Sullivan deals with hot questions during Farm Bureau meeting

The following article appeared on the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader's website on June 30, 2006.

---

6/30/2006 10:15:00 AM

Sullivan deals with hot questions during Farm Bureau meeting County Commissioner David Sullivan took the heat from about 80 people at a North Olympic Farm Bureau meeting June 28 in Gardiner. The meeting was supposed to be a formal inauguration of the Washington Farm Bureau's 24th and newest chapter. The agenda changed a bit when Sullivan, county commissioner (D-Cape George) representing District 2, walked in shortly before the meeting began. After a few opening speeches and a presentation on county buffers given by state Rep. Jim Buck (R-Joyce), Sullivan was given the podium and took the brunt of audience members' questions. Audience members heatedly voiced their opposition to proposed regulations on buffer rezoning and an in-stream flow ruling. Two messages were heard loud and clear, said Sullivan - a need for an organized rewritten version of the critical areas ordinance, and a need for it fast. “I realize we have to get information out in a better way. We just couldn't do it that fast. Not by July 5,” Sullivan said in regards to the canceled question and answer forum proposed by the planning commission. “There is no sense in calling a public information meeting and not be prepared.” Sullivan said county staff is presently working on a rewrite. He tried to reassure the audience that the ordinance is still in the beginning stage, not something set in stone. Also present at the meeting was Jim Hagen, chairman of the county planning commission, who said due to the cancellation of a question and answer forum July 5, the commission could do nothing about the public process regarding the CAO until September when they would review the rewrite. Draft ordinance The draft ordinance now under consideration has been in the works since January, when a legal challenge filed by the Washington Environmental Council against Jefferson County came to a settlement. The agreement was reached in an effort to avoid an expensive legal battle that the county thought it would lose. County officials have said they entered into the settlement as a way of preserving language that allowed agriculture to be exempt from new wetland buffer requirements. Through negotiations with the WEC, the county agreed to more precisely define “existing and ongoing agriculture,” thereby limiting the exemption to land that has been committed to agriculture for the long term. Under county development laws, new agricultural uses are not eligible for the exemption. Many of the people protesting the critical areas ordinance are concerned not only with existing use but with how rule changes could reduce future use, and how landowners would be forced to pay for expensive consultants when seeking land use changes. The county commissioners have extended the public comment period to Monday, Oct. 23. County officials intend to spend the next few months hosting public meetings to explain and build consensus on the proposal. The first step, commissioners said, is to develop a question-and-answer sheet to explain in plain English what the ordinance says. Bureau officers North Olympic Farm Bureau officers elected May 17 and installed June 28 were President Roger Short, Vice President Steve Marble and Secretary/Treasurer Sue Forde. Board members include Larry Hess, James Fritz, Jim Story, Bob Forde and Steve Johnson. The bureau still needs two chairmen, one for a legislative committee and one for policy development. Position applications will be considered Oct. 25 during a regular North Olympic Farm Bureau meeting, 6:30 p.m. the fourth Wednesday of each month on the first floor of the Gardiner Community Center. More than 100 members already transferred to the North Olympic Farm Bureau and 11 new members signed up June 28. Short said he expects about 50 new members by the end of next month. Each county Farm Bureau is affiliated with the 35,000 member Washington Farm Bureau, a grassroots advocacy organization representing the social and economic interests of Washington farmers and ranchers at the local, state and national level. The national organization is the American Farm Bureau. “I felt we did need a broader organization,” Short said during his opening speech. “I felt this is the time to band together. I know some of the things the Farm Bureau has done and I have been behind them the whole time.”

Letter to the editor

The letter to the editor following our comments appeared in the June 30, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

We applaud the letter's author for her courage to present her comments during the June 21 meeting. We have points of agreement with what she said, and we have points of disagreement.

We agree that we should work together to protect our water and wildlife, and that we should take measures to prevent landslides and problems related to flooding.

We understand that there is an exemption for existing and ongoing agriculture, and we are glad that this is included in the proposed regulatory changes. However, we are deeply concerned that this type of agriculture is defined in paragraph 18.15.335 (1) (e) of the proposal as follows:

"For the purpose of this section, "existing and ongoing" means that agricultural activities have been conducted within the five-year period leading up to the adoption of Ordinance 5-03 on April 28, 2003;"

Lands eligible for exemption are also required to either be part of the open space tax program for agriculture or designated by the county as agricultural lands of long-term commercial significance. There is no mention of an exemption for agricultural operations started after April 28, 2003, or for any operations that may be initiated in the future. Unchanged, this would mean that it would be incredibly difficult for someone to initiate a new farming operation.

While there are indications that provisions will be made for opeations starting after April 28, 2003 and for future farms, those provisions remain to be entered into the proposal.

While the settlement agreement may have been approved during a public meeting, discussions leading up to that approval were held in executive session, which means that a record of the session where the agreement was discussed is not available for public review. The lack of public process at that time, and during the months following the agreement until the draft was released, are areas of great concern to those of us committed to open public process in government.

We are doing our best to provide factual information, and are not trying to distort any facts. We are not conducting a smear campaign, nor are we interested in doing so.

We are expressing our concerns, and we are working to gain access to the process so that we may work directly with staff and the County Commissioners to arrive at a critical areas update that provides excellent site-specific protection to all types of critical areas, while also allowing the best possible opportunity for our rural families, our children and generations to come.

---

Farms, critical areas

I support local farms in Jefferson County, both in concept and in fact — I buy lots of produce and cheese grown right here.

I also support preventing floods and landslides and protecting our water and wildlife.

That is exactly what the improvement to Jefferson County's critical areas safeguards is setting out to do.

So I was very disappointed to read the stories in the paper over the past two weeks claiming that local safeguards will be harmful to local farmers.

For many good reasons the Washington Environmental Council, of which I am a proud member and former member of the board of directors, negotiated to have farmers exempted from the buffers that some people are complaining about.

It is right there — printed in black and white: Current agriculture is exempted from the new buffer requirements.

The agreement between the Washington Environmental Council and the county that helped lead to the development of these newly proposed protections and the exemptions for farmers was approved at a public meeting and has been publicly available for months.

Both the council and the county sought and received local media coverage, including an article in the Peninsula Daily News months ago.

Wetlands store and clean water for use by everyone, so it makes sense to support rules that protect them.

I believe that most of your readers want to know the news and understand the issues, not some distortion of the facts or a smear campaign on a good organization.

So I hope this clears up any confusion about proposed buffers to protect our clean water.

The Washington Environmental Council has worked hard over the past five years to improve local protections and help local agriculture.

Jill Silver
Port Townsend

---

EDITOR'S NOTE: Silver was the lone proponent of the proposed critical areas code who spoke June 21 at a Jefferson County Planning Commission hearing.

After four hours, the commission indefinitely extended written comments on the proposal.

County commissioners have delayed considering the proposal until later in 2006 under a new, as-yet undetermined time line.

The updated time line will be posted on the Web on the county's home page.

Also, a July 5 question-and-answer forum has been canceled.

Submit comments by e-mail to planning@co.jefferson.wa.us or by mail to Department of Community Development, 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368.

Information is available on the Web at the county's home page, www.co.jefferson.wa.us.

Go to the second text item on the home page, "Amendments Proposal to Critical Areas Regulations" and click on "Critical Areas page" for background and other information.

Paul Gottlieb
Commentary Page editor

County delays wetland rules

The following article appeared in the June 28, 2006 edition of the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader.

---

County delays wetland rules

By Kasia Pierzga
Leader Staff Writer

Bad timing, poor communication, pages of baffling legalese and a sense of public distrust contributed to the recent uproar over proposed changes to a county law designed to protect the environment.

