Superheroes on the Washington Supreme Court

The Washington State Supreme Court issued a decisive 6-3 decision in a Skagit County water rights case yesterday.  The Court upheld the Swinomish Tribe’s challenge of a rule negotiated between the Department of Ecology and Skagit County.  You can read the decision here.

The Supreme Court rejected Ecology's view that new development could take water away from the water left in streams for fish, wildlife, and recreation based on "overriding considerations of the public interest."  Of particular interest to Whatcom County, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that rural wells are different from any other water use because they take just a little bit of water. And it cited the Growth Management Act to support its view.

Whatcom County just lost a lawsuit based on its failure to protect water quality and availability under the Growth Management Act.  It will be interesting to see if any of this makes a dent north of the Skagit County line.

One prediction is pretty safe, and that is that the local Tea Party will be hopping mad that “United Nations Agenda 21” has taken over the State of Washington.  Because facts never get in the way of this claim, it will not matter that Washington's instream flow laws were passed decades before the U.S. signed Agenda 21. Under the rule of socialist U.N. lackey George H.W. Bush.

I do hope that the "anonymous" local Tea Party blog, the Whatcom Excavator, is mad enough at the Supreme Court to do one of its cartoons where it dresses people in superhero costumes, as it did for the four Whatcom Wins County Council candidates:

Starting at the top, clockwise:  Barry Buchanan, Rud Browne, Carl Weimer, Ken Mann

The Supreme Court would look nice in tights, I think.

Anyway -- for the water wonks among us, here's a summary.

Ecology had adopted a rule that allowed year-round out-of-stream uses for “domestic, municipal, commercial/industrial, agricultural irrigation, and stock watering,” even when the new uses of water would not leave enough water in streams to protect in-stream flows necessary for “fish, wildlife, recreation, navigation, scenic and aesthetic values.”

Ecology found that the amount of water that would be taken out of streams was “less than an amount that would have significant impacts on fish populations in the river system” and found that the water withdrawals would meet “overriding considerations of the public interest.”

As the court summarized Ecology’s analysis,

On the benefits side Ecology placed the gained economic productivity in the river basin that Ecology determined would ensue from the water reservations over a 20-year period. Also on the benefits side, Ecology says that sources of water other than new withdrawals are as a practical matter unavailable and that without the reservations, new withdrawals for a number of beneficial water uses--stock watering, domestic, municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses--would be subject to interruption in times of low flow. Ecology found that impact on aquatic resources and recreational uses would be very small, and there would not be significant  harm to fish and wildlife, with only a "small loss" to fisheries over 20 years. Ecology determined the significant benefits clearly overrode the potential harm.

The court didn’t just say no, it said hell no.  In what might be called “a severe butt-kicking” in legal terms, the court found:

[A] minimum flow set by rule is an existing water right that may not be impaired by subsequent withdrawal or diversion of water from a river or stream. The exception in [state law that Ecology relied on, RCW 90.54.020(3)(a)] is a narrow exception, not a device for wide-ranging reweighing or reallocation of water through water reservations for numerous future beneficial uses.

Later in the case, the Court gave Ecology a little schooling on the purpose of instream flows:  The Court’s discussion might be a helpful history lesson for all of us:

Although there were no "minimum flows or levels" or "base levels" to begin with, as time passed and the state's population increased demands on water resources also increased. While appropriative beneficial uses of water frequently remove water from the stream or lake, many other uses require that stream flows be maintained, including fish production, recreation, navigation, and power production. Growing, competing demands for water led to a number of new laws over time, and among these are acts and statutes designed to further the goal of retaining sufficient water in streams and lakes to sustain fish and wildlife, provide recreational and navigational opportunities, preserve scenic and aesthetic values, and ensure water quality.

In 1955,* the Legislature declared the policy of the State to be that sufficient water flow be maintained in streams to support fish populations and authorized rejection of water right applications if these flows would be impaired. LAWS OF 1955, ch. 12, § 75.20.050 (codified as amended at RCW 77.57.020).

In 1969,* the legislature enacted the Minimum Water Flows and Levels Act, chapter 90.22 RCW. This is the act that authorized Ecology to establish, by administrative rule, minimum flows or levels to protect instream flows necessary for fish and other wildlife, recreation and aesthetic purposes, and water quality. RCW 90.22.010 provides in part:

The department of ecology may establish minimum water flows or levels for streams, lakes or other public waters for the purposes of protecting fish, game, birds or other wildlife resources, or recreational or aesthetic values of said public waters whenever it appears to be in the public interest to establish the same. In addition, the department of ecology shall, when requested by the department of fish and wildlife to protect fish, game or other wildlife resources under the jurisdiction of the requesting state agency, or if the department of ecology finds it necessary to preserve water quality, establish such minimum flows or levels as are required to protect the resource or preserve the water quality described in the request or determination.

