John Postema
Initiative 01-02, better known as the Right to Plow Initiative, is making history in Snohomish County. Never before have Snohomish County voters had an opportunity to vote on a grass roots initiative exclusively for Snohomish County.
Initiative 01-02 was put on the ballot through the petition process and signed by more than 30,000 voters when only 17,400 signatures were needed. The Snohomish County Farm Bureau sponsored the Right to Plow Initiative 01-02. The 1,700 member SCFB is part of the Washington State Farm Bureau, which has been active in Washington state since 1920.
Our 15 board members felt it necessary to take this action because farmers are at the end of their rope. The initiative is about agricultural activities, which are so over-regulated that you even need a permit for plowing, making it impossible for a lot of farmers to make a living. When regulations make it impossible to farm any more, farmers are going out of business. My duty as president of the SCFB is to promote and further the welfare of our members. I fully support, endorse and have encouraged the board’s actions in regard to the Right to Plow Initiative.
Here is some background information why the SCFB feels that Initiative 01-02 earns your support:
You will be asked on the ballot if you agree to change the Snohomish County Code in such a way that it will distinguish between agricultural activities and development activities. When the county changed its grading code in 1998, it eliminated the agriculture exemption known as the exemption for "normal and necessary agricultural activities." The result was that it became illegal to farm on 250,000 acres without a permit and it put severe limitations on another 72,000 acres. All plowing and earth movement became a development activity, by definition.
In addition the county arbitrarily decided to enforce 300 feet buffers, potentially eliminating large acreage for farmers to use because of the plowing issue. County officials assured that farmers do not need a permit to plow, since the county will not enforce this part of the law. Yet they have not changed the county code and during the year 2000, 85 property owners were sued for grading violations. Almost half of those were farmers. Furthermore the Snohomish County Prosecuting Attorney has stated in a legal brief: "In so far as an administrative official states a position contrary to that contained in the applicable statute or ordinance, it must be disregarded." Farmers ended up in court to defend their activities and won in many cases. More farmers are still waiting for permits, while others have given up in frustration.
Opponents of the measure have spread rumors that developers are behind this initiative. Completely untrue. Not a dime was received from developers in support of this measure. Another completely unfounded allegation claims that this measure will be litigated in the courts and therefore will cost taxpayers money. In fact, it will save a lot of taxpayer money, because the county does not have to sue farmers for plowing their fields.
Are we the only ones who know about this problem? Of course not! The official Snohomish County Agricultural Advisory Board has written many letters to the county council regarding these issues. A Snohomish County consultant’s study pointed out the same. The conservation district has made similar request. Even Sue Adams, the director of Smart Growth and the Pilchuck Audubon Society, wrote to the county "Firstly and most simply, the county must delineate the difference between plowing and grading. The farming community cannot survive if preparation for planting is equated with development activities. The language in SCC Title 17.05.20(1)(c) needs to be deleted, as this is contrary to the policy for the preservation of agricultural land in Snohomish County. Secondly, it makes no sense, nor is it the aim of NMFS to put farmers out of business with code language meant for actual development…. However, it is draconian to codify tilling in the same category as development activities." We could not have said it better. (Editor’s note: Adams, who opposes the initiative, and Postema have argued about the relevance of her letter. Their views were published in two letters, "Plowing initiative: Proponents abuse facts, Audubon," Sept. 26, and "Plowing initiative: Return to common sense farming," Oct. 6.)
We ask you to vote yes on Initiative 01-02!
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
