I have written in the past about the uncontrolled conversion of farm land here in Snohomish County and how the county had to play a role in stopping it from happening because the preservation of farm land was a stated goal of both the county and the state.
Reader response has been consistently in favor of preserving farm land for that reason alone.
Subsequent to my post last month about Leque Island, I have learned a lot more about the Ag land issue here in Snohomish County that is much more than troubling. I had the opportunity to tour the Snohomish River Valley and the Snoqualmie River Valley south to the county line. I was stunned when I was informed that more than 2/3 of the land in the Snoqualmie Valley was already owned by either the State of Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife or the Nature Conservancy. In the Snohomish River Valley, it isn’t quite that bad yet, but it’s getting worse. We are losing thousands of acres of prime farm land because the government is sponsoring the action.
The county encourages the DFW and Nature Conservancy to buy thousands of acres of farm land to convert to “habitat” for Ducks Unlimited while we are also spending more tax dollars to buy development rights to prevent the loss of Ag land. What’s wrong with that picture?
Talk about defrauding the public! Our State Legislature and County Council are up to their armpits in this sham. If voters thought it was time for a change last fall, what is coming out right here in Snohomish County will cause most thinking people to “vote out the bums” again this year.
Read on if you really want to pucker your you know what!
Ebey Slough starts at Marysville and winds along the base of the upland on the east side of the lower Snohomish River delta to a point on the Snohomish River just upriver from Lowell. To the south, Ebey Slough and other sloughs form Ebey Island.
Along the east side of the slough at the foot of Fobes Hill in what either is or was Diking District 6, there is a patch of farm land now owned by Snohomish County and a man named John Spoelstra. For the past couple years, this is the land we see as we drive along Bickford Avenue looking toward Everett. It is often flooded because the County wants to convert three hundred more acres of former farm land to “fish habitat”. Because Snohomish County wants even more swamp land, this farm land is being destroyed. Not just the land owned by the county, but also the land owned by Mr. Spoelstra. In my book, that is not right.
So why should the rest of us really give a damn about this land? That’s a good question.
Well, truth be told, I don’t. What I do care about is the other damage that was done when the county chose to flood Spoelstra’s 140 acres and their own 300 acres. In addition to damaging Mr. Spoelstra, every one of us took a hit because two public utilities had to shell out $27,000,000 to secure their investments crossing the land. Snohomish County spent another $3,000,000 of our money to make all of it happen.
Last summer we saw the project where the helicopters brought in the new high rise /high voltage towers to place on those fancy new concrete bases installed every couple hundred feet. It seemed like routine maintenance until you hear the other part of the story.
The county’s decision to remove flood controls guaranteed that the land would become saturated even more than normal. That saturation destroyed the wood power poles owned by Puget Sound Energy along that section of land. The power company explained to the county the adverse impact it suffered because of their plan and asked the county to repair the dike, the county declined.
The power company relies on those power lines to carry electricity to a significant service area so they couldn’t just abandon the line. They would either move the power lines to higher privately owned land on the hill or they would retrofit the towers to exist in the harsh saturated environment. The chosen option was to retrofit. That little project cost Puget Sound Energy $17,000,000 that will be passed on to all of us in higher rates. $17 million paid to protect vital assets of a public utility so the county could create “habitat”.
The city of Everett also has a huge water line that crosses this land. The city of Everett also informed the county that saturating the land was damaging their water line. As noted, the county declined to change their plan or pay to mitigate. The city of Everett paid $10,000,000 to protect their water line. Another cost that will be borne by tax payers in the name of “habitat”.
And finally, the county itself has shelled out $3,000,000 of our tax dollars to create the whole mess. Their own willful action destroyed farm land and damaged vital public energy assets to create “habitat”.
That’s $30 million dollars spent by rate payers and tax payers to create 300 acres of “habitat”.
In the middle of all this controversy, Dave Somers acknowledges the county plan to create “habitat” has come with a price tag he is willing for us to pay.
I am running for County Council because Dave Somers’ agenda does not serve the people of Snohomish County.
Where do you come down on this issue? Which is your highest priority; people or fish? If you think people should be higher on the list VOTE FOR STEVE DANA!
