"Environmental Rip Off of Rural
Landowners"
By Ron Ewart, President
National Association of
Rural Landowners
© Copyright August 15, 2007 - All Rights
Reserved
About 34 years
ago, your government, via the U. S. Congress, passed the Endangered Species Act
(ESA). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endangered_Species_Act.
It has been one of the worst and most expensive examples of
government's abject failure in trying to "tweak" mother nature.
Over 1,300 species have been listed as endangered and only about 10 show any
signs of recovery. Meanwhile, huge volumes of your taxes (billions) have been wasted on this program and
severe, probably irreparable damage, has been done to what are left of
constitutionally protected property rights.
Then in the year 2001, the U. S. Congress passed the Pacific Salmon
Recovery Act (PSRA) (HR 1157) which provided federal funds to five states,
Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska and Idaho, that prepare and
submit a salmon recovery plan for their state. Washington was already
working on their plan in 1999. Salmon is one of those supposedly
endangered species and yet when hatchery salmon are counted, salmon are far from
endangered. Pacific Salmon recovery is all wrapped up in several
federal and state agencies, the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water
Act (CWA) of 1977 (see https://www.epa.gov/r5water/cwa.htm). All of these acts, laws, rules and regulations reach very
deep into private property and most folks haven't a clue just how deep.
You don't own your rural land any more because the government has
confiscated all of your rights through such laws as the ESA, the CWA and PSRA,
GMA's, CAO's, WRIA's, and such agencies like the EPA, the BLM, the USDFW,
the DOE, the DNR, the SDFW and on, and on, and on. It is such a mish-mash
of overlapping agencies and inter-jurisdictional responsibilities, it would take
on all the characteristics of a ball of razor wire if you tried to
untangle it.
But
what is little known is who gets to pay and who loses. It is
abundantly evident that the private rural landowner loses, big time.
But what the private rural landowner doesn't know is that he also
gets to pay for much of salmon recovery in actual taxes and reduced use
of his property, while the city folk get off virtually
scot-free. We have uncovered cases in King County,
Washington, which we believe extend into every other rural area of all
Washington State counties and probably throughout the five western states
involved in the Pacific Salmon Recovery program.
Pursuant to the ESA, the CWA and the PSRA, the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife (SDFW) has mandated that all Washington counties
replacing culverts under county roads must replace them with a very expensive
fish and habitat culvert, without providing state money for the
cost. Most streams, creeks and rivulets are clogged and choked on
private land anyway, so the expensive culverts under county roads do no good at
all. Expensive "window dressing" at best.
The
cost for each of these culverts range from $50,000 to over $2,000,000.
Many of these small streams and rivulets dry up in the summer and couldn't
support a silverfish, much less a spawning salmon. So under a Public
Disclosure Act request we obtained documents for 14 such fish and habitat
culvert projects in King County to determine who pays, their cost and their
contribution to actual fish preservation. It turns out that there are
over 40 such fish and habitat projects in King County alone that have been or
are planned to be installed in the next few years. We added up over $8,000,000 in actual
and estimated costs for just 14 these projects, paid for by the rural
landowner road levy tax. On
top of this is the extended inconvenience to rural landowners due to road
closures. Some rural roads have been closed for the entire summer,
requiring lengthy detours.
No
matter what law or act mandates the preservation of salmon habitat, the
preservation is purely for a public purpose. So why should the rural
landowner be forced to pay out of their taxes for what is clearly a cost that
should be born by every citizen of the United States, or at the very least, the
state of Washington?
Attached is a WORD file showing pictures of two such projects on a
rural road in Eastern King County, near the town of Fall City, about 25 miles
East of Seattle, Washington. A brief description of the project is shown
to the right of each picture.
All
across Western America, these kinds of preservation and conservation projects
are unnecessarily sucking up taxpayer dollars for a fish that is supposedly
endangered. But not only is it not endangered, it is heavily
fished by commercial fisherman out in the ocean and by native Americans who
install nets across rivers to catch 50% of the northwest
spawning salmon. (The Boldt
decision) If these fish are endangered, then why are we
harvesting them in the first place? Why do native Americans get 50% of the
catch? Why don't we shut off the fishery for four years and quit eating
salmon, so that the species will recover? Why indeed! It
would be cheaper in the long run to buy all the commercial fishing boats from
their owners and all the nets from the Indians.
But
most importantly, why are rural landowners, who already are under a vicious
attack by government from every possible environmental angle, also
being asked to bear the cost of salmon recovery by having to pay for these
very expensive fish and habitat culverts?
In
conclusion, we make the following requests from county and state
government.
TO THE KING COUNTY COUNCIL: We respectfully
request that King County demand re-payment from state and federal budgets to
cover the cost of these fish and habitat culverts and remove their cost
from the unincorporated road levy tax. The road levy tax should only be
used for road maintenance, including the cost of standard culvert replacement,
where needed. It is patently unfair that the rural landowner not
only has to bear the entire brunt of unconstitutional environmental land
use regulations, but gets to pay for all this environmental fish protection
with our tax dollars, while the city-folk get off virtually
scot-free.
TO THE WASHINGTON STATE LEGISLATURE:
Further, we respectfully request that the Washington State Legislature
address this issue and pass legislation requiring the state to pick up the
tab for fish and habitat culverts. The current system of requiring
rural landowners to pay for them is patently unfair, inequitable and a violation
of the equal protection clause of the United States
Constitution.
Ron Ewart, President
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
RURAL LANDOWNERS
Fall City,
WA