----- Original Message -----
From: ken shock
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 3:02 PM
Subject: Fwd: Natural Buffers - Don't miss this!


This seems rather important, given the perpetual attacks on private property rights of rural residents, based on their supposed negative human impacts.

Given the import of this information, and the fact that you and I do not always agree on what should be shared with the WRIA 16 group - I am making a direct distribution to all. Apologies to anyone who takes offense at the effort in public education.

Regards..........Ken Shock
Physicist and 29 year Brinnon resident, riverfront Dosewallips


From: capr-gov-bounces+ssshock=comcast.net@lists.celestial.com [mailto:capr-gov-bounces+ssshock=comcast.net@lists.celestial.com] On Behalf Of Rick Forschler
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 12:29 AM
Subject: [capr-gov] Natural Buffers


Also at the Board of Governors meeting this evening we discussed buffers.  The attached is a USGS study that shows that natural vegetation contributes more unwanted nutrients to the water than developed yards with lawns.  In fact, in some cases 2 to 3 times more than when the land owner uses an "environmentally unfriendly" fertilizer.  Look at Figure 7 on page 4 and Table 3 on page 5.


The point is this... There is an unstated assumption that development is bad and natural is good.  Therefore, the environmentalists assume that "natural vegetation" is the ideal condition to have bordering water bodies and any developed land is therefore worse for the environment.  It's a fatal mistake on our part to concede this argument before any negotiation begins on buffers.  It simply isn't true and this study gives us proof.  ANYTHING alongside the water will have some effect and natural is not necessarily better.  Decaying vegetation produces larger quantities of nutrients than developed land.  Natural buffers are actually MORE harmful to water bodies than well cared-for and maintained developed property.


When presented with this evidence see how people respond.  If they reject it without question, that is proof they are not really pro-environment, but anti-development.  If someone is really concerned about protecting the environment, then they should welcome methods to achieve better results.  However, if their real goal is to damage property owners, they won't want to hear the truth.  Their reaction to this information will reveal their true motives.


The attached file is also available at the link below.  



Rick Forschler

President, King County Chapter

Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights (CAPR)