WACs, “Guidelines” and “Rules” are “not” laws

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.

Conference call set for Oct. 12th for Olympic National Forest’s Dungeness watershed action plan

 

Posted 10/1/2011

 

Clallam County, WA – The next conference call to discuss the Olympic National Forest’s Dungeness watershed action plan will be Monday, October 12, at 10:00 AM.  The call-in number is 712-432-1100 passcode 277507#.   Notes from our last conference call on September 12 are attached.

 

Following is a draft agenda for the call:

– debrief on Sept. 14 Dungeness River Management Team meeting

– Action Plan workshop Oct. 17 – agenda, logistics, etc.

– Update on development of Action Plan proposals

– Public meeting on Action Plan?

 

As previously reported, there will be a workshop  to review and discuss the Action Plan proposals on October 17 at the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribal Center.   Susan Piper will be sending out a notice with details about the workshop in a few days.

Dungeness Watershed Action Plan Conference Call Notes, September 12, 2011

 

Participants (7):  John Woolley, Mike Anderson, Susan Piper, Ross Krumpe, Kathleen Dowd-Gailey, Rebecca Wolfe, Tim McNulty

 

DRMT Meeting

–          The watershed action plan will be on the agenda of this month’s meeting of the Dungeness River Management Team on September 14.  Susan and Scott Haggerty will review the status of the action plan.  Dean Yoshina and Mike will discuss the potential involvement of the DRMT in plan development and implementation.   John, Rebecca, and Ross are also planning to attend.

 

October Workshop

–          Susan said that the Forest Service planning team would be able to have an action plan workshop with interested members of the collaborative group and DRMT on either Friday, October 14, or Monday, October 17.  Mike will see if there is a preference for either date among members of the DRMT and the collaborative group.

[Update: since the Tribal conference room is not available on Oct. 14, the workshop date will be October 17].

–          The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe’s conference room is available for the workshop.  If more than 30 people are expected to attend, the workshop could be moved to the Guy Cole Convention Center.

–          The Forest Service will provide a final spreadsheet with project descriptions, staff rankings, and estimated costs a couple of weeks before the workshop.

–          Maps will be provided at the workshop, along with background information about the Forest Service’s watershed condition framework process.  Project information and discussion will likely be organized by resource area.

 

Planning Update

–          Several additional proposals were submitted before the August 30 deadline – e.g. Tyler Peak access, snag creation, mountain biking trails, and horse riding on Road 2860 segments.

–          An off-highway vehicle loop route is being considered on Road 2878-100 in the vicinity of Ned Hill.  OHV routes have also been suggested in the Jimmy Come Lately watershed.

–          John has field checked the 2878-100 road and found that it was relatively flat ground but thought that it would difficult to connect roads together to make a loop route.

 

 

Next conference call of the collaborative working group will be Monday, October 3, at 10:00 AM.

 

Washington state bureaucracy’s idea of “shoreline management”

Regarding:

Our Elected Officials

LAKE SUTHERLAND THEIR PROBLEMS IN DETAIL

 by Pearl Rains-Hewett

Posted 9/28/2011

About 8-10 people from Lake Sutherland attended the Jan. 26, 2011 Focus Group meeting (uninvited by the County).

They had several concerns, large white boats cruising slowly around the lake taking pictures of their homes, docks and property from every angle. When residents asked who they were, they said they were from the State.

 

They had airplanes overhead going around and around taking  pictures of their homes and property.

 

They had strangers trespassing and walking all over adjoining upstream property,  throwing white tapes in their only source of drinking water. When asked who they were, they identified themselves as Dept. of Fish and Wild life. (personally involved)

 

They had concerns about the impending SMP 200′ set back that would make all of their homes nonconforming.

 

They expressed concern with selective enforcement/retaliation.

 

I discussed their fear with another person that attended the focus meeting.

These were not just concerned citizens, these were fearful citizens. These people were afraid of what their government was going to do to them.