To make up for the public relations disaster, county officials plan to take all summer to smooth things over with local residents and property owners, hosting a series of public meetings to explain the county's critical areas ordinance and inviting people to comment.

But many of the people protesting the critical areas ordinance are skeptical that further meetings will change their opinion that the proposal is too restrictive and severe both for farmers and other property owners. People are concerned not only with existing use but how rule changes could reduce future use, and how landowners would be forced to pay for expensive consultants when seeking land use changes.

"They're layering on yet another layer to make it more difficult to do whatever you're going to do on your property," property owner Richard Hild told The Leader. "You can smell wrong, if you just get in there and stick your nose in the wind."

The draft ordinance now under consideration has been in the works since January, when a legal challenge filed by the Washington Environmental Council against Jefferson County came to a settlement.

The agreement was reached in an effort to avoid an expensive legal battle that the county thought it would lose. County officials have said that they entered into the settlement as a way of preserving language that allowed agriculture to be exempt from the new wetland buffer requirements.

Through negotiations with the WEC, the county agreed to more precisely define "existing and ongoing agriculture," thereby limiting the exemption to land that has been committed to agriculture for the long term.

Under county development laws, new agricultural uses are not eligible for the exemption.

According to Jefferson County Senior Planner Josh Peters, land would qualify for the agricultural exemption from standard stream and wetland buffers if it is either enrolled in the open space tax program for agriculture or designated by the county as either prime or local agricultural lands, and has been the site of some form of agricultural activity within the five years before April 28, 2003.

But some farmers say the wording of the agricultural exemption is hard to understand, and they're not sure they can trust county officials to explain it to them. They worry that any change in their operations could trigger new, more restrictive buffer zones that would force them to set aside more land for protection of wetlands and streams.

County officials said they feel exasperated over the uproar and are especially frustrated by the farmers who are angry about the settlement.

"The most disappointing thing is that it's the farmers who are angry." Peters said in an email to The Leader. "They're the whole reason we entered into a settlement to avoid the Growth Management Hearings Board. It's hard to fight for people who think you're fighting against them."

If the issue can't be resolved with the settlement and instead ends up in the courts, Peters said he believes the agricultural exemption will be lost.

"They seem to want to give up a sure thing of an exemption from standard stream and wetland buffers for existing and ongoing agriculture in exchange for taking their chances in the legal process," he said.

Confusion, anger

To meet the requirements of the WEC settlement, county planning staff spent about five months developing a new ordinance, which was released to the public in May. The ordinance is currently under review by the county planning commission, which is now taking public comment and will eventually present its recommendations to the county commissioners.

The commissioners agreed to extend the public comment period after about 30 farmers and property owners staged a demonstration at the commissioners' meeting on June 13.

According to Peters, the draft ordinance indicates that the standard buffer for the most environmentally valuable wetlands is 300 feet.

Most of the standard buffers are smaller — from 50 feet to 250 feet — and buffers for less-critical wetlands could actually be three times smaller than what is currently required.

Rather than using a one-size-fits-all approach, the proposed ordinance allows for greater flexibility depending on the conditions onsite, he said.

Peters said that depending on the value of the habitat, the new buffers might be twice as big as before — or three times smaller than before.

While the draft critical areas ordinance has been available for public review, some people who have expressed opposition said they either hadn't reviewed it or had trouble understanding what it meant.

Because of an internal communications glitch, a county Department of Community Development press release announcing a public hearing on the ordinance was delayed. By the time people learned about the hearing, they felt they didn't have time to prepare.

Scrambling to read and understand the ordinance in time to provide informed comments at the hearing, many people complained that the complicated legal language left them confused and worried about whether or not they really understood how it might affect them. Many farmers found themselves trying to decipher the ordinance at the peak of the late-spring haying season, ,when they were busy putting in long hours out in their fields.

As a result, many assumed the worst.

Fanning the flames of anger over the proposal is the current campaign for a statewide property rights initiative being promoted by the Washington State Farm Bureau. A new North Olympic Counties Farm Bureau chapter is being formed in part to help advance the campaign.

The turmoil also comes on the heels of a recent uproar over the in-stream flow rule proposed by the Washington Department of Ecology to regulate how much water is left in local streams to protect salmon habitat.

The same man who was at the helm of the WEC when the group sued Jefferson County for failing to update its critical areas ordinance is now the head of the Deparment of Ecology: Jay Manning.

Public relations

County planning and administrative staff met June 26 with the Jefferson County commissioners to discuss what went wrong, and what to do next.

Also invited to the meeting was Katherine Baril, director of Washington State Univerity's Jefferson County Extension, who offered her perspective on how to diffuse people's anger over the proposal.

Her first suggestion: Make sure people don't feel left out of the process.

Reaching the settlement through confidential negotiations with the WEC only served to make people suspicious, she said.

"Whether it's litigation or policy, people need to be at the table," she said.

She also recommended that county officials invest time in communicating the changes in language that makes sense to the average reader.

Uncertainty over how the proposal could affect the use of land for farming could undermine the recent renaissance of small-scale farms in Jefferson County, many of which seek to meet growing demand for organic produce and farm products, Baril said.

"We have some young farmers buying land, and they're scared to death," she said.

Many property owners, especially those with deep roots in Jefferson County, are afraid well-heeled newcomers want to turn the county into a giant park, she said. Whether through purchase or regulation, land could be taken out of production and set aside for environmental protection. With no way to make a living, farmers and other local residents would have to pull up roots and leave.

To foster a sense of trust, Baril urged the commissioners to find ways to reach out to local farmers. Her suggestions included creating an ombudsman position to serve as a liaison representing the inteterests of farmers and other property owners, and promoting economic development that ensures no net loss of farm families and helps aging farmers develop a transition plan for the next generation of farmers who could take their place.

Public outreach

With the public comment period extended to Monday, Oct. 23, county officials will spend the next few months hosting public meetings to explain and build concensus on the proposal.

The first step is to develop a question-and-answer sheet to explain in plain English what the ordinance says.

A major concern among some farmers is the lack of certainty about the definition of "existing and ongoing" agriculture as described in the ordinance. Does it mean that agricultural land that has lain fallow for a few years loses that exemption? If a farmer wants to shift from growing hay to raising beef cattle, would the new enterprise still qualify as an "existing" use?

People are also confused about the proposed wetland buffers and say they are worried the changes could limit how they can use their land, and potentially reduce its economic value.

People also are angry about a section in the ordinance that says that property owners who want to develop their land — or change how they use it — must foot the bill to hire a professional to delineate the wetlands on their land. Those who don't want to pay for a delineation report must agree to a 450-foot buffer — a setup that might work for someone who has a wetland in the far corner of their property, but not so great for someone who has a wetland in the middle of it.

Another option for people who want to develop their land is a less-expensive wetlands assessment that identifies the category and type of wetland but not its boundaries. Under that option, the property owner would have to set aside the standard buffer plus one-an-a-half times that amount of land.

Rather than forcing landowners to shoulder the burden of paying for the delineation, the county could instead add a new position and provide that consulting as a public service, said Department of Community Development Director Al Scalf. But to pay for that position, the county would have to increase permit fees.

(Contact Kasia Pierzga at kpierzga@ptleader.com.)

Perspective: Local protections take a voluntary, flexible approach

The following perspective appeared in the June 28, 2006 edition of the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader.

It's good to see the Washington Environmental Council (WEC) weigh in on this from their own perspective, and to put their position forward.

