The topic of DUE Process of Law and DOE’S page 88 of the Public Trust Doctrine creating law was about the last topic of discussion.

Letter addressed to Sheila Roark-Miller, elected Director of the Department of Community Development:

 

This is very important with regard to the Clallam County SMP Update.

 

This ison the DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages)
Finally, SMPs, unlike other comprehensive plans,

are adopted as WAC’S and become part of the state’s Shoreline Master Program.

As such, all local SMP rules, regulations, designations and guidelines

BECOME STATE LAW AND ARE ENFORCEABLE.
in this manner, protection of public trust resources and uses becomes binding.

 

If an SMP DOE WAC is excluded from the SMP UPDATE

IT DOES NOT BECOME LAW.

If an SMP DOE WAC is not written into the SMP UPDATE

IT DOES NOT BECOME LAW.

 

It is within your power,  as our elected official, to EXCLUDE/REMOVE WAC’S from the Clallam County SMP update.

 

I resent the fact that this is vital SMP information is HIDDEN on page 88 of the DOE Public Trust Doctrine website.

 

Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

George C. Rains Sr. Estate

Member SMP Advisory Committee

 

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I submit this as my comment on NNL

Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee

George C. Rains Sr. Estate

Member SMP Advisory Committee

NO NET LOSS of Shoreline Ecological Functions IS NOT A LAW 

FOUND ON PAGE (1)  AND PAGE (47) OF A 48 PAGE REPORT AND

KEEPING IN MIND THAT WAC’s ARE NOT LAWS

SMP HANDBOOK Chapter 4

The SMP Guidelines, adopted in 2003, constitute the first actual rule (WAC) in Washington State to incorporate the

 no net loss requirement. The concept of no net loss in this State originated with earlier efforts to protect wetlands. In 1989, Governor Booth Gardner signed an Executive Order establishing a statewide goal regarding wetlands protection. “It is the interim goal…to achieve no overall net loss in acreage and function of Washington’s remaining wetlands base. It is further the long-term goal to increase the quantity and quality of Washington’s wetlands resource base.” (E.O. 89-10).

Read on if you are interested

SMP NNL Handbook Last updated 6/22/2010

8.

Specific Shoreline Activity and Use Standards Numerous additional specific references exist in the SMP Guidelines, requiring SMP regulations resulting in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Specific shoreline activity standards referencing NNL are located at: WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(ii)(C) and (D): Geologically hazardous areas. WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iii)(C): Critical saltwater habitats

WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iv)(C): Critical freshwater habitats

WAC 173-26-221(3): Flood hazard reduction

WAC 173-26-221(4)(d): Public access

WAC 173-26-221(5): Shoreline vegetation conservation

WAC 173-26-221(6): Water quality, storm water and nonpoint pollution

WAC 173-26-231: Shoreline modifications, including shoreline stabilization, piers and docks, fill, breakwaters, jetties, groins and weirs, beach and dunes management, dredging and dredge material disposal, shoreline habitat and natural systems-enhancement projects.

Specific shoreline use standards referencing NNL are located at:

WAC 173-26-241(2)(a)(iv), addressing the following uses:

Agriculture

Aquaculture

Boating facilities

Commercial development

Forest practices

Industry

In-stream structural uses

Mining

Recreational development

Residential development

 

Transportation and parking

Utilities

 

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN I submit this as my comment on the Clallam County SMP Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee George C. Rains Sr. Estate SMP Advisory Committee Member Clallam County SMP – The Federal Public Trust Doctrine Futurewise a special interest group Washington State Administrative Code (WAC)

Regulations of executive branch agencies are issued by authority of statutes. Like legislation and the Constitution, regulations are a source of primary law in Washington State. The WAC codifies the regulations and arranges them by subject or agency. The online version of the WAC is updated twice a month. Copies of the WAC as they existed each year since 2004 are available in the WAC archive.

 

WAC’S ARE NOT LAW’S?

Guidelines Are Not Law’s?

Rules Are Not Law’s?

 

Our Elected County Officials take an oath to uphold WA State Laws not WAC’S.

 

Per FUTUREWISE these are not laws

Restoration and mitigation WAC 173-26-186(8) (c)

Restoration plan goal WAC 173-26-201(2) (f)

Recommended Shoreline stabilization WAC 173-26-231 (3) (a)

Recommendations for shore side uses and structures WAC 173-26-221 (4)

 

Public Access

A primary objective of SMA Policy

A primary Objective is not law?

Public use and access to the waters of the state is one of the requirements of

the Public Trust Doctrine Includes specific requirements in

 WAC 173-26-221(4)– Most developments are required to provide public access

• Not single-family home construction

• Not subdivisions of four or fewer lots

 

[Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120, 90.58.200, 90.58.060 and 43.21A.681. 11-05-064 (Order 10-07), § 173-26-201, filed 2/11/11, effective 3/14/11. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.060 and 90.58.200. 04-01-117 (Order 03-02), § 173-26-201, filed 12/17/03, effective 1/17/04.]

