The city of Bothell will annex another chunk of unincorporated Snohomish County into their city later this year. For many years, we argued about whether cities should annex. Snohomish County was made the keeper of the annexation approval stamp and they were very stingy with it. Most annexations are not controversial in the way this Bothell one is.
We are not arguing the merits of the annexation. Everyone agrees the designated land is urban and belongs in a city. (I could argue it belongs in a different city, but that piece will have to wait for another day) The controversy embroiling this annexation is about garbage.
Who could think Snohomish County and Bothell would be fighting over garbage? Not who has to take it, but who gets to take it. Garbage is the prize!
Garbage is almost a commodity. Unlike normal perishable commodities that get ripe then spoil, garbage is already over the edge and if it isn’t hauled away, it then gets ripe.
For most of us, we put out the can on Monday morning and when we come home after work, the trash is gone and we start over. Who gives it any thought?
Well, let me tell you, there are folks out there that covet your garbage.
Isn’t it ironic, our government has been preaching that we reduce waste and recycle more and now we hear that they actually want us to produce more garbage? Which is it, more garbage or less garbage?
In Seattle they have garbage police to make sure you don’t put stuff in the garbage that is recyclable. You can be fined for dumping garbage into the garbage if it is recyclable garbage. There is something wrong with that!
If you buy into the recycling argument, then it seems to me the goal is to reduce garbage.
I have been a proponent of handling our waste products locally through a combination of recycling and incineration with co-generation for electricity. Environmentalists complain about the pollution going into the air, but they appear to be okay with the pollution going into the ground.
If there is a comprehensive look at the recycling industry so we can understand what market forces affect them during fluctuations, I could be more enthusiastic about the reality of recycling. My limited experience in dealing with recyclers during my years on the Snohomish City Council did not build confidence that the industry was performing as we were led to believe it was.
In principle, I’m okay with recycling, but the responsibility for collecting, separating and disposing of the stuff should be the garbage handler’s. Rather than making citizens separate their trash, make the whole process a private sector business opportunity. Then I would take it a step further and make it our goal to eliminate land-fill garbage completely. Recycle everything!
We currently pay about $100 per ton to handle solid waste that is shipped by train to some other location where it is buried in an environment that does not promote bio-degrading. That stuff will be in that land-fill for a thousand years. All our household trash encapsulated in our little plastic garbage bags protecting our kitchen floors, but at what cost?
The fact that two counties are fighting over who will get the Snohomish County part of Bothell’s collected trash leads me to believe that reducing waste into the land fill is not a goal of either county.
There are several issues that need resolution here.
1. Is Snohomish County in the garbage collection business because the private sector is unable to handle the job? What are the economic impacts of privatizing the garbage business for the county and for consumers?
2. As a part of our “Green” plan, shouldn’t we be thinking about land-fill liabilities we create? Just because the land-fill is in another county doesn’t mean we are not responsible. This is like wetland mitigation banks that allow urbanites to salve their guilt by paying someone else to feel their pain.
3. If Recycling is a goal for our county, where do we find policies that outline WHO will do WHAT and WHY? If recycling is a county goal, why?
4. Recycling should have an economic as well as an environmental justification. Are there markets for waste stream by-products? If we require that garbage be separated then ship it to the land fill because there is no market, why did we separate?
5. Is changing citizen behavior with recycling a responsibility we want government to assume? Do we want government in the business of changing our behavior? Is the vision of the recycling police the one you want for your neighborhood? What else are they monitoring as they check your trash?
In the near term, the issue of garbage collection in Bothell needs resolution. Even though I don’t believe we should be in the business, we are. Our current county solid waste system is predicated on a sustained volume of product. If we lose money by allowing the trash to be diverted to King County then I say we keep all Snohomish County trash in Snohomish County. I would make it a condition of the annexation that the garbage be collected in our system.
Then I would step back and look at the issues enumerated above. The county should not be in the solid waste business and recycling needs to work on more than one level. There are some real issues to be sorted out here. Let’s start with recycling!
Leque Island
by Steve DanaIn 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 in Environmental, Political commentary, Snohomish County Council, Snohomish County Political Commentary | 2 Comments »