HomeMy WebLinkAboutNatural Resources June 13 20001
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
Natural Resources Committee
June 13, 2000
The meeting was called to order at 9:40 a.m. by Committee Chair Dan
McShane in the Council Chambers, 311 Grand Avenue, Bellingham, Washington.
Also Present:
None
Absent:
Connie Hoag
L. Ward Nelson
(Clerk's Note: There was no quorum at this meeting. The discussion held
was informal and unofficial.)
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
1. PRESENTATION/ DISCUSSION REGARDING HIGH VOLTAGE POWER
LINES (AB2000 -174)
McShane stated the County Council passed a moratorium on pipelines. They
are also working on creating a committee to address corridors for transmission lines
and pipelines. He suggested that Mike Kaufman submit an application for that new
Utility Committee.
Mike Kaufman, citizen, stated that, from the Neighbors Opposed to Power
Encroachment (NOPE) group, it became apparent that Puget Sound Energy and the
gas line committees operate in a vacuum of competition in having to express
themselves to the public. They are charged with delivering the power to the
customer. They've never been told what to do. When someone asks them a
question, they are not used to talking to the public. The bottom line is that the
utility people carry a big sword, which is the condemnation law. They feel they
have eminent domain over everyone. Those are 1860's railroad laws. When they
put the railroads through across the United States, they wrote condemnation laws
that have not been changed to this date. Puget Sound Energy and others will use
that eminent domain. Landowners are at the mercy of the utility company and
their condemnation law.
Dawson stated the County has a lot of control over many aspects of this.
Her proposal was to bring forward an ordinance that is a duplicate of a Walla Walla
ordinance. In that ordinance, federal and state agencies have to do environmental
impact studies. Federal agencies must cooperate to reduce duplications of state
and local requirements. Cooperation shall include joint planning, environmental
research, hearings, and environmental assessments. Local governments can sue
the federal agencies for violation. The agencies may have to do mitigation. The
County should take over its customs, cultures, and economic base. She
encouraged Mr. Kaufman to support this ordinance.
Kaufman stated that the federal government is involved in this issue because
the project crosses the federal border.
Natural Resources Committee, 6/13/2000, Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Dawson stated the Council doesn't realize the power it has. That is why her
ordinance is important.
McShane stated the Walla Walla ordinance was not aimed at pipelines. It
was aimed at Forest Service workers and the Army Corps of Engineers. He would
not be a proponent for having the County arrest and prosecute U.S. Forest Service
workers, Corps of Engineer workers, or U.S. Fish and Wildlife workers. That is what
the ordinance states.
Dawson stated only if there is a criminal violation.
McShane stated the criminal offense is defined by the County as violating
that ordinance.
Dawson stated they could make it a civil offense.
McShane stated this was an issue that was fought in the Civil War. The
states lost.
Dawson stated the ordinance was upheld.
McShane stated the ordinance was not upheld. There was a ruling in the
District Court in San Francisco that said the Wilderness Society did not have
standing to bring a lawsuit against the County for this ordinance. They have never
attempted to prosecute anyone yet, so the ordinance has not been tested. All the
Ninth District Court said was the Wilderness Society has no standing because it
would not have been in a position of being arrested or prosecuted by the County.
Dawson questioned whether McShane believed it is wrong to say that federal
agencies must cooperate to the fullest extent possible, which is what her proposed
ordinance is all about.
McShane stated he didn't see that, when it comes to many issues, they are
not cooperative and they cannot work toward better cooperation. It is a separate
issue from the power lines. They will have to agree to disagree on this ordinance.
Kaufman stated the electric line issue came down to the County.
McShane stated there was some success, and that is what is important. This
is a case where citizens stood up and prevented something locally. It became a
neighborhood issue. The citizens presented something that would have been
harmful. Kaufman stated it would have been harmful to the county. It would have
taken millions of dollars of County assets and given it to the corporation for a very
low fee. It is corporate welfare. The company would have had the ability to sell
their rights -of -way to whomever they wanted. Puget Sound Energy would have
owned the corridor as an asset, and could have sold it to the highest bidder.
