County Flush With Cash

No, not an April Fool's joke, just an elementary deduction based on the raises the County Council is handing out.

When the Charter Amendments were being contemplated, one of the questions asked was, "Should a small rural county pay its County Administrator more than the Governor gets paid?" With the passage of the Charter Amendments and the hiring of Mike Thomas, that problem was fixed ... we only paid our new County Manager about as much as the Washington State Treasurer instead of the Governor. But apparently that's not enough because three weeks ago our Council gave Mike Thomas a 7% raise, about half of it retroactive to the beginning of the year (see image at the bottom of this post). That now makes our County Manager more highly paid than anyone in State government except for the Attorney General and the Governor.

And speaking of fiscal responsibility, wouldn't it be nice if someone ... anyone ... involved in the financial chaos of our county public institutions finally spoke up and admitted the faults that are so plain to outsiders?

Meet Bill Evans of Lopez who has been serving as the Lopez/Decatur Superintendent of Schools. Last year, the Lopez School District tried to get voter approval for a $15.5 million bond measure to renovate the Lopez school campus. The bond measure got crushed at the polls, and during the election campaign, the school board received howls of criticism for being financially irresponsible. At the next election, a slate of financial reform candidates ran for office ... but paradoxically, they lost. The "bond board" stayed in office.

In the past few days, the Lopez School Board announced the resignation of Bill Evans. Below is the text of Bill Evans' resignation letter. It's a doozy, but I hope it inspires other public servants to be honest with the public. 

Thanks, Bill, for doing the right thing.

The District has suffered some unfortunate shortcomings of late in our human resources and financial oversight functions, involving potentially significant negative impact upon financial, management, and other resources. IRS reports and required fund deposits were not made in a timely manner, employee records have not been kept accurate, and payroll and benefits calculations have not been consistently accurate. The late IRS reports and deposits have resulted in potentially serious fines and penalties. The inaccuracy of personnel records has resulted in significant inconvenience and financial impact to individual employees. We have incurred significant consultant costs in attending to the problems we have discovered.

We have diligently and conscientiously attended to each negative issue as immediately as possible upon discovery. I am very impressed with the efforts of our current District Office staff and consultants in these efforts. We are moving forward with appropriate interventions and strategies to mitigate the negative effects of all of this, including aggressively appealing to the IRS for possible abatement of the fines and penalties.

Throughout my career as an educational leader I have tried to lead with integrity and an allegiance to an ethic of service. A cornerstone of that ethic of service is the conviction that I am ultimately responsible to the organization for its sustainability and continued growth. The buck does, indeed, stop with me. I am deeply sorry that these shortcomings have happened to the District on my watch and I accept responsibilities for them.

It is clear that the part-time model for the District Office that we have tried hard to implement, is not working as effectively as we have needed. We need to look at other options. We are currently aggressively exploring the idea of outsourcing appropriate elements of our financial requirements to experienced personnel and resources at one of the several ESD’s that have such technical services to provide. We are also looking at a different model of District leadership. In the face of ever-increasing demands of bureaucratic accountability and state and federal mandates, some serious decisions will need to be made about how to efficiently provide the management support this organization absolutely needs, while also striving to maximize resources to focus upon the academic side of the equation. It is clear that we must find the right service model for our District Office, to avoid future issues such as this.

To support full consideration of multiple options for a new model of leadership, and to provide flexibility to implement appropriate options, I have adjusted my long-term retirement plans and I am recommending to the Board that you accept my resignation from the District, as soon into SY 2014-15 as it takes to successfully hire and transition to a new Superintendent. It is the right thing to do for the District. By my stepping aside, the District will have an opportunity to seek new leadership, with a different skill set than I have to offer. We need a Superintendent whose skills include a high degree of financial savvy, to complement the outsourcing of financial services and provide the necessary oversight of that outsourcing. I pledge my full energies, for as many months as it takes into SY 2014-15, toward assisting in the transition and the restructuring and rebuilding of the District Office. It is my strong recommendation that we initiate posting for a new Superintendent/Finance Director position as soon as possible within the next few weeks.

I take responsibility for the current shortcomings and very much regret their happening on my watch. I believe my recommendations represent a positive action plan toward a preferred future. I recommend serious consideration of these recommendations and I hold great optimism for the opportunities afforded the District by these recommendations.

Thank you.
…....BILL

Buh Bye To Another Island Way Of Life

Editor's Note - the "Broken Dreams" series begun with the last post will be interspersed among other TH stories. Until the next one (probably in a couple of weeks), we now return to our regularly scheduled programming.

