Fact Sheet #8 - September 6th, 2011

Since the first settlers came to the islands, local control of land use has been a fundamental value of Island residents. From the Pig War to the present day, islanders have fought for the idea that we are not subjects of government bureaucracy-government is subject to us.
It is not only essential to do our own local planning, it’s the law. There are off-island bureaucrats from Olympia and Seattle along with self-appointed crusaders in our state who would like to see the islands preserved in a park-like condition for their own amusement. Many of these bureaucrats are tools of the big environmental groups and in some cases actual leaders of those groups whose mission is to pass and enforce strict laws that severely limit the rights of private property owners1. If we want to retain local control of our island community we need to stop these people from interfering in our land use process.
Our council must put the interests of the citizens of SJ County ahead of all state and federal agencies. The CAO planning process under Growth Management Act (GMA) is a local “bottom-up” process not “top-down.” Here is the applicable law under the GMA goals:
(11) Citizen participation and coordination. Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts.” (Goal (11) RCW 36.70A.020) also:
WAC 365-195-010 (3) The concept that the process should be a "bottom up" effort, involving early and continuous public participation, with the central locus of decision-making at the local level.
The Department of Ecology (DOE) has the power to approve or reject Shoreline Master Plans (SMP) but their authority in our local CAO process is “advisory.” According to the State Commerce Department, “State agency involvement in commenting on local government plans under the GMA is a technical assistance role and not a regulatory role.” 2
This has not however, stopped them from directing our staff, intimidating our elected leaders, and trying to purchase our local control. According to county records DOE has given 12 grants to San Juan County to promote GMA regulation totaling $550,562.00. They have underwritten this CAO process and have been trying to control it. The explanation of their motive is found in a letter that was sent to SJC planner Shireen Hale just one week after our first draft regulations were made public.
1 http://wecprotects.org/about (Jay Manning, former DOE Director, was President of WA Environmental Council 2000-2004, a lobbying group dedicated to litigation, promoting regulation, and enforcement of GMA and SMA).
2 http://www.commerce.wa.gov/DesktopModules/CTEDPublications/
P O Box 1866
Friday Harbor,
WA 98250
Phone: (360) 378-6473
FAX: 378-6473
_____________
Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights was organized in 2003 as a non-partisan political action committee where individual citizens and existing organizations can work together defending property rights.
We will support equitable and scientifically sound land use regulations that do not force minority groups of private property owners to pay for public benefits enjoyed by all.
Please visit our web sites: http://www.capr-sanjuan.org/ , http://www.proprights.org/ , email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
CAO Fact Sheet #8
9/01/11
2
“As currently proposed, the SMP will rely on the CAO or its provisions for protection of wetlands and other critical areas in shoreline jurisdiction. As you know, Ecology does not have an approval role in the CAO adoption process; our role is advisory. The SMP, however, is a joint document of Ecology and the County, requiring Ecology approval. Before the SMP can be approved by Ecology, the SMP may require critical-area protection measures over and above those in the current draft CAO.” (6/10/09 DOE letter signed by Paul Anderson)
DOE is pushing for regulatory control over our critical areas ordinance even before our local shoreline planning process begins. They have no authority over our CAO process.
DOE has taken a leading role in our local CAO planning process under GMA and have begun to direct policy and give orders to local planning staff. This is a big concern because the law clearly states that this process must be local.
“Unlike the SMA, which requires oversight and approval of a state agency (DOE), at the GMA's very foundation is the mandate providing local jurisdictions broad deference in planning decisions: the "GMA acts exclusively through local governments and is to be construed with the requisite flexibility to allow local governments to accommodate local needs." Viking Properties, Inc. v. Holm, 155 Wn.2d 112, 125-26 (2005);” (Brian Hodges PLF analysis 2009)
The CAO draft document came out on 6/03/09. It called for large wetland buffers up to 230 feet (pg 24). This was unacceptable to the DOE. They used some harsh language declaring their intention not to support San Juan County if it was passed without significant changes. Here is what they said:
“The wetland issues discussed in this letter are those that Ecology believes are not consistent with best available science (BAS) and that will not adequately protect wetlands or their functions. As such, these provisions represent a high-risk approach to wetland protection that is not scientifically or legally defensible. If the provisions in the draft CAO are adopted, Ecology would not be able to support the County upon appeal of the CAO.” (CAO Ecology Comments 6-10-09 Paul Anderson.)
Does this kind of response from DOE sound like they are trying to play an “advisory” role in our process, or is this the kind of intimidation DOE is famous for?
