Pure Imagination: Snowflakes Or Jigsaw Puzzles

In this series, we've talked about the overall environmental-ish illusion ... the illusion of perpetually bad environmental news, the illusion of the purity of tribal motivations, and the illusion of the Friends as a benevolent public-interest organization. Now, we want to talk about the illusion of freedom and individuality.

Are you a snowflake or a jigsaw puzzle piece? It's a strange question, but there is a point. Both snowflakes and jigsaw puzzle pieces are unique. But the individuality of a snowflake is derived from its unplanned development whereas the individuality of a jigsaw puzzle piece is imposed upon it by a larger order.

In actuality, this is a very fundamental question about your views of liberty. Should we allow ourselves to be transformed by our leaders ... shaped into more ordered, rational beings for the benefit of society ... and let our institutional bureaucracies create an authoritarian system that we fit into? Believing that people should "fit" into a free society designed by higher-ups leads to a terrible logic -- that we The People do not realize what true freedom is, and we have to be coerced into doing what is good for us.

Read the article below from the Plumas County News in California. It's a familiar story. Everywhere, municipal planners are coercing us into being jigsaw puzzle pieces for some bigger plan. I find one quotation particularly striking,

Senior Planner Becky Herrin, who represented the planning department at the meeting, thanked everyone for attending, but added that she wished they had been “here for the last seven years.”

In other words, the default position of the Plumas County Planning Department is that, unless the public is watching like a hawk, planners will work to impose a restrictive outside order on the community ... in the name of the community.
_____________________________________________________________

  Fearing that Plumas County’s new general plan could lead to a loss of private property rights, a group of concerned citizens wants to trash the document and begin again.

  With the Plumas County supervisors just weeks away from approving the updated general plan, the Indian Valley Citizens for Private Property Rights appeared before the Planning Commission on Jan. 17 and laid out their arguments.

  About 60 people packed the small conference room at the planning department with most standing, and some spilling into the hallway.

  Their spokeswoman, Carol Viscarra, gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining the group’s concerns and highlighting why the new general plan is Agenda 21 in disguise.

  Agenda 21 is a 300-page document adopted in 1992 at United Nations Conference on Environment and Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The document is designed to be a blueprint of how jurisdictions worldwide should move toward sustainable economic growth that simultaneously protects and renews environmental resources.

  Explaining that she was not a political activist, but rather an emergency room nurse and third-generation rancher, Viscarra was nervous. But “I believe it’s my civic duty” to come forward, she said.

  After several months of page-by-page review, she said it’s her conclusion that the general plan “seems to mirror almost verbatim Agenda 21.”

  There has been a growing theory that Agenda 21 is a conspiracy to take away individual property rights and move people off the land to urban centers.

  During her presentation, Viscarra presented a map that showed vast expanses of California as off-limits to the public, wide swaths that were treated as buffer zones to be heavily regulated, with only zones around San Francisco, Los Angeles and Fresno that remained unrestricted. “Eighty-six percent of the land will be set aside as wildlife corridors,” Viscarra said.

  Because 71 percent of Plumas County’s land mass is already in the public domain, Viscarra said Plumas County is an ideal locale for Agenda 21 to take root. “Be informed. Be courageous. Read about Agenda 21 and study it for yourselves,” Viscarra told those gathered. “The stealth of this organization is upon us in Plumas County.”

  She said that the local planning commission members and supervisors “emphatically deny” any relationship with Agenda 21, and she believes them. She attributes the inclusion of Agenda 21 language in the general plan to the consultants that help jurisdictions write planning documents and organizations that provide grants.

  She said the words “Agenda 21” never appear in such documents, but words such as “sustainability,” “open space,” “mixed-use housing” and “sustainable development,” which she describes as the “most egregious,” are all indicators of its influence.

  “They will never, ever call it Agenda 21,” she said.