 

I made comment  at the next  Commissioners meeting, “When citizens of the United States Of America are afraid of what their government is going to do to them, that is unacceptable to me”.

Call or write to your elected officials?

 

I did, 3 calls about Lake Sutherland homeowners on Jan 27, 2011, the day after the first Focus Group Meeting.

Who did I call in Olympia and leave messages for?

Steve Theringer (360) 786-7916

Senator James Hargrove (360) 786-7646

Kevin Van DeWege (360) 786-7916

Response to date April 30, 2011….ZERO.

 

There are 300 homes around Lake Sutherland. The problem they have been facing for several years was a rise of up to 2 feet in the level of the lake. Their docks were under water and their beach front property was flooded. The problem was a log jam in the outlet at  Indian Creek. They tried to remove the jam in small boats with chainsaws, ropes, tugging and pulling to no avail.

 

It took them a few years to get help from Clallam County, the DOE and WFDW.

 

I found this on line  WA State RCW 90.24.010 to help  LAKE SUTHERLAND property owners with one of their problems.

I gave copies to a Lake Sutherland homeowner at the public SMP meeting held at the Senior Center and sat in on a group discussion on Lake Sutherland.

 

RCW 90.24.010

Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions.

Ten or more owners of real property abutting on a lake may petition the superior court of the county in which the lake is situated, for an order to provide for the regulation of the outflow of the lake in order to maintain a certain water level therein. If there are fewer than ten owners, a majority of the owners abutting on a lake may petition the superior court for such an order. The court, after notice to the department of fish and wildlife and a hearing, is authorized to make an order fixing the water level thereof and directing the department of ecology to regulate the outflow therefrom in accordance with the purposes described in the petition. This section shall not apply to any lake or reservoir used for the storage of water for irrigation or other beneficial purposes, or to lakes navigable from the sea.

[1999 c 162 § 1; 1985 c 398 § 28; 1959 c 258 § 1; 1939 c 107 § 2; RRS § 7388-1.]Notes:

     Effective date — 1985 c 398: “Sections 28 through 30 of this act shall take effect January 1, 1986.” [1985 c 398 § 31.]

Lake and beach management districts: Chapter 36.61 RCW. 


Too much land owned by govt.

Things could be worse in Clallam County
For now, 17.1 % of our county is still privately owned.
Pearl
Menominee County is 94% Federal Trust Land

The following from: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lab/reports/98-3tear.htm from WISCONSIN LEGISLATIVE AUDIT BUREAU
AUDIT SUMMARY February 1998

Since its creation in 1961, Menominee County has had difficulty in meeting its financial needs because of a severely limited property tax base. Most of its land is tax-exempt because it is held in federal trust for the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, whose reservation includes the county and the Town of Menominee. Only 1 percent of land is taxable, and 94.4 percent of that land is residential property in a lakes area, including a development known as Legend Lake. The Tribe continues to purchase small amounts of land to be placed in federal trust, further reducing the tax base.

US Budget in Household Terms… think we’ve got a spending problem?

 

US Budget in Household Terms… think we’ve got a spending problem?

• U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
• Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000

Now, remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget …

• Annual family income: $21,700
• Money the family spent: $38,200
• New debt on the credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on credit card: $142,710
• Total budget cuts: $385

Sort of brings the true issue “home” doesn’t it?

Shoreline residents swamped by regulations

Please read this attached document sent to me by another CAPR President on the west side of the state.  These types of regulations are exactly what Dr. Michael Coffman refers to in his UN Biodiversity Map that he did for the UN program called the “Wildlands Project” that seeks to “re-wild” over 50% of the USA.  His map describes how people will eventually be regulated away from all waterways, even small creeks.  I have attached a copy of the Coffman Map so people can review the “restricted zones” that say “little to no human use”, and the “buffer zones” with “highly regulated use”. It took 40 years for them to start enacting these regulations, as they are now beginning to enact many of their old plans for Agenda 21.