WEC is correct in informing us that existing and ongoing agriculture is exempt from many of the provisions of the critical areas ordinance update. The update defines existing and ongoing agriculture this way in paragraph 18.15.335(1)(e):

"For the purposes of this section, "existing and ongoing" means that agricultural activities have been conducted within the five-year period leading up to the adoption of Ordinance No. 5-03 on April 28, 2003."

The proposed update does not tell us whether activities initiated in the subsequent three years are also exempt, but it's a logical conclusion that they are not, in the absense of additional information.

With the emphasis on the agricultural exemption that's been provided to the public in recent days, it's time to note that the existence or absence of that exemption is not the only part of the story that needs to be addressed. Most farm and ranch families are deeply concerned about the regulatory climate their children and grandchildren are going to have to face if and when they either wish to take over the family operation or develop one of their own. Today's farm families also wish to welcome the newcomers who are hoping to establish the organic agricultural operations that are key to the sustainability ethic of living, growing, and buying local. Because many of those new operations are still dreams for the people who would participate in them, our current agricultural families are standing up for those who are not farming yet. The exemption in the proposed changes fails to make adequate provision for these future agricultural opportunities.

The existence or absence of exemptions for ongoing operations does not address the anxiety and frustration of the Jefferson County residents who are concerned about the provisions of the proposed updates.

The default 450 foot buffers in the draft update pertains to people who wish to establish single family residences, land divisions, and utility installations for those residences and divisions. When we emphasize the agricultural exemption so often and so strenuously, we tend to leave out others who populate the rural areas . . . and they certainly should not be left out of the picture. This is not just about the agricultural community.

Yes, there is a voluntary program that provides flexibility in relation to the buffers mandated by the draft update. However, most of our farmers are already providing substantial services in conserving habitat and improving ecosystem functions. They are already managing their land in a responsible manner, so why is it now necessary to further tighten the framework they have to work within as part of a revokable voluntary program?

The perspective's author says that "extreme claims about the buffers are a ruse." Why is it extreme to publicize a few of the draft's provisions so that people will become engaged in the public process and avail themselves of the opportunity to download the document and read it for themselves? (The version we are reading from was published on May 17, 2006, and we anticipate changes based on the expressions of community concern about the proposed changes to the existing critical areas ordinance. You can download your own copy by clicking on this link to the Jefferson County website. It may take awhile to download the PDF ducument, but it will be well worth your time.)

The folks in the North Olympic Counties Farm Bureau are not saying "that this ordinance will basically take everything." Far from it. It's simply one more increment in a long trail of increasing regulation over everyday activities related to rural lifeways. We're a long way from having everything taken, but perhaps we should step on the brake and consider what we are doing to our usual and accustomed ways of life here, and just how far down this trail we really want to walk.

We invite you to visit the North Olympic Counties Farm Bureau website and link directly to downloads of the proposed changes to the critical areas ordinance, the Second Settlement Agreement between Jefferson County and the Washington Environmental Council, and to link to our web log, where we are following this and other issues as they appear in the media and other commentary. Please take Mr. Geiger up on his request to really read and understand the provisions of the draft ordinance. If they concern you as much as they concern us, we invite you to become involved in the public process of working toward solutions that will protect our ecosystems and the future opportunities of our children and theirs.

One of the things we are working hard to accomplish right now is to move from expressing our concerns into engaging the process. We are not a "shrill opposition" to the critical areas ordinance. We are a group of Olympic Peninsula landowners, some of whom are actively engaged in agriculture, some who are not. All we are asking for is the opportunity to engage in this process.

We do, however, want to engage in more than simply framing the components of the voluntary program that is only one small piece of the proposed critical areas ordinance updates. We want to participate in framing the critical areas updates themselves.

Since we are the ones that are going to be regulated by the provisions of the update, is that too much to ask?

---

Perspective

Local protections take a voluntary, flexible appraoch

By Tom Geiger
outreach director
Washington Environmental Council

Farming and protections for our waters and wildlife can go hand-in-hand. That is the belief of the Washington Environmental Council. That is wh we negotiated the agreement we did with the county over the last five years. The agreement exempts existing and ongoing agricultural activities from the newly proposed buffers on wetlands and streams.

So it is all the more unfortunate that the June 21 Leader article missed the mark on so many fundamental points. And it missed the mark about Washington Environmental Council's work without even a phone call to us for our position or opinion on what was being claimed.

While the county could have been clearer at the June 19 protest about what is and is not in the proposed ordinance, it is writen in black and white that existing and ongoing agricultural activities are exempt from the new rules. If this had been clarified, it seems likely that the ire of many would have been addressed and further confusion of the facts would have been avoided.

The protesters at recent meetings seemed to be repeating a chorus: "We only just found out about the 450 [foot] buffers." I don't question their claim regarding when they found out their information, but the information itself.

Not only is ongoing agriculture exempt from the buffers, but there is also a voluntary system that the county is required to develop with the input from the agricultural community to provide flexibility for farmers. The approach exists as a result of the very agreement between the county and the Washington Environmental Council, which some local farmers are railing against.

Instead of telling your readers about this innovative and flexible approach to protection, the article only mentions the "voluntary" program in its last paragraph when talking about what could happen if it doesn't work. That is a discredit to the farmers who manage their land in a responsible manner and a disservice to your readers who could have learned about what the voluntary protections could accomplish without required buffers.

I think it was Will Rogers who said it is not what you don't know that hurts you but what you know that ain't so. The extreme claims about the buffers are a ruse. A ruse developed to drum up opposition to the newly proposed safeguards for the people of Jefferson County. A ruse promoted by some in the local Farm Bureau who say this ordinance will basically take everything. That is nothing more than rhetoric. Why not read the ordinance, understand that existing agricultural practices are exempt and then participate in the development of local plans that will be voluntary for farmers? Why not engage in something positive instead of a shrill opposition that just says "no'?

We hope that The Leader continues to cover this issue, it will give people the real story about how the improved safeguards can protect the people and natural areas of the county, and respect local farmers' efforts to protect the same values.

Commissioners extend wetlands deadline

The following article appeared in the June 27, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

We should note that the updates do reduce the width of some types of buffer, and that what we are dealing with today is an update to an existing ordinance. There is an exemption for ongoing agriculture, but the exemption does not apply to new agriculture operations, or to substantial changes in ongoing operations. In a county where a large segment of the community supports the development of new farms intended to provide locally grown produce, this is a troubling oversight.

The agreement with the Washington Environmental Council was reached in an effort to avoid litigation where the county felt there was a chance that it would not prevail. County officials felt the agricultural exemption that had been built into the update was at stake.

As we are now engaging in a more open process, where we can be involved in helping to develop the update in consultation with county government and other community organizations, we can work on designing a community-based set of science-supported solutions that will meet the needs of our ecosystems, as well as providing opportunties for those who live on our natural landscapes.

With an update meeting these elements completed, we may well find that we have a result that other organizations do not wish to bring into litigation. It's far better to figure out and settle these things locally than to have burdensome outcomes imposed externally.

---

Commissioners extend wetlands deadline

By Evan Cael
Peninsula Daily news

PORT TOWNSEND — The Jefferson County Commission has extended a deadline for adoption of an ordinance that would expand wetland buffer zones by 100 percent.

Commissioners extended the deadline for adoption of amendments to the county Unified Development Code from July 18 to Oct. 23.

The move was made on Monday in response to a barrage of public complaints at a June 21 county Planning Commission public hearing.

"We're going to take the time to come up with the right decision," said Commissioner Pat Rodgers, R-Brinnon.

The commission intends more public hearings and other measures to increase community involvement during the next three months.

Complaints summarized

During Monday's meeting, the commissioners heard a report from Rachel McHugh, county Department of Community Development long range planner, outlining the predominant points of contention expressed at the public hearing last week.

