Fueled by fears of wider buffers farmers hold ‘tractor protest’

The following article appeared in the July 7, 2006 Western Oregon and Washington print edition of the Capital Press.

---

Fueled by fears of wider buffers farmers hold ‘tractor protest’
Planner: County probably has ‘best deal’ for farmers

By COOKSON BEECHER
Capital Press Staff Writer

When his voice didn’t seem to be loud enough for government officials to hear, Western Washington farmer Roger Short did the next best thing. He fired up some of his farm’s tractors and joined a tractor rally — manure spreaders and all — that showed up at the Jefferson County Courthouse at 7:30 a.m. on June 19.

“A lot of people gave us a thumbs up or the middle finger,” Short said, chuckling. “But most were thumbs up.”

Fueling the protest were concerns over proposed revisions to the county’s critical areas ordinance, which some farmers fear has the potential to lead to wider buffers along streams and wetlands.

The protest apparently drew attention to the proposed revisions. Whereas the first public comment hearing drew only two people, a public meeting held several days after the protest drew about 150 people.

During the heated four-hour meeting, about 60 people spoke against the proposal. Many said they had only just learned about it.

Jill Silver, a watershed program manager and environmental scientist with the 10,000 Year Institute, was the only person at the meeting to speak in support of the county’s proposal. She told the crowd that despite statements saying the proposal threatens local farms, it actually exempts existing agricultural lands from the ordinance’s proposed requirements.

In a June 27 telephone interview with the Capital Press, Josh Peters, the county’s senior planner, said the county probably has the best deal for farmers in all of Western Washington.

“There are no buffers on existing farms, and that would not change with the proposal,” he said. “All we ask is that farmers voluntarily implement best management practices with help from the Conservation District. Individual Natural Resource Conservation Service farm plans are not required.”In addition, county farms can take full advantage of accessory-use provisions in the state’s Growth Management Act.

“Courts have thrown out programs that were more stringent,” he said.

But Short said he’s read the proposal and said he finds it lacking in specifics that would assure farmers they have a future.

Like most other farmers, Short, a former dairyman, has switched to other crops and livestock operations over the years to meet changing demands in the marketplace. He’s worried the revisions will affect any changes he makes in the future by making it impossible for him to do what he needs to do to stay in business as a farmer.

What especially irks some farmers and other rural residents is that the proposed revisions are part of a settlement agreement the county reached with the Washington Environmental Council. According to the agreement, the county was to complete its work and adopt an updated critical areas ordinance on July 18. That has now been put off until Oct. 23 in order to give the public more time to learn about the settlement and to comment on it.

The settlement came as the result of the county’s delay in updating its critical areas ordinance based on “best available science.”

When the county decided to wait until the actual legislative deadline for more information, WEC petitioned the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, charging the county with violating the law.

Although the settlement agreement was reached in January, it was not widely publicized.

Some say that the language in the settlement sounds as though the county commissioners are letting an outside group decide on the way their land will be used in the future. County Commissioner David Sullivan counters that claim, saying the county still maintains control over land-use decisions.

Responding to widespread confusion over this issue, the county commissioners unanimously approved a 90-day extension for the rule-making process and called for more public participation.

Becky Kelley, a policy director for WEC, said the organization is agreeable to the 90-day extension called for by the county.

“It really is important for people to be heard and for more public meetings to be held on this,” she said.

The county, meanwhile, plans to distribute more information about this issue to the public before scheduling any more public meetings. Future meetings are expected to take place later this summer and in the fall.