Posted on October 2, 2009 at 4:19 pm in Environmental, Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Snohomish County Council, Snohomish County Political Commentary, Steve Dana Issues | RSS feed
|
Reply |
Trackback URL
No Loss for Words
The Cost of Fish is Going UP!
by Steve DanaI have written in the past about the uncontrolled conversion of farm land here in Snohomish County and how the county had to play a role in stopping it from happening because the preservation of farm land was a stated goal of both the county and the state.
Reader response has been consistently in favor of preserving farm land for that reason alone.
Subsequent to my post last month about Leque Island, I have learned a lot more about the Ag land issue here in Snohomish County that is much more than troubling. I had the opportunity to tour the Snohomish River Valley and the Snoqualmie River Valley south to the county line. I was stunned when I was informed that more than 2/3 of the land in the Snoqualmie Valley was already owned by either the State of Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife or the Nature Conservancy. In the Snohomish River Valley, it isn’t quite that bad yet, but it’s getting worse. We are losing thousands of acres of prime farm land because the government is sponsoring the action.
The county encourages the DFW and Nature Conservancy to buy thousands of acres of farm land to convert to “habitat” for Ducks Unlimited while we are also spending more tax dollars to buy development rights to prevent the loss of Ag land. What’s wrong with that picture?
Talk about defrauding the public! Our State Legislature and County Council are up to their armpits in this sham. If voters thought it was time for a change last fall, what is coming out right here in Snohomish County will cause most thinking people to “vote out the bums” again this year.
Read on if you really want to pucker your you know what!
Ebey Slough starts at Marysville and winds along the base of the upland on the east side of the lower Snohomish River delta to a point on the Snohomish River just upriver from Lowell. To the south, Ebey Slough and other sloughs form Ebey Island.
Along the east side of the slough at the foot of Fobes Hill in what either is or was Diking District 6, there is a patch of farm land now owned by Snohomish County and a man named John Spoelstra. For the past couple years, this is the land we see as we drive along Bickford Avenue looking toward Everett. It is often flooded because the County wants to convert three hundred more acres of former farm land to “fish habitat”. Because Snohomish County wants even more swamp land, this farm land is being destroyed. Not just the land owned by the county, but also the land owned by Mr. Spoelstra. In my book, that is not right.
So why should the rest of us really give a damn about this land? That’s a good question.
Well, truth be told, I don’t. What I do care about is the other damage that was done when the county chose to flood Spoelstra’s 140 acres and their own 300 acres. In addition to damaging Mr. Spoelstra, every one of us took a hit because two public utilities had to shell out $27,000,000 to secure their investments crossing the land. Snohomish County spent another $3,000,000 of our money to make all of it happen.
Last summer we saw the project where the helicopters brought in the new high rise /high voltage towers to place on those fancy new concrete bases installed every couple hundred feet. It seemed like routine maintenance until you hear the other part of the story.
The county’s decision to remove flood controls guaranteed that the land would become saturated even more than normal. That saturation destroyed the wood power poles owned by Puget Sound Energy along that section of land. The power company explained to the county the adverse impact it suffered because of their plan and asked the county to repair the dike, the county declined.
The power company relies on those power lines to carry electricity to a significant service area so they couldn’t just abandon the line. They would either move the power lines to higher privately owned land on the hill or they would retrofit the towers to exist in the harsh saturated environment. The chosen option was to retrofit. That little project cost Puget Sound Energy $17,000,000 that will be passed on to all of us in higher rates. $17 million paid to protect vital assets of a public utility so the county could create “habitat”.
The city of Everett also has a huge water line that crosses this land. The city of Everett also informed the county that saturating the land was damaging their water line. As noted, the county declined to change their plan or pay to mitigate. The city of Everett paid $10,000,000 to protect their water line. Another cost that will be borne by tax payers in the name of “habitat”.
And finally, the county itself has shelled out $3,000,000 of our tax dollars to create the whole mess. Their own willful action destroyed farm land and damaged vital public energy assets to create “habitat”.
That’s $30 million dollars spent by rate payers and tax payers to create 300 acres of “habitat”.
In the middle of all this controversy, Dave Somers acknowledges the county plan to create “habitat” has come with a price tag he is willing for us to pay.
I am running for County Council because Dave Somers’ agenda does not serve the people of Snohomish County.
Where do you come down on this issue? Which is your highest priority; people or fish? If you think people should be higher on the list VOTE FOR STEVE DANA!
