The Whatcom Excavator

Some citizens attended the Whatcom Integration Team meeting held December 11. This is the report submitted by one ~ Editors

Have you ever wondered where all of the money goes that you and the rest of the nation freely provide to our government?  You hear all kinds of stories of the bridges to nowhere, extravagant agency parties, and overpriced muffins.  Well, the following is an example of that very same type of spending going on in Whatcom County.

Have you ever heard of the Puget Sound Partnership (PSP)?  Well, PSP is a Non-Government Organization that was charged “by Governor Gregoire and the Legislature… to create a real Action Agenda that turns things around and leads to a healthy Puget Sound”.  The PSP states that it “is a community effort of citizens, governments, tribes, scientists and businesses working together to restore and protect Puget Sound”.

Here in Whatcom County the PSP and our county government are financing a special group of people called the Whatcom Integration Team (WIT) with our money to “clean up and protect Puget Sound”.  Having attended the second in a series of up to eight  monthly meetings between November of 2012 and June of 2013, the pointless spending and the planned continuum of spending was obvious.  There were 17 individuals siting at the table and an additional 3 sitting away from the table for a total of 20.  When you assume an hour travel time to and from the two hour meeting it adds up to 60 man-hours of work.  If you also assume a very conservative average wage $50.00 per hour, that is about $3,000.00 per meeting and a total of $24,000 for all of the planned meetings.  Add into this the cost of the contracted meeting facilitator.  The County Executive just recently increased the contract value for this person an addition $90,000 for a total of approximately ???.

A second and somewhat unexpected sign of the wanton spending was the open comments by participants that they needed to make sure that they structured the meetings results to identify the best outcomes to assure their ability to obtain additional grant moneys from the government.  It is also noted that the meeting schedule (interestingly called a “roadmap”) shows that for Meeting #5 (in March) the “members consider options for criteria for grant funding purposes”.  One can draw their own conclusions from this type of thinking, but to us it is wasteful thinking and not necessarily keeping with any concept of reduced government and reduced spending.

The third indication of this fanciful and unnecessary over-spending only proposition was the makeup of the meeting members.  The members are from our county and city planning staff, from Ecology, from the tribes, from the Whatcom Land Trust, from Farm Friends and from various other resource groups and non-profit organizations.  Where are the citizens and business representation that were identified in the PSP community effort?  Where are the local experts from the water, farming and timber industries?  Where are the other private business interests? Where are the property owners whose fates are being determined by this unofficial and non-binding non-government organizational “Team”?

Finally, the meeting provided the cover for an outcome that could surely have been determined by even the very minimally informed progressive thinker. The first meeting  identified the ecosystem the members wanted to include, the services or things that the ecosystem may provide for, the pressures or threats that society places on these ecosystem services, and the community values and attributes that are part of the ecosystems.  Wow, is that a mouthful!  As an example, forests are an ecosystem.  Biodiversity is a service for this ecosystem.  One of the pressures or threats to this service is recreational activities while recreation is also an example of a community value or attribute.  The meeting facilitator had organized all of this information into 10 separate ecosystems, 12 services, 16 pressures and 20 values.   These items were divided into two separate tables that each shared the ecosystems on the horizontal axis and the ecosystem services on the vertical axis.  One table identifies the community attributes for each ecosystem or ecosystem service and the second table identifies the pressures on each of the ecosystem or ecosystem service (refer to the WIT Tables) (pdf).   After the first hour of the meeting the members had pretty much agreed on the tables with a few additions to both the community values and to the pressures.  The facilitator pointed out that the local community “visioning” results were reviewed to assure that nothing had been overlooked. (Let’s make sure we cross all the T’s and dot all the I’s.)