Below is a plea from a Lopezian to help save another endangered way of life under threat from a governmental agency's senseless desire for control and pointless regulation. It's just one more straw on the camel's back of rural character and independence.

Broken Dreams - First In A Series

As anyone who has watched County events over the past few years would know, our local government is in the business of crushing dreams, not making them come true. If you've watched with anger and disappointment as our elected Council heaps abusive laws on us, you might have come to the conclusion that we should just let the Department of Ecology appoint our Councilmen so we can at least save money on elections. It couldn't be any worse. The abusive laws allow the Friends of the San Juans to harass us. The process has become the punishment. Tonight we start the first of a series telling the stories of islanders.

The Lopez Islander Resort

“Friends” and Neighbors in the San Juans

The ability to run a small lodging business in San Juan County is at risk as long as the “Friends” (of the San Juans) are your neighbors. They may say that they support tourism and small business but that is disingenuous and here’s why.

The Lopez Islander Resort has been a landmark in Fisherman’s Bay for almost 70 years. It was first established in 1945 when Nan and Otto Perkins moved to Lopez Island after the war. On a cold stormy night a few years later the resort burned to the ground. Neighbors held a party at Woodman Hall where they donated enough money to help rebuild the restaurant and a few guest rooms. That was back in the days when “friends” meant something entirely different than it does today.

In the following years the resort went through a series of owners. Mr. Wally Trace purchased the property in 1992 as Lopez Islander Inc. and immediately applied for and received approval of a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit for further expansion of the resort and marina. At that time none of the neighbors opposed the project. However, the resort went bankrupt after completing their improvements. It’s not easy to run a business like this in San Juan County, even with community support.

In 1997 Diller Associates purchased the resort. The place was a bit run down and had been for sale for about 3 years. Bill Diller made it very clear from the beginning that he would be “sprucing up” the resort. He had been a frequent visitor to the islands and was excited about the possibility of owning a small business that served his community and employed more than 25 local islanders during tourist season.

After fixing up the resort and getting it back into business, the Dillers saw the potential to do more with their investment. In 2010, Diller Associates applied for a permit to expand the marina to accommodate an additional 50 moorage slips. They ran into some roadblocks because of a small patch of eelgrass. At this point they didn’t feel like fighting for the permit, but two years later they needed to grow their business.

There were campsites on the property for families on a budget and the owners saw the need to add a few more as well as several RV campsites. They wanted to tear down and replace some of the older cabins and add a new building with 7 guest rooms, which was allowed outright under the zoning code. They also applied for a shoreline permit to build a small structure for a kayak rental business. They didn’t expect a fight over this modest expansion but they got one from the “Friends” of the San Juans.

The “Friends” were called into action by a small group of neighbors who for whatever reason wanted the project stopped[1]. The neighbors solicited by email, “tax deductible contributions to the Friends of the San Juans ... that will be applied directly to fund Laura’s work.” [2] (Former Planning Director Laura Arnold).

The “Friends” stepped in with their team of litigators and organized against the Dillers, even though the project was perfectly legal under the County’s land use codes.[3] This is an example of the “Friends” tactic of turning neighbor against neighbor. All of the surrounding neighbors purchased property next to an existing resort. Why would they all of a sudden object to the resort?

The Friends hired Laura Arnold to help them fight the project. In an email message Ms. Arnold said,

“It appears to me that the County Code anticipates this type and intensity of use in this land-use district and would, I expect, find it difficult to deny the proposal . . .”[4]

The Dillers held a public meeting in August 2012 to listen and respond to the concerns of their neighbors. They made concessions and changed the site plan in an effort to mitigate concerns.

This did not deter this group of activists and attorneys from going ahead and appealing the permit and arguing before the Hearing Examiner. It was a “change of use” they declared and therefore subject to mitigation. The Dillers persevered, and the “Friends” succeeded in adding substantial costs to the small business.

This time the Diller’s were determined to fight their way through the process. After hiring engineers and consultants to do all types of studies demanded by the “Friends,” and hiring land use experts and attorneys, they had invested more than six figures to get a permit that without the intervention of the “Friends” would have been routinely approved.

While this battle was being fought the “Friends” published a county-wide mailer entitled, “Shorelines: Where We Live, Work, & Play.” In it they say,

"Protecting our shorelines is good for our economy and our environment. Our visitors contributed over $158.5 million to our local economy last year,” said Stephanie Buffum, Executive Director of “FRIENDS” of the San Juans.