McShane stated there have been two different situations. In one situation,
the company has a route plan already. In the other situation, the route is eight
miles wide and they are in the earliest stages. He hoped that by creating this
committee, they can work with the companies if there is a situation where eminent
domain would be used. He has some experience on pipeline projects because he
Natural Resources Committee, 6/13/2000, Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
used to be an inspector for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). He
was well aware of eminent domain.
Kaufman stated the companies hold on to the proposals as long as they can.
The more time they can move the project along before the public finds out plays to
their favor. Eventually, the more it is kept quite, the more suspicious everyone is
when it leaks out. From the NOPE initiative effort, they started the utility
committee. Everyone stepped to the table. It was the first time many of the
utilities, the local government, and others talked. From the utility committee, the
idea was not to stop electricity or gas. The idea was to do planning for the future
utilities under the Growth Management Act. When a citizen looks on a map, he or
she should be able to see what his or her property is next to.
McShane questioned whether that has yet to be done. Kaufman stated they
need to turn the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan into ordinances.
McShane stated the intent of creating this committee is to take a look at the
Comprehensive Plan and the ordinance that exists, and make any changes.
Kaufman stated they need to do planning for the future. The companies are
now operating separate from each other and each other's projects. They are not
going to the other companies to create corridors. Because of NOPE and the
Comprehensive Plan, they have a place to start. No one tells these people what to
do. Citizens don't know where the pipelines are because they are not on the maps.
When Puget Sound Energy put its corridor in, there were twin towers on the outside
of that corridor. There was a small wood pole structure in the center that held a
230 kV line. That small line did not exist on the map. It was a backup line to
Intalco that has never been turned on. When Puget Sound Energy had to present
maps for the Comprehensive Plan Utility Committee, they might not have been up
to date. The companies are not used to producing maps for the public. When they
attended the Utility Committee, the companies found that they could work together.
The Smith Road project was the first project in which the County Planning
Department and all the utilities got together to do a project. The project came in
under budget and everyone was happy with it. In the end, he asks that the utility
companies get together and cooperate. If they need to create a row, they have
some justification for what they are doing. Another issue is that there is a new
movement for property owners to take a cut of the utilities that are coming in.
Dawson stated her ordinance says that the federal agencies must maintain
appropriate management plans and be coordinated with the land and resource
management planning processes of state and local governments.
McShane stated that is already law. The appeal is that the Comprehensive
Plan is a powerful tool. When there are utility corridors that are planned and a
committee is in place, it is a positive thing. Because of the amount of hydro and
natural gas in British Columbia and Alberta, Whatcom County will be a conduit. He
was pleased that Mr. Kaufman would be involved.
Kaufman stated a utility corridor is an industrial zone and must be big
enough for future growth. The County and the people must determine the
industrial zone, not the company.
Natural Resources Committee, 6/13/2000, Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Kathy Larsen, Puget Sound Energy (PSE), stated she couldn't comment on
land planning. She wasn't with the company during the late 1980's when the
company wanted to put a new corridor in place. They took that route because the
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) would not allow them to go into that
corridor. The position of the NOPE group that was formed caused the BPA to look
at what was going on and the needs of the region. Using the existing corridor was
a win -win for everyone.
As far as the Utility Committee, there will be a public hearing about it in two
weeks. It is an excellent opportunity. She couldn't imagine that any utility would
want to rip up the land without thoughtful planning. PSE routinely meets with city,
county, state, the Department of Transportation, and other utilities. The land
planner folks work with cities and counties in its transportation improvement plan.
Regarding development and growth, they have to plan efficiently and wisely
because infrastructure is expensive. The Utility Committee is a good idea.
Regarding cutting deals, that goes against the Utilities and Transportation
Commission (UTC) rules.
