An Overview of Environmental Regulations and Enforcement’s
Impact on Agriculture in Washington State.
William Demers
21 December, 2013
PO Box 30217
Spokane, WA 99223
[1]
Index
Need for Immediate Action ________________________________ Page 3
Background and Electronic Bibliography Information___________
Page 4
Department of Ecology’s Lack of Respect for State Law___________ Page 5
DOE Refusal to Use Best Available Science_____________________ Page 7
Application of Law, A violation of Constitutional Rights__________ Page 11
Environmental regulations are De-valuing Land and Tax Base____ Page 13
A legislative Solution______________________________________ Page 15
The DOE’s Abuse of Power_________________________________
A Practical Lesson of Expense Putting Land Out of Production_____
Page 17
Page 18
Environmental Regulations Sending Animal Agriculture Offshore___ Page 19
The Need for Land to Feed Washington________________________ Page 21
Fencing Livestock Actually Increases Fecal Coliform______________ Page 22
The Unintended Consequences of Fencing______________________ Page 24
Conclusion_______________________________________________ Page 25
List of Appendixes and Websites______________________________ Page 26
[2]
Need for Immediate Action
It is imperative the Washington State Legislature act in a decisive manner
facilitating and encouraging farmers, ranchers, and the people of Washington
State to work together for clean water.
The methods Washington Department of Ecology (DOE) uses are out of date and
draconian. The DOE’s refusal to use best science available in decision making and
for policy and environmental law enforcement must not be allowed to continue.
Methods used by DOE in Washington State foster a contentious relationship
rather than one cohesive in nature, respecting the citizens of our state.
The current process as prescribed by the Revised Code of Washington and
Washington Administrative Code, acts in a manner against respect of property
rights, and consequently the Federal Constitution, making the sacrifice by those
who have given all for our freedom a waste. Our youth, the best and brightest of
our country pay in blood for the rights of freedom. These best and brightest have
earned no less than our respect of the document they and we, sacrifice for.
This overview speaks to a lack of respect for State law, constitutional rights, a
refusal to use best available science, devaluation of private property leading to a
loss of wealth and the tax base available to the state, scientific aspects of water
quality enforcement, and the need for more land to feed our growing world. This
document presents an idea that will bring cohesive workings of all people in
Washington State to the water quality cause. Farmers, ranchers, and citizens are
not against clean water. We all need it for the sake of conscience and
profitability. Rather, farmers, ranchers, and citizens don’t want their land taken
through regulations or condemnation without due process.
Our society is losing agricultural land to environmental regulation at an alarming
rate without good science or concern for private property rights. We all need this
land to insure a sound economy, a strong tax base and an adequate and
affordable food supply.
[3]
Background and Bibliography
For the sake of discussion in this overview, farm land in Eastern Washington in the
Hangman Creek Watershed is discussed. Here generally farmers and ranchers
utilize farmland unable to grow more profitable crops as pastureland. It is too
steep, too rocky or in parcels too small for large machinery needed to grow grains
to operate. These lands will generally earn $40.00 per acre (Appendix 1).
This document utilizes most current peer reviewed studies, State Law and
established government resources illustrating the case for needed environmental
and regulatory change.
A DVD is included with this overview recording all studies and resources quoted
or used. Because of the massive amount of information cited it would take
several hundred pages to provide all. Each document referenced by Appendix in
the overview is listed on the accompanying DVD by the noted Appendix. A copy
of the DVD is available by contacting William N Demers, 509-448-1062. All studies
and documents cited can be searched and found online by simply searching the
studies or documents name.
[4]
Lack of Respect for State Law by DOE.
RCW 90.48.450 (Appendix 2)
Discharges from agricultural activity — Consideration to be given as
to whether enforcement action would contribute to conversion of land
to nonagricultural use — Minimize the possibility.
 Chad Atkins, Dave Knight and Kari Johnston of DOE indicated there is no tool,
policy or established method for complying with this statute. When quizzed,
DOE staff in Spokane have had no idea how much dryland pastures can earn.
Consequently DOE staff can not adequately consider if their directives will put
land out of production.
 Mr. Walt Edlin of the Spokane County Conservation District stated: “If you get
a letter from DOE the only thing Mr. Atkins will accept is fencing”. RCW
16.60.010 fencing (Appendix 2) paid for by Washington State grants, pay a
maximum of 75% with a ceiling of $12,000.00 (Appendix 3).
 The Spokane County Farm Bureau priced a mile of fence with 3 independent
contractors in Spokane County. Moran Fence, the cheapest bidder came in at
$31,680.00 (Appendix 4).
As with all farms, farmers and ranchers work diligently to improve their farming
and consequently conservation practices. A letter sent from Dave Knight of DOE
to William Demers described 9 conditions DOE claims cause pollution (Appendix
5). Mr. Demers’ property has all 9. Mr. Demers requested Mr. Chad Atkins of
DOE come to his property to evaluate the conditions and affix prices for
reparations. Mr. Atkins refused this exercise. From an email to Mr. Demers:
“Hi Bill – I thought I would take a moment to try to answer some of your
questions. Just so you know, our livestock and water quality work is not
concerned with potential or hypothetical future pollution.”
State Law and the US Constitution calls for fair application of Law. DOE does not
apply the Laws of our State fairly. The potential to pollute is one of DOE’s triggers
for attention. Following is an excerpt, Line 14 of the DOE priority setting tool
(Appendix 6):
[5]
Pollution’s creation must be defined by science, not political
influence!
RCW 90.48.010 Policy Enunciated(Appendix 7).
 Requires balancing the interests of organic life and “Industrial
development” of the State.
 Requires the DOE to use “reasonable methods”.
 Recognizes the Federal Clean Water Act as the authority it takes direction
from.