The hearing was attended by about 150 residents.

"Property rights were definitely a major factor," McHugh said.

She said many people were upset the county didn't bring the proposed critical areas amended ordinance — that would expand the current wetland buffer zones from between 25 and 150 feet to between 50 and 300 feet — to public discussion earlier in the process.

Because of this, McHugh said, many people had a distrust of county government and questioned if it had the citizens' benefits in mind when drafting the proposal.

Farmers exempt but leery

Although the proposal has exemptions for lands designated for agriculture, McHugh said, many farmers either don't understand that or don't believe it.

The proposed expansion of the buffer zones came about through a legal agreement the county signed with the Washington Environmental Council after the WEC claimed the county failed to use best available science to regulate wetland buffer zones.

The agreement mentions that WEC will work with the county to come up with proper buffers.

Many in last week's hearing interpreted this as implying the county was giving up its authority to govern itself and handing that power over to WEC.

The commissioners made clear Monday that that is not how they are interpreting it.

Rodgers said even if it means the WEC takes the county to court, the commissioners will retain authority over amending the critical areas ordinance.

"We intend to get to an answer but it's going to be from us, not some imposed force," said Rodgers.

Commissioner David Sullivan, D-Cape George, agreed:

"We haven't given up our authority to come up with our answer."

The commissioners said between now and the new deadline of Oct. 23, the main focus is to get the word out about the proposed amendments to give land owners, especially those living on wetlands, an opportunity to be a part of the process.

"The community process has got to be truly a community process and not just a performance," said Rodgers.

They directed Administrator John Fishbach to develop a schedule to ensure the county can meet the Oct. 23 deadline.

Fishbach was also instructed to write a simplified version of the proposed ordinance and the issues involved with is so that the average person can have an understanding of what's at stake.

Farm Bureau meeting is Wednesday in Gardiner

The following announcement appeared on the Leader website on June 27, 2006.

---

Farm Bureau meeting is Wednesday in Gardiner

Organizers of a new North Olympic Counties Farm Bureau, representing farm and ranch families in Jefferson and Clallam counties, host an organizational meeting for Farm Bureau members and other interested residents on Wednesday, June 28 in Gardiner.

The meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. at Gardiner Community Center, 980 Old Gardiner Road.

The formation of the North Olympic Counties Farm Bureau marks the 25th county Farm Bureau in Washington state. Former dairyman Roger Short of Chimacum serves as president of the new organization.

Each county Farm Bureau is affiliated with the Washington Farm Bureau (WFB), a grassroots advocacy organization representing the social and economic interests of Washington farmers and ranchers at the local, state and national level.

Robyn Meenach, WFB vice president for legislation, will attend the organizational meeting on behalf of the Washington Farm Bureau.

With more than 34,000 member families, Washington Farm Bureau is the largest general farm organization in Washington.

For more information visit www.wsfb.com.

Buffer zone talk to be continued July 5

The following article appeared on the Leader website on June 23, 2006.

---

6/23/2006 10:41:00 AM

Buffer zone talk to be continued July 5

At least 120 farmers, ranchers, loggers and landowners came out in force Wednesday night before the county planning commission to oppose proposed environmental regulations that would protect wetlands.

The one person who spoke from the audience favoring changes in streamside buffers and wetland regulations was loudly booed.

“It's like the pastor preaching to his own choir,” said Roger Short of Chimacum, disappointed that county commissioners and Washington Environmental Council staff supporting the ordinance were not present.

“The people needing to be listening were not here,” Short said. “We are never going to accomplish anything if both parties - for and against - are not here.”

The planning commission said they would do their best to accommodate Short and others. Chairman Jim Hagen said representatives of the Washington Environmental Council, county commissioners and county legal staff would be invited to the July 5 planning commission meeting, during which people could ask questions about the ordinance.

The planning commission meeting's location is uncertain as a larger venue may be needed, judging from the audience that turned out June 21.

“This was a significant statement by the public,” Hagen said. “The commissioners will be very aware of what happened here tonight.”

The planning commission agreed to extend indefinitely the deadline for accepting written public comments in response to numerous statements by audience members complaining about a lack of public information regarding proposed regulations.

The planning commission's special meeting scheduled for June 28 is canceled because many people who would want to attend will be at a meeting of the new North Olympic Counties Farm Bureau.

Josh Peters, county staff's senior planner, told the audience that existing farm buildings are exempt, but future construction would need to follow the new regulations.

Under the proposed changes, some streams and wetlands could require a 450-foot buffer zone to protect habitat from the impact of development or farming. The buffer zone requirements vary depending on the kind of stream or wetland and how the surrounding land would be used.

Audience members didn't seem so concerned about existing uses as they were about future uses, including what it meant to families. Wetland buffer changes could also reduce property values, some people said. Many voiced the fear of losing farm production. Sixty people were signed up to speak, with a general theme of the ordinance being too complicated and too severe.

Legal language and numbers contained in documents and spoken by Peters frustrated many of those in attendance.

“This is a complex issue,” Peters told The Leader following the four-and-a-half hour meeting June 21. “At this point we really need to do a better job explaining what the proposal is and what it does.”

At the end of the night Hagen said the commissioners had discussed the ordinance in prior meetings and were unhappy with it.

“We previously expressed rejection to this in our minutes,” Hagen said.

Hagen said the last meeting with a turnout this large occurred in August 2005 for the Water Inventory and Resource Area issue concerning the in-stream flow rule being developed by the Washington Department of Ecology.

“There are many parallels in the two issues,” Hagen said. “People just weren't aware of it. This proposal came real close to passing without people knowing about it.”

Amendments to the critical areas ordinance were developed as a result of a legal settlement between the county and the Washington Environmental Council, a statewide nonprofit advocacy group, and include stream buffers, which some people said could rob them of the use of part of their land.

Under the agreement, the WEC “reserves the right to seek additional regulatory requirements by appropriate means if it concludes that the voluntary compliance program is failing to meet its objective to protect wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat areas from impacts related to agriculture.”

Critical areas ordinance draws crowd in Hadlock

The following article appeared in the June 23, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

A recurring theme in this discussion is that existing farms are exempt from the new provisions. What's not being said so loudly by the critical areas ordinance proposed update's proponents, though, is that new agricultural operations are not exempt from the update's provisions.

Agriculture is experiencing a transition in many areas of the county, with newly arriving people hoping to meet the rising demand for locally grown produce and other farm products. Should the new regulations go into effect as currently drafted, it will become far more difficult to establish a new farming operation in Jefferson County than it already is.

It's not just about agriculture, either, although our farming community is far more acutely aware of the potential outcomes of the update's implementation than other landowners may be at this point.

---

Critical areas ordinance draws crowd in Hadlock

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

PORT HADLOCK — In a room full of angry residents, farmers and business people, Jill Silver found herself in an unpopular position.

A watershed program manager and an evironmental scientist with the 10,000 Year Institute, Silver barely flinched as she read her statement supporting Jefferson County's much-maligned critical areas ordinance proposal.

"Recently reported inflammatory statements accuse the Washington Environmental Council of threatening the viability of local farmers and instituting Draconian 450-foot buffers on wetlands," said Silver.

"In fact, existing agricultural lands are exempt from the (critical areas) requirements."

Silver also supported the county commissioners' settlement agreement with the Washington Environmental Council. Silver was the only Jefferson County resident to come forward during a county Planning Commission public hearing Wednesday in favor of the ordinance.

150 showed up

Some 60 others spoke against the proposal.

In all, about 150 showed up to make their case before the commission in the Washington State University Learning Center.