If the “Friends” acknowledge the importance of tourism to our local economy then why did they take up a fight to cripple a small scale lodging business by challenging permits for a modest expansion? The local lodging industry is the basic driving force for low impact island tourism and contributes millions each year to the community through lodging taxes. It is a fact that small-scale island resorts benefit the local economy in many ways, not the least of which is attracting customers who spend money and support other island businesses. The evidence suggests that the “Friends” don’t really want people to “Live, Work, & Play” anywhere near the shoreline.

The ability to run a small business is at risk as long as the “Friends” are your neighbors. For a business investor, risking capital to hire attorneys and other professionals to face endless challenges by the “Friends” for a simple permit reduces potential profitability and discourages investment. Who is it that makes a community thrive? Is it people who invest in it and work hard or the people who organize neighbor against neighbor to restrict the very things that create economic vitality? Perhaps the “Friends” need to find the answer to that question before they focus their special interest litigation machine against other island neighbors.
____________________________________________________________
[1] Email from Mr. Rick Strachan, 5/20/13, “It may well be true that this application will be decided on strict issues enumerated in the application, but it seems that all our concerns stem from Mr. Diller himself, not from the proposal itself.” 
[2] Email 5/11/13 from Peter Cavanagh to neighbors. 
[3] A hotel/motel is allowed outright in the Village Commercial Zone.  Campgrounds (RV and tent camping) require a conditional use permit approval. This information is found in Table 3.1 of the Unified Development Code. 
[4] Email 5/11/13 from Peter Cavanagh to neighbors.

Election Overview

While there are some controversial races around the county this election season, there is nothing like what we've been through over the last year. The Trojan Heron had hoped to do some election postings, but unfortunately, time and events have overtaken us. Nevertheless, we'll give a brief rundown of the main election choices, with greater detail for those topics we know more about ... but we hope commenters will pitch in with their views to fill in the many gaps. Since we are locally focused blog, we'll focus on the local issues (i.e. not the two State measures, 517 and 522).

Let us know what you think ...

• Overview - Of the 36 elected positions to be filled, 24 (67%) are uncontested. We think having that many uncontested elections is an indicator of an unhealthy democracy. Is it really an election if there is no choice? Some of the uncontested elections involve very influential positions too, such as the "race" for the mayor of Friday Harbor. Also, it seems like politics is a family affair in San Juan County. Two spouses of current or former Council members are running ... Carrie Lacher for Friday Harbor Mayor and Lauren Stephens for Fisherman Bay Sewer District ... and Lacher's husband, former Councilman Howie Rosenfeld, is running for San Juan County Hospital District #1. In addition to the individual races, there is a ballot measure for Lopez to fund the Solid Waste District for the coming year. Also, there is a county-wide measure to amend the Charter. A "yes" vote on the Charter amendment would allow voters to petition for a change in our county's residency districts, rather than have that power rest solely with the Charter Review Commission. A "no" vote would leave things as is.

• San Juan Island - Of the 17 races, only 4 are contested ... one for the Port, one for the Hospital District, one for Parks and Recreation, and the Friday Harbor Council race between Farhad Ghatan and Matt Shildneck. Of the 4, the race for Hospital District has probably attracted the most attention.  That race pits former Councilman Howie Rosenfeld versus newcomer Mark Schwinge. By this stage of his political career, Rosenfeld is a well-known commodity, and without having analyzed any of the specific issues in this race, the Trojan Heron thinks it is a welcome sign that new blood, like Schwinge, is willing to run. However, we would love to hear readers' comments about this race.

• Orcas Island - Of the 11 races on Orcas, only 1 is contested. Unfortunately, this is an unwelcome Orcas pattern. Need I remind readers that Orcas also had the only uncontested Council race in recent memory when Patty Miller ran unopposed for Council a few years ago. Orcas voters are generally well informed and active, but when it comes to running for office ... many well-qualified Orcasites prefer to sit on the sidelines.

• Lopez Island - As delightful as it is to make fun of Lopez, of the 8 Lopez races, 6 are contested. If only the rest of our county could have as many well-qualified candidates running as Lopez does, our democracy would be in much better shape.
  