  Viscarra said that the process began in Plumas County back in 2002 as local leaders embarked upon Vision 2020, with the aid of outside grants. There were meetings and scoping sessions and language terms such as sustained growth and development became more common.

  She said that in the county’s general plan update, the words “open space” are used 121 times, “sustainable” 77 times and “the county shall” is used 430 times. She said that the general plan also has “a lot of references to climate change” another popular theme in Agenda 21.

  Viscarra said that timber regulations, which restrict forestry practices in the county, are a good example of how Agenda 21 is already being implemented without people being aware.

  Addressing the ranchers in the room, she said, “If you’re not worried, it’s because you’re not paying attention.”

  She added, “I looked at the general plan through the prism of a rancher, but this should be a concern to all businesses.”

  Applause greeted the conclusion of her presentation.

  B.J. Pearson, a former county supervisor and developer in the eastern portion of the county, said, “This is one of the best presentations I have ever seen,” and suggested that she should make the presentation in each district.

  Sheriff Greg Hagwood agreed and described the presentation as “one of the most succinct and accurate” that he had seen.

  “I thought I would spend the bulk of my time protecting people against burglars,” Hagwood said. Instead, he said he found himself protecting people “from their own government. I encourage the Board of Supervisors to put strong language in the general plan regarding private property rights.”

  Many in the audience echoed Viscarra’s concerns about private property rights and the new general plan.

  “My understanding is that this plan doesn’t need to be approved until 2015,” Sheila Groethe said. “I ask you to trash this and write a new general plan appropriate to Plumas County.”

  As some of the comments began to degenerate and one man said implementing Agenda 21 to was tantamount to treason, County Counsel Craig Settlemire, who had attended the meeting, stepped in.

  “Everyone here is working to uphold our oaths and the Constitution,” he said.

  Senior Planner Becky Herrin, who represented the planning department at the meeting, thanked everyone for attending, but added that she wished they had been “here for the last seven years.”

  The planning department had held multiple meetings throughout the process including meetings in each community. She said that when the meeting was held in Indian Valley no members of the public attended.

  Her department is now in the process of writing responses to all of the comments that have been submitted for the environmental document associated with the general plan. She said many accuse the general plan of going too far, while others believe that it isn’t restrictive enough. When the document is complete, a hearing will be scheduled before the Board of Supervisors.

  How this latest protest impacts the process is unclear. The deadline for filing comments has passed, but during the Jan. 17 meeting, Planning Commission Chairwoman Betsy Schramel invited those present to put their concerns in writing.

__________________________________________________________________________

Pure Imagination: Earth First to Me First

The Friends of the San Juans claim that they were formed in 1979 to defend the "county’s
first comprehensive land use plan." By the mid-1990s, one islander described them as "a curious bunch to watch in action, running from one meeting to the next, or sitting all day in hearings, or threatening lawsuits." Beth Helstein, the Friends President in those days, was quoted as saying, "One place where the taxpayers could stop growth would be by refusing to pay for new schools." In other words, we had warning signs long ago, and some islanders muttered even then that the Friends' motto should be "Sue thy neighbor," but most of us did not heed the warning signs.

Then, in 1999, Friends President Lynn Bahrych filed a petition to limit guesthouses, a cherished island tradition. That battle continued for the next 9 years, resulting in severe restrictions on guesthouses, and in the eyes of many, the loss of an important aspect of our rural character.

In 2001, the Friends hired Stephanie Buffum away from the Southwest Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). Along with her dog Kiva and her then-husband Kieran Suckling, Buffum moved to Shaw, Bahrych's home island. Buffum's husband was a co-founder of CBD, and coincidentally, a doppelganger for outgoing Friends Director Kevin Ranker. Buffum and Suckling's short marriage and 9-year relationship would soon end in divorce, with Suckling returning to the Southwest. But CBD's hardcore tactics would live on in the San Juans in the persona of Buffum ... an expansion of the CBD franchise.