WAC 173-26-171 Authority, Purpose and Effects of Guidelines.

(1) Authority.

 

 Guidelines Are Not Law’s?

 RCW 90.58.090 authorizes and directs the department to adopt “guidelines consistent with RCW 90.58.020, containing the elements specified in RCW 90.58.100″ for development of local master programs for regulation of the uses of “shorelines” and “shorelines of statewide significance.”

 

Rules Are Not Law’s?

RCW 90.58.200 authorizes the department and local governments “to adopt such rules as are necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of” the Shoreline Management Act.

 (2) Purpose.

The general purpose of the guidelines is to implement the “cooperative program of shoreline management between local government and the state.”

Local government shall have the primary responsibility for initiating the planning required by the Shoreline Management Act

 and “administering the regulatory program consistent with the policy and provisions” of the Act.“

[T]he department shall act primarily in a supportive and review capacity with an emphasis on providing assistance to local government and insuring compliance with the policy and provisions” of the Act. RCW 90.58.050.

In keeping with the relationship between state and local governments prescribed by the Act, the guidelines have three specific purposes: to assist local governments in developing master programs; to serve as standards for the regulation of shoreline development in the absence of a master program along with the policy and provisions of the Act and, to be used along with the policy of RCW 90.58.020, as criteria for state review of local master programs under RCW 90.58.090.

(3) Effect.

(a) The guidelines are guiding parameters, standards, and review criteria for local master programs. The guidelines allow local governments substantial discretion to adopt master programs reflecting local circumstances and other local regulatory and non-regulatory programs related to the policy goals of shoreline management as provided in the policy statements of RCW 90.58.020, WAC 173-26-176 and WAC 173-26-181. The policy of RCW 90.58.020 and these guidelines constitute standards and criteria to be used by the department in reviewing the adoption and amendment of local master programs under RCW 90.58.090 and by the growth management hearings board and shorelines hearings board adjudicating appeals of department decisions to approve, reject, or modify proposed master programs and amendments under RCW 90.58.190.

(b) Under RCW 90.58.340, the guidelines, along with the policy of the Act and the master programs, also shall be standards of review and criteria to be used by state agencies, counties, and public and municipal corporations in determining whether the use of lands under their respective jurisdictions adjacent to the shorelines of the state are subject to planning policies consistent with the policies and regulations applicable to shorelines of the state.

 

 

(A) Comply with state and federal laws and implementing rules applicable to shorelines of the state within the local government jurisdiction;

Rules Are Not Law’s?

The Public Trust Doctrine and Coastal Zone Management in Washington State

The Shoreline Management Act which requires a combination of state and local planning, is an example.

The SMA clearly states the need for comprehensive planning to allow multiple uses of the state’s shorelines while protecting the public interest. Such planning is essential to the creation of local shoreline master programs (SMP) which implement the plans.

In general SMPs regulate use in, on, or over shorelines. This feature appears in zoning classifications including natural, conservation, rural, and urban which specify appropriate, conditional, and prohibited uses for each environment. SMPs may also incorporate any other element deemed appropriate or necessary to effectuate the policy of the SMA. This clause is an open invitation for local SMPs to incorporate explicitly public trust doctrine principles.

I find this hard to believe? I would like Sheila Miller to clarify this?

It is on the DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages)

Finally, SMPs, unlike other comprehensive plans, are adopted as WAC’S and become part of the state’s Shoreline Master Program.  As such, all local SMP rules, regulations, designations and guidelines become state law and are enforceable.  In this manner, protection of public trust resources and uses becomes binding.

WRIA 19 Conservation Planning -Public Comment
Shoreline Advisory Committee – Public Comment
RE: Public Testimony : What’s It All About Alfe

Since the beginning of mankind, man has primarily lived along the shoreline; whether it was the sea, the straits, islands, archipelagos, rivers, streams, or lakes. One way or another man’s wealth and sustenance arise from the land. Most of our food is grown or grazed or gathered from the shores, near shore, lowlands, plains, and flood plains. The flood plains have always been the most productive areas.  The SMA/SMP and the WRIA processes are a means of locking up, transfering ownership to the State,  and regulating the use of these areas/preventing private economic and other beneficial use of these prime areas.

I have attended hours of data review in preparation for the WRIA 19 Conservation Plan. I have a few comments and observations. The first group of meetings was about marine drift cells within the reaches. A separate ‘Public Comment’ will be submitted on that issue.

On 7/28/11 the meeting was a review of extensive data on the river, stream, and waterways of the Peninsula in WRIA 19. The focus was on the brood salmon census/utilization in the waterway reaches and the surrounding flood plains, with emphasis on the flood plains. The data manipulation and collection were monumental. Huge numbers of hours and our limited tax resources were expended to support these efforts. Dedicated public employees have compiled this gargantuous project. My concern is not about the public employees it is about the plans, strategies, implications, implementation, focus, and predictable outcomes.

