|
A
River Runs Through It
The Mashell River, September 21, the last day of summer, 2002.
It hasn’t changed to date. The river is home
to wildlife and a primary source of water for the Town of Eatonville. The
Mashell has been very low for a long period. Endangered species of salmon,
Coho and Chinook, were once so abundant in these waters, lifelong local
resident Jackie Parnell has childhood memories of the spawning fish being so
densely packed, she could have walked on them to get across the river. Today
we are lucky to see one.
Steelhead and
cutthroat trout swim in the still relatively pure waters of our river.
The river, seemingly placid, teems with life. From creatures so small they
are invisible, to dragonfly larvae, to huge, returning salmon. Nesting in
the trees along the shoreline are many kinds of birds. Wood ducks and
mergansers are tree-nesting ducks choosing to rest along shorelines.
Eagles, great blue herons,
hawks, kingfishers and other species of birds depend on rivers like the
Mashell. One unique bird, the dipper, spends most of its time walking along
the riverbed, underwater, looking for food.
Melting snowpack from Mount
Rainier, rain, smaller creeks and springs feed the river, which empties
into the Nisqually River, which in turn empties into Puget Sound.
(photo by Bob Walter, taken near the Kids' Pond in
Eatonville)
~~~
What’s Going On?
by Dixie
A. Walter, October 6, 2002
It seems like everywhere I go people
ask, “What’s going on?” My
answer is, “Where do I start? There’s so much happening in our
little town.” Therefore I
begin with the most important issue facing our community: Clean water.
Who would have thought the subject of
clean water would lead Pat Van Eaton to file two appeals, Commissioner Bobbi
Allison to be invited to leave a planning commission public hearing, and the
town to call a special meeting, about the “appearance of fairness?”
All this, and more, is “What’s going on.” Read on; I will try
to unravel the tangled web surrounding the subject of clean water for you.
But
first we must appreciate our water. Let’s face it, other problems pale in
significance. Without water, what would we do? Just one word, “toilet,”
helps bring the importance of water into focus. Think about it.
We depend on the stuff all the time. Just looking around inside
my home I see an aquarium, two fish bowls, numerous plants, three
toilets, two showers, six sinks with faucets, water bowls for pets, and
finches taking a bath. I must
admit I’m as guilty as the next person because I’ve taken clean water
for granted far too long.
During the early 1960s the late Joe Larin
wrote about protecting the purity of our Mashell River, one of our primary
water sources, in his column for the local newspaper. That piece, about a
boy seen urinating in the river, stuck with me. I won’t even go in a
public swimming pool because people urinate in the water. So the thought of
drinking urinated (Is that a word?) water appalled me.
For decades most of us have been complacent about having clean
water at our beck and call. Turn on the faucet and there it is, reliable as
the rising sun. We just didn’t think twice about the cleanliness of the
river water, probably not even once.
Those days are gone. The Westward Movement continues and more people
keep coming our way. Now we must think more than twice. If we don’t, we
can kiss naturally clean water good-bye. And we can kiss our money good-by
also, as we will be paying for a water treatment plant. *According to members of the town council, neither
Tacoma nor Seattle have water treatment plants. If big cities don’t need
them, why should a little town like Eatonville?
Today the Mashell is threatened, more often than not, by development.
If building near the river isn’t
done strictly by laws meant to protect our water source, we are going to
have an enormous, expensive problem. The laws pertaining to shielding rivers
and wetlands are about a mile high. It’s tedious work to learn and follow
all of them. It’s also more costly to do it that way.
However, they must be followed. We drink that water. We put it in our
bodies and the bodies of our children and grandchildren many times a day. We
give it to our pets and farm animals.
Water R Us. I’m astonished we can even stand upright and
walk because we are basically fluid, about ninety-seven percent water. I
don’t like to imagine what our bodies could contain if we lose our clean
water. We could be ninety-seven percent heavy metals, grease, pesticides,
fertilizers, oils, creosote, etc. from tainted water. It’s a creepy
visual, isn’t it.