During the second hour of the meeting, the members were given two sets of four each individual sticky notes.  The members were instructed to use these pads to help determine the priorities of the community attributes listed on one whiteboard, and the separate attributes for the pressures as listed on a second whiteboard.   Those values and pressures that received the most sticky notes would have the highest priorities.  Well, who could have guessed the outcome from such a Delphi experience?  Lo and behold, the top three community values were sustainability, green infrastructure, and quality of life respectively.  The top three pressures were climate change, residential and commercial development; and, agriculture and livestock grazing respectively.  These are personal impressions, not science. Are these not the primary focus of the all too familiar effort for the increasing pressure that seems to grow in leaps and bounds on the ecosystem called property rights?   All too many meetings just like this one are just a small part of the increasing threat to our rights as citizens in the name of the environment and the collective.

This is just one example of these non-binding non-government organizations that seem to inundate our culture and government activity.  Does it seem ironic that these non-binding findings are generated by professional, full time paid employees who are doing their “day” jobs?  Where is the community effort?  Where are  the citizens and business members?  Unsurprisingly, they are working at their day jobs to pay the individuals sitting at these tables scheming to usurp our constitutionally protected natural rights, under the cover of environmentalism.

One of the scariest things is that this example is also going on without the full knowledge and approval of our own County Council.  Funding for many of these groups does not pass through the council agenda, as they can be approved by County Department Heads or the County Executive. We all need to pay more attention to where the money is coming from and what it is being spent on. 

The County Council should put the Whatcom Integration Team out of business by taking away their funding.  This should be the WIT’s end.

A very important stormwater case was won in a federal court last week that people here need to know about.

The EPA has the authority to set "total maximum daily loads" (TMDL's) on pollution that degrades water quality.  But the court made it clear that there's a distinction between setting a limit on source pollution and its means of transport.  EPA's legal problem in this case was that they were treating water itself like a pollutant.

In a nutshell, the State of Virginia argued that EPA has no authority to regulate stormwater volume since stormwater without any pollutants is not a pollution source.  (And EPA has no authority to regulate things that are not a pollutant or pollution sources.)   The Attorney General who fought the case explained it here.

EPA has tried to regulate many things based on the presumption of an impact, but if there is not actual impact by the “delivery system” (water) that might carry pollutants, its jurisdiction is questionable.  It was a valid argument, and it won.  Here’s the judge’s rationale, exactly as published:

Does this case this matter here?   Yes, absolutely.   This ruling is crystal clear - "stormwater runoff is not a pollutant."   WE expect that acknowledgement of this ruling will be fiercely resisted by state regulators and zealots who want to severely limit land use by humans, their pets, and livestock.

The Lake Whatcom situation provides a perfect example of how a bad approach to science – poor theory -- gets memorialized by regulators. The Department of Ecology's TMDL's for Lake Whatcom rely on model data using a program called ESPF, that uses a primitive fate-and-transport model to conclude that residential development is the source of most of the phosphorus in the lake.  WA Ecology's 2008 Lake Whatcom TMDL "Water Quality Study Findings" report repeatedly states that it employs "surrogate measures" to regulate pollutants.

So, TMDL's here are based on model, not observed, data and stormwater is a surrogate (a substitute, or “proxy”) for pollutant (phosphorus) sources. This is very similar to the case decided in Virginia.  In Virginia, the pollutant was "sediment," and here the pollutant is "phosphorus."

The preliminary Lake Whatcom TMDL study's conclusions were careful to include strong recommendations for additional tributary monitoring and additional studies of the contribution of phosphorus from developed properties.  But those recommendations have been only partly followed.

Water quality measurements are taken, true - but the necessary identification of the sources and impacts of the pollutants that stormwater actually carries (fate and transport) have not been conducted. Yet Ecology staff continues to feed water quality data into a model with circular dependencies, claiming that these results confirm the Institute for Watershed Studies conclusions.

As for phosphorus input to the lake, Ecology has estimated that the City of Bellingham's diversion from the Middle Fork of the Nooksack River contributes 300 Kg of phosphorus into the lake every year.  The City acknowledges this phosphorus contribution, but asserts that most of the phosphorus  sinks to the bottom of the lake and does no harm.   That assertion needs to be proven.

