From Paben
Farmers in Whatcom County have been doing their part to reduce pollution in local waters but they have reason to feel besieged by environmentalists and regulators who inspect and snoop around their farms.
So writes Henry Bierlink, executive director of the local nonprofit Whatcom Farm Friends, in the group’s March e-newsletter. Click here to join the list for the e-newsletters.
Here is what he wrote on the topic, which is of very high interest to many throughout the county:
Too Much Attention
Farmers are facing far more scrutiny — and it doesn’t feel good. There is no argument that we need to be good natural resource managers and be held accountable for how we manage our farms. But there are consequences to having a myriad of inspectors/snoops patrolling our farms.
The Department of Ag inspectors responsible for dairy nutrient management plan inspections have been joined by a team of EPA inspectors from Tacoma who are sporadically visiting dairies to inspect their surface water runoff management. Furthermore the Puget Sound Partnership is focusing state dollars on placing more water quality inspectors in the Bellingham Department of Ecology field office to conduct more inspections. In addition, RE Sources, a Bellingham based environmental advocacy group has been privately funded to kayak streams in the ag area to try and discover runoff violations or concerns and report them.
Farmers have reason to feel besieged. Anyone who tries to work with a natural system knows that we don’t have complete and perfect control over all aspects of it. Perfection is not an option. Nevertheless farmers have been doing their part – witness the decline in fecal coliform counts in the past decade.
Protection of shellfish from fecal coliform is a community goal. We share that goal and have gone to great lengths to keep manure out of streams. All of our dairy farmers have detailed nutrient management plans which are regularly inspected to ensure compliance. Yes there can be problems, but they are relatively isolated and always fixed. Farmers are getting progressively better at managing their nutrients. The track record is clear on that. We recognize the pace of water quality improvements has leveled off. The obvious work has been done. The remaining fecal contamination is going to be much more difficult to isolate and solve.
Just what are farmers’ rights when approached by inspectors or private citizens seeking farm access? As with most legal matters, rights nearly always depend on specific circumstances. It is reasonably clear that you don’t have to allow immediate access to your property without a court order. A routine, unannounced visit by an inspector could be requested to be done at a more convenient time. However, if an enforcement officer believes that the stream is being contaminated on or from your farm they likely have the authority to enter immediately.
Water access via the creeks and streams is a new issue. It seems clear that the stream /creek/ditch that meets the “navigable waters” definition is open to the public. For example, if a kayaker meets a logjam and has to get on land to circumvent it, it seems as long as they are within the “ordinary high water” level of the stream they are within their rights to do so – even if your fields are posted for trespass.
Farmers desire to be good citizens. At the same time farmers are very concerned over being held to an unachievable standard. It is simply not fair. Farmers will do their part to manage responsibly. The record speaks for itself. Farmers make an important contribution to our community and our environment. We want to be respected for our care of natural resources – not targets.- Henry Bierlink
What do you think?
Farms provide something critical to the human population so it’s not the same as a stuffed animal factory pouring dye in a stream….stuffed animals are not so critical, cute but not critical. Farms must work within the natural environment and they have a responsibility to the commons so, too, do we in the commons have a responsibility to take care of, support and help farmers beyond just buying local food.
Government knows better how to run a farm than farmers do, just look at how the soviet system worked out, don’t ya know!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
Right on!
Aren’t you supposed to be sequestered somewhere scheming how to cut another 50 million dollars from education, Sen. Ericksen?
“Water access via the creeks and streams is a new issue. It seems clear that the stream /creek/ditch that meets the “navigable waters” definition is open to the public. For example, if a kayaker meets a logjam and has to get on land to circumvent it, it seems as long as they are within the “ordinary high water” level of the stream they are within their rights to do so – even if your fields are posted for trespass.”
There is a complex panoply of laws that govern the “stream/creek/ditch” regime that is in dire need of statutory clarification. Conveying the importance of this issue to members of the legislature should be a high-priority item for members of the Ag community.
