HomeMy WebLinkAbout81.Hagen,J. 5-5_Fw DOE SMP Public Comment I
Michelle McConnell
From:Jim Hagen [jchagen@donobi.net]
Sent:Wednesday, May 05, 2010 7:56 AM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject:Fw: DOE SMP Public Comment I
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
Public comment on the Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program.
----- Original Message -----
From:
Jim Hagen
To:
jkramer.consulting@gmail.com ; cmacilroy@gmail.com ; mclancy@esassoc.com
Sent:
Friday, March 19, 2010 8:12 AM
Subject:
Draft SMP White Paper Comments
Jim Kramer
Carol MacIlroy
Margaret Clancy
This draft white paper appears to strongly hint that the ambitious scope of the post 2003 SMP
update is exceeding the resources local jurisdictions and the Department of Ecology are able to
provide. The conclusion reached in the final section - Capturing the Opportunities - suggests that
acquiring the necessary resources to successfully implement SMPs involves expanding local
oversight to bring in "business and environmental interests and then working with State staff,
legislators and the governor to increase strategic investments for the protection of Puget Sound's
shorelines." This indicates that the DOE has first of all underestimated the complexity and expense of
updated SMP requirements and second, that the model SMP update remains in the prototype
phase and despite being in a continual state of fluidity, jurisdictions such as Jefferson County are very
shortly going to have to live with the very certain consequences of this costly experiment.
If private property is going to be regulated for the general benefit of the environment, it is the
responsibility of the public interest to first have developed an accountable system it is prepared to
administer, implement, and monitor. What this white paper is admitting is the state is approaching the
half-way of state-wide updates and there are still many unanswered questions. That is an
unacceptable when landowners are being asked to make very certain sacrifices.
An important element of land-use planning in Washington state is a locally-driven, bottom up
approach. The GMA grants deference to local decision making as long it it is in compliance with the
intended purpose and goals. Continuous and ongoing public participation is also a critical element in
ensuring that those directly effected by regulations have a key voice. RCW 90.58.050 describes a
collaborative effort between the DOE and local jurisdictions. It mentions nothing about outside
agencies and non-governmental environment interests assuming prominent roles in overseeing
adminstration of local regualtions.
Several statements in the white paper appear to hint that to increase funding and resources, local
SMP update processes need to be brought under a wider umbrella. On page four the white paper
states that accounting for no net loss needs to occur on three levels, including a "Sound-wide level."
That is currently beyond the legal requirement of meeting no net loss on a jurisdictional level, not to
1
mention the injustice of asking a County like Jefferson to offset the degradation that has occurred in
the Seattle basin.
The white paper describes the SMA as a partnership between local governments and their
communities with the DOE, the governor, and the legislature. In reality, the SMA is implemented
through SMPs, which are a direct collaboration between local governments and the DOE. The
governor and legislature only becomes involved when changes to the law are enacted. Is that what
this white paper is in part proposing, that oversight of local SMPs fall under a broader umbrella to
ease the funding and administrative burdens?
It would be more prudent for DOE to call a time-out on the SMP update process and figure how it can
streamline, not expand, what has become another regulatory behemoth. We have spent millions of
dollars on GMA, stormwater control, clearing and grading standards, septic standards, new limit son
water use and on and on and it continues to fall short. Is anyone anyone paying attention to the
budget crisis?
In response to your survey, I am a member of two property rights groups and am a former chairman
of the Jefferson County Planning Commission. You ask what can be done to improve relations with
property rights groups. Cooperation begins with mutual respect. It has been my experience that
advocates of property rights are continually characterized as misinformed and greedy. There also
exists the distinct impression that environmental interests and their allies in local planning
departments pay only a grudging reluctance, if not downright antagonism, toward the constitutional
rights of people to live on their property. In fact, the entire aim of environment-based regulation
appears based on a complete distrust of people who make up the heart of our local communities.
One of the perpetual myths is that property rights activists wish to do "whatever they want" with their
land. On the contrary most landowners are quite responsible, are quite aware of the limits the courts
have already placed on land use through nuisance and zoning conditions, and most pointedly are
among those most interested in maintaining the natural resources we all cherish here. If
environmental protection is going to truly succeed there will need to be established an adult-to adult
relationship between the presently competing interests. The key partnership in the equation of
protection of our shorelines and natural resources is that between the private landowner and the
public regulator.
The present mistrust is also interfering with implementing voluntary alternatives to prescriptive
regulation. A good example is the Jefferson County Critical Area Stewardship Plan, which was
authored by local citizens who would be labeled as property rights activists. Unfortunately, many
landowners are suspicious of it simply because it is associated with government regulation in general
and won't even consider it.
This white paper makes it evident that the old environmental paradigm of strict regulation is costly
and ineffective. The true path to environmental protection involves a genuine partnership between
people and the and.
Jim Hagen
Director, Citizen's Alliance for Property Rights
Director, Olympic Stewardship Foundation
Jefferson County
2