There’s a small, independent agency serving our county that some of you may never have heard of. The Snohomish Conservation District (SCD), chartered under state law and governed by a locally elected board of supervisors, has for 67 years provided assistance to farmers and other private landowners struggling with surface water problems, natural resource conservation and a growing list of environmental regulations.
Its programs are voluntary and confidential. It wears no regulatory hat and adamantly refuses to, focusing instead on technical assistance, education and financial aid through state and federal grants.
It assists with livestock, pasture and waste management, fence streams, oversee revegetation in rural and urban buffers, and make native plants affordable at their annual sale. Its engineers design resource management plans for everything from large dairies to hobby farms.
Its cost-effectiveness wins awards. Last year, using its $455,000 of funding through the county, SCD leveraged an additional $529,000 in outside grants and state funds — $1.16 for every local dollar — a ratio both typical for SCD and unapproached by any county department.
But today, despite all this, SCD is fighting for its life. Its local funding has again fallen prey to budget-cycle politics, and its mission to county arm-twisting.
SCD could be set free, with a $5 per parcel assessment authorized under state law (it’s the largest district in Washington without one), but it requires County Council approval. SCD was asked to submit a proposal, and it has — for two years running. It’s been endorsed by more than 20 local organizations, ranging from agricultural associations and drainage districts to cities and environmental groups, as well as hundreds of individuals.
Nevertheless, despite promises of support, response from the county executive’s office amounts to the full-dress runaround. Recently, the Ag Advisory Board sent a letter to county officials, asking basically, “What’s the holdup?”
Open opposition is sparse, and sounds canned. The spin is, we don’t need another tax. But the need already exists — an alphabet soup of state and federal mandates: Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, nutrient management, critical areas, shellfish protection, ad infinitum — and it’s not going away. Doesn’t it make sense, when you can’t avoid a cost, to minimize it by funding the most cost-effective agency — where every dollar becomes two?
So why all the foot-dragging? As county Executive Director Peter Camp explained it to me, “It’s a matter of balance between secure (SCD) funding, and control.”
“Control” appears to be the key word. As SCD has come to rely on county government for a large part of its base funding, the county has imposed ever-more restrictive “interlocal” contracts, designed primarily to help its own departments comply with the above-mentioned mandates. A conservation district with assured funding might not always play ball, especially since most of its work lies outside the county contract.
Trouble is, reducing SCD to an adjunct of Public Works means that too often the county’s compliance needs come first, and services to private citizens second, if at all. This is old news to folks familiar with certain county departments, having budgets orders of magnitude larger than SCD and the fees to prove it. Go to them for help with a surface water problem, for instance, and you’re liable to get two things: 1) a proclamation that they “can’t spend public money on private land,” and 2) a referral to (who else?) SCD.
And the problem goes beyond straight-jacket contracts. Mr. Camp expressed to me a belief that SCD was not a state agency at all, but part of the county. Indeed, this misconception seems to guide the conduct of county bureaucracy. They routinely depict SCD work as county projects, even as they compete for the same grants. Just last year, without a word to the County Council, Public Works expropriated $35,000 allocated by law to SCD. Now they’re demanding the names and addresses of SCD’s cooperating landowners.
One thing is clear: The survival of SCD as an independent agency stands at risk. For decades, landowners, farmers, neighborhoods and organizations could turn to it for help. Now it needs our support. The district’s Web site, www.snohomishcd.org, has information on its proposal and endorsements too numerous to list here.
It’s time to go directly to our council members. Urge them to cut through the political smoke and approve the SCD proposal.
Max Albert is a retired machinist active in county agricultural issues, and a former member of the Ag Advisory Board. His family farms 500 acres in the Stillaguamish Valley.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