Under-protection can be deadly. An Associated Press article in the
“News Tribune,” May 26, 2000 tells of five people dead and hundreds
sickened from drinking E. coli contaminated water in the small town of
Walkerton, Ontario. “Officials aren’t sure what caused the
contamination. They said recent flooding by heavy rains [stormwater] may
have contaminated the town water supply.”
Watershed? What the Heck Does That Mean?
“What’s a watershed?” I asked over and over because
until a few weeks ago I didn’t know. Then, once I learned, I started
asking people the same question and most of them didn’t know either. I
found many more men than women were familiar with the term. It sounds
complicated, but it’s not. Look out the window. Look around and you will
find the watershed is where you live.
We, in Eatonville, live in a watershed within a watershed. We live in
the 52-square-mile Mashell River Watershed, and we also live in the
Nisqually River Watershed, which is huge, exceeding 500 square miles. Did
you know there are 62 major watershed basins in our state? The Mashell
Watershed isn’t included on this list, as it’s not considered major.
However, it is major to our area.
Mother Nature sends
us naturally-treated, clean water from the source. We are privileged
because our source is still close to pristine. Thus, our river water
doesn’t travel very far before we use it. But as the river travels
downstream it can pick up all types of toxins which foul rivers, streams,
tributaries and threaten the health of our downstream neighbors and
wildlife.
With that in mind, we must protect our river and watershed to protect
ourselves. Plus, it’s the neighborly thing to do.
The First Appeal: August 19
Appeal: According to the “American Heritage Dictionary” the
word means, “1. An earnest request. 2. An application to some higher
authority as for corroboration.”
On July 22, 2002 developer Roland Litzenberger, Carriage House, Inc.,
sent a letter to Eatonville Public Works Director Jamieson Van Eaton
“formally requesting a conditional use permit to construct up to 100
storage units on the Roy Swanson property…off Center Street in
Eatonville.”
Those of you who have lived in the
area a long time will remember the site, at the beginning of the Alder
Cut-Off Road, where a former mayor, the late Duell Drane, had his welding
shop. There were no environmental laws in those days, so it’s hard to know
what kind of weird stuff oozed into the sand and gravel earth. Or whether
some of it is still there.
The property is close to the Mashell River. But apparently
falls just out of the magic 200-foot measurement used for shoreline
management. Makes you wonder if contamination or hazards already exist on
the property, what steps will be taken to remove them during this project.
At a public meeting Litzenberger made it clear he would only buy the
property if he received the permit.
The Town of Eatonville published a legal notice pertaining to the
Litzenberger project August 7. Raise your hands if you read legal notices. I
don’t see many hands out there.
Legal notices are too tiny and basically boring, making them
difficult, if not impossible, to read. Wonder why? Then when you do read
them it’s not fun. Legal notices are so full of numbers and acronyms it
drives you nuts. How do you make water dry? Easy, write a legal notice.
In part the notice says, “The lead agency for this proposal has
determined that the proposal would not have significant impacts on the
environment. Pursuant to RCW 43.21C.030.2.C, an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) is not required for this proposal. This decision was made
after review of a completed environmental checklist, and other information
on file with the Town of Eatonville. This information is available to the
public on request.” The lead agency is the town government.
It goes on to say “An appeal of this determination must be
filed no later than: August 21, 2002 (14 days from the date of publication)
at Public Works Department…”
Are you still with me? Take a break, get a cup of coffee, this is
going to be a long one. But you live here, it’s your water too, and the
information is critically important to all of us.
What and Who Are You Talking About?
Okay, here’s where it gets sort of strange, because there
are so many terms we don’t hear very often. Mitigated seems to be an
extremely popular word. My dictionary says it means, “To make or become
less harsh or severe; alleviate.” I guess that means to make things
easier. I will try to use it as little as possible.