After four hours of public remarks, the planning commission decided to indefinitely extend written public comments on the critical areas proposal.

A question-and-answer forum is also to be scheduled later, said County Planning Commission Chairman Jim Hagen.

Land use exemption

The ordinance's author, Josh Peters, county Development of Community Development senior planner, also emphasized that the county proposal came with an agriculture land use exemption for existing farms.

"You can continue to plow fields regardless of the crops you have," Peters said.

Hagen, however, expressed his delight in the public input.

Only two people registered comments at a public hearing a week ago, he said.

"We've got a few more tonight," he said, drawing laughter.

That was one of only a few light moments Wednesday night where the intensity of emotion ran high over proposed buffers in critical areas.

It was a night dominated by those protesting government regulation, with many voicing their general distrust of government's ability to govern.

"This should have been more promoted and advertised than what it was," said Mike Belenski, a Mats Mats Bay resident.

"This is not really about wetland issues. It's a county credibility issue."

Jefferson County Department of Community Development on May 17 drafted a critical areas ordinance defining the new buffers, and the department is now accepting public comments on the proposal.

Existing county buffers range from 25 to 150 feet, but the county, with the state Department of Ecology's recommendations, proposes 100 percent increases — from 50 to 300 feet.

Part of agreement

The proposed critical areas ordinance was part of an agreement struck with Washington Environmental Council, an environmental state lobbying group that went before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board last year.

WEC argued that the county failed to comply with the state Growth Management Act regarding critical areas, such as wetland, salmon migration channels and flood zones.

Preston Drew, a former logger and vice president for Citizens Alliance for Property Rights, said, "What this is is an assault on your freedoms and property rights."

Port Townsend/Jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew can be reached at 360-385-2335 or jeff.chew@peninsuladailynews.com.

Farmers skeptical

The following article appeared in the June 23, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

---

Farmers skeptical

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

PORT TOWNSEND — Try as they may, supporters of Jefferson County's critical areas ordinance are falling short of convincing many skeptical county farmers that their land use is exempt from proposed expanded stream and wetland buffers.

"Think of it as galloping goalposts," said Norm MacLeod, who learned to drive a tractor when he was 12 and who raises horses these days.

"Every time the county has one agreement, they will change it, moving the goalposts further ahead."

That is not the case, a Washington Environmental Council spokesman argues.

"I guess our statement would be that we've had the same position all along since 2001," said WEC outreach Director Tom Geiger.

Agricultural uses, even lawn and garden maintenance, are exempt under the county's proposed critical areas ordinance, Geiger said Tuesday.

"If it were some developer putting up three-story condominiums, that would be a different question."

Part of the agreement, Geiger said, "is to respect agricultural uses throughout the county. We feel strongly that agricultural uses can be done at the same time as environmental protections."

MacLeod, a founder of Olympic Water Users Association and a voice for water and property rights in the county, fears that this agreement with WEC — the second in two years — heralds more to come — and that all will take rights from the county's farming community.

Roger Short, who has banded about 250 Jefferson and Clallam County residents in a lobbying group called North Olympic Counties Farm Bureau, a chapter of the Washington State Farm Bureau, agrees with MacLeod.

Answers demanded

Monday, farmers parked tractors in protest at the county courthouse steps and Real Estate agents and residents demanded answers from the Jefferson County commissioners about the proposed ordinance they said threatens private property rights.

Geiger said WEC specifically negotiated with county leaders to include farmers' exemption.

Geiger said he fears "people are going to say anything to get their agenda across," referring to Initiative 933, a measure that would require fairness when government regulates private property.

WEC is campaigning against I-933.

West End residents at a disadvantage?

The following article appeared in the June 23, 2006 Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

---

West End residents at a disadvantage?

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

PORT HADLOCK — Carol Young, an Oil City Road resident since 1982, politely reminded Jefferson County Planning Commission members at a Wednesday public hearing that West End residents live in the county as well.

West Jefferson County residents came to the Washington State University Learning Center in Port Hadlock from as far away as the Hoh River Valley Wednesday night.

Many of them complained about a lack of notice and information about the county's proposed critical areas ordinance.

"We are at a disadvantage on the West End in that there is no courthouse, no county commissioners," said Young.

"Everyone where I Iive gets the Forks Forum."

No Jefferson County legal notices or Jefferson County news are published in the Forks Forum weekly mailed to readers.

"There are no (Jefferson County) legal notices in the Forum, where there is no Leader," said Young.

The county legal notices travel no farther than East Jefferson County because The Leader, a Port Townsend weekly that has the county's legal notices contract, rarely circulates to the west side of the county.

Young presented a petition with 16 signatures of West End residents living as far south as Clearwater Road who disagreed with the proposed critical areas ordinance.

"We only found out about it because a friend was sent a flier from the farm bureau," Young complained.

"Had we known about it, we probably could have gotten signatures from everyone out here."

Port Townsend/jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew can be reached at 360-385-2335 or jeff.chew@peninsuladailynews.com.

Development code's farming impact

The following column appeared in the June 23, 2006 edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

---

Development code's farming impact

Martha Ireland

"Sorry to bother you," the strangers called over the portable electric line delineating my horses' roadside mowing assignment.

"No bother," I replied, leaving my manure fork and wheelbarrow in the corral.

They were a couple from Darrington, which is northwest of Everett in the Cascades, and the man's father was from Chicago.

Bound for Neah Bay, they paused Tuesday at Ireland Farms, drawn by the giant horse mushrooms.

"How do you get them to grow?" the younger man asked.

"God plants them," I smiled, pointing the way to the mushroom pasture. "Of course, you've got to have horses."

While they collected their gourmet bounty, I deposited the barnyard accumulation from the previous night into our manure bin.

Later, it will fertilize our fields, spawning those delectable mushrooms.

Months ago, I was scooping when Clallam Conservation District Manager Joe Holtrop dropped by and observed, approvingly, our too-small-to-require-a-permit manure-handling system.

I heard from Haltrop again regarding my June 16 column ('Does ecoo-farming really help farms?'), which quoted Chimacum farmer Roger Short's concerns about regulations that ostensibly protect the environment but actually stymie ecologically beneficial agriculture.

"You could substitute Steve Johnson of Lazy J Tree Farm for Roger Short and it would be almost the same column," Holtrop said.

However, while recognizing that he and Short are both good stewards of their land, Johnson sees differences.

Short joined Monday's tractor convoy that picketed the Jefferson County Courthouse protesting amendments to the county's development code that he finds alarming.

For example, buffers swelling as much as 450 feet wide would remove nearly 82 acres — more than 25 percent — of Short's 320 acre from agriculture if imposed along the 1.5 miles of salmon stream flowing through his fields.

In contrast, Johnson said he has no buffer problems, although only 60 to 65 of Lazy J's 85 acres on Gehrke Road east of Port Angeles are farmable.

The remainder lie in the Siebert's Creek valley, where Johnson voluntarily partners with the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe on stream restoration and salmon habitat enhancement.

"I'm definitely an environmentalist," said Johnson, who quietly hopes regulations restricting ecologically beneficial activities can be altered.

"I'm not on prime farmland," Johnson said, referring to his arid farm at the tail end of the irrigation line, which is 22 miles by ditch from the Dungeness River.

Applying mulch — roughly 4,000 square yards to two acres to improve one particularly bad section — builds up the soil, retains water and turns organic materials that otherwise would be burned, dumped or hauled to the landfill into a stable and useful product.

Johnson charges a small disposal fee per truckload of brush, then grinds, waters and stirs it until it becomes mulch.

He applies 80 percent of the mulch he produces to his own land but needs to sell the balance to generate cash for his very expensive equipment.

