Send CAO back to the Citizens’ Committee for more information and facts

Our property is our nest, and we care about it more than government planners or people who do not own property. I model my interest in the environment by volunteering in numerous recycling efforts. The issue facing all of us is not whether to protect the environment, but how.

An open letter to the San Juan County Council:

I am the president of Citizens Alliance for Property Rights. That does not mean I care less about the environment than my fellow neighbors. I urge you, and others, not to think of property owners as evil people who do not support the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Our property is our nest, and we care about it more than government planners or people who do not own property. I model my interest in the environment by volunteering in numerous recycling efforts. The issue facing all of us is not whether to protect the environment, but how.

Dr. Kenneth Brooks will be here on July 28, and I urge you to come and hear what he has to say.

I recently attended a picnic in Port Townsend where a group of senior scientists was meeting to discuss how best to help the environment. Some of what I learned was that a group of environmental organizations are influencing some individuals in government agencies, and we are all being spoon-fed questionable science.

For example, 26 of the Department of Ecology’s Best Available Science documents were requested for review by a senior scientist, and DOE denied that request on Aug. 31, 2006. Why? Those papers then had to be obtained from private sources. It was learned that Best Available Science that did not support buffers was discarded or ignored by DOE. It was also noted that much of the Best Available Science used was not independently reviewed by independent scientists.

Has it escaped you that all the information that is coming your way has been via grants from organizations who have an agenda? Your recent decision to do CAO planning on the shorelines, despite the recent state Supreme Court decision noting that as illegal, was even decided on due to being able to obtain a grant. You are being bought. That is alarming to me.

Our Planning Department has told you and me that salmon are the biggest reason we need buffers, so I contacted Dr. Robert Crittenden who is one of the foremost and respected senior scientists on salmon. After hearing what he had to say, I recommend that the County Council invest $5,000 to $10,000 of their upcoming grant money to get Dr. Crittenden’s expert testimony into the record. It is unreasonable to have just special-interest groups only supply you with their cherry-picked scientific studies and to let them bribe you with grant monies. Our citizens deserve more. Are there strings attached to the grant money coming in? If not, use it to obtain a balance of information.

This is some of what Dr. Crittenden wrote to me about our county Planning Department’s draft CAO: “They adopted the approach of not presenting any argument as to what science their proposed regulations rest on nor how that may support the regulations that they are proposing: That is, they have not generated a best available science report.

“Nevertheless, they did cite by reference, in their draft ordinance, all publications and recommendations by state and federal government, as a group. That is far too broad a category to identify which specific publications and recommendations may support their position. So, that is really a non-statement. They also provided a CD with approximately 150 articles, but it is not clear what relationship they bear to the subject, as they are not cited in their proposed ordinance. Nor did they state how their regulations follow from those scientific results.”

Dr. Crittenden also wrote, “Because of my familiarity with these topics, I anticipate that with a week’s work or less, (that is $5,000 or less) I can provide a report showing that the policies put forward in the county’s proposed ordinance can not reasonably be expected to materially improve the survival of those salmon stocks.”

If Dr. Crittenden is right, then our county Planning Department is presenting you an ordinance without an underlying principle. Without the supporting best available science documents and arguments as to how that body of “science” (which is the underlying principles) may support the proposed regulations, it is illegal to form a regulation whose justification is unreasonable. It is also illegal to simply omit to present a justification.

In short, this draft ordinance is practicing arbitrary government which violates Constitutional due process laws. In addition, I repeat Dr. Crittenden’s quote, “…the policies put forward in the county’s proposed ordinance can not reasonably be expected to materially improve the survival of those salmon stocks.”

For the sake of our environment, and so that the county doesn’t end up in court, I request you send the draft CAO back to the Citizens’ Committee to consider information and facts that have not been being considered, just as the City of Blaine recently did.

Frank M. Penwell
San Juan Island