People are talking about watersheds,
stormwater, ground water, surface water, stormwater critical aquifer
recharge areas, manuals, handbooks, codes etc. And for every term there
seems to be an acronym. Determination of Nonsignifance - DNS. State
Environmental Policy Act - SEPA. You get the picture. DNS means the project
is not significant to the area.
Then there are the double Van Eatons,
Pat and Jamieson. Pat is a grandson of Thomas Cobb Van Eaton and Jamieson is
a great-grandson of the town founder. They are about third cousins. Pat has lived in the area all of
his life and graduated from Eatonville High School. Jamieson moved here in
January 2002, having lived in other states. They met when Jamieson moved
down from Valdez, Alaska.
Pat Van Eaton appealed (Appeal A) the DNS
on the Litzenberger storage units August 19 because, “It [DNS] fails to
insure the protection of Eatonville’s watershed.”
Pat included many copies of state law to back his claim. The appeal also notes, “This is part of Eatonville’s watershed
and there is no way of controlling what types of material will be stored in
these units.” (In a memo dated September 13 Jamieson acknowledges, “The
statement is accurate.”)
Another issue: “Lack of Engineering. Needs a stormwater retention
system designed by a person with a verifiable experience in this area, along
with the data that proves it will hold a 100-year event.” Most people seem
to think a 100-year event means a flood. The key word is “event.” Too
much water pouring down from the heavens can be such an event.
I wonder who comes up with these magic numbers? They are used
all over the country. And I wonder if they have discussed the numbers with
Mother Nature. We are all aware how capricious and powerful nature can be.
How do we know a storm won’t drop tons of water on us twice in one year,
let alone 100 years?
Pat’s appeal addressed the fact that a
stormwater retention system should have at a minimum “an oil water
separator that will also trap heavy metals.” The first appeal also asks
for a written plan describing, “How the stormwater system will be
maintained and monitored with a condition that a PE [professional engineer
licensed by the state] certify to the Town of Eatonville every five years
that the stormwater system is being maintained, and functioning as designed
as long as these structures exist.”
Back to the legal notices. This one, dated September 4, tells
us the planning commission will “hold a public hearing requesting public
input…Monday, September 16 at 7 p.m…” on the Litzenberger project.
There is no mention of Pat’s appeal dated August 19.
Stay with me. It gets even more complicated, and I haven’t even
gotten to the part where Planning Commissioner Bobbi Allison is pretty much
forced to leave the public hearing.
Invitation to ex parte
Now we get to use words like ex
parte, recuse, appearance of
fairness and quasi-judicial. You know, words we use everyday. The spell
check on my computer doesn’t even believe ex parte is a real word. It
gives me ten other options. It’s not fond of recuse either. With this one
I get eight choices.
Both words can be used in one sentence
whether the computer likes it or not. Planning Commissioner Bobbi Allison
was pressed to recuse herself from the Litzenberg public hearing because it
“appeared” she had an ex parte communication with Pat Van Eaton.”
This is what happened September 16. Pat’s
wife, Edwinna, got the mail and found a response to the August 19 appeal.
This was in the form of a memo from Jamieson to the planning commission with
copies to Mayor Harold Parnell and Roland Litzenberger. Pat Van Eaton was
not listed among the recipients of the memo. This memo includes a SEPA
appeal flow chart and quotes various state laws concerning water purity and
the town’s responsibilities to provide clean water for all of us.
The evening of September 16, about 20
people, myself included, attended the planning commission meeting/public
hearing. Here’s where it gets a little dicey. Pat Van Eaton, along with
Edwinna, were in the audience. But they weren’t aware the appeal would be
heard at that time. As a consequence Pat didn’t have documentation with
him.
After the regular meeting closed and
the public hearing began, members of the commission turned into the board of
adjustment right before our very eyes, becoming a quasi-judicial body. Quasi
meaning somewhat or almost. In other words they became
“not quite” a court of law.
For over three hours they were the planning
commission/board of adjustment. But it was still the same people sitting
there. The planning commission has nine members: Richard Ames, Jim King,
Sharon Van Hoof, Mike Williams, Grins Pierce, Steve Lind (chairman), David
Babcock, Barbara Samora and Bobbi Allison.
