agreed to pay $1.65 million to settle a lawsuit stemming from the company's unauthorized land-clearing work on the property in 2011.

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/07/31/3122404/ssa-marine-pays-165-million-to.html

Herald: John Stark: Big Win for Environmental Opponents of Gateway Pacific Terminal

Whatcom County and its regulatory state and federal partners have announced they will conduct a sweeping review of Gateway Pacific Terminal’s environmental impacts — an apparent victory for the coal terminal's opponents.

Read More: at the Bellingham Herald

Read more here: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2013/07/31/3121522/ecology-will-study-impact-of-coal.html#storylink=cpy

Read

Senator Doug Erickson Website Link: Environmentally Driven Ruling Thwarts International Resource Trade

Today the Washington State Department of Ecology and Whatcom County announced their decision on the EIS scope for the proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal, located at Cherry Point, Washington. With this announcement, Washington state has set a new precedent that could potentially interfere with international commerce laws protecting rail and trade and discourage new business investment in the state.

 Read More:http://view.s4.exacttarget.com/?j=febe127271600d75&m=fe8d1570726c027571&ls=fe2b16797165037a741673&l=ff64167676&s=fe5b1376756c01797314&jb=ffcd16&ju=fe6c1570706500797417&r=0

Will Whatcom County be Bankrupted by Total Maximum Daily Load?

Haven’t heard of TMDL?  You’re probably not alone and sadly many homeowners in Whatcom County may not learn about it until they open up their property tax assessments or try to sell their home.  The acronym of TMDL, stands for “total maximum daily load.”   This probably doesn’t mean much to you, but to keep it simple, the Department of Ecology (DoE) is proposing(?), or mandating(?) due to the Clean Water Act from the EPA (environmental protection agency) that surface water run-off from impervious surfaces be reduced by 87%.

Read more: http://smllibertyroad.com/will-whatcom-county-be-bankrupted-by-department-of-ecologys-recommendations-for-tmdl/

Comments from the Washington Cattlemen’s Association regarding the 3DT BMP Implementation Approach, Teams 1 & 2 Recommendations to the Directors, DRAFT

To: Mr. Ron Shultz, Ms. Jaclyn Ford

From: Vic Stokes, President, Washington Cattlemen’s Association

Date: December 27, 2012

RE: Comments from the Washington Cattlemen’s Association regarding the 3DT BMP Implementation Approach, Teams 1 & 2 Recommendations to the Directors, DRAFT

The Washington Cattlemen’s Association (WCA) would like to submit the following comments on the 3DT BMP Implementation Approach, Teams 1 & 2 Recommendations to the Directors, DRAFT.  The WCA would like to voice its strong opposition to the 3DT DRAFT.  The WCA believes the 3DT Draft represents a new layer of regulation and bureaucracy that will result is massive economic hardships for livestock producers throughout Washington State without any clear expectation of improving water quality.  

The WCA is ashamed that the WSDA and WACC both supported a document that has such a strong bias against livestock grazing.  The 3DT DRAFT represents the kind of narrow minded thinking that regulatory agencies all too often have when they spend their time talking amongst themselves instead of engaging the regulated industry and obtaining key stakeholder input.  The WCA is extremely disappointed that all three agencies (Agriculture, Ecology and the Conservation Commission) would all support a document that demonstrates such a bias against livestock grazing and water quality.

The approach that the 3DT took clearly demonstrates the outcome the agencies hope to attain; regulations, restrictions and penalties.  The WCA believes this document is a slap in the face to the livestock industry and will fight this DRAFT legislatively.  Science was obviously something that the 3DT were not interested in; because there is no science or reference to research work conducted in the fields of managed grazing, soil science, plant physiology or livestock behavior or any other work conducted by WSU Extension.  Instead of utilizing science the 3DT DRAFT relies upon unfounded opinion that is anti-grazing.    

The 3DT DRAFT represents numerous examples of takings as the State Agencies (DOE, WSDA and WACC) all agree that limiting private property rights yields cleaner water.  Nowhere in the 3DT DRAFT is a reference to a funding mechanism to compensate private property owners for their losses now, and into the future.  This attempted deprivation of private property rights is a per se takings and will be fought to the end.  The 3DT DRAFT clearly demonstrates the State’s inability to clearly communicate with landowners and their true motives and intentions to exclude landowners in this critical process.  The 3DT DRAFT should wait until the Supreme Court Rules on the LeMire Case.  The Court’s decision on the LeMire Case will significantly impact water quality regulations one way or the other.  The State was told in Columbia County Superior Court in the LeMire Case that they (the State) must be able to prove pollution prior to regulating the landowner.  RCW 90.48.120 does not obviate the State’s requirement to prove pollution.  

