Serious concerns about the county’s Department of Environmental Stewardship proposal

Published 1:30 am Saturday, July 11, 2026

Kendra Baird, MES, Principal, Rockfish Permitting, LLC, Friday Harbor

I’m writing to raise serious concerns about the county’s proposal to move the Department of Environmental Stewardship’s (DES) marine program under Parks and Fair as part of the 2027 budget discussions.

The Department of Environmental Stewardship was elevated from a division to a full department in 2021 specifically to consolidate technical capacity: scientists, engineers, and grant-compliance expertise that our marine and nearshore habitat work here depends on. Eliminating the DES Director position removes exactly the scientific and professional oversight that makes this work possible. In contrast, Parks and Fair’s mission is recreation and facilities. Its leadership does not have a scientific background or the technical expertise to oversee a science-based program, and cannot be expected to compensate for the loss of that expertise. Placing marine and nearshore habitat work under that structure is a mismatch in skill set, in grant ecosystem, and in the working relationship with state and federal partners like WDFW and NOAA. It simply does not make sense.

Nothing in the county’s own reasoning suggests this pairing was chosen for programmatic fit. It reads like an available slot on the org chart, not a considered match. The proposal’s clearest aim appears to be eliminating the DES Director position itself, rather than finding a genuine path to continuing the services that serve this community.

Beyond the mismatch itself, the proposal’s own numbers don’t hold up to scrutiny. The estimated $166,116 in savings has not been shown to be real net savings, since it is unclear whether these costs would simply be transferred to whichever department absorbs the

added work. Council chair Justin Paulsen himself raised concerns about burdening already-stretched departments like Public Works. What makes this especially hard to justify is that a significant portion of DES’s funding comes from grants, funding that, as

County Manager Jessica Hudson herself acknowledged, will not transfer with a reorganization. If the underlying work has to continue regardless, as Paulsen acknowledged, then this proposal isn’t solving anything. It is shifting costs and risking the loss of years of institutional expertise, without a clear net benefit to the county’s budget.

I acknowledge the county’s budget gap is real, and that finding cost savings is a necessary and responsible task facing the Council right now. My concern isn’t with the need to cut costs. It’s that this particular proposal doesn’t hold together logically. A plan that doesn’t demonstrate real net savings, that risks quietly shifting the same costs and mandated work onto a department without the expertise to manage it, isn’t a solution. It’s a shortcut that could cost the county more in fragmented expertise and lost efficiency than it claims to save.

This concern isn’t isolated, either. Council member Jane Fuller noted that a related proposal, moving the Agricultural Committee to the Land Bank, is “more complicated than it looks on its face” given other recent losses of agricultural support in the county. That’s a pattern worth the Council’s attention. Proposals framed as simple consolidations may be far more disruptive than presented, with real costs to community services that are not being fully accounted for.

The community has made its view clear. At a recent meeting, every one of the sixteen residents who offered public comment supported keeping the Department of Environmental Stewardship intact rather than restructuring it. I’d urge the Council to take that input seriously, along with the significant gaps in this proposal’s rationale, before finalizing the 2027 budget.