Regulators here have been using a shotgun approach by damning stormwater in general.  Using the model may be a convenient "tool" for Ecology, but its results are invalid (and the TMDL's are moot) if causes and sources aren't properly studied.

Biochemistry has established that most phosphorus in the environment occurs naturally.  Therefore saying, "Where there's development, there's more phosphorous" is absurd.   This is particularly true because phosphorus-bearing products aren't being used nowadays; they were banned in the watershed in 2005.  Failing to thoroughly specify and quantify the sources of phosphorus around the lake is not only bad ecological science, Ecology's failure to prove the connection between sources and pollutant TMDL's could be downright negligent.

As for the Virginia case, EPA does not like losing in court. It has an endless supply of taxpayer money, and it’s likely that the agency will continue to fight the State of Virginia.  But for the moment, this is what it is – a big win for science and reason.

More about the case can be found at the Virginia Attorney General's webpage.   Here’s a clip:

Don't let this slip by.  Get involved.   A dedicated forester reaches out for public involvement.  (For more background on this story, read a few prior dredges:  here, here, and here.)

Dear Friends of Working Forest,

Your help is needed to make sure our voices are heard by the Whatcom County Council, so they are not pressured to reconvey almost 9,000 of commercial forest lands in the Lake Whatcom watershed for a "low impact" park. The involvement and attendance by so many of you at the September 11th hearing convinced the County Executive and Council to further review the proposed reconveyance. A series of work meetings between the Council and Parks Director are being planned.

Tentatively these meetings will be held during the "Council Committee of the Whole" session, when the following subjects will be discussed. The first meeting on January 15th will be at 9:30 am in the council chambers.

This isn't a local story, but it has local object lessons -- and links all up and down the left coast. 

Environmental zealots in the federal government have successfully put another productive family business out of business, as the Washington Post reports:

The Trojan Heron reported on the plight of this family run oyster bed in Marin County, CA in an article entitled Scientific and Governmental Misconduct:

But wait, there's more!

Meanwhile, last week in a left-hand/right-hand maneuver, lame duck Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire invoked an executive order commanding that the state use its powers to reduce ocean acidification to protect shellfish (and shellfish farming operations).   Naturally, it all ties back to everyone's favorite bogeyman, anthropogenic carbon dioxide.  Ignoring all benefits of carbon dioxide, which is necessary for life, the order exaggerates still hypothetical (and permanently non-falsifiable) risks.  Once again our agencies are being pressed by politicians to increase regulations that will curb freedom without objective scientific justification. 

All the talk of "blue ribbon" panels is nothing more than rubber stamps by the high priests of the environmental religion.  And therefrom, real people lose their jobs, and national prosperity diminishes measurably at the hands of these first amendment violators.   These infringements on our freedom are being implemented at all levels of government. 

Rampant environmental hysteria is being stirred up by collectivists, and otherwise sensible people fall for it, with devastating results. Too few people remember what it was like, and what it means to live in a free country. We need to restore those principles back into our education and our media. The environment will be better for it too. 

WE have raised alarm repeatedly that Salazar and the BLM are headed up the coast, our way, swinging a wrecking ball through the San Juans.  Still think their programs present no risk?

The last chance for verbal public input on the environmental impact study scoping for the Gateway Pacific Terminal was held Thursday, November 29 from 3:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m in Ferndale. Opponents were livid that paid supporters hijacked the hearing process. WE are not aware of any paid or bused-in support, but WEthinks opponents doth protest too much. WE don't approve of the tactic, but it is hardly a novel idea, and it is frequently used by 'progressive' interests. Turnabout is fair play. See Alinsky's Rule #4. 

In any event, WE heard from supporters for about three hours, including local mayors and city council members who feel that their constituents would be well served by the Gateway Pacific Terminal. 