During a SJC workshop on 5/16/2011 council member Miller asked why a section about wetlands was removed from the BAS Synthesis. Here is the exchange as quoted from a local news source:
“The Council and members of the public raised the question of what is a wetland? How is it defined? And (Patty) Miller asked why Adamus had struck a sentence in the draft (pg. 24) ?” . . . Adamus said, DOE asked the language be removed, because the lack of data is “a common problem when writing wetland regulations.” (Island Guardian 5/17/11)
DOE instructed Paul Adamus PhD, the contracted scientist writing the BAS Synthesis for San Juan County, to strike portions of his work that they disagreed with. It may be significant that the DOE promoted Adamus’ work to San Juan
3
County after he helped produce Island County’s CAO. He was paid $99,420.00 for less than 6 month’s work in SJC to review the science submissions and draft the BAS Synthesis. He was paid a comparable amount to do the same thing in Island County a few years ago. Would DOE recommend him for work in the future if he refused to carryout their demands?
It remains to be seen if this deleted language will be significant or not in drafting the regulations for wetlands. The section in question concerned the wetlands rating system developed by Ecology. Emails between DOE and Adamus, obtained by a public disclosure request, question the reason that the wetlands in the San Juan Islands score very low in their rating system. The higher the rating the more regulation they are subject to.
Ecology has been accused of being heavy-handed when dealing with local governments and of elevating environmental protection over the rights of landowners. The bias of DOE can be found in this article from the Washington State Wire (4/29/11) where their expensive scheme to fleece taxpayers in a storm water crusade is exposed as a fraud:
“The Department of Ecology made embarrassing mistakes in preliminary studies back in 2007 and 2008, wildly overestimating the amount of oil that reaches the sound in stormwater.”
They claimed that, “it was a spill like the Exxon Valdez every two years – actually, a little worse. The startling factoid was picked up and repeated by the Puget Sound Partnership, the brand-new state agency that had been created to direct cleanup efforts. It cited the Exxon Valdez comparison in a press release on the agency’s new “action agenda” in November 2008.”
As scientists studied these claims they found that, “. . . oil’s contribution to the volume of toxic pollutants in Puget Sound is somewhere between one hundredth and one thousandth of what was estimated four years ago.3
Recently, other municipalities have had similar issues of intimidation by DOE. Burien Planning Director Scott Greenberg told council members that some of the changes demanded by Ecology in their SMP “are inconsistent” with city policy, and staff “recommends rejecting them.”
“I am disturbed by the Department of Ecology document,” said Councilman Gordon Shaw. “It bothers me greatly that Ecology had representatives at all three stages of our process, and yet they just go into a back room in Olympia … and stuff things down our throat….”
“Who are these people who can take this process we’ve been through and just throw it out?” said Councilman Gerald Robison. “I support staying with what’s been done already.”
3 http://www.washingtonstatewire.com/home/9063-the_ëbig_oil%C3%AD_problem_that_wasn%C3%ADt_ñ_mistaken_department_of_ecology_study_was_basis_for_three_year_stormwater_crusade.htm
4
After thanking the city for its efforts in responding to Ecology, Michael Noakes, president of the Burien Marine Homeowners Association, said he was “surprised and disappointed by Ecology’s response” to the SMP “with its focus on ‘development creep’ as the rationale for buffers.”
The agency made “a blatant attack on homeowners’ ability to rebuild their homes in the existing footprint,” Noakes added.4
A criminal investigation of DOE employees is underway in Kittitas County where instances of intimidation were alleged:
“ELLENSBURG, Wash. (AP) - Kittitas County is investigating whether the Washington state Department of Ecology violated the law as the agency was working to impose groundwater well restrictions there in 2009.
Chief Criminal Deputy Prosecutor Candace Hooper told the Ellensburg Daily-Record on Monday that she is reviewing an investigation by the county Sheriff's Office to decide if criminal charges should be filed.
The investigation centers on public statements made by Ecology Department officials as the agency sought to establish rules restricting new groundwater wells in upper Kittitas County.”5
“County Commissioner Alan Crankovich last week said he was interviewed by an investigating deputy sheriff. The line of questioning, he said, seemed to indicate concerns that a DOE employee may have overstepped legal authority and that there may have been intimidation toward local governments.”6
Puget Sound Partnership in partnership with DOE has been pushing the “popular delusion” of global climate change as a reason to impose severe restrictions on property owners. The science is not settled on this issue with recent studies discrediting the basic premises of the theory.7 This has not stopped DOE from recruiting environmental crusaders to collect phony data in order to promote the fictitious premise of sea level rise in Puget Sound.
They asked volunteers to take photos of extreme high tides during low-pressure storm surges to promote a sea level rise crisis in order to pass new restrictions. They called it the “King Tides” project. You can read it for yourself on their web site. Here are some excerpts:
“The Puget Sound partnership invites you to observe and photograph higher than average water levels that are predicted for many coastal areas between May 16 and 18, 2011. Please submit photographs of coastal areas such as beaches, roads, parks and estuaries known to be subject to flooding and erosion or areas where the high water levels can be gauged against familiar land marks, such as sea walls, jetties, bridges, dikes, buildings or other coastal structures. “Before and after” pictures showing average water levels and the high water levels for the same location
4 http://www.b-townblog.com/2011/05/10/city-council-rejects-shoreline-buffersetback-requested-by-dept-of-ecology/
5 Associated Press Release 7/19/11
6 Bhttp://dailyrecordnews.com/news/decision-pending-on-kittitas-county-s-doe-probe/article_034869f4-b226-11e0-9771-001cc4c002e0.html
7 http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-global-warming-alarmism-192334971.html
5
will also be useful.”