Barbara Samora was absent, but
the other commissioners were at the table. When the public hearing began
Steve Lind, as is required, asked if anyone needed to recuse themselves and
to state the reason why. And what does recuse mean you ask? Basically to
step aside and not be involved in the proceedings, usually because of a
direct connection to the “case” being heard.
Planning Commissioners Grins Pierce
and Richard Ames recused themselves immediately. Grins because, “I am
related to Mr. Litzenberger…” He’s Roland Litzenberger’s
father-in-law. Richard because, “…I have business dealings with him [Litzenberger].
I know some people have had problems with that. I don’t want to cause any
problems with this.” He works for Litzenberger.
Before leaving the room Grins
questioned what “constitutes a conflict of interest” and wondered
why Jamieson, as a relative of the appellant, and “is the person
authorized to vote on this appeal…” shouldn’t be recused also. Steve
explained that Jamieson is “staff,” doesn’t have a vote and, under the
law, would not be subject to the same “appearance of fairness conflict”
rules as the appointed commissioners.
Here comes another dicey situation for a
small community like ours; the “appearance of fairness.”
Three fourths of the population is related to one another either by
marriage or by blood. And most everyone knows everyone
else. We are a tiny community; it’s nearly impossible not to know
each other unless one is a recluse by nature.
So what does “appearance of
fairness” mean? Exactly what it says - “appearance” being the
operative word. If it doesn’t look right, maybe it’s not right.
With that in mind I give you the following excerpt from a transcription of
this meeting.
Ex Parte Anyone?
Grins
and Richard had already left the room when
the subsequent conversations took place.
Steve:
I will go to the audience in a moment. Mr. Pat Van Eaton.
Pat:
I have a question. It appears things are backwards. I filed an appeal and I
need my day in court. I’ve never been notified when this will be. They
give you 60 days to do it [respond] in the appeal period. I think this thing
is just backwards. The appeal needs to be handled first, then the public
hearing. But I think you can ask some other people that may know better.
Steve:
Thank you Mr. Van Eaton. Your comment will be dealt with once we have all
the commissioners that are sitting here that will be sitting here. But first
we have to qualify all the people that are on the planning commission or
board of adjustment.
Bobbi:
The point of order was that we have an appeal before us. SEPA guidelines…
Steve:
Okay now, Miss Allison, and again I’m going to ask the question for
everybody here. Is there anybody else that feels that they have an
appearance of fairness conflict? At this point I advise I’m going to have
to state that I had two calls today from various individuals that they felt
that one of the commissioners, Miss Allison, has an appearance of fairness
conflict on this issue. One of those calls was from Mr. [Mike] Gallagher,
and the other was from an attorney representing the Washington Association
of Cities.
There’s
been several discussions on it, and my understanding of it is, it would be
much better if you recuse yourself. Please state what it is that generated
the appearance of fairness.
Bobbi:
The only thing I know about is that I’m very upset about the appeal and
it’s not being done correctly. I know that I’ve gotten legal advice. I
didn’t know my being a commissioner seeking legal advice would violate the
appearance of fairness.
I know
that the public appeals process through SEPA guidelines strictly state by
RCW and WAC [state laws] that we must satisfy an appeal on any DNS prior to
holding any public hearings. The appellant to the DNS has that day in court.
So I assumed I was just doing my own research. I didn’t figure it was
going to come back, Steve, and get me.
Steve:
I have had two contacts today, and it has been represented to me that people
believe that you had ex parte contact with Mr. Pat Van Eaton.
Bobbi:
Concerning the appeal?
Steve:
Concerning the overall situation.
And that would be a reason for an appearance of fairness. That’s my
understanding of it….
Bobbi:
I just did my research so…
Steve:
I ask that you, because of what
I’ve stated here, that you recuse yourself.
Bobbi:
If other members of the board
would like me to recuse myself, I will.
