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?
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!
Posted in Environmental, Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Snohomish County Council, Snohomish County Political Commentary, Steve Dana Issues | 9 Comments »