Kaufman questioned whether the PSE laws are different than the phone
company laws.
Larson stated each utility has different UTC laws. There are also Federal
Communication Commission (FCC) laws. Some of these questions would be good
for the committee to address. The bottom line is about working together.
McShane stated they could make an effort to change state and federal laws if
they don't like them. If there is a law they don't like, they should identify it and
speak knowledgeably about it rather than reacting. All councilmembers have
attempted to do that with varying degrees of success. The community has become
much more aware of how pipelines are regulated. The natural gas pipeline proposal
is in a very early stage and has generated goodwill among the councilmembers and
the public.
Larson stated she made the assumption that the comment about the maps
and the line that served Intalco was regarding the BPA line. PSE does not serve
electricity to Intalco. It is directly served by the BPA
Kaufman stated he was referring to BPA maps.
Larson stated their maps are public record and are available for public
viewing.
Candace Ambrosio, citizen, stated PSE worked with BPA on the NOPE issue,
which was unprecedented. The Utility Committee would have the companies that
work on the same thing coordinate their efforts. Hopefully the Utility Planning
Committee can be proactive.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side A.)
McShane stated the division of government between the City of Bellingham
and Whatcom County gets out of hand. Bellingham is still a part of Whatcom
County. It would be nice if they could get this going in the city as well.
Natural Resources Committee, 6/13/2000, Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Larson stated she wanted to make a comment on the record about the Public
Utility District (PUD) and duplicating transmission lines. The wholesale
transmission market has already been deregulated, since 1992. It is regulated by
FERC. If the PUD wanted to seriously provide power, they need to file an
application with FERC and go through the process that is already there. Regarding
the need to duplicate the 115 kV transmission line project, they chose that local
level process to go through. There is a state level process they could go through to
condemn the PSE lines. The highest level option would be to go through the FERC
process. The PUD is a wholesale marketer.
McShane asked if the PUD has to go through the FERC process to have
access to PSE lines. Larson stated yes. About half the nation has deregulated
retail access. Washington State has a utilities committee that has looked at it but
there is not enough weight to move it forward. PSE worked with the Energy and
Utility Committee, industrial customers, and others to put together a formula. PSE
is ready to go to the market. The infrastructure is in place and well maintained.
They operate efficiently, more so than government owned utilities. They are the
eighth most efficient in the nation for electric utilities. PSE did a pilot project in
1997 in which they found it was difficult to get energy marketers to get engaged.
However, they wanted the project to be successful, so they subsidized the cost of
the project, which came from the shareholders. There are many shareholders in
Whatcom County. The average shareholder is a widowed woman in her 60's. The
pilot project worked. They had 100 customers. There were customers from the
City of Bellingham and Whatcom County also. It was by lotto drawing to be a part
of this deregulated pilot project. They are ready to go. They are waiting for the
rules from the state.
Dawson stated a complaint she heard is that the PUD has talked with PSE,
but PSE won't cooperate. Larson stated it is not PSE purview to cooperate. The
PUD has to go through the FERC process. The ability is already there. She would
provide a copy of the FERC formula.
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING WRIA (AB2000 -132)
This item was not discussed.
3. DISCUSSION REGARDING WALLA WALLA ORDINANCE NO. 219, AN
ORDINANCE COORDINATING COUNTY, FEDERAL, AND STATE
GOVERNMENT ACTIONS AFFECTING LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES
USE (AB2000 -201)
OTHER BUSINESS
Jim Kolbo, 3918 Salt Spring Drive, discussed his dock. On March 7, 1999 he
made an application to Whatcom County for a pier ramp and dock at Sandy Point.
Dawson stated local custom and culture encourages it.
Kolbo stated Sandy Point is a manmade canal system approved by Whatcom
County and all agencies necessary to create a marine residential recreational
private area. The entire bottom of the canal is private. He owns the dirt under the
Natural Resources Committee, 6/13/2000, Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
area where his dock will go, as does almost everyone else. This application was
done prior to the state and federal governments' new endangered species listings.