For the final hour, a steady supply of opponents greatly exaggerated the dangers of burning coal, coal dust, diesel particulates, etc., while ignoring the terrifying risks posed by the chemical dihydrogen monoxide, which:

• is called "hydroxyl acid", the major component of acid rain. 
  
• contributes to the "greenhouse effect". 
  
• may cause severe burns. 
  
• is fatal if inhaled. 
  
• contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape. 
  
• accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals. 
  
• may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes. 
  
• has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
  

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

• as an industrial solvent and coolant. 
  
• in nuclear power plants. 
  
• in the production of Styrofoam. 
  
• as a fire retardant. 
  
• in many forms of cruel animal research. 
  
• for enhanced interrogation, torture.
• in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical. 
  
• as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.
  

Large sections of the proposed terminal will be immersed (that's right, immersed) in this hazardous chemical, which is responsible for the deaths of countless humans and endangered species alike, yet nobody seems to be very concerned about it.*

*Yes, Sheldon, that was sarcasm. Bazinga!

All kidding aside, the Gateway Pacific Terminal is a big project, and area residents may be affected both positively and negatively. To ensure that people and the environment receive due diligence, WE prefer objective science, the rule of law, and rational risk assessment over the "precautionary principle", which is merely a reasonable-sounding expression for environmental histrionics. 

Let's use the top line to talk about the bottom line. Wind power is economically unsustainable. The sustainability folks are pushing for wind power because they think it's renewable and environmentally sustainable. Think again. 

The number of windmills that would be required to produce sufficient energy for peak demand in worst-case, calm weather conditions would require swarms of these things, waving their arms from practically every hill crest on every square mile of land in the USA. That's during the day. At night, the endless array of flashing red air navigation hazard lights just looks creepy. In addition to the visual blight, the environmental impact of these ugly creatures would be significant and detrimental. And, that doesn't account for the corridors and rights-of-way for electrical power lines necessary to transport their electrical output from the rural areas to the masses huddled in the urban infill areas. It is only a matter of time before there will be significant blow-back against these wind machines from landowners and environmentalists alike. 

Contrast that with hydro power which, where available, can produce and store abundant renewable and clean energy for peak demand, in addition to providing flood control, self-supporting recreational areas, water supply and so on. What's more, hydro power is much less expensive per kilowatt hour than wind power. Guess which technology the sustainables want to demolish and rewild!

There is a 7 PM county council meeting on Wednesday November 7th at the County Courthouse at 311 Grand Avenue to discuss and vote on the revised wind turbine ordinance. It is expected that the council will vote on the ordinance at this meeting. This has come up because people want to install wind generators at the top of Galbraith Mountain.

Given the economic and environmental unsustainability,  why would anybody want a permit to install one of these things? Ah, yes well don't you see, there's the rub: the sustainables have managed to sink their mandibles into government to the extent that government will subsidize these wind generators. Unscrupulous opportunists will glom onto these government subsidies to line their pockets at taxpayer expense. So we will pay twice: once at the electric meter, and again on tax day. 

The sustainables have also co-opted government to place all sorts of rules and regulations to prevent the kinds of development that they oppose. WE submit that they need to live by their own rules. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If you possibly can, WE encourage you to attend the council meeting on Wednesday, and encourage the council to keep the restrictions at their current levels. 

Note: residential windmills might actually be of some value. On windy days, they can save homeowners on their power bills, and maybe even turn their electric meter backwards on occasion. If individual families want to invest in something like that, WE have no objection -- although there probably are zoning rules against it. 

Beyond their lights and noise, these inevitably batter all kinds of creatures that live in the air.   The monster machines can and do fail - in storms, icing, turbine speed brake failures, and outright collapse.  Watch some of these:

WE saw this a couple of days ago and felt it was worth sharing as widely as possible.   It's a frank, honest view of local clean energy that's loaded with common sense.