Steve:
I’m going to state what I’ve
stated. At the moment I’m going to go to the public or the applicant or
the appellant that wants to ask, or state, that they want Miss Allison to
recuse herself.
Pat: I
can categorically state I have never spoken to Miss Allison about any of the
issues concerning this project, ever.
Litzenberger:
I’m the applicant of this
process, and it’s my understanding, and I’ve been told by two sources,
that conversation did take place. I’m only going on hearsay. I’m asking
for a fairness to be placed on me. I ask that extend to everybody. That’s
all I have to say.
(At this
point Cynthia Ames, Richard’s wife, spoke from the audience.)
Cynthia:
I don’t know if the conversation took place or not. I think it’s
important that everybody is very fair in the appearance of fairness. And if
anything is called into question for one person, that could be considered
very nitpicky. We need to consider it for everyone just as a matter of
fairness, so there isn’t this contention every time something comes up
about it.
Bobbi:
Knowing the conversation didn’t
take place, if Roland feels more comfortable, I’ll be more than happy to
recuse myself.
Steve:
Thank you. I’m glad you
understand.
Jim
King: I have a question. Mr.
Litzenberger said he had two people comment. Who were the two people and
what did they say?
Steve:
You’ve addressed it to the chair. And let me observe here that under the
appearance of fairness doctrine, it doesn’t need to be true. It needs to
be perceived. We’re talking about perceptions here. Miss Allison has been
nice enough to acknowledge that she is recusing herself and I appreciate
that greatly.
Jamieson: Mr. Chairman, I heard the word “hearsay.” How
can we cause our commissioners, who are honest and straight forward, to be
able to have hearsay remove them from an important decision? I heard Mr. Van
Eaton represent that the conversation didn’t occur. That’s first person.
That’s not hearsay. I’m saying this because should we go there in the
future we ought not let a commissioner off the table on hearsay.
Steve:
It is the commissioner’s choice to make. And the
commissioner has made that choice.
Litzenberger:
I didn’t say it was Pat that you talked to. I
believe it was addressed to me that it was either Edwinna Van Eaton or Pat
Van Eaton.
Steve:
Let the record show Miss Allison is leaving the room.
(Footsteps…)
That’s Some
Doctrine
Now we have a sticky wicket.
That appearance of fairness doctrine reminds me of Catch-22. It’s some
doctrine all right. The other day I drove by the post office and happened to
see two men standing on the corner in conversation.
One was Steve, and the other was council
member Ray Harper. Two weeks before I saw them, I wouldn’t have given it
another thought. But after the September 16 public hearing, I find myself
getting a bit paranoid. These are honest men and I’m sure they were
discussing the weather, or something equally innocuous.
On the other hand, there could be a
“perception” they were talking about something important to the town.
Our community is small and people run into each other on the streets and in
businesses all the time. However, as Steve told us, “Under the appearance
of fairness doctrine, it doesn’t need to be true. It needs to be
perceived.”
There seems to be an implication Bobbi
was seen going into Edwinna’s house. They do know and like each other.
If true, I wonder why nobody brought up the fact that Karen Swanson visited
Bobbi’s home for a charity meeting. Karen and Roy Swanson own the property
in question.
So there you go. I repeat, we are a small
town. The only way we wouldn’t breach the appearance of fairness doctrine
is to go out of the house as infrequently as possible. And when out of the
house be very careful whom you are seen talking to. But of course that
doctrine won’t apply to most of us as we aren’t elected or appointed
officials. Or will it?
Another interesting fact - Bobbi Allison is
the only member of the planning commission whose career is in planning. She
works with the laws pertaining to planning, building and codes on a daily
basis. Bobbi, raised in Eatonville, works for the City of Lakewood’s
community development director, and lives in Eatonville.
During the hearing Litzenberger agreed to
put an oil water separator in the stormwater retention system. The
Eatonville Municipal Code (EMC) shows this issue has been law since November
3, 1997. I don’t recall anyone saying it was the law during the hearing
although one audience member made vague reference to a code somewhere.