The purpose of that was to be grandfathered in, so he wouldn't have to go through
extra hassle. In May or June, it went through the Whatcom County Hearing
Examiner process, who chose to modify his original dock plan, which was accepted
by the County's shoreline individual. He accepted those changes in order to move
along with the project. He went through four hearing processes. The dock was
contained within the proper boundaries and met all the setbacks required by
Whatcom County. It also met all the rules set forth in the Whatcom County
Shoreline Management Program, which is the County's adoption of the Shoreline
Management Act from the State of Washington. The County's Shoreline
Management Program is accepted as the rules for Whatcom County's version of the
state Shoreline Management Act. The County Shoreline Management Program
supercedes the Shoreline Management Act in its entirety. The Shoreline
Management Act directs the various municipalities to create their version of what
the state requires. He and his neighbors went through four processes with the
Hearing Examiner. Based on the scope and size of the projects, the Hearing
Examiner cut the sizes down a bit. A big concern was the distance out from shore.
Anything over 60 feet from the ordinary high water mark requires a variance. He
and his neighbor's properties has a very shallow scope. They had to verify why
they needed to be out so far by doing soundings. At the end of September 1999,
the Hearing Examiner made his final ruling. Everyone accepted it and signed off on
it. There was a ten -day waiting period. It was then submitted to the state
Department of Ecology. At this point, both he and his neighbors had accepted the
decision of the Hearing Examiner. The Department of Ecology was to have
responded on or about October 27, 1999. They have a 30 -day response period,
governed by the Washington Administrative Code. On or about November 17,
1999, the Department of Ecology issued their determination to reduce the size of
his main float from 80 feet to 40 feet and to bring the distance from shore in by 65
feet, which would make his dock high and dry at a -32 tide. This is an issue that
had been dealt with more than once by the Hearing Examiner. They needed
enough room to float a boat safely. The Department of Ecology expanded on the
rules required by the Department of Fisheries. The Department of Ecology added
language to the requirements making it more severe. The Department of Fisheries
required a preliminary macro -algae and eelgrass study. The Department of Ecology
required a full -blown study. The cost went from $1,500 to $8,000 - $10,000 to do
the full -blown study. The Department of Ecology required shaded lighting, which is
not required in any way by any agency. If it were required, the Department of
Fisheries would have required it. The Department of Ecology denied the ability to
have any form of covered moorage. The Whatcom County Shoreline Management
Program allows up to 300 square feet of covered, floating moorage based on
specific criteria. As long as he met those specific criteria, the Shoreline
Management Program would allow it. The Department of Ecology would not allow
it.
The Department of Ecology was asked their reasoning for shortening his
main float from 80 feet to 40 feet. Mr. Barry Wenger from the Department of
Ecology responded and made these determinations. Mr. Wenger asked him the
length of his boat, which is 25 feet long. Mr. Wenger told him that he didn't need
anything bigger than 40 feet because of the length of his boat. He asked Mr.
Wenger how he could require that, and Mr. Wenger responded that it is based on
necessity. A person with a 25 -foot boat doesn't need anything bigger than a 40-
foot float. He asked Mr. Wenger what happens if he decides to get a larger boat in
Natural Resources Committee, 6/13/2000, Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
the future. Mr. Wenger responded to him that he could make another application.
If he got a bigger boat before the negotiating process was over with the
Department of Ecology, he could have a larger float.
In his negotiations with Mr. Wenger, they discussed distances out and
several other items. The issue came back to the length of the float. They agreed
to most issues. However, Mr. Wenger managed to delay everything up to the point
where he would almost miss his ability to appeal the Department of Ecology
decision to the State Shoreline Hearings Board. Subsequently, he hired an
attorney. They immediately filed for appeal. Shortly thereafter, they had a pre -
hearing conference with his attorney, the Department of Ecology, and the judge
from the Shoreline Hearings Board. The question was raised of whether he could
have his 80 -foot float if he purchased a larger boat. The answer to that question
was yes. It took a month to get a letter back from the assistant Attorney General
from the Department of Ecology specifying that he could have his larger float if he
purchased a larger boat.