Clean energy is a good thing.  Who in their right mind would want dirty energy?   Whatever your political stripe it's one thing everybody agrees about.

This is a good read, better yet the facts check out.   Yes, critics may say it comes from a politician, but Ericksen's kinda unique.  He received a bachelor’s degree in government from Cornell University, and a master’s degree in political science and environmental policy from Western Washington University.  He's no slouch where it comes to finding solutions.

A Fresh, Forward-thinking and Affordable Energy Strategy, October 26, 2012
by WA Senator Doug Ericksen

Hello Whatcom County,

Electricity is absolutely vital to our daily lives. If a tragedy struck and one of our major roadways was shut down, services could be provided while the road was rebuilt. On the other hand, if the electrical grid were to fail, our society could collapse within a matter of days.

I use this example not to provoke fear, but rather to underscore the importance of our state approaching energy policy in a rational, forward-thinking manner. With this week's Blueprint for a Better Washington, we'll look at what we're doing right on energy, and where fresh ideas could keep electricity costs low and our energy grid reliable, while encouraging innovations to move us towards energy independence.

The facts:

• 81 percent of the power produced in Washington comes from clean sources

• 73 percent comes from hydroelectric
• 8 percent comes from nuclear

• Washington has the 3rd lowest retail electricity cost in the U.S.
• Washington has the 9th smallest carbon footprint in the U.S.

The problem:

• Washington's Renewable Portfolio Standards mandate that a percentage of energy come from "renewable sources", but fails to recognize hydroelectric power as renewable

• Examples of eligible renewable sources allowed by the measure include wind, solar and biomass

• Utilities are mandated to increase the percentage of power they provide to customers derived from renewable sources to 15 percent by 2020

• The current renewable requirement is three percent

• As utilities increase the amount of power generated from less efficient sources, the cost of power increases and reliability decreases

The solution - my guiding principles for energy policy in Washington state:

• Focus first on cost to the consumer - technology should lead to lower prices, not higher costs for families
• Keep a level playing field that encourages innovation - provide tax incentives for all energy producers to become more efficient instead of allowing government to pick winners and losers
• Invest in research and development - provide resources for our universities to develop new technologies

As Washingtonians, we are fortunate to live in a state where a remarkable 81 percent of the power generated in our state comes from clean sources. Not only is our power clean, it's also relatively inexpensive. Let's take a look at how we can continue forward-thinking energy policies without compromising existing resources and without increasing your utility bills.

Clean, reliable and inexpensive - what's powering Washington

Currently, our state enjoys reliable and affordable power from a mix of sources that is the envy of many states in the nation. As you can see in the below chart, the vast majority of the power generated in Washington comes from clean sources like hydro and nuclear that emit no greenhouse gases. 

WE can't help but wonder, what gives with all the food crisis talk lately, scaring the devil out of people?  Well it all goes hand-in-hand with peak oil and global warming/climate change of course.

Religious fanatic, or environmental extremist? What's the difference?

Right here, today ...  "Climate Change & the Future of Food"?    Adaptation Strategies? Like what?   Check out the invite:

Notes and Links:  MRC is the Marine Resources Committee of Whatcom County;  here's the link to Whatcom Conservation District.  WE understand that Whatcom County Public Works will be there, as well.   Planners, planners, and more planners.   'Wonder if council is aware of what these agencies are doing.   Readers need to know that WWIN, Whatcom Watersheds Information Network, is a private organization with a persona that makes it look like it's an official "agency" but like so many others it's not (they seek to advise anyone who will listen, sharing their view of what's best for everyone else).

There's way to much "volunteer visioning" going on these days, do you think?   There's been one "workshop" or "community meeting" after another, most entirely one-sided, pre-programmed consensus affairs principally run by advocates and proponents.   WE dredged and it seems that this event's organizers Kilanowski and Jimerson are doubling up, tied to both WSU "Carbon Masters" and WWIN (like WSU's Blake).   Special interests galore, most funded by tax dollars and grants.  Think there would be any spin at an event like this?   Nothing but.