Computers are amazing, aren’t they?
Endless amounts of information are floating around out there in cyberspace.
A couple of mouse clicks and there’s the EMC, a couple more and up pops
the SEPA guidelines. As a result anyone can look up all the laws of the
state and town if they are so inclined. And I am so inclined.
Planning commission meetings are
generally held in the courtroom of the town hall. This room is small and the
quarter’s close. Counting commissioners, staff and the public, there were
about 30 people in this little room on September 16. I was sitting in the
front row behind the table where the commissioners are seated. A young man I
don’t know sat between Litzenberger and me.
Split-Second Ex
Parte?
When the commissioners went into
deliberations Steve made it clear the public, having spoken, were now to
be silent. At a critical stage of the deliberations, developing the
“language” (words) of the conditions for the building permit, the young
man tapped commissioner Sharon Van Hoof on the shoulder. She was seated at
the table with her back to the audience.
She turned around, and he whispered
something in her ear. Then Sharon raised her hand and said it had been
brought to her attention that the word “civil” should be added when
describing the type of engineer needed for the stormwater retention system.
I didn’t hear what the young man
said to Sharon although I was less than a foot away. But the incident
certainly had the “appearance” of a split-second ex parte communication.
My “perception” was that the young man was trying to induce a
commissioner to add something to the language. I don’t believe “civil”
was added.
However,
if the young man did indeed whisper “civil” to Sharon, it seems he
knew the laws. The EMC Chapter 16.54 “Stormwater Management and Soil
Erosion Control,” describes the term “civil engineer” as one of the
“Words set out in this section…” I’m reading this manual (EMC) and
thinking it sounds like a civil engineer is what the law requires.
Shouldn’t it have been one of the “conditions” set for a
“conditional use permit” in the first place?
The day after this meeting I called Steve
Lind to ask him about the brief encounter I witnessed. At the time it
happened, Steve was handing a flurry of material to Public Works Clerk
Ramona Sheppard, who sat behind him taking minutes and tape recording the
meeting.
I know Steve. So I knew this took
place when his back was turned and he didn’t see it. Steve prides himself
on running a tight ship during these high-powered meetings. He would have
said something immediately if he had spotted this behavior.
As a result of the action taken in
opposition to Bobbi Allison remaining at the table during the hearing,
there is yet another public meeting coming up Monday, October 7 at 6 p.m. in
the Eatonville Community Center. This is a one-hour short course about the
appearance of fairness doctrine.
Town Attorney Bob Mack will teach us what
the doctrine means exactly, particularly in a very small community. As it
turns out Bobbi didn’t have to leave the room, she could have stayed as a
member of the audience. But Grins and Richard did have to remove themselves
because of their connections to Litzenberger.
In a letter dated September 18, Jamieson
Van Eaton writes to Pat and Edwinna Van Eaton that he appreciates their
“input to the planning process for new development in Town. Particularly
information that advances responsible planning that affects environmental
impacts – and especially information that will allow the Town to protect
the aquifer [aqua=water] recharge area and the wellhead protection zone.”
Jamieson also writes, “Pat & Edwinna,
thank you for your contributions! In fact, I believe the input you
provided will result in the protection to the environment on this mini
warehouse project as well as future projects. Please plan on ‘checking up
on me’ to insure I have ‘current’ information.”
The document attached to this letter
says, “Appeal rejected. Merit of issues of appeal adequately considered by
public hearing process before the Planning Commission on September 16,
2002.”
Pave Paradise and
Put in a Parking Lot
Yikes!
More statistics. Brace yourself. I’m going to throw more numbers and
acronyms at you. According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC),
Chapter 2: “The Causes of Urban Stormwater Pollution – Increased Volume
of Runoff” – “A 1-inch rainstorm on a 1-acre natural meadow would
typically produce 218 cubic feet of runoff [water], enough to fill a
standard size office to the depth of about 2 feet.