On the same day of the pre- hearing conference, Mr. Wenger checked the
ordinary high water mark at his property. They discussed the issue of the bigger
boat and bigger float. Mr. Wenger commented to him that they had a deal. He
disagreed with Mr. Wenger about having a deal, and explained that he filed an
appeal because he didn't wish to lose that option. Mr. Wenger took a personal
affront to the fact that he filed an appeal. Mr. Wenger became very aggressive
toward him.
Subsequent to that conversation, he bought a 57 -foot boat. He had a bill of
sale and Coast Guard documentation. They were finally able to sign an agreement
one week before his hearing.
All of these issues have been pushed to the very end. Had it gone on longer,
it would have cost him about $5,000 to litigate, with no guarantees. They were
pushing for negotiations. He had to give up some items in the negotiation. At the
final negotiation, they were surprised he purchased a larger boat. Mr. Wenger told
him they needed something in the agreement that he had to reduce the size of the
float if he gets rid of his boat. He did not agree to that.
McShane questioned the specific changes that had to be made. Kolbo stated
he had to put in a different kind of piling and shaded lighting that encompasses
only the footprint of the dock. The lighting issue is a Department of Fisheries issue,
not a Department of Ecology issue.
Dawson stated it is this kind of intimidation, going beyond their area of
expertise, that her ordinance would address.
McShane stated he had a different view of what is possibly wrong in this
situation. Councilmember Dawson's ordinance would not address anything other
than getting things really messed up. Arresting Barry Wenger and charging him
with the ordinance would not do a lot to help with the situation.
Dawson stated it makes public the kinds of problems they have. If there are
enough of the public to make a complaint, the governor may do something about it.
Natural Resources Committee, 6/13/2000, Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Kolbo stated Mr. Wenger dropped the requirement that he could not have
covered moorage. It is allowed per the Whatcom County Shoreline Management
Program. However, it is still required that the vessel has to be moored at that
location. He has to own the larger boat for 30 -days beyond the completion of the
dock. If he doesn't, he has to shorten the dock to 40 feet. That is totally against
the law. In order for him to push beyond this, he would spend a lot of money in
litigation. It is absurd.
McShane stated his only experience with Barry Wenger was that Mr. Wenger
was the one being cooperative and the County was being the problem. He would
carry a bias toward that individual for a while. It had to do with his interpretation
of the County's Shoreline Management Program. There were other issues there as
well. Having done shoreline work around the state, it is helpful to have County
staff who know what they are doing. That is not a criticism of County staff. The
problem is a lack of staff. It is a very serious problem with the County's Shoreline
Management Program, which is a very good program. He didn't like the type of
run - around that was happening. The County Council needs to think about providing
clear guidance to individuals under the new endangered species listing and new
Shoreline Management Program rules. If the County believes that someone
matches the Shoreline Program, and the Shoreline Program matches what the state
law says, the County staff should be there to help out and should be involved in
negotiation. He questioned whether the County took Mr. Kolbo down a rosy path
that they shouldn't have done.
Kolbo stated the County not only took him down a rosy path, they did not
provide information about what may or may not go on. Most of that lack of
information is now knowing that the Department of Ecology can do anything it
wants. If the Hearing Examiner had known that Barry Wenger was going to do
what he did, it would have been a moot point. If the County has an ordinance that
is accepted by the state, then the County should be allowed to make the
determination. The County has been under mandate from the state to create the
Shorelines Management Program. It has been accepted by the state as the
County's version of what the state has requested.
