By Warren Cornwall

Herald Writer

John Postema stands like a lightning rod in the debate over what’s known as the "Right to Plow" initiative.

Supporters point to the plant nursery owner’s experience as a case study in government intrusion on farms. It shows why Snohomish County Initiative 01-02 is needed, he said.

"It’s something I think all the farmers will benefit from," said Postema, president of the Snohomish County Farm Bureau. The bureau is sponsoring the initiative, which is on the Nov. 6 ballot.

Critics look at Postema’s history of land-use violations and his sprawling nursery on what was once pastureland, and see a textbook example of what’s wrong with the initiative.

"It’s my opinion that Mr. Postema believes he is above the law," said Sue Adams of the Everett-based environmental group Pilchuck Audubon. "The ‘Right to Plow’ initiative is the ‘Right to Develop’ initiative."

Despite its nickname, the initiative’s scope is larger than plowing. It would free farmers from needing earthmoving permits for agricultural activities — including digging large ditches or building roads — that now trigger development regulations.

Agriculture needs the exemption because farmers face tough economic times and regulations stand in the way of routine farm work, the 60-year-old Postema said.

"We’re drowning in a sea of regulation," he said.

In the past, Postema has defied the regulations and fought the county in court.

During the last decade, Postema has transformed 45 acres, once largely pasture, into the bustling hub of a $5.5 million nursery called Flower World. He built gravel roads and parking areas, dug ditches, paved land for greenhouses and sculpted it for planting beds.

He has done it all without a grading permit, he said, an assertion backed up by county records.

Along the way, Postema has accumulated at least six citations for violating county development regulations, stretching from 1990 to 2000.

He has won a court fight against one, lost another, settled several and still has two on appeal. It has cost him $250,000 in legal fees, he said.

Under the initiative, he could do most of that work without the legal wrangling because it’s all part of his regular agricultural activity, he said. He pointed to a flat, gravel-covered lot where cars park some of the year and potted plants stand at other times.

"You could make the argument this is a parking lot," he said. "We could make the argument it’s for agriculture."

That opens the door for people to undertake major work on their property without controls, said county councilman Mike Ashley, a Silvana dairy farmer and opponent of the initiative. That could hurt neighbors and the environment, he said.

"This initiative would do away with those protections for next-door owners," he said.

Even initiative opponents agree the county’s farming regulations need clarification.

Regulatory changes in the late 1990s left farmers wondering whether they needed a permit to plow near streams where endangered salmon swim. Similar questions revolved around land outside designated farm areas.

The county has assured farmers that plowing or harvesting isn’t considered grading. Philip Morley, an analyst for county executive Bob Drewel, said the county has never cited anyone for plowing or told anyone to get a permit to plow.

That doesn’t guarantee a court will see it that way if someone sues, said Ralph Omlid, a Farm Bureau board member who runs a tree nursery near Stanwood.

The initiative would quickly clear up that uncertainty, since the county has failed to act, he said.

"All we’re saying is we want some consistency and we want to know what to expect," Omlid said.

Ashley said he hopes to have a solution by 2002. He sits on a statewide committee drafting regulations for agriculture in relation to endangered salmon that could guide the county.

The two sides also disagree about when farmers should be treated as developers.

It’s legitimate to make farmers get permits for building major roads or ditches, with farmers in designated farming areas exempt from smaller-scale work, he said. That’s in line with current county regulations.

"Nobody likes permits," he said. "But if that next-door construction project is going to put water in your house, you might want to have a say about it."

Omlid disputed the need for such tight regulations on farming.

He said he has been trying unsuccessfully for three years to get a county grading permit. He was initially cited for bringing the equivalent of 50 dump-truck loads of dirt to his tree farm, he said. The holdup now is partly over whether water running through his property is a ditch or a stream, and whether he can clean it out, he said.

"I call it farming," he said of his work. "They’re calling it development."

You can call Herald Writer Warren Cornwall at 425-339-3463 or send e-mail to cornwall@heraldnet.com.