After seeking technical advice from the conservation district, Johnson is waiting to see what regulations come out of the Clallam County Planning Commission's agriculture subcommittee.

"We believe that what Steve is doing serves the interests of the community and the environment and want to encourage it," Holtrop said, "but the rules are rather rigid."

For example, the state Department of Ecology and Clallam County want the entire area where composting is done to be paved.

Johnson doesn't want to concrete his farm and is frightened by other farmers' horror stories about spending tens of thousands of dollars on studies and plans in vain attempts to meet permitting requirements.

He's backed off from seeking a permit.

"If it cost $40,000, it would sink me," he said. "I'm just squeaking by, and looking to the future, I want to do more than squeak by.

Martha Ireland was a Clallam County commissioner from 1996 to 1999. She and her husband, Dale, live on a Carlsborg-area farm. Her column appears every Friday. E-mail: irelands@olypen.com.

New Farm Bureau

The following announcement appeared in the June 23, 2006 edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

---

New Farm Bureau

GARDINER — Organizers of a new North Olympic Counties Farm Bureau, representing farm and ranch families in Jefferson and Clallam counties, are hosting an organizational meeting for Farm Bureau members and other interested residents on Wednesday, June 28.

The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. at Gardiner Community Center, 980 Old Gardiner Road.

The North Olympic Counties Farm Bureau would be the 25th county farm bureau in Washington.

Former dairyman Roger Short of Chimacum will serve as president of the new county Farm Bureau.

Each county farm bureau is affiliated with the Washington Farm Bureau, a grassroots advocacy organization representing the social and economic interests of Washington farmers and ranchers at the local, state and national level.

Robyn Meech, WFB vice president for legislation, will attend the organizational meeting on behalf of the Washington Farm Bureau.

With more than 34,000 member families, Washington Farm Bureau is the largest general farm organization in Washington.

For more information, go to www.wsfb.com.

Peninsula Daily News

Letter to the editor

The letter following these comments was published in the June 22, 2006 Jefferson county edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

Just about everyone who is questioning the proposed changes to Jefferson County's critical areas legislation and regulations fully understands the crucial role wetlands and riparian areas play in our ecosystems. For many, it's an ingrained understanding that comes from years of close interaction with those natural systems.

The letter's author misses several very important facts in his criticism of the agricultural community. Chief among those is the idea that a farmer must be a good steward of the natural resources surrounding him or her. If the farmer is a poor steward, the farm will fail. If you don't treat your soils, vegetation, and water right, they won't work together to produce healthy crops and animals.

Jefferson County's farmers have worked with the best science available for generations. They do so because that science combines to help them optimize crop yields, animal health, and ecosystem protection. The science helps them to reach optimal levels of production through the use of the lowest possible use of chemicals (which generally tend to be hideously expensive), while working in the regulatory regime already on the books. The regulations we presently have are protective of the natural resources that exist in our region, but it's still possible to make a living. Of course, for many of our farmers, having a non-farming job on the side is also a part of the life picture.

During a planning commission meeting on June 21, best available science was a topic of conversation. We do not feel that the science used in building the new proposed changes to the Jefferson County critical areas governance represents more than a portion of the peer reviewed science that's available. Two research studies, both conducted in the state of Washington, were added to the process during the public meeting in front of a room full of local citizens. They know it's there, and will expect that it be used.

Personal financial gain and a healthy environment are not in fundamental oppostion to one another. It's only in those nations and regions where excess financial resources are widely available that funding for environmental protection efforts is also widely available. You cannot indulge in ecosystem improvement projects when it's a serious challenge to make sure your kids have food every day. In the economically challenged parts of the world, it's money from the wealthier parts of the world that brings environmental protection projects to communities. Limit personal gain and you will see habitat enhancements wither on the vine.

Farmers in this nation should never be required to limit their farming in order to satisfy the demands of an outside special interest non-profit organization that has no accountability to the people it seeks to force local government to regulate. This nation was founded on the idea that government must be fully accountable to its citizens. Governance power without such accountability does not go down well with most rural landowners.

It's wrong to harm farmers or other landowners through government regulation in the name of wetland and riparian zone protection, particularly when that regulation comes at the behest of an organization that is not accountable to the people it demands that government control. Our farmers have worked in this landscape for generations on a tiny portion of the lands located in Jefferson County. The live and work where they do because that's where the soils are productive. We cannot say on the one hand that we want to keep agricultural land in agricultural production, and on the other that the farmers should not be allowed to farm in the manner that modern science tells us is optimal for both production and for the environment.

We do not believe that any of our farmers suppose that they have the "right to continue to damage wetlands and riparian areas simply because they have been doing it for a long time." Indeed, they have been working hard with the Conservation District and a broad range of groups to conserve their lands and to restore ecosystem functions in areas where the "best practices" of days gone by damaged those areas. Science changes, and so do the best practices. Farmers are usually at the leading edge of adopting both.

Not all that long ago, a local farmer attempted to convert a portion of his land to swan habitat as part of the mitigation for the removal of the Elwha Dams. He was trying to do the right thing for a species of significance that was going to lose part of its usual and accustomed habitat by providing the swans with a place to go. County regulations and permitting issues frustrated his attempt to do the right thing. Far from doing the wrong thing through ignorance or malice on his part, he was trying to do something good for all.

Common sense should enter into the equation somewhere.

Perhaps the letter's author should set aside his apparent preconceived notion that we are surrounded by farm people who only want to pillage the ecosystem for personal gain, and actually get out and meet with a few of them. I'm sure that there are several who would be more than happy to have him out to the farm to learn about the good things they are doing to help salmon return and to provide opportunities for other species to share the place.

We live in a community where there are many people who wish to live sustainably. They prefer to purchase local produce whenever possible. If that's the case, it would perhaps be a good idea for them to work with the agricultural community to learn how that happens, and what role they might play to help make it possible for farmers to actually make a living through growing and providing that local produce.

Maybe then we could enter into a more rational discussion about how best to protect and enhance our natural ecosystems. If we are supposed to live local, buy local, perhaps we should also try solving environmental challenges locally, too?

---

Protect 'critical areas'

The important role wetlands and riparian areas play in the overall health of the aquatic ecosystems in Jefferson County is not in question.

The prposed critical areas ordinance has used the very best scientific studies to make the case for the protection of those areas.

The only effective way to protect and regain the proper functioning of the critical areas is to prevent mechanical damage such as compaction and/or chemical pollution such as fertilization.

This, too, is not in question. Private property rights do not include the right to injure resources that belong to all citizens.

As scientific understanding progresses, all manner of discoveries have caused society to change from the old ways to new practices that limit personal gain in order to promote the future health of the environment.

It is perfectly natural for farmers who would be required to limit their farming (and so, their income) to be upset and angry.

However, the plight of a few cannot be reason to limit laws or ordinances that benefit the overall current and future health of our natural world.

The argument against the retention of buffers to protect the critical resources revolves around the supposed right of property owners to continue to damage wetlands and riparian areas simply because they have been doing it for a long time.

Getting away with doing the wrong thing, whether through ignorance or malice, is not a valid excuse to continue doing the wrong thing.

Nor is it reason for our county commissioners to promote or allow exceptions to the ordinance.

Gerorge Bush,
Port Townsend

Bush is a retired U.S. Forest Service soil scientist

Balance needed in wetland laws

The following editorial appeared in the June 21, 2006 edition of the Port Townsend Leader.

---

Balance needed in wetland laws

Tractors showed up in front of Jefferson County Courthouse on Monday as part of a protest of proposed land use rules that would, among other things, increase buffers around rivers, streams, and wetlands.

