Snohomish County farmers are looking for a hand at the ballot box next Tuesday.
Many say that they need voters to approve a county initiative giving them clearer authority to conduct routine farm operations, including plowing and clearing ditches. Opponents, including some farmers, point to potential conflicts with efforts to save salmon, impacts on neighboring properties and the questionable track records of some initiative proponents on following existing regulations.
Both sides make important arguments, but we think that voters should consider the county’s vital need to preserve agriculture and say yes to county initiative 01-02. The so-called Right to Plow Initiative will make clearer that farmers have the right — and the need — to continue such activities as plowing, grading and ditch clearing without getting permits.
Farmers have justifiable frustrations with Snohomish County’s inability to say clearly what activities require permits. It took an unnecessarily extended effort to even get a statement last year that the grading codes aren’t binding on plowing. As the county knows, though, that didn’t come close to resolving all the questions that farmers face about their agricultural activities, especially near streams.
Despite its title, the initiative goes well beyond plowing. Ditch clearing, which is especially vital in areas prone to flooding, is another activity that would be exempted from permits under the initiative. Even initiative opponents concede the permit process can be slow and difficult for farmers who, unlike developers, are inexperienced in paper work. So an outright exemption makes a good deal of sense as a way to free farmers from an unnecessary burden.
As it is, many farmers feel themselves hassled with permits and regulations. It should worry the county to hear former state Sen. Cliff Bailey, a member of a leading farm family, express frustration with what he sees from officials watching over his neighbors along the Springhetti Road in the Snohomish River Valley. "They are always pestering somebody about not following a certain regulation out here," Bailey said. "It doesn’t make sense. They should be helping us, not hindering us."
The measure has some environmental protections, including an acknowledgement that farm activities remain subject to other environmental laws and permit requirements outside those for grading or drainage. And, initiative supporters point out, the county and farmers will remain subject to laws such as the Endangered Species Act.
Environmentalists say lawsuits will be inevitable if the measure passes. We don’t discount opponents’ concerns about potential abuses of the measure or that the county will face enforcement and interpretation questions. The biggest problem with the initiative may be that, like other such proposals, it isn’t black or white. But the voters have to make a black or white decision — yes or no.
If anyone steps back from the situation, it ought to be clear who contributes the most to the protection of the county’s overall environmental health. It’s the people who work the land to make a living from plants, trees and animals. Putting county law clearly on the side of farmers makes sense.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
