HomeMy WebLinkAbout143.Kydd, J. 5-7_Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program (53)
Michelle McConnell
From:John Kydd [John@kyddlaw.com]
Sent:Friday, May 07, 2010 6:15 PM
To:Stewart, Jeff R. (ECY)
Subject:Jefferson County Shoreline Master Program
Categories:LASMP Public Comment
Dear Mr. Stewart
As a less than sophisticated landowner on the east side of Hood Canal for 30 years, I wish to lend strong support to
your efforts and those of your colleagues to get a handle on reversing the decline of Hood Canal. Kudos to you for the
care you have taken to review testimony and ideas, for involving owner and other stakeholders in the policy advisory
committee and the dedication of the staff in such a long and at times thankless process.
Stewardship and democratic process do not dance well with many traditional land uses. We must all yield some of what
we thought we owned (like the rights to develop, harvest and use) to the greater good. We must also levy upon new
construction a standard of care that helps remedy the lack of care of the past. In a sense there is a symmetry: the older
owners lose the capacity to profit from the land as they have in the past; the newer owners pay more for the privilege
of use.
I remain a bit astonished at the approval of the gravel pit at the Hamma Hamma mainly because of the lack of notice of
any hearing. I realize you cannot address this specific project in your regulations but you do address future end runs on
the approval process. I support a qualified ban on all mining projects at on or near the canal and for better oversight of
those that are approved. I support banning commercial net pen farming as well with the caveat that the door should be
open if they can find a way to do it that does not stress the Canal. The same applies for mining. If it can be done with no
negative impact and the owners pay for the oversight to prove that, then so be it. A blanket ban does not encourage
innovative research.
I do favor the 150 foot buffer but just as importantly the option for variance. One size does not fit all and often the
variance debates can increase both knowledge and understanding of the “whys” not to mention novel solutions.
Although I grew up in the pier and cement bulkhead era I think this is no longer the way. It will cost me more in beach
loss but I think the greater good is in non structural remedies. Some grasses (e.g., eelymus mollis) can do wonderful
things that bulkheads cannot.
I do most support your effort to make the technical and the legal language of regulation accessible. This is a daunting
task. I hope that there are contests amongst high schoolers to get the points across most clearly in their terms and that
“youth versions” of various regs and policies are posted not simply on the DOE website but also on Facebook pages.
Videos tell this generation more than any PDF could and youth should be invited to “post it on the wall” their way as all
too soon they will be in charge.
I’d likewise hope such sites could be places to tweet concerns and issues; to honor shore line owners who do the right
thing, and to post writers with new ideas of how to view this complex process of transitioning how we choose to hold,
own and honor this wonderful land and its waters. Poems and stories are often the untapped allies of understanding
the stewardship of regulation. I like a good discussion of sediment status, bacterial mats and hypoxia as much as the
next guy but nothing beats a few good symbols.
I recall the Union of Concerned Scientists who labored for decades to reverse nuclear proliferation. Their periodical had
a symbol of a clock that each month was closer or further from midnight as a measure of the peril. I do not suggest a
clock here but thought should be given to simple symbols of status for the Canal as a whole and for subset areas so we
1
can celebrate gains and more quickly face losses. It could be as simple as the hypoxia rate shown as gradations of color
to something more complex.
I am confident your imagination is better than mine.
John Kydd
2