Until this is done, arbitrary enforcement is going to continue, and assertions of authority unsupported by law are also going to continue, to the detriment of farmers.
You have to know a bit about water, trespass law, the Public Trust Doctrine, Equal Footing Doctrine, and last but not least, the fact “IS” in the State of Washington, as owners are not required to even post a no trespass signs for enforcement as every person knows the trespasser in this state can’t read it anyhow.
That’s not true, in any sense of navagable waterway Dave. It has to be related to Commerce, and your kayak better have a link to the same, as these duck hunters found guilty of trespassing, in both state and federal court.
http://www.westernbass.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=17045
It’s a very old legal standard. 1Institutes of Justinian 2.1.1. (529 A.D.)
The detriment of farmers? Arbitrary enforcement? Statutory clarification?
Is it time to bust out the plywood and yellow paint for some more “Land Grab” signs, Dave?
Actually, a little Raid is in order Todd2.
But of course it always depends on who farm’s getting raided.
Fishin for Tuition, and theres always two ways to go trolling.
http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012/01/05/2336387/court-rader-farms-land-clearing.html
Who Own’s America?
Walter Hickel(R)
Welcome to the 4th Corner (D)?
Raider Farms? Favorites List!
http://www.epa-echo.gov/echo/sdwa/serious_violator_list.php
We must learn from the past:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6KnqLEsXmE
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
For all me farmer friends with chickens you may want to watch this if you have wet lands too:
http://www.myspace.com/video/contributor/chicken-cpr/9156192#!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
Henry – You might get a little more traction with the public if you actually worked to get a zero-level nutrient loss into local streams, controlled E. coli and aminopyralid problems on the farm, and actually looked at the science of GMO crops. There is a very good reason the public is wary of industrial agriculture and corporate farms. They cannot be trusted to do what is right.
And no more of that song and dance about “We are doing what we can.” If you make one inch of progress but the journey is a thousand miles, you don’t get to pat yourself on the back.
Liberty Bell,
“You have to know a bit about water, trespass law, the Public Trust Doctrine, Equal Footing Doctrine, and last but not least, the fact “IS” in the State of Washington, as owners are not required to even post a no trespass signs for enforcement as every person knows the trespasser in this state can’t read it anyhow.”
If you don’t think that those laws are being violated every day by regulators and busybodies in the name of the public interest and clean water, then you are naive.
Why do the large farms in Whatcom County object to following the same laws that are imposed on the dairy industry nation-wide?
A “myriad of inspectors/snoops” from federal, state and local organizations? Certainly sounds like a red flag for on-going compliance problems in Whatcom County. However, even when an inspection reveals a violation, the government tries to get the farmer back into compliance. Enforcement action is the last, and an infrequent, resort. Nobody is trying to shut down the Ag. industry. That is why a number of subsidies are available to farmers. … including reduced federal taxes on farm income.
And with regard to smaller farms, why have so few submitted voluntary farm plans? In return, farmers are allowed greater flexibility in complying with the County Critical Area Ordinance, and restrictions are placed on when and how inspections can occur. The Conservation District provides free assistance in preparing farm plans. Since this voluntary approach is not working, we clearly need to enforce regulations, and that requires inspection.
My favorite part of this letter….”It is simply not fair”…. the definitive argument for every issue in Whatcom County.
“In addition, RE Sources, a Bellingham based environmental advocacy group has been privately funded to kayak streams in the ag area to try and discover runoff violations or concerns and report them.”
That alone should be enough to scare the overalls off of Whatcom County farmers/ranchers.
Another local environmental advocacy group like RE Sources is the Friends of the San Juans, and they have recently given us a great example of the type of arrogance and harassment that can happen.
I’ve tried to post this with a link but haven’t had success. If you’d like to watch a couple of Youtubes of the situation with Friends of the San Juans, the post on my website is called Friends? They are also at Whatcom Excavator or Freedom Foundation
“As with most legal matters, rights nearly always depend on specific circumstances.” Harry need’s another 8th grade refresher course
“specific circumstances” when “mandatory” is the correct term unchanged since 1889, but of course “fundamental principals” normally confuse em too.
