By COOKSON BEECHER, Capital Press Staff Writer, The Capital Press , 10/15/99
ELMA, Wash. - Mud on his shoes and a tape measure in hand, Tom Fitzsimmons, director of Washington Department of Ecology, toured Jay Gordon's farm week to see how proposed change to the states Shoreline Act looks through a farmer's eyes. A sixth-generation farmer Gordon runs a dairy and raises corn, artichokes and other crops.
The Chehalis River runs through his property and is subject to the requirements of the states Shoreline Management Act, as implemented through Grays Harbor County's shoreline master program.
The goal of the 27-year-old act is to prevent the inherent harm that comes with the uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines.
Ecology's proposed revision was set in motion by the Legislature in 1995 in order to bring the act up to date and in tune with current science, the state's Growth Management Act, salmon recovery and the Endangered Species Act.
But Ecology's original draft of proposed changes, which were released earlier year, was scrapped this summer after a huge upwelling of public outcry from farmers, timber owners and others.
Triggering the most controversy in the ag community was a perception that setbacks of up to 200 feet from the high watermark would be required.
Gordon, who works closely with Ecology and the local Conservation District, said the proposed changes caught him offguard.
"This one surprised me," he said. 'I was a little underwhelmed by the proposal and by Ecology's explanations. They said agriculture wasn't included, but it was very obvious it would affect agriculture."
Now that the department has pulled that draft and is in the process of working on a new set of proposed changes, staff wanted to gain a farmer's perspective.
Gordon is optimistic that ag's voice will make a difference.
"Now they're saying they might exclude agriculture completely and let the Agriculture, Fish and Water process drive buffer requirements,' he said, referring to an attempt by the industry and regulators to come up with buffer widths based on agricultural science not timber science.
He called Fitzsimmon's visit to his farm an honest attempt to get out and get a local perspective.
'I want to give him an economic insight into agriculture," said Gordon before the tour began. "I don't think most people understand how terrible agriculture is doing and what happens when you add more regulations. For many farmers, this winter won't be fun."
He has already watched farmers leave his area. When he started dairying about 10 years ago, there were 38 dairies. Now there are only 15.
"It's getting kind of lonely here,' he said.
Gordon said one of the most effective ways for people to understand why buffer requirements trigger fear in the ag community is to take a tape measure out and show them how big a 200-foot buffer actually is.
"It makes a real impression on them when they see what a 35-foot buffer, 50-foot buffer, a 100-foot buffer, a 150-foot buffer and a 200-foot buffer looks like on the ground,' he said.
And though he isn't overly concerned about reasonable buffer requirements, he said he certainly doesn't want anyone taking 150 to 200 feet of his land.
Gordon said another of his concerns about the proposed that mentioned 200-foot buffer widths was that the counties wouldn't be able to implement the regulation.
Under the Shoreline Management Act, cities and counties are the primary regulators although the state has the authority to review programs and permit decisions.
"The rubber wasn't going to meet the road," said Gordon. 'It would have put counties in the position of not being able to implement the guidelines."
Fitzsimmons said Gordon clarified what the issue means to agriculture.
"We stood by the river and talked about how to obtain functionality for fish and floods in other ways than a setback," he said. "It's one thing to talk about the concept of 200 feet, but it's another thing to walk 200 feet and then calculate that it would affect 20 to 24 acres of his farm, about half of which is in farming."
Fitzsimmons emphasized that buffer-width requirements on ag land will be covered through the field office technical guides currently under discussion between the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service - not through the revised Shoreline Management Act. It is those guides that are used as the basis for farm plans.
"That's what they'll need to abide by," said Fitzsimmons. "The revisions to the Shoreline Management Act will absolutely and unequivocally be no stricter.'
As for farmers concerns that crop rotation would be considered a change in land use, he said the shoreline management guidelines will be clearly silent" on that subject.
"A crop is a crop is a crop,' he said.
But if a farmer wants to put up a new barn, that would fall under the shorelines act and would be subject to local building and shoreline management regulations.
Ecology plans to have a reworked draft of proposed changes to the Shoreline Management Act out by the first to the middle of December. Legislators and the public will be invited to comment.
From there, a final draft will be drawn up and released March 1.
Formal public hearings will be held so input from citizens and legislators can again be gathered.
The Legislature has set the deadline for final adoption of the revisions as no later than July 23.
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council