“The same storm over a 1-acre paved
parking lot would produce 3,450 cubic feet of runoff, nearly 16 times more
than the natural meadow, and enough to fill three standard size offices
completely.” My husband, Bob, holds a degree in Forest Management and was
an “A” student in Watershed Management. I couldn’t figure out those
numbers by myself.
The proposed project includes laying
asphalt on the 1. 3-acre site. (This figure excludes the road leading
into the site.) Without proper protection controlling stormwater runoff,
masses of the wet stuff pouring down from the heavens can affect the health
of our river. Which in turn affects our health and other life around us.
That’s why we have SEPA, as in
“What’s in the water SEPAing through the earth into our buried, thus
hidden, water supply? And what’s in the water SEPAing into our river?
Magic numbers again. The Shoreline
Management Act (SMA) says anything over 200 feet from a body of water
isn’t within the Act’s jurisdiction. However, this magic number is just
to protect the health of the river. It doesn’t protect the aquifer
recharge areas or the health of people.
A copy of the SEPA (State Environmental Policy Act)
checklist filled out by Litzenberger as part of the permit procedure was
available to everyone attending the September 16 meeting.
Under the heading “3. Water,”
question a. 1) asks “Is there any surface water body on or in the
immediate vicinity of the site (including year-round and seasonal streams,
saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names.
If appropriate, state what stream or river flows into it.”
The answer, “The Mashell River lies
apprx 200’ from the easterly corner.”
Question a. 2). “Will the project require
any work over, in or adjacent to (within in 200 feet) of the described
waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans.”
The answer, initially crossed out
then amended, is a tad confusing. First answer, “Yes. The existing
driveway on the easterly corner of the property will be paved and used as
permanent access to the storage area.” This answer has a single line drawn
through it. Directly following, in the same space, the answer is,
“No. Portion of access road or dev. will be within 200’ Shoreline
Mngt. District.”
Well, which is it? Yes or No?
Hello,
we live in the Pacific Northwest. What are we famous/infamous for? Could
it be…rain? Eatonville is rained on to the tune, drip, drip, drip, of
about 36 inches annually during a normal year. We live in a fluid
state. We have water under our feet, in our river, pouring down from the
clouds over our heads. We are basically sandwiched in the liquid. A water
retention system at the site in question, if paved, would need to manage
over 1.2 million gallons of stormwater every year.
I really hate to do this to you but the
TEWCP - (If that’s not an acronym I don’t know what is.) “Town of
Eatonville Water Comprehensive Plan” – says, “Approximately half of
the town’s water supply is obtained directly from the Mashell River…The
balance of the town’s water supply is obtained from two wells…[which]
tap the relatively shallow, unconfined aquifer underlaying the Town.”
What does this boil down to?
The second appeal filed by Pat Van Eaton.
Another Appeal to
the Town
This appeal (Appeal B) is an eighteen
page document compared to Appeal
A, which is seven pages. Obviously there’s tons more information in the
second appeal. Appeal A noted four areas of apprehension. Appeal B addresses
eleven areas, backed by laws.
Among them “Conditional Use Permit
granted by the planning commission lacks the language to adequately protect
the aquifer recharge area; Stormwater Management and Site Manual rules not
applied…The only way Eatonville can comply with state and federal law is
by following this manual; Lacks a PSQC (Permanent stormwater quality control
plan); Applicant was administratively relieved of adequate aquifer
protection measures by permit wording; Aquifer recharge area is highly
susceptible to contamination…
“Finding of Fact should have included
this is ‘Critical aquifer recharge area as per EMC [Eatonville
Municipal Code]; Does not clearly state that stormwater is polluted water
and is one of the main reasons for having an engineered stormwater
system.”
Appeal B was filed at the town hall
September 24. This action follows the procedure established for this type of
appeal. So Appeal B goes to the Eatonville Town Council
to be taken care of.
By state law the town has 60 days to
schedule and hear Appeal B. When this takes place it will be a Closed Record
Hearing. This means the council will take no new testimony from the public.