DECLARATION OF RIGHTS always confusing the 4th corner…
SECTION 1 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.
SECTION 16 EMINENT DOMAIN. Private property shall not be taken for private use, except for private ways of necessity, and for drains, flumes, or ditches on or across the lands of others for agricultural, domestic, or sanitary purposes. No private property shall be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation having been first made, or paid into court for the owner, and no right-of-way shall be appropriated to the use of any corporation other than municipal until full compensation therefor be first made in money, or ascertained and paid into court for the owner, irrespective of any benefit from any improvement proposed by such corporation, which compensation shall be ascertained by a jury, unless a jury be waived, as in other civil cases in courts of record, in the manner prescribed by law. Whenever an attempt is made to take private property for a use alleged to be public, the question whether the contemplated use be really public shall be a judicial question, and determined as such, without regard to any legislative assertion that the use is public: Provided, That the taking of private property by the state for land reclamation and settlement purposes is hereby declared to be for public use. [AMENDMENT 9, 1919 p 385 Section 1. Approved November, 1920.]
SECTION 29 CONSTITUTION MANDATORY. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.
SECTION 30 RIGHTS RESERVED. The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny others retained by the people.
SECTION 32 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. A frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual right and the perpetuity of free government.
Hey Wally,
There’s no environmental activism without violations of existing law.
Watching out for the public’s interest is the only motivation any activist needs.
How many other lawbreakers will you defend in the name of your own arrogance over which rules should be followed and which need to be ignored?
The would be farm regulators and storm water regulators are more concerned with pollution from a cow pile than they are with pollution from giant coal piles.
I advise farmers to plant a black berry hedge along every ditch and stream. Black berries are the best natural fence available.
What is going on by those who regulate and the regulation they impose seems to have lost their way, farmers and farming would be better off if we could follow some simple rules
“Recognition of private property rights as the foundation for resource production;
Regulations are based on sound science which has been subject to replication and peer review;
A risk assessment analysis should be conducted prior to the promulgation of regulation;
An estimate of the costs and benefits associated with public and private sector compliance with the regulation must be conducted;
Regulations respect the practicalities of doing business in the industry being regulated;
The presumption of innocence as opposed to the current presumption of guilt should be strengthened;
Adoption of tools that measure the cumulative impact of regulations affecting production agriculture…
http://commonsenseagriculture.blogspot.com/2009/07/government-legislation-and-impact-on.html
Common sense is needed.
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
“How many other lawbreakers will you defend in the name of your own arrogance over which rules should be followed and which need to be ignored?”
My answer to that query is zero. I tend to defend people like the man in videos out of compassion rather than arrogance.
I tend to have compassion for people who freely admit their mistakes and make genuine efforts to correct the situation. He apparently has worked openly with the actual government agencies and done physical work to correct the problems as well spent thousands upon thousands of dollars correcting the situation and trying to bring himself into compliance. I don’t see how an NGO harassing him on top of his efforts serves anyone or the environment.
I’ll be out of town for most of the week so if you’d like to call me more names and such then have at it.
Gee, I never knew Wally was a derogative term.
Justify all you like,
there is no activism without lawbreakers.
The bank robber can work with the police to return every penny he swiped,
but that won’t excuse his actions.
Thank you Liberty Bell for that clarification. Maybe our county planning commission should receive a copy of that.
John Galt,
I’m a member of the commission, and I have a copy.
I would suggest that you send a copy to WSDOE, and others.
I read an excerpt form the Attorney General’s “takings” memorandum to a speaker who testified at our last meeting.
Perhaps Liberty Bell would care to enlighten us about the use ( or abuse? ) of the police power by government agencies to water down Section 16, and about how the courts have enabled that power grab.