Here we go again: CAO in Snohomish County

Here we go again - now it's Snohomish County's turn at a CAO (Critical Areas Ordinance) as it was King County's turn last year. Here is the latest op-ed type piece by a Futurewise (the pro-environment group formerly known as "1000 Friends of Washington") spokesperson.

"A closer look at critical areas"

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/snohomishcountynews/2002430380_snokelly10.html

As you read the carefully and cleverly crafted language, bear in mind the author is Snohomish County's "Futurewise" organizer. You better believe there is an extreme pro-environment agenda behind these submittals to newspapers. And the use of rhetorical "tricks" to get you thinking the way they want you to, but in such a way that you thought you got there on your own.

For instance, not one person I know in the property rights movement has said anything approaching "...we live in a dog-eat-dog world, and that everyone should be able to do anything they want on their property — no matter what ...". No one is saying that - and existing regulations prevent that for the most part. This is not to say there might not be situations here and there that need to be addressed, or where existing laws are not being enforced, or perhaps there are loopholes that need fixing. But otherwise, as with the King County "CAO" (actually a package of three ordinances: the Critical Areas, Stormwater, and Clearing and Grading ordinances, collectively referred to as the "CAO"), it sounds like Snohomish County executive, as with King County Executive Ron Sims, is taking a "broad brush", overreaching, "one size fits all" approach. In the case of Snohomish County, unlike what happened with the one-party control of both the Executive and the Council in King County, the Council is trying to rein in the Executive's plan.

The rhetorical "trick", if you will, that partisans use, and that has been deployed below several times (above paragraph recites one example), is to take the others side's position to an extreme that was never proposed, and isn't/never was true, and suggest that's what you'll end up with if you don't do what the partisan is advocating for. It's a way to get the reader to think, as though figuring it out on their own: "Oh no, I wouldn't want that, therefore we must need this proposal, and I am for it, yes indeed." You've just been sucked in - hook, line, and sinker.

This same "trick" is used later when stating: "...it's important to make sure we don't lose sight of the shared values — clean water, public health and safety, and our rural quality of life — that we have a responsibility to protect." It's like motherhood and apple pie. Who says any of us were ever going to "lose sight" of those "shared values" - and where is the evidence we need another CAO to "protect" them?

As for: "... all of the available evidence indicates that over time, a well-crafted CAO should ... reduce taxes..." I would like to see that "evidence"!

Armen Yousoufian

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, August 10, 2005 - 12:00 AM

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/snohomishcountynews/2002430380_snokelly10.html

Kristin Kelly

Snohomish County opinion
A closer look at critical areas

By Kristin Kelly
Special to The Times

Snohomish County is updating important protections for water quality and rural landowners, known as the Critical Areas Ordinance. The County Council, in typical fashion, is already claiming that such protections are unnecessary and ill-advised. We need to look beyond the controversy and examine whom and what the CAO can protect, and why.

If you think that we live in a dog-eat-dog world, and that everyone should be able to do anything they want on their property — no matter what — then you can probably afford to skip a thoughtful review of the CAO.

But if you think that we live in communities where we have a responsibility to be fair to our neighbors, and that it might make sense for communities to establish rules that protect things like drinking water, public health and our rural quality of life, then you owe it to yourself to take a closer look at the CAO.

And if you are concerned about taxes and property values, then you really need to take a closer look, because all of the available evidence indicates that over time, a well-crafted CAO should protect property values and reduce taxes.

The CAO's three most important goals are to protect water supplies; protect property owners from flooding, landslides, erosion and other hazards; and protect our rural areas, working farms and working forests from destructive overdevelopment.

Snohomish County needs these protections. Continuing development is threatening the groundwater supplies many depend on for drinking water and irrigation. Runoff from nearby clear-cuts has damaged the properties of rural Snohomish County residents. Farmers in the Snohomish River and Stillaguamish River valleys continue to struggle with flooding caused by increased runoff as the hills above them are developed.

The rules that aim to achieve these goals must be balanced against people's rights to use their land. And they must be flexible enough to accommodate individual needs and special circumstances.

First, the good news is that the county executive's first draft of the CAO includes provisions that, with the right improvements, will offer farmers flexibility and choices. With an approved farm plan, the standard buffers would not apply to existing farms.

Second, the proposed protections for lakes, streams and Puget Sound will protect water quality and property owners from flooding and storm damage. The CAO also incorporates the recommendations of community-based landscape-conservation plans to better protect the county's watersheds. Citizens, property owners, tribes, the county and cities spent years working together on these recommendations.

Third, the CAO also improves drinking-water protection by preventing many activities that pollute groundwater drinking supplies and irrigation sources — a major improvement that will benefit rural residents, farmers, rural businesses and cities that rely on groundwater supplies.

The current draft of the CAO could do more to protect Snohomish County residents. It does not limit clear-cutting and paving in rural areas. The simple truth is that trees and ground cover collect tremendous amounts of water — recharging wells and aquifers, filtering out pollutants, and preventing floods and landslides. We have learned the hard way that when we permanently clear-cut too many trees, it creates serious health and safety problems.

Limiting permanent clear-cuts is good for our pocketbooks. The evidence is very clear, both in terms of property values and taxes. In areas where clearing allowances have been in place for a decade, property values have increased significantly. But the real tax savings are in the longer run. Wetlands and forests clean water, recharge aquifers and prevent floods and landslides much more cheaply and effectively than treatment plants and stormwater detention ponds.

As Snohomish County works toward the final CAO, it's important to make sure we don't lose sight of the shared values — clean water, public health and safety, and our rural quality of life — that we have a responsibility to protect.

There's a reason it's called the Critical Areas Ordinance: It protects things that are critically important to our well-being. We will all be better off because of it.

Kristin Kelly is the Snohomish County organizer for Futurewise, a statewide organization advocating land conservation and livable communities.

Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company