  Most of the contested Lopez races are for the School Board. The slate of School Board incumbents supported a lavish multimillion-dollar school bond measure that got crushed at the polls during the last election (how many times does that happen?). They are being challenged by newcomers emphasizing fiscal responsibility and performance rather than profligate spending. The incumbents include a Friends director (Dixie Budke) and others with ties to the Lopez Community Land Trust (Clive Prout and John Helding). The challengers mostly have strong financial and business experience ... and one of the challengers, Teddy McCullough, has a unique perspective as a recent Lopez High graduate. Teddy is currently in college in Washington DC and, if elected, intends to juggle his college and School Board responsibilities by attending School Board meetings telephonically.
  
  There is much passion on Lopez about the future direction of the school, and speaking of passion, that brings us to the Lopez Port District race. Incumbent Dan Post is being challenged by former incumbent Bob Porter. There has been a lot of smoke blown about this race, unfairly aimed at Dan Post. Post is an effective voice for transparency at the Port, and Post has been the subject of special-interest scorn over the years because he believes the Port should serve the broader Lopez community rather than simply serve pilots. The other two Port Commissioners, Bruce Dunlop and (County Planning Commissioner) Steven Adams, simply want Post eliminated, and Bob Porter is their candidate. That's a problem because watching Dunlop and Adams manage the Lopez Port is akin to watching Lucy and Ethel wrap candy ... they're in over their heads and unable to keep up ... but some of Dunlop/Adams' antics have even warranted more serious scrutiny. Earlier this year, according to sources, the FAA Inspector General and the FBI opened an investigation looking into some of the Port's affairs.
  
  One of the best summaries of the Lopez Port race is a comment left by Nick and Sara Jones on Lopez/Salish Rocks, which is copied below.  Many of the points raised by Nick and Sara could just as easily apply to any of our county races.

We have been following with some interest the race between Dan Post and Bob Porter for Port. It seems that the complaint about Dan, the argument for replacing him, is that he is not a "team player." This is an interesting line of attack, to say the least. It implies that the best candidate for any given position is the one who is going to get along with the others best. Kind of like seeking out a beta personality puppy if you already have a couple of dogs in a family.

A port commissioner is a public official spending public money. It is a position requiring as high a level of probity and integrity as any other elected position. A get-along go-along attitude is the worst qualification we can think of for any position of public trust. Conversely, the willingness and fortitude to consistently ask hard questions and challenge received wisdom is the highest of recommendations for such a position. Over twenty plus years on the Port of Lopez Dan Post has demonstrated a heroic willingness to ask the hard questions, over and over again. He has done so in the face of scorn, mockery, and endless personal attacks.

Dan Post has also been the only Port Commissioner to consistently push to expand the mission of the port to serve the wider community. He spearheaded the effort to have the Port take over the dump, at a time when the received wisdom was that turning our facility over to San Juan Sanitation was the only viable outcome. The Port effort did not come to fruition, but it led directly to the takeover of the dump by the Lopez Solid Waste Disposal District, on which board Dan tirelessly serves. Dan pushed to improve and lease port owned lands for agriculture--providing economic opportunity and local foods, and he continues to advocate for the Port to take on the much needed project of commercial water-front access on the island.

Dan Post is a small-town hero, a tireless doer and a man of deep integrity. Please join us in supporting him for another richly deserved term as Port of Lopez Commissioner.

Quick Hits - A Heron Catchup

Despite the lack of posts, there has been a lot going on:

• The Friends have been busy. Together with Futurewise, they held three grant-funded messaging sessions disguised as "Shoreline Science Forums" (Lopez - May 10, San Juan - May 17, and Orcas - June 4). Also, they have been busy opposing shoreline stabilization projects on San Juan Island, objecting to projects by the Woodmans (project approved), Laufers (awaiting decision), and Dickinsons (awaiting decision).  In addition, the Friends continue to crank away on their CAO appeal to the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB). One of the interesting claims made by the Friends in their GMHB filings is the notion that tourists to the San Juans have "investment-backed expectations" regarding their experiences here (i.e., tourists don't want to see no stinkin' houses). The Friends' relationship with tourism is a flip-floppy one. They back the Scenic Byway and like to use the supposed interests of tourists to justify anti-resident initiatives like the CAOs. However, the Friends are simultaneously opposing expansion of camping sites and RV hookups at the Lopez Islander Resort. On June 7, they held an informational meeting on Lopez with opponents of the proposed Islander expansion. I wonder if the residents who oppose the Islander expansion have any idea that the Friends would probably like to get rid of them even more.

• Susan Dehlendorf resigned from the Planning Commission. In her resignation letter (posted below), she said "I feel strongly that those individuals who are willing to work in government service deserve our gratitude and respect. I deplore the fact that public servants are subject to denigration and attacks as they do their professional work." And despite those expressed sentiments, in the very same letter Dehlendorf denigrated some of her fellow Commissioners (who are all volunteer public servants) by characterizing them as partisan representatives of special interests.