This whole process seems extremely problematic. The process is either a diabolically clever masterpiece or poorly conceived waste of public funds. The people paying for this work the taxpayers, seem to lack proper representation. My speculation is this mundane data collection and resultant policies will profoundly affect the private property owners, the guys paying the bills. On it’s face the plan seems all about the salmon. The number of salmon involved are very very small making the research statistically difficult to reproduce. Reproducibility and prediction are measures of the validity/invalidity. The significance of any finds are suspect. Despite this pretext of this data collection being about salmon with the land and land use incidental to the study; the premier issue is the land and future land use. If this were about the endangered and artificially depressed salmon stocks more attention would be given to factors directly impacting the salmon brood stock. In fact and in reality the nylon predation of the salmon brood stock as it enters the waterways is ignored. It is the law of the land that the Tribes can net the salmon brood stocks as they enter all of these waterways. The protected marine mammals and other predators cannot be and are not managed. Simple inexpensive interventions are not even considered or dismissed out of hand. In comparison this data collection has no beneficial affect on current runs and is far far more expensive.

Currently there is extremely limited or low use of the flood plains by human endeavors in the WRIA 19 area. Despite this lack of human activity salmon stocks are extremely low, far below carrying capacities. Again this is not about the fish; this is about the government taking control over land use. Not management of land use but control of land use.
The meetings have been interested in a odd way. Objectively review of a huge data collection was like reading the federal tax tables line by line. The fascinating part was watching the ‘true believers’ who were enraptured with working with this raw data. The job of saving the planet by this group (and hundreds like them) is consistent with a State sponsored religion. The doctrine of separation of religion and State is a prudent principle which this DoE and our elected officials need to observe.

Several times in the meeting the topic of large fish die-offs and kills created by the fickled actions and vagaries of nature were discussed. Again it was very clear this process is about land management not optimizing the fish survival and propagation. The fish are incidental.

The extremely large amount of data collected while interesting is a purposeful distraction and  poor investment of the public’s money. Overnight with one heavy rain, with one slide with one fallen tree, with breakup of an ice dam, with a log jam, with an earth quake, with a catastrophic forest fire all of the data or large parts can be rendered irrelevant. The only thing certain about this data is without human intervention in ten years most of it will be irrelevant.

If more fish were the answer there are many human interventions at a much lower price tag that would produce greatly increased fish stocks. (It would seem great care is being exercised to ignore fundamentals and inexpensive steps that would increase salmon stocks. See Pat Neal’s “Hatchery fish better than none at all” in the 8/31/11 article in the Peninsula Daily News page A9. ) Again this is not about fish. This is about rewilding the Peninsula. This is about global control of lands by government and taking away the utilization of land from humans. (See UN Agenda 21 or Google: “TakingLiberty – How private property rights are being abolished”.)

Despite the tremendous waste of resources of the government, this whole issue needs to  go back to the drawing board and be reviewed.  Although these have technically been  ‘public meetings’, this is a tightly controlled process with a predetermined outcome.

This convoluted over-reaching surreptitious process of transfer of property rights from the citizens to the State and the Rewilding of the Peninsula should be exposed and identified for what it really is. The DoE leadership need to be turned out, this squandering of public revenue halted, and the perversion of the SMA/SMP WRIA processes reexamined. We need elected leaders, public servants, who are acting on the behalf of the Citizens and the State Constitutionally principles of protections.

Karl Spees – Participant in the WRIA 19 process and the Clallam Shoreline Advisory Committee.

DCD – Public Input – Economic Impact 6/3/11
Economic Impact of the NNL and Shoreline Setbacks must be part of our plan or the SMP Update must be reversed or left the same.

Article 1. Section 1. Of the Washington State Constitution
Political Power: All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

Possession is nine-tenths of the law. The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) is an end-run around private property ownership rights. The No Net Loss of Function (NNL) is a Department of Ecology (DooE) surreptitious taking of private property rights under the pretext of environmental protection.

The 1976 Clallam County SMP (CC-SMP) was a bad implementation of the SMA; the 2012 CC-SMP Update implementing NNL policy will make a bad policy terrible. (The new shoreline setbacks, another taking, are not even mentioned at this time.)

Only with an Economic Impact Study will the degree of taking from private property rights and the cost of all of this DoE political activism be placed into proper perspective. The insane cost of this State sponsored ‘earth worship’ (substitute religion) will be partially realized. (A tremendous amount of public funds/moneys have been spent on environmental studies of questionable validity.) The implementation of the NNL without compensating the private property owners is unconstitutional (Please refer to Art. 1 Sec. 1 and other State Constitutional protections dealing with possession rights and public takings.)

The SMP Update needs to reverse previous bad policy until sound policy based on State Constitutional protections can be implemented.

Karl Spees, MD (retired) ‘Scientist’ and Environmentalist not Radical Environmentalist – Citizen Alliance for Property Rights – CC Rep.