Letter to the editor
Another challenge is that column inches in newspapers are too few to do the topic justice. Given the brevity that reporters must digest complex information into, incomplete understanding of the issues can lead to reactions that produce unfortunate confrontations.
To say that any political party has lied to the public is perhaps a bit strong, and may lead to further divisiveness. That would be a shame, because the natural resource and human rights issues we face transcend partisan political considerations. We are talking about the opportunities for our children, grandchildren, and their future generations will enjoy . . . or not. We don't wish their ability to live and work in Jefferson County to be regulated beyond their reach.
Yes, there is an agricultural exemption within the draft CAO update for agricultural operations. Commissioner Sullivan is correct in saying that it needs to be expanded to support greater levels of food production, and he has mentioned this in public on more than one occasion. As drafted, the agricultural exemption is far too narrow to allow for that. In order to qualify, a landowner has to meet the exempt activities requirements of paragraph 18.15.335 (e):
"Existing and ongoing agricultural activities on lands enrolled in the open space tax program for agriculture or on lands designated as agricultural lands of long-term significance on the official map of Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations. 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, 3003;"
This means that the property in question would be required to have been actively farmed in the five year period prior to April 28, 2003, and would have to be further qualified under one of the two specified special programs. Newcomers to agriculture in Jefferson County, as well as long-standing farmlands that were not actively farmed during the specified period would not be exempt.
Commissioner Sullivan is also correct in noting that the 450-foot buffer is the "waiver buffer" for Wetland Categories I and II, for those people who do not wish to have a wetland typing and delineation performed. That is a benefit to some landowners. However, there's quite a bit more to understand where these particular buffers are concerned.
Table 3-3 in the draft ordinance update is where 450 foot buffers are mentioned, and they are specified for Wetland Categories I and II. Note 3 to Table 3-3 says:
"Uncategorized wetlands shall be presumed to be Wetland Category I with wetland characteristics that require the largest buffer width in the respective wetland category, unless an assessment is made of the wetland in order to determine its category and classify the wetland according to its wetland characteristics in Table 3-4B of this section. The applicant shall be responsible for determining the wetland category and characteristics, and that determination must be made by a qualified professional."
The largest buffer width in Category I is 450 feet, which according to Note 3 is the default . . . or mandatory . . . buffer until such time as the property owner hires a professional to categorize and characterize the wetland to determine what buffer widths should actually be required for the wetland. Under the proposal, the landowner would be required to foot the bill for this work, which would amount to thousands of dollars.
So, the 450-foot buffer is both a waiver buffer and a default buffer. That's what the fuss is about on this point. As a waiver buffer, there's the potential for problems with the landowner's neighbors. What if a landowner wants to go with the 450-foot waiver buffer, and a significant portion of that buffer happens to extend onto a neighbor's land? The current draft is pretty quiet on that kind of situation.
Commissioner Sullivan's note regarding the expense of the delineation process is good to see. Perhaps this can lead to a shifting of the financial burden of professional delineation from the landowner to the public at large. When the goal is to obtain a public benefit, the entire public should share the cost equally.
While people may understand that the draft update proposal that came out on May 17, 2006 is not a final product, there was every chance that it would have been legislatively approved prior to the settlement agreement deadline of July 18, 2006. Routine public comment during one Planning Commission meeting in June would not have been likely to result in significant changes to that draft before it became final. At this point, it is correct to say that the original draft is not a threat to anyone, but that's primarily because a sizeable portion of the public spoke up in opposition to the original draft.
The public at large now has significant representation on the committee working on the critical areas ordinance update draft. The expertise assembled on the behalf of all of our citizens is extensive, and includes internationally recognized natural resource scientists, among many other highly experienced professionals.
We'd like to invite you to use these links to download the Second Settlement Agreement between the Washington Environmental Council and Jefferson County and the proposed critical areas update that was released for public review on May 17, 2006. If you spend some time reading and studying it, you will gain a greater understanding of the reasons for our concerns.
Commissioner Sullivan is also correct when he says that county commissioners from both parties supported more local control over water use. Jefferson County Resolution 68-05 provides specific guidelines for the implementation of the Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 17 watershed plan, and provides for distinction between that process and the development of the WRIA 17 instream flow rule.
The instream flow rule-making process is a separate discussion that is being held with the Department of Ecology, who proposed an instream flow rule that would have taken an extraordinary water right to be assigned to instream flows in line of seniority. This would have effectively made 72% of all surface and groundwater unavailable to the residents of WRIA 17.
It is appropriate to ask that candidates for county office from all participating political parties state their positions on these very important issues that will affect the lives of all county residents. These land use and water access issues are of very high importance to everyone in both the rural and urbanized areas of Jefferson County.
Because these issues are so very important to how Jefferson County's future is shaped, citizens need to know how each candidate and current office holder feels about them.
At the same time, these issues rise far above politics, and we all need to be involved in building solutions to any problems that are identified. While each party is free to take positions on their goals for the issues, we really hope that our politicians will focus on the needs of the people they serve.
Please visit these fine websites to learn more about these issues and to gain access to the documents pertaining to them:
Local GOP twists truth
Editor, Leader
The Jefferson County Republican Party has deliberately lied to the people of Jefferson County.
They know the Draft Critical Areas Ordinance has an exemption for agriculture. They know I've spoken in favor of expanding it to support local food production.
They know that wetland buffers are proposed to decrease in many situations and they range from 25 to 300 feet. They know the draft ordinance has no mandatory 450-foot buffers proposed. They misrepresent the voluntary waiver option (1.5 times the 25- to 300-foot buffer, maximum 450 feet) that exists in the present ordinance as a benefit to property owners. Waivers needn't require expensive wetlands delineation.
The Jefferson County Republican Party knows the Draft Critical Areas Ordinance is just an initial draft and as such is no threat to anyone. Republicans have significant representation on teh planning commission and the subcommittee reviewing this draft right now.
Their ad in the Aug. 23 Leader questioned where Democrats stand on restricting the use of water from private wells. They know the Democrat and Republican county commissioners worked together to adopt the current policy advocating voluntary measures. Why does the local Republican Party leadership want to mislead you to think otherwise?
The people of Jefferson County deserve the truth. Ask the leadership of the Jefferson County Republican Party why they think otherwise. Ethical Republicans need to assert themselves and stand up to the local party leadership when they don't tell the truth.
DAVID SULLIVAN
county commissioner
District 2
Cape George
posted by olyfarm @ 8:36 PM
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home