McShane stated that within that process, there is an opportunity for state
agencies to review. The reasons are that there are changing environmental
conditions. This situation is where that played in. If a local government or
consultant does not have a good track record, the state will come down on them
and make them go through hoops. There was the opportunity for the state
Department of Ecology to come in and question why the County hasn't addressed
these issues, such as the different pilings and the shading criteria. Kolbo stated
there are no criteria. These requirements were created by one individual.
McShane disagreed.
Kolbo stated he talked with many people who have had to deal with Mr.
Wenger. Mr. Wenger goes above and beyond in many cases. He has made
requirements that don't exist. Other people have dropped projects because it
became too complicated and intimidating. The man appears to have won by
intimidation.
Dawson suggested that they ask where Mr. Wenger gets his criteria.
Natural Resources Committee, 6/13/2000, Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
McShane stated they could do that. He questioned whether he could bring
this issue up with Mr. Wenger. Kolbo stated Mr. Wenger intimidates him because
he still has the ability to stop the project at any time that he sees fit. He didn't
mind the councilmembers speaking of it in- house.
Dawson stated that Mr. Wenger went to Mr. Kolbo's neighbor and threatened
to make the neighbor's life miserable if she went further with her project.
Kolbo stated Mr. Wenger has threatened both him and his neighbor. He's
agreed to things he shouldn't have agreed to, but he wants to get this project
completed and get on with his life. Also, if he pushes too hard, he will be out of
luck. He is not a person who is easily intimidated, however he has been
intimidated.
McShane stated he appreciated hearing what has occurred. These are
complicated issues. This dovetails into what they talked about earlier with the
transmission lines.
Kolbo stated he was disappointed in the lack of assistance and lack of
positive response from the County. The County's Prosecuting Attorney's Office did
not help.
McShane stated he is on his own. There is a big problem in this county
regarding shoreline armory. There are many un- permitted bulkheads. He wanted
to make it easier to deal with the people who aren't trying to comply. He admired
Mr. Kolbo for going through the legal process. The result of that process bothered
him. There is a lessen to be learned here. His concern was about the lack of
support given by the County.
Kolbo stated there have been four different individuals working on the
County's Shoreline Program in five years. There is too much transition. This
County needs to have qualified people who are adequately trained and are paid
enough to stay here. They can be of assistance rather than being a detriment,
which a lot of them are because they interpret the rules their own way.
McShane stated it creates a comfort level to have knowledgeable staff who
have a long -term experience with shoreline rules.
(Clerk's Note: End of tape one, side B.)
Kolbo stated the planning staff for the City of Bellingham is very helpful.
That is not the case with the Whatcom County staff. There is never anyone there,
everyone screens their telephone calls, no one answers the phone, and a person
never knows when their calls will be returned.
McShane stated that is not a negative comment about the people or
individuals. There is a lack of ability for that level of service. There is some
responsibility and there should be accountability.
Kolbo stated that Sam Ryan is taxed right now. He would not want to be in
her shoes.
Natural Resources Committee, 6/13/2000, Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
McShane stated there are many who are taxed. Kolbo agreed. There is no
reason to have a shorelines guy and a substantial development guy for shorelines.
There are four different people doing shorelines work.
McShane stated all four of those people are doing other things and have
many other tasks. He was concerned about the breadth of things they are doing
and about the turnover issue.
Kolbo stated all the shoreline issues in Whatcom County could be handled by
two people if those two people were only doing shoreline work and were
knowledgeable experts. Regarding the Walla Walla ordinance, he has not read it.
Something needs to happen on a County level that will help protect him and hold
state people accountable for going beyond the rules. The County authorized a
process and made specific, detailed changes. The state Department of Ecology
came in and arbitrarily changed the ruling based on no valid backup resource. That
is wrong. He has a civil case against Mr. Wenger because there are statutes on the
books about government employees doing things to the detriment of citizens.