A hearing is scheduled for 6:30 p.m. Wedmesday, June 21 at the Washington State University Learning Center, 210 West Patison St., Port Hadlock. We encourage anyone with questions or opinions about these proposed regulations to attend.

After a review of the maps available online at

www.co.jefferson.wa.us/commdevelopment/CriticalAreas.htm,

it is easy to see why some people might be alarmed by the proposal. The maps show large swaths of Jefferson County that will come under regulation if the proposal is approved as written. Of course, a property owner would have to go further than the maps to determine what the real impact would be. There are lots of different kinds of wetlands and streams, and not all carry the strictest protections. And, of course, current regulations protect many of these areas now, and it would take more than a few minutes for any property owner to determine just how the proposed changes will alter current regulations on a particular parcel. That lack of certainty has always been the place where growth restrictions have faltered.

On the other hand, there are real costs to all of us from poor land stewardship. Strictly from a logical perspective, it makes sense to prohibit development in areas that are prone to floods and to stop people from filling in wetlands. Keeping development away from natural wetlands not only provides great habitat for animals, birds and fish, but it assures that downstream groundwater that people rely on isn't contaminated. Unfortunately, pure logic cannot always rule because people's lives and livelihoods are inextricably rooted in some of these areas. We should be open to ideas beyond setbacks that will protect the environment we all cherish.

The county planning commission is in the process of balancing all of this information and will then present recommendations to the Jefferson County Board of Commissioners for consideration and additional public comment. The county commissioners are expected to make a final decision in September.

The tractor staging and the mobilization of landowners against the ordinance are somewhat reminiscent of the early days of growth management planning in Jefferson County. Then, there were rallies on the courthouse lawn, hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on legal wrangling, crowds jamming commissioner meetings and more than a few harsh words. It would be good if the county can avoid that kind of rancor again.

— Fred Obee

Farm protest earns delay

The following article appeared in the June 21, 2006 edition of the Port Townsend Leader.

---

Farm protest earns delay

By Kasia Pierzga
Leader Staff Writer

A protest at the Jefferson County Courthouse on Monday earned local property owners a temporary reprieve from new environmental rules some fear could reduce the value of their land.

New rules proposed

Proposed changes to Jefferson County's critical areas ordinance include:

• Expanding stream and wetland buffer zones to protect salmon and wildlife habitat. Some new buffers could be as much as three times larger than those under current county rules.
• Requiring property owners who want to seek approval of smaller buffer zones to hire a professional to delineate wetland boundaries.
• Adding a new category titled "channel migration zones" to the section covering areas to be protected with buffers.
• Identifying new types of stream to be protected by buffers.
• Establishing guidelines for creating designated core wildlife habitat areas or corridors that would affect applications for land division and forest practice conversions.
• Adding a broader range of options for protection of fish and wildlife habitat in planned rural residential developments.

Comments can be sent by e-mail to plannning@co.jefferson.wa.us

The Board of County Commissioners agreed unanimously to add an extra 90 days to the public comment period on proposed changes to the county's critical areas ordinance.

Under the proposed changes, some streams and buffers could require a 450-foot buffer zone to protect habitat from the impact of development or farming.

The buffer zone requirements vary depending on the kind of stream or wetland and how the surrounding land would be used.

As an example, if a piece of farmland has a stream passing through the middle of it, its owner may be required to leave up to 450 feet of land oneither side of the stream undisturbed.

The commissioners' decision to seek more public input came after a small convoy of tractors festooned with protest signs pulled up in front of the courthouse and about 35 property owners crowded into the commissioners' chambers to voice their opposition to the proposed changes.

Many in the audience said they needed more time to read and understand how the changes might affect them.

The amendments, developed in part as a result of a legal settlement between the county and the Washington Environmental Council, a statewide advocacy and lobbying group, include stream buffers that some people said could rob them of the use of part of their land.

Many of those at the June 19 meeting said that because the public was left out of the settlement negotiations, the agreement essentially put the WEC in charge of writing environmental protection laws in Jefferson County.

"You've allowed them to define the rules," said Port Ludlow resident Ron Gregory.

If the WEC isn't satisfied with the revised protections, it could go to court to force the county to make changes.

Marilyn Sullivan, a property owner who traveled from her home along the Hoh River in West Jefferson County to take part in the protest, said property owners, through their elected representatives, should be in charge of establishing county environmental rules.

"Surely in America we have rights as property owners," she said.

The protest came on the heels of an Olympic Water Users Association meeting the previous week at which the possibility of suing the county was raised for signing the settlement agreement without public scrutiny.

Under the agreement, the WEC "reserves the right to seek additional regulatory requirements by appropriate means if it concludes that the voluntary compliance program is failing to meet its objective to protect wetlands and fish and wildlife habitat from impacts related to agriculture."

Commissioner David Sullivan said the extended public comment period should clear up some misunderstandings about the new rules.

"There's a lot of clarification that has to happen," he said.

During the rally Monday, proponents of Initiative 933, a property-rights measure advocated by the Washington State Farm Bureau, took the opportunity to collect signatures in support of the measure. The measure calls for government to compensate landowners when laws reduce the value of their property.

While the commissioners voted to extend the public comment period on the critical areas ordinance by 90 days, the county still has to ask WEC for approval of the extension. That's because the settlement agreement called for the county to complete its public process on the changes by mid-July.

The WEC legal challenge began after the county missed a state-mandated 2004 deadline for review of its critical areas ordinance during the process of updating its comprehensive plan.

At the time, thecounty commissioners decided to delay the review so they could apply "best available science" that was being developed by the state Department of Ecology. The agency's work fell behind schedule, and the WEC petitioned the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board to force the county to perform the review.

While the agreement between the county and the WEC was signed in January 2006, the proposed changes developed by county planning staff weren't available to the public until May. Few local property owners were aware of the changes, and only two people turned out for the first public hearing before the planning commission on June 7.

The June 21 public hearing before the planning commission is a continuation of that first hearing.

After gathering public input on the ordinance, the planning commission will present its recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners, which can either accept those recommendations or opt to hold its own public hearing on the matter.

Farmers rally to protect land rights

The following article appeared on June 20, 2006 in the Jefferson County edition of the Peninsula Daily News.

---

Farmers rally to protect land rights

By Jeff Chew
Peninsula Daily News

PORT TOWNSEND — Angry farmers parked a convoy of sign-toting John Deere tractors in front of the Jefferson County Courthouse on Monday as they protested proposed action that they said would infringe on private property rights.

More than 50 residents packed the County Commissioner chambers in protest of proposed amendments to the Unified Development Code that would extend buffer zones for wetlands.

Among them was Bob Pontius, a Port Ludlow Republican who is running for county commissioner, who asked, "If this is implying that you're going to take our property, then how are you going to compensate us?"

Answered county Director for Community Development Al Scalf, "You have to look at the Legislature in Olympia. The laws are changing yearly. It is our professional duty to bring this forward to the public."

Outside, one of the farmers' signs read, "Property isn't safe while the Legislature is in session."

Others merely said, "no" to the critical areas ordinances and the same for the Washington Environmental Council.

Also outside the courthouse, real estate agent Richard Hild, who argued that county commissioners "gave away our rights to do anything" with land, was urging voters to sign a petition supporting Initiative 933. The initiative, which reads that it would require fairness when government regulates private property, is opposed by the WEC.

Public hearing Wednesday

The Jefferson County Department of Community Development on May 17 issued for public review a proposal for a critical areas ordinance defining the new buffers. The department is now accepting written public comments on the proposal.

The deadline for written (comment) is Wednesday. They can be sent to the Department of Community Development at 621 Sheridan St., Port Townsend, WA 98368, or to dcd@co.jefferson.wa.us.