The court concluded that, under the 1969 act, “a minimum flow or level cannot impair existing water rights and a later application for a water permit cannot be approved if the water right sought would impair the minimum flow or level.”

It’s interesting to note that the Court explicitly rejected the idea that exempt wells should be treated differently from other water users:

The dissent engages in a "factual analysis" intended to show that exempt well uses and rural public water supply systems qualify under a cost-benefit analysis for consideration under the overriding-considerations exception. But the analysis simply shows what is always true--there are hardships attendant to any water right with a later priority date and too little water available to satisfy all rights. The dissent also claims that the reallocations of water for exempt well users and rural public water systems should be permitted since they involve only small quantities of water and will have little impact on minimum flows. But the overriding-considerations exception is not a grant of general authority to reallocate water subject to existing water rights regardless of whether the impact on minimum flows and instream uses would be substantial or slight.

And because saying this once apparently didn’t make its point strongly enough, the Court said it twice:

The dissent says that allowing the reservations for rural public water supply systems and exempt wells is a matter of necessity if rural development and lifestyle is to be possible. In every basin where water is unavailable, the same can be said to be true. The legislature is well aware that water availability is a significant issue. It has enacted numerous laws reaching various aspects of the issue. See, e.g., Kittitas County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd., 172 Wn.2d 144, 175, 256 P.3d 1193 (2011) (noting that planning for rural growth requires that water quality and availability be protected under the Growth Management Act, chapter 36.70A RCW (citing RCW 36.70A.020(10), .070(1), .070(5)(c)(iv)))

"In every basin where water is unavailable" includes much of Whatcom County. Water availability is a significant issue. What will we do about it?  

Elect some superheroes of our own, I hope.
 

*Pre-Agenda 21 dates.

Agenda 21 Redux

Well, at least the Bellingham Herald’s front page article on the Tea Party didn’t overtly plug “Glenn Beck’s” novel Agenda 21.*

Of course, you will always find the real scoop on the major issues of the day on Get Whatcom Planning.  Did the Herald article warn you that the words “outcome,” local,” and “fair” are harbingers of the Agenda 21 apocalypse?  Heck no. 

 

To see the entire list of words that proves that One World Government is about to take over your life, follow this link to what one author described as “Glen Beck’s Agenda 21 Word Cloud.”

You’ll never view the term "parking policy” in quite the same way. 

If you haven't had quite enough Agenda 21 fun, try typing "Agenda 21" into Google Images.  Amongst the trojan horses and scary recycling logos, you'll come across my favorite picture, which floats a smirking, photoshopped  "Barack Hussein Obama" in an ocean where he's about to be attacked by an octopus, with the U.N. logo looming on the horizon.  Will the UN arrive in time to save our President from the giant cephalopod?  The author clearly hopes not.

 

For those who harbor the notion that Canada provides a safe harbor, a final refuge from American loopiness, I would say -- don't follow the link.  It will destroy your illusions.

On the other hand, for a more reality-based view of Agenda 21, here are a couple of blogs that I wrote earlier this year: Agenda 21: A Straw Enemy and Agenda 21: Talking to“Steve.”

 

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

*According to a book review, one Harriet Parke actually wrote the book, but Glenn Beck gets the large print on the cover – and the book tour – and the New York Times bestseller author credit (it’s listed at number 20.  A little scary, but is it any less scary than seeing Shades of Grey in the top 10?).



More on Agenda 21: Talking to "Steve"

I found a comment “awaiting moderation” yesterday, and was impressed that Blogspot had read my statement that I’m not going to allow anonymous comments on my blog.  This comment was submitted by “Steve.”  “Steve” has been on Blogger since December 2011, and “his” profile has been viewed 4 times (twice by me).

Well, hi, “Steve.”

“Steve” commented on my blog “Agenda 21:  A Straw Enemy.”    That blog took issue with the claim by some folks that the United Nations, through “Agenda 21,” is pushing a one world government to be implemented through “local visioning,” “historic preservation ,” “consensus,” and the like. 

The blog pointed out that this view is entirely divorced from history, in light of the fact that these concepts existed (and were being implemented) before Agenda 21.

Long before Agenda 21. 