“ Ecology is excited to work with the Puget Sound Partnership to offer another opportunity for citizens to share high tide photos. Puget Sound Partnership is asking that members of the public participate in their National Estuary Partnership King Tide photo initiative by taking photos of high tides on May 16th, 17th and 18th. Check this table to see if there are higher-than-average tides in your area and then add your photos to this group!
For the last two years the Washington Department of Ecology invited members of the public to participate in the King Tide Photo Initiative. The purpose of the Initiative is to. . . gather compelling pictures, to engage the public and build awareness of the specific potential impacts of sea level rise and storm surge on the Washington coast.”
“High tide events offer us a chance to visualize what future sea levels may look like and the effects global sea level rise may have on local communities. Understanding the frequency and severity of high tide events, storm surges, and flooding is crucial in adapting to climate change.”8
The point of DOE’s “King Tide” deception is to create a “crisis” in order to further restrict the shorelines of the state. Why do taxpayers allow this department to waste our money on deceptive schemes like this?
Puget Sound Partnership (PSP) has also given grants to influence our process. PSP was established in 2007, after Congressman Norm Dicks steered millions of dollars toward the new agency. In a brazen act of nepotism Dicks’ son David was hired to run the agency. Over time, state funds were misspent, public resources misused, and a whistle–blower fired.
A critical state audit released May 14, 2010 stated, “The Puget Sound Partnership circumvented state contracting laws, exceeded its purchasing authority and made unallowable purchases with public funds.” State Auditor Emily Johnson: “From their inception there was just really no indication that they had ever made following state rules and regulations a priority…. it is alarming and surprising.”9
Co-Chair of the PSP Leadership Council resigned August 3, 2010. Executive Director David Dicks resigned November 12, 2010. Two regional coordinators have resigned. At least one ethics investigation is pending.
An offshoot of the PSP began locally. It was called the San Juan Initiative. PSP funded this group to do a 3-year project to advocate the “Action Agenda” for the Puget Sound Partnership.10
Another group formed to implement the PSP agenda is called the Action Agenda Oversight Group (AAOG). SJC Resolution #23-2010 authorized this group that assists in implementing local PSP “Action Agenda,” advises PSP on local
8 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/climatechange/ipa_hightide.htm
9 http://www.sao.wa.gov/auditreports/auditreportfiles/ar1003598.pdf
10 http://www.psp.wa.gov/pressreleases/062308_sji.php, (http://www.psp.wa.gov/downloads/SALMON_RECOVERY/2008_3year_review/2008_San_Juan_Watershed_Review.pdf)
6
priorities, and calls for implementation of San Juan Initiative findings. This committee is composed of 2 appointed Council members, 2-3 tribal members, PSP Leadership Council member, two MRC representatives, Salmon Recovery Lead Entity, Director of Planning, Director of Public Works, Director of Environmental Health and includes representatives of the Water Resources Committee, Economic Development Council, Conservation District, Friday Harbor Laboratories, San Juan ECONet, and the Town of Friday Harbor.
ECO Net stands for Education, Communication and Outreach Network (ECO Network) is also an offshoot of the Puget Sound Partnership. Each Local ECO Net is receiving a $5,000 grant to promote the “Action Agenda” campaign locally.11
In addition to these groups, several others are actively working to promote their agendas in our local process. The Surf Rider foundation gave San Juan County $20,000 grant in support of San Juan Initiative: “To identify solutions to significant marine habitat protection problems in San Juan County” The Bullit Foundation is another group actively involved in funding the Friends. The Friends of the San Juans spent $35,000 “To influence local planning processes and development decisions. “
Other Federal agencies have also been trying to influence our process. NOAA, FEMA, & NMFS have issued a Biological Opinion mandate (BIOP). This opinion suggests buffers around some critical areas of 200-250’.
If local control of land use is a priority for islanders, then we need to stand up against the bureaucratic forces that have been corrupted by extremist environmental groups. The DOE needs to hear the message loud and clear from our leaders that they will not intimidate us nor will they control our planning process. Landowners should not allow them to waste our money on deceptive schemes. The law must prevail and our constitutional right to private property must not be infringed by the agenda of unelected off-island bureaucrats.
On Behalf of the CAPR San Juan Board,
Frank Penwell
President CAPR San Juan
CC: San Juan County Council
San Juan County Administrator, Pete Rose
San Juan County Prosecutors, Randy Gaylord and Jon Cain
San Juan County Staff % Shireen Hale, Janice Belitnikof
Dr. Paul Adamus
Department of Ecology Staff % Eric Stockdale and Paul Anderson
Department of Commerce, %Tim Gates

• Next >