The 3DT DRAFT as presented is inviting litigation from livestock producers against the State since BMPs that create a large economic hardship on landowners constitute a takings.  Buffers that take private property out of production and still require the private property owner to assume all costs associated with the maintenance and operation of the buffer (water, taxes, weed control, etc..) creates annual long term takings.  Unmanaged buffers bring with them many unintended consequences that are regulated by other agencies. 

The issues around buffers and private property were one of the main issues identified in the Ruckelshaus Center Critical Areas Ordinance discussions.  There was and remains agreement throughout all of agriculture that regulatory buffers were and are unacceptable to private landowners.  The 3DT DRAFT attempts to directly circumvent the Ruckelshaus Process by mandating unknown and potentially more restrictive BMP’s instead of allowing the Ruckelshaus Process to succeed.         

                   The WCA would like to know how landowners can be proactive when they do not know what the standards are they are trying to meet?  The key to achieving water quality improvement is having attainable goals.  Both landowners and regulators must know what the finish line looks like.  The State is mandated to protect existing uses in WAC 173-201A-600; Use designations — Fresh waters;   (1) All surface waters of the state not named in Table 602 are to be protected for the designated uses of: Salmonid spawning, rearing, and migration; primary contact recreation; domestic, industrial, and agricultural water supply; stock watering; wildlife habitat; harvesting; commerce and navigation; boating; and aesthetic values. 

                    

               WAC 173-201A-020 defines a "Nonpoint source" means pollution that enters any waters of the state from any dispersed land-based or water-based activities including, but not limited to, atmospheric deposition; surface water runoff from agricultural lands, urban areas, or forest lands; subsurface or underground sources; or discharges from boats or marine vessels not otherwise regulated under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System program.  Why does the 3DT DRAFT only focus on livestock and none of the other non-point contributors?

The WCA believes the Department of Ecology (DOE) is abusing the authority granted to them under RCW 90.48.120 Notice of department's determination that violation has or will occur… as the DOE uses “windshield surveys” for regulation.  The WCA does not believe that the regulatory agencies understand cause and effect enough to be able to properly apply a simple “windshield survey”.  In photographs 11 & 12 (windshield survey) the same conditions presented occur in nature in areas that livestock have never been present.  The 3DT DRAFT would like livestock producers to believe that only livestock create water quality problems. 

The WCA requests that the State incorporate the 2008 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals Decision in the case of National Pork Producers v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when they (DOE) interpret RCW 90.48.120.  The 5^th Circuit Ruling caused the EPA to withdraw its requirement for a Federal CAFO permit if a facility intended to discharge; this requirement needs to be incorporated into RCW 90.48.120.  The WCA believes the DOE should be required to apply the same case law that the 5^th Circuit passed down in 2008 in Pork Producers, DOE.  This would result in the DOE not being able to regulate “substantial potential to pollute”.  The 5^th Circuit Ruling requires a causal link to the operation and pollution.  The WCA believes that the Clean Water Act (CWA) provides a comprehensive liability scheme, and EPAs attempt to supplement this scheme is in excess of its statutory authority.  The Court declined to uphold the EPA's requirement that CAFOs that propose to discharge apply for an NPDES permit."  These cases leave no doubt that there must be an actual discharge into navigable waters to trigger the CWA's requirements and the EPA's authority. Accordingly, the EPA's authority is limited to the regulation of CAFOs that discharge. Any attempt to do otherwise exceeds EPA's statutory authority.   The result of the 5^th Circuit ruling is that EPA cannot impose a duty to apply for a permit on a CAFO that 'proposes to discharge' or any CAFO before there is an actual discharge."  RCW 90.48.120 poses a major challenge to livestock operators as it authorizes the DOE to regulate on a “potential violation”.  This concept is inherently flawed.  It is important to remember that the State is also obligated to maintain minimum flows to satisfy stockwatering requirements for riparian stockgrazing operations in RCW 90.22.040 and as a result livestock operations have a legal expectation that their livestock may access surface water for Stockwater uses.  In summary the WCA believes the State should adhere to the same standard and be required to demonstrate a causal link between pollution and a livestock operation prior to initiating a regulatory action.    

The WCA would like to know why the DOE does not abide by;

WAC 173-201A-310; Tier I — Protection and maintenance of existing and designated uses. 

 (1) Existing and designated uses must be maintained and protected. No degradation may be allowed that would interfere with, or become injurious to, existing or designated uses, except as provided for in this chapter.

We believe that natural conditions and all other source contributors must be identified (livestock, septic systems, agriculture, residential, etc…).  Once all contributing sources are identified, mutually agreed upon goals for addressing water quality can be set so the CRMP process can begin.  DNA could be one of the tools the State uses to identify sources.  RCW 90.48.120 does not alleviate the State’s requirement to prove a causal link between a livestock operation and pollution.

Sincerely,

Vic Stokes, President

Washington Cattlemen’s Association