Water is more powerful than gravel.
At least for now.
The Snohomish County hearing examiner delayed making a final decision Friday on a controversial proposed gravel mine east of Gold Bar because he wants to know more about how it would affect water for up to 400 residents in the area.
In his ruling, hearing examiner Robert Backstein said a “more complete, more convincing and more effective environmental review” should be done regarding the water supply.
Backstein is concerned about the Big Bend community of homes north of the proposed gravel mine site. That community’s water comes from wells that could be vulnerable if the mine is built, he said.
Under the proposal, the county would rezone 612 acres from forestland to mineral land, said Susan Scanlan, a planner with Snohomish County Planning and Development Services. The company would extract 1.5 million tons of gravel and sand annually for 25 years by mining 183 acres of the land and using an additional 47 acres to operate the mine, Scanlan said.
The mine would be off U.S. 2 three miles east of Gold Bar.The plan has faced stiff opposition from the Big Bend community, which has about 190 homes. Many area residents have spoken against the plan, saying a mine might damage their water resource and disturb the community with noise.
“It couldn’t have gone any better for us,” said Steve Higgins, a board member with the Big Bend Landowners Association. “This puts Snohomish County on notice that they need to step up their protection of drinking water. Current laws are inadequate.”
Robin Hansen, project manager for mine developer Cadman Inc. of Redmond, did not return phone calls. However, Cadman has said if it loses at the hearing examiner level, it will appeal to the Snohomish County Council.
Along with Big Bend, Backstein wrote that he also is concerned if a mine goes in near the well serving Zeke’s Drive-In, which may be even closer to the proposed project and serves drinking water to a significant population passing through the U.S. 2 corridor.
Backstein went on to say “the proposed project could increase the risk of bacteriological contamination,” and he was concerned about the protection of public health.
The hearing examiner did not rule on other aspects of the homeowners’ association’s appeal of the final environmental impact statement on the project.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
