Do right thing for wetlands
The letter that follows these comments was published in the July 12, 2006 edition of the Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader.
There's great value in hearing all of the positions on this issue well represented in the overall debate that is taking place. We should all recognize that an ordinance on critical areas reflects a policy decision based on science available to those who have the responsibility for writing the legislation. It's refreshing to have Mr. Bush bring to the table the idea that those with contrasting views about the proposed critical areas update should be able to back their positions with science that supports their views.
That's why we entered new science, conducted in the state of Washington and published by a state agency, supporting narrower buffers, into the public record on June 21 at the Planning Commission's hearing. We also presented a summarized version of that science to the Board of County Commissioners on June 26. A CD containing science supporting a lighter regulatory hand and other documents was also entered into the public record, and more is forthcoming.
While each of us, Mr. Bush included, may have our personal biases, we are doing our best to better inform the process of building an improved critical areas ordinance update. We are not simply bringing a "biased opinion" to the stage.
Our farmers are doing a lot to improve the ecosystems that exist on their properties. They are ably assisted in this by one of the most innovative and capable conservation districts in the Northwest. We repeatedly find reference to pioneering work accomplished by the Jefferson County Conservation District in the science that is helping to inform the debate. With the science suggesing that wider is not always better in riparian and wetland buffers, coupled with the science on the use of value added (commercially valuable) plants being done in British Columbia's Okanagan region and other locations, we do find reason to believe that the proposed update really is excessive.
It's not nonsense to bring human economics into the picture when we are discussing environmental protections. Jefferson County's economy is seriously challenged, and desperately in need of opportunities for success. There is no reason that we can't seek a viable balance between human needs and our ecosystems, where each will benefit substantially from a revised policy that makes ample provisions for both.
Our focus is less on the projected limitations on land use than it is on working together as a community to seek the balance that's lacking in the currently proposed critical areas ordinance update. We feel that the people who will be regulated by the provisions of the update were pretty much left out of the picture. In our system of government, they are supposed to be consulted, and by and large, they were not. Our government is intended to work with the consent of the governed, and that needs to be an informed consent with the offer to participate in the formation of policy.
That's not too much to ask, is it?
There's great value in hearing all of the positions on this issue well represented in the overall debate that is taking place. We should all recognize that an ordinance on critical areas reflects a policy decision based on science available to those who have the responsibility for writing the legislation. It's refreshing to have Mr. Bush bring to the table the idea that those with contrasting views about the proposed critical areas update should be able to back their positions with science that supports their views.
That's why we entered new science, conducted in the state of Washington and published by a state agency, supporting narrower buffers, into the public record on June 21 at the Planning Commission's hearing. We also presented a summarized version of that science to the Board of County Commissioners on June 26. A CD containing science supporting a lighter regulatory hand and other documents was also entered into the public record, and more is forthcoming.
While each of us, Mr. Bush included, may have our personal biases, we are doing our best to better inform the process of building an improved critical areas ordinance update. We are not simply bringing a "biased opinion" to the stage.
Our farmers are doing a lot to improve the ecosystems that exist on their properties. They are ably assisted in this by one of the most innovative and capable conservation districts in the Northwest. We repeatedly find reference to pioneering work accomplished by the Jefferson County Conservation District in the science that is helping to inform the debate. With the science suggesing that wider is not always better in riparian and wetland buffers, coupled with the science on the use of value added (commercially valuable) plants being done in British Columbia's Okanagan region and other locations, we do find reason to believe that the proposed update really is excessive.
It's not nonsense to bring human economics into the picture when we are discussing environmental protections. Jefferson County's economy is seriously challenged, and desperately in need of opportunities for success. There is no reason that we can't seek a viable balance between human needs and our ecosystems, where each will benefit substantially from a revised policy that makes ample provisions for both.
Our focus is less on the projected limitations on land use than it is on working together as a community to seek the balance that's lacking in the currently proposed critical areas ordinance update. We feel that the people who will be regulated by the provisions of the update were pretty much left out of the picture. In our system of government, they are supposed to be consulted, and by and large, they were not. Our government is intended to work with the consent of the governed, and that needs to be an informed consent with the offer to participate in the formation of policy.
That's not too much to ask, is it?
Do right thing for wetlands
Editor, Leader
Anxiety over proposed stream and wetlands protection in the critical areas ordinance continues to be focused on projected limits on land use that may result.
However, the ordinance is proposed for the purpose of protecting long-term ecologic values and cannot be effective if it is limited by exemptions that optimize land use. Arguing against an ordinance designed to protect intrinsic values of our watersheds by decrying its effect on human economics is nonsense. The only proper argument against an ordinance based on the physical sciences of hydrology, soils, and biology is one that can use those same sciences to reveal errors or shortcomings of the ordinance.
Statements such as "most of our farmers are already providing substantial services in conserving habitat and improving ecosystem functions" by Mr. MacLeod (Perspective, July 5 Leader) imply that the proposed protection is ecologically excessive. If that is true, it is the responsibility of those who believe so to show it to be so through scientific analysis — not biased opinion.
Lacking such analysis, it is the responsibility of the commissioners to do the right thing for the long-term health of our streams and wetlands by implementing the ordinance as written.GEORGE BUSH
Port Townsend
posted by olyfarm @ 11:54 AM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home