For example, here’s a pre-Agenda 21 example of comprehensive planning.  It’s L’enfant’s plan for Washington, D.C., developed in 1791:

Source:  http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/wash/lenfant.htm

Whether or not we believe that planning is an outrageous assault on property rights, whether or not we believe that it’s OK for a French person to tell Americans how to build a city, can we at least agree that the United Nations wasn’t responsible?

That was the point of the blog, and I’m afraid that “Steve” missed it. 

In the blog, I reprinted a paragraph of Agenda 21 that calls for “broad public participation in decision-making."  This paragraph states:

23.2. One of the fundamental prerequisites for the achievement of sustainable development is broad public participation in decision-making. Furthermore, in the more specific context of environment and development, the need for new forms of participation has emerged. This includes the need of individuals, groups and organizations to participate in environmental impact assessment procedures and to know about and participate in decisions, particularly those which potentially affect the communities in which they live and work. Individuals, groups and organizations should have access to information relevant to environment and development held by national authorities, including information on products and activities that have or are likely to have a significant impact on the environment, and information on environmental protection measures.

I asked:  “Are you shocked, are you outraged, by the statement that ‘individuals, groups, and organizations’ should be allowed to ‘participate in environmental impact assessment procedures and to know about and participate in decisions, particularly those which potentially affect the communities in which they live and work’”?

Well, “Steve” was.  “He” wrote:

You wish to rally for critical thinking - Ok. Where in that section of text quoted does it say that participation is voluntary? To highlight further "the need for new forms of participation has emerged." What new forms of participation? Many people already participate in using green products, recycling, and many other environmentally friendly movements voluntarily. There is no necessity for the UN to become involved. (Unless their goal isn't just environmentally friendly nations). We can do it ourselves, and better than they can. Also, your article is essentially Reductio ad absurdum considering you don't address any of the reasons "The Tea Party" or "conspiracy theorists" dislike Agenda 21 - Namely the removal of privacy and property

Well, I could rise to the bait.  I could point out that “participation” is not an ominous term.  Coercion is not inherent to the term “participation.”  The On Line Dictionary says it means “The act of taking part or sharing in something: Teachers often encourage class participation.” 

That hit home.  I’m a teacher.  I try to encourage class participation.  And I swear on everything that I hold dear:  the United Nations has never forced me to do so. 

I could also point out that Agenda 21 wasn’t talking to us, or at least not to us alone.  It’s also talking to Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria. . . It’s a big world out there. And most people, in most countries of the world, don’t have the opportunities to participate in decision-making that we have here.

So Agenda 21 suggests (and that’s all that it can do) that countries adopt a proud American product:  the environmental impact assessment process.  This is not “new” to us, since it’s been around since 1969 in our country.  It’s not “new” in other developed countries.  But it might be “new” to Afghanistan.

But no, I’m not going to rise to the bait. 

The point of disagreement between “Steve” and me is not really the benefits of participation or even issues relating to property rights and privacy, where we might find some points of agreement. 

The disagreement is that “Steve’s” underlying premise, untouched by any of the facts in my blog (and unresponsive to them), is that the United Nations dictates U.S. policy.  At every level of policy.  

When that premise remains in place regardless of all evidence to the contrary, we can’t talk about issues.  We can’t debate or discuss.  That big scary straw man stands in our way. 

As Cervantes* said, “Fear is sharp-sighted, and can see things under ground, and much more in the skies.”   Once you accept the premise that the United Nations runs our government, you can see Agenda 21 in every policy.

It is an empirical fact that a lot of groups influence government policy.  The Chamber of Commerce, the Building Industry Association of Washington, and the fossil fuel industry come to mind at the local, state, and federal levels.  In some small way, the dreaded ICLEI (a nonprofit intended to help local governments to implement “sustainability” goals contained in Agenda 21) may have influenced our government.  That doesn’t mean that the United Nations runs the world.  Nor does it mean that One World Government is either the cause or the result of every Agenda 21 policy.

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

*While it’s never possible to know for sure, it seems unlikely that Cervantes (1547-1616) was an agent of the United Nations.  After all, his character Don Quixote was the ultimate opponent of windmills. Windmills, an example of "green energy," are alleged to be the spawn of Agenda 21.  Ergo, Don Quixote must be a prequel.  By tilting at windmills, the Knight of the Woeful Countenance was fighting against the "giant," which was really Agenda 21.