 

Their methods are effective because they don’t force you out.  Instead they give you the option to stay if you will constantly comply with their barrage of new and outrageous regulations that continually ask for more and more from you each year.

Sincerely,

Rene’ Holaday

 

STORY FOLLOWS:

 

Shoreline residents swamped by  regulations

Premium content from Puget Sound Business Journal by
Aaron Laing

Date: Friday, September 9, 2011, 3:00am
PDT

Storm-water runoff from public roads and highways is
the single largest source of contamination to lakes, streams, rivers and the
Puget Sound. Municipal wastewater is a close second, as large rain events often
result in sewage overflowing into our waterways.

Current regulatory efforts, however, put an undue
burden on shoreline property owners to solve a problem that is almost entirely
not of their making. To restore the health of the Puget Sound, regulatory
efforts need to focus first and foremost on the primary sources of pollutants.
While shoreline regulations play a role, burdensome, complex regulations will
undermine restoration efforts and divert funding away from much-needed upgrades
to regional storm-water treatment facilities.

The state’s Shoreline Management Act of 1971 requires
cities and counties to work with the Department of Ecology to develop shoreline
master programs (SMPs) to regulate the use of shorelines within their
boundaries. Under the law, local governments must update their SMPs according to
the schedule set by the Legislature. Many Puget Sound jurisdictions either
recently completed or are in the process of completing these updates. The
ostensible purpose of the SMP update is to ensure that shorelines have adequate
protection based on the best available science. Unfortunately, the result has
been the preparation and, in some cases, adoption of arcane, phone-book-sized
regulations that do little to address water quality issues.

For example, Bellevue’s draft SMP is about 350 pages
long and would effectively render much of the existing development on the shores
of Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, Phantom Lake and Bellevue’s many streams
nonconforming. That is, many existing homes and landscaping would be prohibited
under the new code. Depending on the scope of repairs or improvements,
homeowners could be required to remove landscaping and place deed restrictions
on their properties. Even mundane projects could require homeowners to hire
expensive consultants and go through a complex permitting process. The effect
would be to restrict efforts to maintain existing homes and yards. New
construction could be difficult, if not impossible, depending on the
site.

The problem with such regulations is threefold.
First, they place a disproportionate responsibility on shoreline property owners
to maintain and restore the health of our waters, while ignoring the largest
source of the problem: contaminated storm-water runoff. Shoreline properties
represent a virtual drop in the bucket when it comes to land area and impervious
surface area in the Puget Sound watershed. One need only drive over the
Interstate 90 bridge during a rainstorm and observe the storm water discharging
directly into Lake Washington to understand the source and scope of the true
problem. Overregulating the shorelines will not solve the problem of rainwater
washing harmful pollutants off of thousands of miles of roads and millions of
acres of upland properties that are not subject to such
regulations.

Second, costly, complex and unreasonable regulations
create a disincentive for homeowners to go through the permitting process that
might require reasonable mitigation, such as infiltrating storm water from roofs
instead of piping it straight into lakes and streams. Even worse, such
regulations invite costly litigation. This is wasteful on many
levels.

Third, the Legislature acknowledged that restrictions
could affect the fair market value of affected properties. The act thus requires
that county assessors consider the effect of such regulations in making tax
assessments. By adopting highly restrictive regulations, the assessed value of
shoreline properties is diminished. This, in turn, could reduce tax revenues
needed to upgrade regional wastewater and storm-water facilities. Ironically,
highly restrictive shoreline regulations could have the effect of worsening
water quality over time.

The Shoreline Management Act does not mandate such
results. The law calls for balance. Local governments and the Department of
Ecology should be guided by the law’s purpose and avoid adopting onerous
regulations that do little or nothing to address the key threats to the Puget
Sound.

AARON LAING is a land-use attorney at Schwabe,
Williamson & Wyatt. He can be reached at
alaing@schwabe.com.

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/print-edition/2011/09/09/shoreline-residents-swamped-by.html?page=all

WRIA 19 Conservation Planning -Public Comment

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.