Rate this:
Share this:
Related
Posted on October 2, 2009 at 4:19 pm in Environmental, Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Snohomish County Council, Snohomish County Political Commentary, Steve Dana Issues | RSS feed | Reply | Trackback URL
9 Responses to “The Cost of Fish is Going UP!”
October 3, 2009 at 10:19 am
Can you identify specific policies you would change?
Can you identify the cost of that change to the taxpayer?
Do you disagree that salmon habitat is important to Snohomish? If not, how do you plan to use your position on the council to preserve habitat?
thanks
October 3, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Sir,
Rather than changing policies, I would advocate that we follow existing policies. The actions taken by the county in this example are not consistent with current county policies. If a private property owner violated policies to the degree the county violated their own, they would be tied up in court for many years and be required to do restoration work to make the property farmable again.
If a habitat creation project was initiated, I would hope there would be a public process adopted so everyone could understand what our goals are and how we plan to achieve them.
Before I bought property to create habitat from farm land, I would require an EIS to determine whether other parties might be impacted by the decision. In this case, there are neighboring property owners that are adversely impacted along with the utility companies who had to spend the $27 million already because of the county decision. In the case of private sector dealings, if you adversely impact a neighbor, you can be held responsible for damages and be required to make restitution.
I would make sure that by doing a project like this I wasn’t violating existing county policies or state mandates in the GMA to preserve farm land for farming. Since existing county policy prevents conversion of farm land to other uses, I would assume that would include habitat creation. Once again, a public process would insure that all sides have due process.
I do agree that salmon habitat should be a priority, but considering the other negative impacts that came about as a result of this project, deciding to move forward here might be a poor decision. In my view, those other considerations need to be weighed so that we don’t cause millions of dollars to be spent with uncertain benefits.
Lastly, the benefits need to be quantified so we can determine the cost benefit ratio. The public cannot spend unlimited funds on projects with marginal benefits. We need to focus our resources on projects that yield the best results.
County council members need to be held accountable for decisions that create adverse impacts to people and the environment. At the end of the day, elected officials represent people. What we want are elected officials who can balance the needs of the people with the needs of the environment within the framework of adopted county and state law. We have affirmed time and again that the end does not justify the means; so the county needs to comply with the law.
If creating habitat ends up being the adopted policy of the county or the law of the land, we should implement a public plan to achieve that end. Absent that, we should follow existing law.
Government should be a framework of processes that establish predictability and certainty for both public and private interests as we regulate within our jurisdiction. Everyone wants to know what the rules are for both sides. I believe that if a process no longer serves the people, it should be changed, but until it is changed, it is still the rule of the day. The rule of law is the only thing that makes us a civilized society.
I hope my explanation helps you understand where I am coming from and where I hope to lead the county.
Steve Dana
October 3, 2009 at 4:12 pm
So, are you saying the county is not acting in accordance with the Snohomish River Comprehensive Flood Control Management Plan?
If so, what specific action taken by the county has been in contradiction to the plan?
October 3, 2009 at 11:48 pm
Steve, can you clarify for me? Are you saying that the County did not follow the procedures/regulations with which a private property owner would have to comply to undertake a similar project?
Was Mr. Spoelstra deprived of the use of his property without compensation?
October 4, 2009 at 7:14 am
Mr. Spoelstra’s land is no longer suitable for farming and because the land is saturated he couldn’t even build a home on any of it since it won’t perk for a septic permit. It is my understanding that Mr. Spoelstra has not been compensated for his loss.
With regard to your first question; private property owners would not be allowed to do what the county has done on this land under any circumstances. Endangering private land by not properly maintaining the dike and/or wilfully undermining the flood gates is the issue in this case. The county calculated that since the only property owners impacted by their actions were Snohomish County and John Spoelstra, they decided to move forward. My concern in this case is the other impacts that the flooding caused to the utilities. The county didn’t consider the harm they might be doing to anyone other than Spoelstra and as utility customers, we all have to pay for their negligence.
October 4, 2009 at 7:18 am
I would say that based upon my understanding of the plan, the county has not acted in accordance with the plan. I have not read all of the plan, but the parts that deal with maintaining dikes to protect private property and the standards laid out to accomplish the goals are clear.
It is my understanding that the county elected to dissolve Diking District 6 since they are the majority property owner in the protected area and as a result may feel that they are not bound by the requirements of the flood protection plan.