Public testimony was already given at the planning commission hearing. Other
than the council, Pat Van Eaton and Roland Litzenberger will be the only
ones, under law, who will be able to speak.
Pave More Paradise?
During one of the first planning
commission meetings I covered, Jim
King brought up the subject of used asphalt. It seems he walks, every day,
through Smallwood Park next to the Mashsell River, where the “Kid’s
Pond” is located. Jim pointed out that large loads of used asphalt
“dumped” by the pond smelled of diesel fuel and other unpleasant odors.
Apparently this stuff will be recycled.
Jamieson Van Eaton said, at a council
meeting, the town has a plan to pave the park’s gravel park road all the
way up to the parking area. Hmmmm. This area is very close to the river and
the wetland we call the “Kid’s Pond.” What happens to all the
rainwater then? Right now the road is basically natural and in good shape.
I’m sure maintaining paved areas
is easier than dirt/gravel roads. But shouldn’t a little extra
maintenance be worth it to preserve the health of our river and water
supply.
So you see the river is truly in a
precarious position right now. In the future more homes will be built across
the river, off the Alder Cutoff Road. Although this project is not within
the town limits, it is “at the edge of Eatonville.”
The sub-division is called Mashell River Properties and is billed as
“secluded riverfront properties.” The flyer for this project entices us
to “Fall asleep to the soothing sounds of the Mashell River.” These
homes will have septic tanks. “Buyer to be responsible for septic system
and well.”
In his **open letter, dated
September 16, to the citizens and officials of Eatonville, Chuck McTee warns
“We must start right now to protect our watershed!…We should not even
consider allowing any development along the Mashell River using septic
tanks…”
This letter prompted council
member Bob Schaub to ask that protecting the river and watershed be put
on the next council meeting agenda. This meeting is scheduled for Monday,
October 14. The McTee letter was discussed at length during the last council
meeting. Although the council committed to protecting our water sources,
nothing was mentioned about septic systems near the river.
What a
complicated-sounding issue. But as Juno, the caseworker in the film “Beetlejuice,”
says, “It’s all in the handbook.” The laws are there, in black and
white, for anyone to read.
Even
though I managed to avoid using “mitigated” more than once, it all
seems terribly confusing doesn’t it?
But in the end it’s really quite simple. We have a choice, and we
still have time. Either we keep the Mashell River, and surrounding
watershed, as clean as possible, or we don’t, and endure the consequences.
If you kept with me this far,
you are a concerned person. So I ask, regarding the protection of our clean
water, “If not now, when?”
*See
Top Stories: Town Council Regular meeting Sept. 23, 2002 “Protect Our
Watershed Now."
**See
Opinion: Charles McTee Letter
Some
Relevant Websites:
See
map of Nisqually River Watershed
www.wavcc.org/wvc/cadre/WaterQuality/EATONVILLE.html
For
a comprehensive study of water purity in 2001 see Eatonville High School (EHS)
report by Randi Neff
www.wavcc.org/wvc/cadre/WaterQuality/research/h-publications/Eatonville2000/neff2000.htm
See
the comprehensive water study done by EHS student April Thomas - May 30,
2001 www.wavcc.org/wvc/cadre/WaterQuality/research/h-publications/Eatonville2000/thomas2001.htm
SEPA
Handbook – 11.Appeals
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/handbk/hbch11.html
Citizen’s
Guide to SEPA Review
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sepa/citizensguide/citizensguide.htm
Revised
Code of Washington (RCW) by Title - as of Sept. 2002
www.leg.wa.gov/rcw/index.cfm#RCW_by_Title
Washington
Administrative Code (WAC) - as of Sept. 2002
www.leg.wa.gov/wac/
Background
Information – Urban Stormwater
www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/
Eatonville
Municipal Code – requires Acrobat Reader
http://search.mrsc.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=etnvpage.htm$vid=municodes:Eatonville
Access
Washington Homepage
http://access.wa.gov/
|