When the CBD began in the late 80s, they were political outsiders complaining about subsidies to ranchers and other "abusers" of public lands who harmed the environment. In a 1998 interview, Suckling said:

Our government and its corporate sponsors have created a system of subsidies that has to be abolished. They turned the lands into a commodity. We have to get public land users off this welfare system. It is not a simple thing to break those chains.

One of the other co-founders of CBD, Todd Schulke, had been an Earth First activist and many CBD'ers drew inspiration from the unconstrained environmental advocacy of Earth First. While Earth First in the 1980s defined itself through direct action like monkey wrenching, CBD began to explore legal monkey wrenching ... relying on legal tactics, particularly litigation, and direct confrontation of bureaucracy. Fundamentally, the CBD strategy was an outsider strategy that did not depend on appealing to politicians or avoiding controversy. They were not interested in influence or being liked. They were interested in winning.

Somewhere along the way, however, the outsiders became the ultimate insiders, especially here in the San Juans. Nearly every Friends annual report since Buffum's arrival heralds the winning of more and more grants. Grant funding for the Friends soared from less than $200K per year before Buffum arrived to an annual high of nearly $450K in 2010. Friends members sit on multiple County committees and as advisors to the Conservation District. Ex-Friends Director Ranker is a suit-wearing State Senator and an ex-Councilman. The Friends have even attempted to silence opponents using accusations of being "uncivil" ... an odd turn of decorum for a CBD franchise. Suckling said as late as 2011 that “Psychological warfare is a very under-appreciated aspect of environmental campaigns.” Showmanship is too, and like the CBD, no Friends program was ever hindered by a lack of science.

With that appetite for litigation, how good are these radicals in their environmental assaults? Suckling claims his “unparalleled record of legal successes” is a cool 93 percent. With that success he doesn’t need solid science, and his own words reflect that. The Arizonan columnist Hugh Holub once asked Suckling if CBD activities suffer from the absence of a science-based approach in its litigious demands for endangered-species listings. “No,” Suckling responded. “Kids with science degrees are hindered by [taught] resource management values.” He added that he preferred philosophers, linguists, and poets who tended to be in front of the curve and were not handicapped by unproductive, traditional thinking.
-- Range Magazine, Fall 2013

With the arrival of Buffum to the San Juans 12 years ago, the CBD franchise expanded to the Pacific Northwest. It was a natural fit for a Friends organization that had been a kind of prototype of the CBD anyway. The Friends, in turn, helped infect other locales. For example, the Friends' first staff attorney, Amy Trainer, has moved on to northern California and is using CBD tactics to shut down the Drakes Bay Oyster Company.

The Friends heritage and personnel are inextricably linked with that of the CBD, but the Friends' end game has changed from saving the environment to saving the environmental bureaucracies that hand out the big environmental-ish grant bucks to insiders ... and directing the insider game to their own economic self-interests at the expense of the rest of society.  How might the Suckling of 1998 put it?

Our government has created a system of environmental-ish grant subsidies that has to be abolished. They have turned environmental causes into a commodity. We have to get environmental-ish groups off this welfare system. It is not simple to break those chains.

My ... how environmental-ish times have changed! Earth First has become Me First.

Two Friends in a pod? -- Ranker and Suckling, Suckling and Ranker ... both are named Kevin ("Kieran" is the Irish word for "Kevin")

Stephanie Buffum and mentor Lynn Bahrych at a Friends "All Species" Ball (circa 2009)

Pure Imagination: Tulalip Burial Grounds

Dana Kinsey of Orcas Island, and formerly of the Conservation District, recently wrote an open letter to Councilmen Jarman and Hughes about her concerns regarding our Local Integrating Organization (LIO). In her letter, Kinsey alleges that Linda Lyshall has been shifting LIO funding to the Conservation Distict for her own benefit. Kinsey wrote:

It appears that [Lyshall] is determining projects, grantees and funding now. I thought she was originally hired by San Juan County to coordinate the LIO part time as a county employee. Now suddenly, in this new proposal all the work and money go to the Conservation District. Is it because [Lyshall] took a job there in May?

