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.