Commentary:

All Hail the Nanny State! You know, all this wouldn't bother me so much if it was left to the earnest but crazy guy on the street corner, holding the "repent!" sign.  It's his job, and his first amendment right to convince me to repent, and it's my job and my right to decide if I need what he's selling, or not.  The non-establishment clause of the first amendment prevents him from co-opting government into forcing me to join his religion -- at least the Judeo-Christian ones, it seems. Increasingly today though, we have social justice and environmental prophets who are seemingly immune from the non-establishment clause,  digging their tendrils ever deeper into my personal affairs. They have all the trappings of a faith-based religion, except the name. 

They wrap themselves in the garb of science, but all they have done is trade traditional vestments for a lab coat, with none of the objective scientific rigor. Put your money where your mouth is! Do what it takes to give me reliably reproducible science. Maybe then I'll join your cause -- not your religion. But attempts to coerce me by the force of government is only going to make me, and more people than you may realize, resentful and reactionary. Just gimme some truth!    Signed, Publius

Science realists, conservation challengers, climate change skeptics, anyone who dares to suggest that greenhouse gas emission goals are a load of hot air ...  not getting with the program?  No pressure.     (HAPPY HALLOWEEN)

(Not for the faint-hearted, or under-18 crowd)

FYI - this, believe it or not, was produced and released some time ago in Europe as an effort named 10:10 Global.org.   It was intended to bring humor to the eco-activist cause, but it created such an uproar it's been pulled (blocked) repeatedly.   It disappears [KABOOM!] from YouTube due to (no pressure!) "political correctness."   But it keeps popping back up.

It's good to know that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case about land use mitigation fees.   What's really important, it's a case that involves mitigation demands related to a "wetland" that look like clear-cut extortion.

For more than ten years, Whatcom County has established a growing number of regulations, policies, and plans based on environmental theory.  And our Planning & Development Services department operates on the assumption that all land within the county's boundaries - both public and  private - is a "natural resource" that the county has not only the right but a duty to manage.  An increasing number of permit approvals require "mitigation."   In most cases, little tangible scientific proof of harm done is proven by the government itself.   Planners glibly write about creating regulatory "tool boxes" to expand the public use of private property.  How justifiable is their stance?

Citizens' private land (or the use of their land) should not be taken wrongfully, without site-specific proof that damage has occurred or will occur.   On-site and off-site mitigation, if justified, should be soundly based on facts and be proportionate to impact.

The general demand for agricultural, watershed and wetlands "protection" and restoration, and for numerous other kinds of public use (such as transportation and recreation),  is expanding here in leaps and bounds without the specificity it should. Whatcom County legal's opinion always leans in favor of expanding county powers - but is that constitutionally correct?

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Koontz family as it may, could this case make a difference?   Yes, absolutely.   Watch the video below.

Background, from Pacific Legal Foundation:

PLF's new case at the Supreme Court asks: Can government extort money from property owners?

The Koontz family merely wanted to develop the family's land in legal and responsible ways," said PLF Principal Attorney Paul J. Beard II, who wrote the successful petition asking the Supreme Court to take the case. "But the St. Johns River Water Management District saw a chance to make all kinds of unrelated, outrageous demands."

In particular, the agency demanded that the Koontz family pay for up to $150,000 in improvements on 50 acres of the district's own land --- miles away from the Koontz property!

"This permit condition bore no connection to the project that Mr. Koontz proposed," said Beard.

"This is a classic case of an unconstitutional shakedown. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that government can't use the permitting process to extract conditions that aren't related to the impact of the proposed development."

As PLF supporters know, that ruling came in PLF's 1987 victory, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission. In this new case, we're asking the Court to rein in agencies that ignore Nollan --- and to make it clear that Nollan forbids extortion of money, not just real property.