We agree with Kinsey that the Council should start asking the LIO a lot more questions ... everyone should. Even in a world where miscreant government is the norm, the LIO sticks out for being a freakish Franken-bureaucracy beyond compare.

The Trojan Heron will do an entire series of posts about the LIO in the near future, but for the moment, we want to provide some background about one of its governing members ... the Tulalip Tribes. 

First, we need to explain how the Tulalips fit into the LIO. The LIO is "governed" by an Accountability Oversight Committee (AOC) comprised of our County government together with three local tribes ... the Tulalip Tribes, the Lummi Nation, and the Swinomish Tribe. The LIO manages our local ecosystem, using the Puget Sound Partnership's Action Agenda for San Juan County as a plan.  That's right ... our local ecosystem is not managed by our elected County Council. Instead it is managed according to a blueprint (the Action Agenda) formulated by a State bureaucracy (the PSP) and then implemented by an intergovernmental panel consisting of 1 collective vote for 3 local tribes and 1 vote for our elected County government.

So what are our LIO tribal partners like? Here are some facts about the Tulalips.

As anyone who has driven down I-5 knows, the Tulalip Tribes have a reservation in Snohomish County. The 22,000-acre reservation is home to about 2,500 tribal members (another 1,500 live off the reservation) and about 8,000 non-tribal members. That gives the reservation a population density exceeding 3 times that of San Juan County. 

According to DSHS, tribal members are entitled to a $2,000 quarterly stipend, with a December bonus of $3,500. In 2012, tribal members received $11,500. The elderly and disabled receive payments of $1,000 per month. Tuition assistance is available for Tulalip tribal members attending college. Tribal members also receive an employment preference for jobs on the reservation.

Who gets to be a Tulalip tribal member? That is a very interesting question. These days, to become a Tulalip tribal member, a child has to be born to a tribal member who has lived on the reservation for at least 12 months prior to the child's birth. That means that a full-blood Tulalip born in Boston, New York City, or Portland is not a member of the tribe and can never be a member of the tribe. On the other hand, even a mostly non-Tulalip child born on the reservation to a tribal member is automatically a tribal member. These strange tribal membership rules are described by a Tulalip tribal member and blogger in the following way:

As a 20 year old Tulalip female, it disturbs me to know that there is no blood quantum to become a Tulalip tribal member. “The applicant must be a child born to any Member of the tribe, which Member is a Resident as defined herein.” [Sec.3.0] Since this is all you have to do to become a tribal member, the tribe ends up having a lot of non-native members. 

The rules provide a loop hole that permits whites and other non-natives to enroll. My cousin is a perfect example. He is less than one-eighth and is still an enrolled tribal member. His child is less than one-sixteenth because he is having a baby with a white woman. His child will surely be enrolled because he lives on the Tulalip Reservation and is a tribal member of the Tulalip tribes. The resident rule excludes some Native Americans from enrollment. 

For example, my younger sister didn’t have acceptable mail with her name and address on it. She needed it to prove residency which caused problems in enrolling her children. My sister is currently living on the Tulalip reservation with her children where they have been living since they were born. The rules also cause problems for Tulalip tribal members who move off of the reservation.

Other tribes tease the Tulalip tribes because many of our members are white. They call us white Tulalip because the large amount of white tribal members. A Native American tribe is supposed to be made up of Native American people not white or black people. If non-natives are allowed to be enrolled, they take money from the Native Americans.

In other words, Tulalip tribal membership isn't the same as Tulalip heritage anymore, and the Tulalips are not the only tribe to view tribal membership in this way. In fact, a congressional study predicts that nationwide only 3% of "Indians" will be full blooded by 2080.