My concern in this case is based upon the fact that Mr. Spoelstra is not the only party damaged by the county action. We might be able to rationalize the loss of the ag land if no other damage was sustained. But in spite of the fact that they knew their actions would create the other adverse impacts, they chose to proceed anyway; that causes me greater distress. I am surprised that Puget Sound Energy and the city of Everett are not suing the county for the $27 million they had to pay to protect their assets.
I would hope that along with the Flood Control Management Plan, the county followed their own Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
I think there is a difference between buying critical areas to protect them and buying otherwise usable land and destroying it for that use and converting it to “habitat”. We need to have a public discussion about habitat protection, habitat restoration and habitat creation so everyone understands the differences while integrating those discussions and findings into the County Comp Plan so the policies can be applied consistently around the county.
Government processes that apply to citizens need to apply to the government as well. This case is not the first of this kind, but the damages are the worst. Snohomish County has demonstrated a pattern of wilfull abuse of their government authority.
Within a stone’s throw of this project in the valley is the case of the dispute between Snohomish and Lake Stevens regarding Rural/Urban Transition Area (RUTA) land between the two cities. In that case, the county entered into a process with the two cities and the land owners to determine whether either city should expand their Urban Growth Boundary to include the study area.
The process was designed to establish existing conditions and possible scenarios for future county and city actions.
In the course of entering this process, private land owners were promised the opportunity to make thier case for one outcome or another. Based upon that promise of “due process”, those private land owners spent nearly a million dollars producing studies and reports the county required to make their decision at the end. Both cities also spent public dollars participating in this “process”.
In the middle of the process, the county council decided to terminate the process without giving any of the parties their “day in court”. As a result, one of the damaged parties did sue the county in King County Superior Court. The judge listened to the testimony and found ‘for’ the plaintif and awarded him restitution and damages because the county wilfully violated the process promised at the outset. In addition, the judge suggested in her ruling that the evidence also pointed toward tortious interference in the manner in which the county acted. Tortious Interference, if proven would qualify the plaintif for additional damages stemming from the loss of profit of whatever project may have been on the table.
It is my understanding that damages could be anywhere from $5million to $85million because the county council violated the process. We could be on the hook for these damages because of direct county council action rather than poor judgment by a staff member. These damages are not covered by county insurance. Any final awards will be paid out of general fund revenues.
And finally, by following county policy and completing the process none of this would be happening.
I have no idea whether the private property owner can prove Tortious Interference. The court will decide that.
What I object to most strenuously is the fact that the council violated the process without regard to the quality of the content and put all of us on the hook for the damages. I believe Dave Somers knew exactly what he was doing when he encouraged the county council to act in this case and I believe the evidence will support my position when the trial is completed.
Government processes are set up to avoid situations like both of these cases. We expect private citizens to be held accountable for violating the rules and most of us expect the government to be held to the same standards.
Steve Dana
October 4, 2009 at 8:18 am
Mr. Dana, perhaps before continuing to comment on the county’s compliance with the Snohomish River Comprehensive Flood Control Management Plan it would be useful to read the plan and to identify specific votes of council or actions of the executive which contradict the plan.
Your assertion that the county may feel that they are not bound by the requirements of the Snohomish River Comprehensive Flood Control Management Plan is at the heart of your argument here, but you have not offered a single fact to back that up. Readers wonder why.
Instead of offering facts for the allegation of fish over people, you bring up some other case regarding dispute between Snohomish and Lake Stevens regarding Rural/Urban Transition Area (RUTA).
If, in fact, you know the county calculated that since the only property owners impacted by their actions were Snohomish County and John Spoelstra, they decided to move forward in contradiction to law and due process, please provide your readers the source of your information.
If this claim of calculated county government malfeasance is just your speculation after not actually reading the Snohomish River Comprehensive Flood Control Management Plan, attending public meetings or reading the decisions, please let us know you are only engaging in arm chair speculation.
October 4, 2009 at 10:00 am
My issue is not with the Flood Management Plan. My issue is the cost of mitigating the county decision borne by Puget Sound Energy and the City of Everett. My concern is the fact that there were other entities impacted by the county that had to spend $27,000,000 to protect their investment. We are all in this together and government needs to weigh all the evidence and balance the action to prevent adverse impacts such as this from happening. I am just sorry that in an effort to do one thing right, more thought wasn’t given to all the adverse impacts. Isn’t that what government should be doing?
Trackbacks
October 4, 2009 at 10:23 pm