No Loss for Words

In the scheme of things, Leque Island is not particularly important. It is a small island of mostly farm land at the point where the Stillaguamish River empties into Livingston Bay south of Stanwood. The land is owned by the Washington State Department of Fish & Wildlife. For a number of years, it has been actively farmed by nearby farmers who rent the land from the state.

As I said, this little island is hardly significant; except for the fact that the state wants to remove the dikes that protect the farmland and allow it to be turned back to a salt marsh as it was before it was diked. There is no doubt that the DFW project has merit; that is not the issue in this case. What is important is the failure of the county to enforce County, State and perhaps Federal Laws; and follow the processes set up to regulate public and private lands. It is my understanding that “prior converted farm land” is federally protected and converting it to some other use requires a process. Is there evidence that shows they have been through the rating process?

Government is about processes that create expectations and predictability for everyone. In order for the county to even consider converting this land to some other use, I would presume it would have to go through the appropriate processes to determine whether a change is justified.

Then there is the issue of DFW giving itself a DNS on the environmental review. What is it with these government agencies that give themselves a pass because they have the authority to do it? If anything, we should expect government entities with that authority to meet a higher standard rather than a lesser one.

In light of the fact that the state Growth Management Act requires that counties preserve and protect agriculture resource lands, it seems odd that the state would be advocating the destruction of this land in violation of its own laws. It seems odder yet that Snohomish County is doing nothing to enforce the law and prevent it from happening. For the county and the state, they must believe, the end justifies the means. Would that work for the private sector?

I don’t believe the state statute gives a county elected officials the option to follow the law if they feel like it on a given day. According to the dictionary, “misfeasance” is the act of doing something that is legal in an illegal manner. That same dictionary defines “malfeasance” as “misconduct: conduct by a public official that cannot be legally justified or that conflicts with the law.”

I am disappointed that county elected officials who profess to be protectors of farm land can willfully stand by and do nothing as this farm land is destroyed without due process. I recognize that they do have the power to make these changes if they decide as a council to do so, but they do not have the power to blow off the law without repercussions.

In addition, Snohomish County has a “no net loss of agriculture land” policy which raises a whole different issue. If the state is turning 115 acres of productive farm land into a salt marsh, they need to replace it in some way. Right?

The apparent decision on the part of Snohomish County to choose to not follow the law is distressing to me at a minimum. I cannot imagine a situation where a private sector property owner blatantly ignored the law and did not feel the wrath of the county.

I am looking for county elected officials to explain why they are choosing to ignore their responsibilities under the law. I think the taxpayers and voters in the county are entitled to an explanation. In light of the fact that the county is already facing litigation for failing to follow “due process” requirements, it perplexes me that they could continue being so arrogant.

Taxpayers in Snohomish County have every right to expect their government to follow the rules. What do we have to do to get them to comply?

Posted on September 4, 2009 at 3:51 pm in Environmental, Political commentary, Snohomish County Council, Snohomish County Political Commentary   |  RSS feed |   Reply   |   Trackback URL