• In an interesting development, the former President of Mexico, Vicente Fox, visited the San Juans along with investors (Jamen Shively) who seek to capitalize on the legalization of marijuana in this state by developing national marijuana brands. The leadership group for this effort held a symposium last weekend on San Juan Island on the topic of marijuana and cancer. Some residents here are beginning to ask whether the San Juans should somehow get in on the ground-floor of what many are calling the "Starbucks of Pot."

• Lastly, the San Juan Journal has started a blog. We wish them the best of luck, and if you happen to stop by to read their blog, be sure to come back here and let us know what you think. Leave a comment.

Click to enlarge. Right click to download

The Wait Is Over

The election results are in.

• Jarman 3,372 votes (50.52%) to Pratt 3,302 votes (49.58%)
• Hughes 3,440 votes (51.1%) to Byers 3,292 votes (48.9%)
• Stephens 3,640 votes (57.08%) to McClerren 2,737 votes (42.92%)

San Juan County is no stranger to recounts. If there is a recount, then the challenging party must pay $0.25 per ballot (depending on the closeness of the outcome). According to the election website, there are approximately 60 votes left to tally.

The Lopez School Bond measure, which needed 60% to pass, lost badly.

• Approved - 619 votes (42.19%)
• Rejected - 848 votes (57.81%)

And for some strange reason, Sharon Kivisto felt the urge to predict the outcome of the election just hours before the official results were in. Kivisto predicted that Pratt would defeat Jarman.

Kivisto reprised the Chicago Daily Tribune (Dewey Defeats Truman)  by predicting a win for Pratt just hours before the official results were announced.

Odlin Park Tree-asco

No trees were cut down today. Depending on who you believe, either the County decided to delay the cutting of trees for a couple of days in order to understand the concerns of Lopezians or the contractor who was scheduled to cut the trees told the County that he was taking today and tomorrow off because even he has reservations about cutting the trees, especially given all the public attention.

The situation is still murky, but early this morning, we learned that "the flagging on the trees marks them for inspection and removing dead/failing limbs by the contracted forester/arborist." Right now, it looks like two trees (the large Doug Fir in the photo in the previous post) and a White Fir will be shortened to 60 feet and left as snags for "habitat." Both have rot, but of course, many old growth trees have rot and stand for hundreds of years, but now these trees are hazardous to people because of the placement of the campsite.

In place of the tree(s), we are told "As a part of this project we plan to develop interpretive displays about this forest for visitors" and "If the top of the Douglas fir is in good condition once it’s down we plan to work with a local saw miller to mill and build picnic tables and other lumber for park projects."

There was a comment left on the last blogpost that appears to be speaking with authority when it says:

Work on the group campsites at Odlin is complete. The ribbons on the trees were placed by an arborist hired to check the condition of the trees and remove dead, hanging limbs. There are no plans to cut down any of the marked trees, or any of the other trees in the area. At the arborist's recommendation, one diseased, near-dead tree will be shortened to create a habitat snag, and one Douglas Fir will be shortened below severe rot damage caused by an infestation of borers. The arborist said that the tree should then survive. He said the diseased portion of the fir is threatening to fall on its own and could strike a frequently used portion of the park.

We don't know who left the comment, but it seems to correlate broadly with information from multiple sources. Right now, that's all we know.

As longtime Trojan Heron readers understand, we've been critical of the Odlin Park redesign for months for its cost and poor stakeholder involvement. The whole thing seems surreal, especially considering Lopezians are clamoring for money for their decaying shambles of a school, while they have a "new" $1 million park that no one asked for.

We first posted about Odlin in June 2012. We posted about it again in July 2012 when we showed a clip of the Council contending with a request for a budget increase from Dona Wuthnow (bringing the total Odlin project cost to just shy of $1 million). Of the 300 or so postings on this blog, that post is our most-viewed ever, and many of our readers feel the video associated with that post exemplifies everything that was wrong with the previous Council (and maybe still wrong with local government).

Spend spend spend on questionable priorities, and laugh it off. Don't worry about the cost of new regulations, just press ahead. As we said when we first put up the post originally, it shows what a circus we have become.

Odlin Park Old Growth

As part of the Odlin Park redesign, the County has been removing trees (see photo below). Remember, this is the redesign of the park on Lopez that was originally budgeted for $445,000 which has grown (last we knew) to $992,350.