However, he had to hire an attorney and go through a civil litigation process and
pay at least $15,000. His tax dollars are paying the state individuals at the
Attorney General's Office to back them up. At some point, the County needs to
take on a position and authority to defend their decisions. He pays his taxes to this
County and is in one of the highest tax - paying areas of the County. They have lost
the idea of public servants.
Dawson stated they talked about Mr. Wenger overstepping his boundaries
and going into the area of the Department of Fisheries. She was involved in a
County health issue involving septic tanks with the development of a piece of
property. Mr. Wenger began making regulations on the septic tanks, which is the
purview of the state Department of Health. Mr. Wenger was developing the
regulations and required a maintenance program. After the owners did that, Mr.
Wenger still did not allow the project to go forward, and further required that the
number of lots be reduced. The number of lots have been reduced a number of
times. It is unbelievable that Mr. Wenger is managing things that he has no
regulation over. There is no way to hold this individual accountable.
There was another situation in which a person wanted to drill a well on a
five -acre parcel. The state Department of Ecology told that person that he had to
go through an expensive process to show they are not impacting a neighbor that is
more than 1,000 feet away. It was a single - family residence on a five -acre parcel.
The family hired an attorney, who contacted her.
Kolbo stated the general policy for the state Department of Ecology is that it
is making new policy all the time. It is unwritten policy. They are pushing that
policy to the nth degree because they are autonomous. The laws are written such
that they don't have to obey their own rules. One of those rules was the 30 -day
timeline to respond. They went three weeks past their 30 -day timeline in his case.
They can get away with it because there is no penalty. However, he is not allowed
to go beyond his deadlines, for which there are also no written repercussions. If he
does, his project is not allowed.
Dawson stated that is why it is important to get the County prosecutor on
board. That could only be done through her proposed ordinance.
Natural Resources Committee, 6/13/2000, Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Kolbo stated the ordinance doesn't have to be adopted in its entirety. They
need to have an ordinance that requires the County prosecutor to defend the
County against this autonomy that has been created.
McShane stated there are two things in that ordinance that alarm him. One
thing is that they have nothing to stand on legally. They would not be able to
arrest the U.S. Forest Service workers. That is what it is aimed at. This issue to a
degree is reminiscent of pre -Civil War stuff. A lot of this was worked out during the
Civil War through bloodshed. He had no problem with setting up committees and
creating dialogue that would be beneficial to resolving many of these issues.
Kolbo stated dialogue, at some point, doesn't work.
McShane stated that when dialogue doesn't work, they don't have to litigate.
If a person doesn't get what they want from the law, the law could be changed. If
he believed that they need to change the law, he would be willing to work with that.
When they are writing the guidelines, they need to be aware of this story and of
how the County can take responsibility that this doesn't happen. If the County is
not comfortable with some aspect of the shoreline guidance or law, then they can
it. The County has to create shoreline guidance within the next two years. They
are going to have to work very hard to make sure that someone doesn't get put in
this position. Mr. Kolbo's concerns are very legitimate. There is some
responsibility that the County has. If there is something wrong with the state law,
the County Council must deal with it.
Kolbo stated there is a salaried legal staff with the County. Paid attorney's
can read law, interpret law, understand efficiencies in law, and make
recommendations to the state legislature that these laws need to be clarified. They
are not asking for change. They are asking for clarification.
Dawson stated that one of the County prosecutors commented to her that
the Department of Ecology is out of control. They need to have something that
gives direction and power to the County's own prosecutor to do something about
this. Her proposed ordinance gives the prosecutor the discretion to take action.
They don't have to take action on anything that they don't think has any merit.
ADJOURN
The discussion adjourned at 11:35 p.m.
44 Jill Nixon, Minutes Transcription
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
ATTEST:
Dana Brown - Davis, Council Clerk
WHATCOM COUNTY COUNCIL
WHATCOM COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Dan McShane, Committee Chair
Natural Resources Committee, 6/13/2000, Page 11