The Tulalips have been very successful economically. The reservation operates Quil Ceda Village (a 100-store mall), Quil Ceda Creek Casino, Tulalip Resort Casino, Tulalip Liquor Store and Smoke Shop, Tulalip Broadband, a fish hatchery, and a closed hazardous waste landfill that used to be a Superfund site ... more on that in a moment.

Tulalip operations earn hundreds of millions in revenue each year (estimated to be more than $200 million back in 2005). Only a very small proportion of tribal revenue is generated from fishing these days. Reportedly, 30 tribal members are licensed to fish, which is down from about 130 tribal members in the mid-1980s.

Getting back to the Tulalip Superfund Site, the EPA says the following:

Tulalip Landfill is a 147-acre site located on North Ebey Island, within the boundaries of the Tulalip Indian Reservation near Marysville, Washington. The landfill is surrounded by Ebey Slough to the north and Steamboat Slough to the south. Surface water from these sloughs flows into northern Puget Sound, a federally designated national estuary that is a recognized habitat for shellfish and some endangered species, including salmon. The Tulalip Tribe leased land to the Seattle Disposal Company from 1964 to 1979. During that time, an estimated four million tons of commercial, industrial, and hospital waste were deposited in the landfill. In 1979, the landfill was closed. An estimated 7,800 people obtain their drinking water from private and municipal wells that are within four miles of the site. The nearest drinking water source is within one mile of the site.

The site underwent cleanup about 15 years ago, and in April 2013, the EPA completed it's third 5-Year Review of the remedy. The remedy consists of an engineered 7-layer containment system to better isolate the waste and contamination, groundwater monitoring for at least 30 years, and institutional controls (e.g., land use restrictions and administrative controls such as warning signs).

Prior to landfilling activities, the land on which the landfill is located consisted of relatively undisturbed intertidal wetlands. After landfilling operations ceased, contaminated leachate was seeping out into the nearby wetlands causing concerns for human health and the environment, so the site was added to the National Priorities List (NPL) in April 1995. In an editorial from that year, Greg Wingard, President Waste Action Project Seattle, wrote the following:

EPA investigation of the site showed hazardous and bio-hazard waste was disposed of there. Leachate from the landfill was determined to be toxic and a danger to salmon in the nearby Quilceda Creek.  When EPA sent a team of divers in to investigate the landfill's impact on Puget Sound, they found body parts, bloody bandages and other medical waste.

Most of the divers contracted armpit and groin infections as a result of their exposure. Tests run on bacteria samples by EPA showed most of the samples were highly resistant to the 13 antibiotics tested. Some of the samples were 100 percent resistant to everything used against them. This information is contained in the EPA Region X file on the landfill.

From looking at the documentation and the data, I have to say that I truly believe the Tulalip landfill has an effective remedy in place now. In its current remediated state, I believe that the risks to human health and the environment have been mitigated. But if the remediated Tulalip landfill of horrors can safety exist directly adjacent to the shore of Puget Sound, so can an average home in the San Juans.

The Tulalips have a role in managing our ecosystem via the LIO. Tribal employees (e.g., Kit Rawson) have been long-term tribal representatives to our Marine Resources Committee. Tulalips have "usual and accustomed" fishing rights in our waters. When you encounter Tulalip environmental-ish policies and statements regarding salmon ... or regarding climate change and sea level rise ... or even their heritage ... take note that fishing is just one more line of business for the tribe and its tribal members ... take note that the Tulalip reservation has a delisted Superfund site sitting in wetlands barely above high tide on Puget Sound ... take note of who gets to be a Tulalip tribal member and who doesn't ... take note that the tribe is an economic and development powerhouse.

I believe Tulalip tribal government officials have been very effective advocates for the economic and cultural interests of their tribal members ... and we should expect our County Council to be no less effective at advocating for us.

An oblique aerial photo of the remediated Tulalip Superfund Landfill on North Ebey Island on the Tulalip Reservation.  Where is the buffer?