The motivation to spend $1 million on Odlin Park has always been a bit of a mystery, but it is especially mysterious why we are cutting down trees to put in more campsites. Moreover, concern arose today that the County is going to be cutting down old growth trees tomorrow. We don't know if that's true, but here's what we do know.

Over a dozen old growth trees have been tagged with ribbons at the site (see more photos below). We are not certain whether these are "do not cut" markers or "cut" markers. However, even if they are "do not cut" markers, reports are that at least two old growth trees will be logged tomorrow anyway. The trees in question are about 4.5 feet in diameter (and 14 feet in circumference). They're big ... probably 500 years old by some estimates ... and from at least one stump in the area, it looks like one old growth tree has already been taken down. Admittedly, the removed tree had rot on the interior, but we wouldn't be surprised if all the old growth in this area had some interior rot.

So why are we building more campsites? Why are we building campsites among old growth trees? Why are we building campsites next to trees that have rot and may be a hazard? Why the heck are we doing any of this? If one old growth tree has to come down because of rot, mightn't they all have to come down ... at least eventually ... especially if they're next to a bunch of campers? It seems like every time the County takes down trees, the result is less desirable than if they had just left things alone ... like the resulting odious Eastsound mosquito factory ... or the pathetic wetland mitigation along Fisherman Bay Road resulting from the $2+ million road improvement a couple of years ago.

As mentioned, reports are that at least some of the Odlin old growth trees are scheduled to come down tomorrow (Monday, March 25), and at least one Lopezian was concerned enough to even put up his own sign on one of the vulnerable trees. If you are concerned about this, write your Council person. If you are concerned about this, write to Dona Wuthnow who is the project manager for the Odlin redesign. If you are concerned about this, show up at the park early tomorrow morning. If you are concerned about it, do something ... now!

Word is that the County is eager to get this project completed so they can get paying campers into the new campsites as soon as possible. The County wants revenue (as usual). They want the new campsites ready for this season. We think the County's got its priorities wrong. The County needs to involve Lopezians regarding the decisions about the trees, the park, and about the wisdom of putting more campsites in the selected location in the first place.

Déjà Vu All Over Again

This post will touch on a couple of déjà vu items. To start off, the first day of candidate registrations ended Wednesday, and we've got some familiar faces running for office again. CAO aficionados Lovel Pratt and Jamie Stephens are hoping that county-wide voters will overlook their budget-busting, CAO-approving ways and return them to office. If you like grant-fixated, never-big-enough, Olympia-oriented, DC-pandering, partisan-box-checking, community-ignoring, noblesse-oblige, we-know-what's-good-for-you government, you'll love the records, positions, and supporters of those candidates. The only person missing from Pratt's society-pages campaign committee seems to be Lady Bracknell. For a list of all the candidates who have registered so far, you can find it here.

The second déjà vu item has to do with a couple of U.S. Supreme Court cases that may have great relevance to the implementation of our freshly minted CAOs. Each case is being brought before SCOTUS by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF). PLF has a great record before the Supreme Court (6 won out of 7 argued), most recently winning a wetland case for the Sacketts of Priest Lake, Idaho.

These SCOTUS cases are déjà vu items because, in both cases, the narratives of know-it-all government overreach have become all-too-familiar. One case is Koontz vs. St. Johns River Water Management District. In that case, the Water Management District conditioned a development permit for Koontz that would have required him to place a conservation easement over his land and perform mitigation off-site by restoring properties not owned by Koontz and miles away from his property. When Koontz refused the permit conditions, the Water District denied his development permit. Oral arguments for this extraction case are scheduled for January 15, 2013.

The other SCOTUS case is potentially even more relevant to our CAOs, and it attempts to do for Corps of Engineers' jurisdictional determinations what the Sackett case did for EPA administrative rulings. Translation: can the government declare any piece of property "waters of the United States" (i.e., a wetland or stream) simply because they say so, without offering any proof that there is relatively permanent water on the property? 

Peter and Francois Smith live in the high desert of New Mexico without any surface water on their property. Nevertheless, they were ordered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to stop cleaning up their land because they were dredging and filling "waters of the United States" and impacting the Rio Grande River, which lies 25 miles away. Although the Smiths live in the desert, the logic used by the regulatory agencies in that case is nearly identical to arguments we have heard in San Juan County (and surrounding counties too such as Island and Whatcom County).

For more on the Smith case, watch the following video or read the linked article.