A public hearing before the Jefferson County Planning Commission on the proposed law is also planned at 6:30 p.m. in the Washington State University Learning Center 201 W. Patison St., Port Hadlock, on Wednesday.

Public comments will be accepted up until the conclusion of hte meeting.

Wednesday's hearing is an extension of a June 7 hearing.

The county Planning Commission is expected to develop its recommendation to the county commission either at Wednesday's hearing or at a special meeting on June 28.

Meeting on Wednesday

Roger Short, North Olympic Counties Farm Bureau president and long-time Chimacum farmer, urged county landowners to attend Wednesday's hearing.

"We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to be good stewards and we continue to get hammered," Short said, standing with fellow farmers outside the courthouse on Monday. "We used to have 300 potential building sites on farms. Now we have nothing."

Existing county buffers range from 25 to 150 feet, but the county, acting on state Department of Ecology recommendations, proposes 100 percent increases of these boundaries — from 50 to 300 feet.

The proposed ordinance states that if a landowner wants to hire a specialist to study a wetland and delineate its exact boundaries, wildlife habitat and ecological functions, the wetland buffer will fall somewhere in between 50 and 300 feet, based on these factors.

The cost to hire a specialist to survey the wetland can be thousands of dollars.

For those who don't hire specialists to delineate wetland boundaries, the proposed ordinance states buffers of 450 feet will be effective, said Scalf.

The proposal was no relief to Jim Fritz, president of Olympic Water Users Association, because it does not encourage cooperation with adjacent landowners to benefit salmon restoration projects.

"The proposed ordinance would start a civil war in Jefferson County," Fritz said.

The proposed ordinance is part of an agreement struck with the Washington Environmental Council, an environmental state lobbying group that went before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board last year.

WEC argued that the county failed to comply with the state Growth Management Act regarding critical areas, such as wetlands, salmon migration channels and flood zones.

Ultimately, the matter was settled with WEC in executive session behind closed doors. County commissioners said settlement was necessary to avoid a long-term costly legal battle with the group.

Norm MacLeod, who co-founded the Olympic Water Users Association, raised the possibility of local residents filing suit against the commission.

"In signing on to this agreement, the county has effectively ceded an enormous amount of governance latitude to WEC, and outside nongovernmental special interest group with absolutely no accountability to the citizens of Jefferson County," said MacLeod.

He said the public was not allowed to participate as much as it should have.

But the county's top civil attorney said the matter was highly publicized and required a public vote of the commission.

"It's not like this went from the mouth of WEC to an act of legislation," said county Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney David Alvarez.

Alvarez said the agreement was based on "best available science."

The county is required to meet the terms of the agreement this year, and Washington Environmental Council agrees to dismiss the matter once the agreement is met.

One county commissioner said he wanted to hear more public comment on the issue.

"I'm not sure if this is the right thing to do," said County Commissioner Phil Johnson, D-Port Townsend.

"There are a lot of real concerns."

Not the end of the issue

Scalf, county commissioners David Sullivan, D-Cape George, and Pat Rodgers, R-Brinnon, agreed that the critical areas controversy is likely to return in a year, after the Legislature meets again.

"Our lives are controlled by forces who are not from here and don't even live in this county," Rodgers said.

Meanwhile, Jim Morgan, who raises hogs on 10 acres in Eaglemount east of Discovery Bay, promised that farmers wouldreturn to the courthouse "next Monday and the Monday after that."

"We pay our taxes and vote 'em in," he said, "and we can vote 'em out."

Port Townsend/Jefferson County Editor Jeff Chew can be reached at 360-385-2335
or jeff.chew@peninsuladailynews.com.

Jefferson County Farmers' Tractor Protest Gets Results

The following article appeared in the June 20, 2006 edition of the Kitsap Sun.

---

Photo Courtesy of Teren MacLeod Jefferson County farmers head to the county courthouse on their tractors to protest proposed land-use regulations. Jefferson County Farmers' Tractor Protest Gets Results County commissioners extend deadline for critical areas ordinance. By Julie McCormick, jmccormick@kitsapsun.com June 20, 2006 Port Townsend Dozens of Jefferson County farmers and other rural landowners brought their tractors and their anger to the county courthouse Monday morning. They were fired up over proposed land-use regulations that snuck up while nobody was looking and had e-mails flying over the weekend as organizers rallied the troops. They also were steamed at a legal settlement between the county and the Washington EnvironmentalCouncil that no one had seen until late in the week. On Monday, they showed up at 7:30 a.m., many chugging in at 8 mph on big-tired farm rigs from an overnight staging area at the county fairgrounds. Protest leaders said they only learned about the seemingly draconian 450-foot buffers for certain wetlands days ago, with the planning commission set to hold a public hearing and close public comment on Wednesday. It was just the kind of thing to set off Roger Short, whose family has farmed in the Central Valley near Chimacum for generations. He’s farming 300 acres, including parcels along Beaver Valley Road, the main highway into Port Townsend. The way Short reads proposed revisions to the wetlands portion of the county’s critical areas ordinance, any change in current use on agricultural land with a wetlands component would trigger the so-called "default" buffer of 450 feet. Kitsap County’s recently adopted critical areas ordinance drew fire from property rights activists and environmentalists. It includes a 250-foot buffer for some high-quality wetlands. With Chimacum Creek running right through the center of Beaver Valley through an ancient peat bog, a farmer couldn’t decide to build a greenhouse or go from crops to cows without losing use of a huge swath. "This affects all of my farm," said Short, who’s also president of the North Olympic Farm Bureau. He has long been active in land-use issues and he’s convinced the county’s agricultural regulations achieved by locals a few years ago should stand. The devil is in the details, said Jim Tracy, attorney for Fred Hill Materials. Tracy attended the meeting but said the gravel company’s land is likely not affected. The hot-button buffer issue may not mean exactly what protesters believe, Tracy said, but similar revisions are raising hackles in counties throughout the state in response to a legislative mandate approved two years ago. That’s where the county’s settlement with the Washington Environmental Council comes in. Legislative language called for counties to review ordinances, and revise them if necessary based upon "best available science." The state Department of Ecology was supposed to provide that science, but work was delayed. Jefferson County commissioners decided to wait beyond the legislative deadline for more information. The environmental group petitioned the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, charging the county violated the law. A settlement agreement reached in January but not publicized promises the county will complete its work by July 18. Language in the low-profile settlement agreement sounded to a lot of people as if county commissioners were letting an outside group dictate the future of their land. Not so, said County Commissioner David Sullivan of Cape George, who declared to loud hoots from skeptics that the agreement gives over no power or authority. Faced with the hostile crowd demanding answers, commissioners quickly adjusted their agenda, unanimously approved a 90-day extension for the rule-making process and more public participation, then opened their meeting up for what became a freewheeling series of heated accusations. Marilyn Lewis, who traveled 100 miles from her farm in the Hoh River Valley to make the meeting, called any buffer on the meandering river that sometimes floods and takes her land, sometimes recedes and gives it back, "a taking, a stealing." The audience applauded. County Planning Director Al Scalf said he expects the Washington Environmental Council will agree to an extension of the deadline. Commissioners also could decide to request the state hearings board allow the county another year to review based upon the county’s own "best science," rather than state guidelines. Critical Areas Hearing The Jefferson County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on proposed revisions to the critical areas ordinance beginning at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday at the Washington State University Learning Center, 201 W. Patison, Port Hadlock. Details are available on the county’s Web site, www.co.jefferson.wa.us. Copyright 2006, kitsapsun.com. All Rights Reserved.