Agenda 21: A Straw Enemy

In the autumn of 1421, a thirty-year-old clerk named Cyriacus Pizzacolli walked to work in the city of Ancona, south of Venice, Italy.  Beware, because what happened next is ominous:

"As Cyriacus hastened along the quay, something caught his eye and caused him to look up at the Roman arch that rose over the port. . .The gleaming white monument was astonishingly well-preserved, considering it had been erected centuries ago.  Its inlaid bronze letters had been pried out, leaving the inscriptions as ghostly cavities, but the rest of the structure was intact and appeared light and graceful. . ..

Unlike texts on the pages of books, handed from one generation to the next by more or less caring hands and prone to errors of transcription or misunderstanding, physical artifacts were direct links to the past.  They reflected immediately and tangibly the preoocupations of the ancients, bore their fingerprints and traces of their breath. . .

Though elated by this visceral connection with the past, Cyriacus also felt troubled.  Throughout Italy and in the East he had seen ancient remains not merely disregarded by the locals, but regularly despoiled by them for building blocks and burned for lime.  If they were not somehow safeguarded, they would be gone. . .

Standing before Trajan’s arch in Ancona, Cyriacus sensed his life coming into focus.  His curiosity, his hunger for travel, his quest for a meaningful existence, his need for intellectual enrichment would all be amply satisfied if he were to take on this new mission:  to seek out, study, and preserve for future generations the material remains of classical cultures."

From To Wake the Dead:  A Renaissance Merchant and the Birth of Archeology, by Marina Belozerskaya (W.W. Norton & Co., 2009), pp. 3-12.

What the author of this book did not tell us – perhaps because Pizzacolli himself was not aware of it – is that Renaissance merchant Cyriacus Pizzacolli was a tool of the United Nations.  And of George H.W. Bush. 

Yes, Agenda 21 (read it here), sponsored by the United Nations and signed by George H.W. Bush in 1992, reached back 550 years and made Cyriacus Pizzacolli an agent of the United Nations agenda of world domination. 

How?  Agenda 21 forced Cyriacus Pizzacolli to promote historic preservation.

In case you haven’t noticed that Agenda 21 is running YOUR life also, let me make one thing perfectly clear:

It isn’t.

What is Agenda 21?  It’s a long, aspirational statement of ways that people around the world might be able to reduce pollution and improve quality of life.  It is a compilation of concepts that ALREADY EXISTED IN  1992 – it didn’t really invent anything new, as far as I can tell. If it had been full of new, innovative concepts, would 178 nations – including the United States, under President George H.W. Bush -- have signed onto it?  Of course not.

Nonetheless, a strange and counterfactual conspiracy theory has grown some roots, both politically (in the Tea Party and, under that influence, the Republican Party) and geographically (here in Whatcom County).  The Agenda 21 conspiracy theory claims that every word in Agenda 21 is the cause of the concept that it discusses.  According to conspiracy proponents, Agenda 21 did not reflect centuries of experience or the best practices of the nations that contributed to it.  Instead, it gave birth to every concept that it mentioned. 

According to one easy-to-find website, Agenda 21 is responsible for all of these concepts – and more:  “Alternative Energy, Local Visioning, facilitators, regional planning, historic preservation, conservation easements, development rights, sustainable farming, comprehensive planning, growth management, consensus.”

Good grief.

I just clicked on a provision of Agenda 21 at random.  As it happens, this provision might have some resonance here in Whatcom County.  It says:

23.2. One of the fundamental prerequisites for the achievement of sustainable development is broad public participation in decision-making. Furthermore, in the more specific context of environment and development, the need for new forms of participation has emerged. This includes the need of individuals, groups and organizations to participate in environmental impact assessment procedures and to know about and participate in decisions, particularly those which potentially affect the communities in which they live and work. Individuals, groups and organizations should have access to information relevant to environment and development held by national authorities, including information on products and activities that have or are likely to have a significant impact on the environment, and information on environmental protection measures.

Are you shocked, are you outraged, by the statement that “individuals, groups, and organizations” should be allowed to “participate in environmental impact assessment procedures and to know about and participate in decisions, particularly those which potentially affect the communities in which they live and work”? 

I hope not.  

If facts mattered at all to this kind of debate, it might be important to recognize that the National Environmental Policy Act, which is the law that requires the preparation of environmental impact statements in the United States, was passed – by the United States Congress, not by the United Nations – in 1969.  That’s more than 20 years before Agenda 21.  But why let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

I think that this analysis correctly explains the Agenda 21 conspiracy phenomenon:  “this type of fearful rhetoric helps create a perceived enemy to rally against.”  And that’s what we’re seeing here in Whatcom County.  It's too bad, because it creates a division that no amount of facts, and no appeal to common interests, can overcome.

Is there a way to get people to rally for critical thinking?