Ltr. to the Editor – War on Energy Supply- 5/6/11

Letter to the Editor / War on Energy Supply                                             5/6/11

Obama, Pelosi, Gregoire, and the leftists are at war with our energy supply. During a time of artificially rising oil prices, the Obama regime has shutdown drilling of our own domestic oil. (Gasoline prices are skyrocketing.) Madame Gregoire has just announced the State will shut down its last clean-technology, coal-fired generator in Chehalis, WA. (Our electricity rates are going up.) Norm Dicks with Republican help and the Left are removing the clean renewable energy production of the Elwha Dams. Affordable energy is the engine of our economic prosperity.

All of this is part of the ICLEI (International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives) plan for a one-world-order and total control of every aspect of our lives. It is based on the false-science of CO2 (carbon dioxide) causing global warming. This is the BIG LIE. CO2 has a minimal roll as a greenhouse gas. (By far water vapor is the predominant greenhouse gas.) CO2 molecules are the building blocks of plants. CO2 is an absolutely essential atmospheric gas (1/20 of 1%) .

The BIG LIE is told repeatedly in the mainstream media. Other than for entertainment, why believe much of anything coming out of these Leftist ‘mouthpieces‘. We the silent majority need to educate ourselves and speak-up against these things before it is too late.

Author’s Comment: Many of my letters include a recurrent theme of the bias and deceit of Main Stream Media (MSM).  I left out name-dropping UN Agenda 21 and  ‘Sustainability’. One can only do so much with a 250 word limit.  Sustainability is a good concept but it has been  perverted to mean: Citizens are too stupid to make their own choices. They need an elite global authoritarian government to do this for them.

Karl Spees – Author

Earth Worship Science/ Magical Thinking 2/15/11

Earth Worship Science/ Magical Thinking 2/15/11

Earth worship science and a new State religion of saving the planet are being imposed on ‘we the people’. This radical environmental/political agenda can be identified in multiple areas but perhaps one of the most outrageous areas is the removal of the Elwha lakes and dams. The Elwha dam infrastructures are sources of revenue, clean renewable energy, unique wildlife habitat, recreation opportunities, flood control, drought relief, and water storage. Earth worship science claims ‘freeing the river will restore the lost salmon stocks’. In reality removing the dams threatens the remnant Elwha Chinook salmon stocks and siltation will degrade the remaining lower Elwha salmon habitat for years. Science would have helped accountable policymakers decide to put-in fish ladders, replace the aging turbines, and quit gill netting the remaining salmon stocks at the river’s mouth. The prospects of this insane policy benefiting the people of the County are minimal.

There are many areas this scandalous decision is creating a domino effect. Precious resources are motivating local schools, our community college, the ONP staff, leaders of civic groups, the tribes, and the local paper who are feverishly farding lipstick on this pig. Instead of our education system teaching critical thinking, complex reasoning, and coherent expression, our young adults are being indoctrinated in the earth worship science and grandiose utopian religion of saving the planet. We and our children are competing in a global economy. All of this magical thinking and political activism are self-destructive and teaching bad lessons.

The celebration of the Elwha dam removal with public money is just doubling down on stupid. For the sake of our Constitutional Republic we need to put the brakes on this redistribution of wealth, taxing, and spending.

Author’s Comment: Farding is an interesting word.  It means to apply makeup.

Paul Gottlieb the Peninsula Voices editor is infamous for allowing ‘Liberal Comments’ publication without obstruction;  For ‘Conservative Comments’ he places artificial barriers and hurdles to the public access of his Pen Voices PDN Section.  It is extremely frustrating to have to engage in debate with an opponent who not only is the opposition but the referee.  “feverishly farding lipstick on a pig” has a cadence and playful nature to it, that Paul summarily changed. :  (
They are supposed to be letters ‘to the editor’, not letters ‘from the editor’.

Karl Spees – Author

DCD – Public Input – Economic Impact 6/3/11

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.