County farmers are asking – loudly – for $5 from most households to fund an organization that works to keep streams clean, offers advice on fertilizers and pesticides, helps farmers save money and other actions critical to the future health of our rural land.
Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon, faced with a nearly $10 million deficit, proposed cuts to the county funding to the Snohomish Conservation District. The county gave the district $260,000 this year, but Reardon’s budget would have that funding slashed to $175,000 next year and nothing at all in 2010.
Farmers and other concerned citizens, some of whom who have been lobbying for the tax in recently public forums, say $5 per household (excluding some downtown city residents and a few other limited areas) is enough to keep the district alive.
But County Councilman John Koster, a former farmer, cautioned against acting too quickly to add a tax for the district, when Sound Transit and other organizations are likely to ask more of taxpayers.
Read the full story by reporter Bill Sheets.
How much are we willing to pay for “green” services?
Not as much as we should, according to a study by the University of Maryland. That $5 conservation district tax is a small investment compared to the costs of doing nothing to beat climate change, if the study has correctly computed the price we’d otherwise pay down the road. The study argues that the U.S. has spent more than $560 billion to mitigate damage from storms caused by climate change over the past 30 years.
Read more about the study – and a Pacific Northwest response – here.
Anyone out there for or against the $5 Conservation District tax? Comment below.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