 Requires DOE to preserve State resources.
The legal definition of “Enunciated” e·nun·ci·ate ( -n n s - t )
1. To pronounce; articulate.
2. To state or set forth precisely or systematically: enunciate a doctrine.
3. To announce; proclaim.
The DOE enforces law and policy in a manner that regulates
agriculture, defiant to the Clean Water Act of the United States.
The DOE refuses to recognize its own publications when enforcing State Law.
Riparian Grazing
By Edward B. Adams
DOE Publication EB 1775
(Appendix 8)
 “Riparian vegetation can provide abundant food for grazing livestock.
Riparian areas typically provide 10 to 15 times the forage of the surrounding
upland areas. Properly managed grazing may protect or improve riparian
areas”.
It is not reasonable to fence farmers and ranchers from the most
productive agricultural lands when we can be even more
environmentally friendly with better best available science derived
management practices.
[6]
DOE Refuses to Recognize Best Available Science
Today, many wonderful scientific tools and references are available to us. DOE
refuses to use or recognize many of them. Research shows many states are light
years ahead of the DOE. The following studies and publications are ignored by
the DOE. They prove livestock are not the polluters as DOE claims and that there
are many alternative methods to achieve clean water.
Riparian Grazing
By Edward B. Adams
DOE Publication EB 1775
(Appendix 8)
 “Riparian vegetation can provide abundant food for grazing livestock.
Riparian areas typically provide 10 to 15 times the forage of the surrounding
upland areas. Properly managed grazing may protect or improve riparian
areas”.
 “Even when using fencing, livestock managers may want to take advantage
of the forage available in the riparian pasture”.
 “Strategies for timing grazing in an unfenced pasture apply just as well to
grazing a fenced riparian area”.
 “Give emphasis to "controlling the timing of grazing: (a) to keep livestock
off stream banks when they are most vulnerable to damage; and (b) to
coincide with the physiological needs of the plant species," according to
Cheney and others, reporting in a USGPO publication, Livestock Grazing on
Western Riparian Areas. Adding more rest to the grazing cycle increases
plant vigor, allows stream banks to heal, and encourages more desirable
plant species. Managers should limit grazing intensity to a level that will
maintain desired species composition and vigor”.
Water Quality Conditions Associated with Cattle Grazing
and Recreation on National Forest Lands(Appendix 9)
Leslie M. Roche,1,* Lea Kromschroeder,1 Edward R. Atwill,2 Randy A. Dahlgren,3 and Kenneth W.
Tate of University of California, Davis.
[7]
In this study of free range grazing, the following points were proven:
 Nutrient concentrations are below levels of ecological concern.
 Water quality benchmarks are broadly met across the study region.
 Nutrient concentrations from livestock do not cause eutrophication (algae
growth depleting oxygen from water)
 Nutrient concentrations are at or below background levels.
 None of the study sites sampled ever exceeded the maximum recommended
NO3-N concentrations during the study”.
 As reviewed in Field and Samadpour [8], E. coli and Fecal Coli form are not
always ideal indicators of fecal contamination and risk to human health from
microbial pathogens”.
 “This analysis, based on the best available, clearly contrasts with the FC FIBbased interpretations currently in use by several regional regulatory programs.
 “These results suggest cattle grazing, recreation, and clean water can be
compatible goals across these national forest lands”.
Documentation of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loadings From Wildlife Populations
David C. Moffitt, April 2009 (Appendix 10)
 Free ranging animals including livestock do not contribute to Nitrates (N) or
Phosphorus (P) in water adjacent to their habitat. They simply recycle
nutrients already in existence, thus they do not impact background water
quality.
From the Montana Water Center.(Appendix 11)
 Managing grazing specifically for sediment pollution reduction would do little
to curtail fecal coli form levels in surface waters.
 Stuart et al (1976) reported that the primary source of fecal streptococci in
streams of alpine recreational areas was rodents and moose, not cattle.
 Monitoring efforts near Ovando, Montana indicated excessive levels of fecal
coli form when no cattle where present along the stream. This occurred in
areas that hadn’t been grazed by cattle for over 40 years.
 This study raises the question that high coli form levels may be an
accumulation of bacteria from all other species in the watershed”.
 Fecal coli form levels “spike” when cattle first enter a pasture but then decline
until cattle are moved to the next pasture. If cattle were solely responsible for
[8]
the high initial levels, then it follows that these levels should remain elevated
until cattle leave.
 “The sample from a game range stream, which hadn’t been grazed by livestock
for 40+ years, had the highest level of Fecal Coli form following streambed
disturbance. These levels could have been produced by wildlife as reported by
Stuart et al. (1976)”
Washington State must use the best science available to drive policy
and law.
Monsor Samadapor(Appendix 12)
Mansour Samadpour is the Chairman of Institute for Environmental Health Inc.
and holds active roles in two companies and inactive roles in three additional
companies.
See Appendix 14 for a nearly exhaustive review of Dr Samadapor’s published
works.

“The lack of appropriate methodology for tracing bacterial contamination
in the environment is a major impediment in identification and control of
the sources of these pollutants and adversely affects the decision-making
process in water-quality and fisheries-resources management”.
 “Microbial Source Tracking (MST). This specific methodology was
developed by the Principal of the IEH Laboratories & Consulting Group, Dr.
Mansour Samadpour. MST methodology has now been used in more than
80 studies throughout the US and Canada”.
DOE refuses to recognize DNA Fecal Coli form Fingerprinting.
DNA Fingerprinting Study of Lower Boise River Fecal Coli form
Bacteria Sources(Appendix 13).
[9]
In this study livestock are the least polluters. Ducks and Geese 35%, Pets 22%,
Human Waste 17%, other Wildlife 15%, Cattle 6.8% and other livestock 4.2%.
From Oregon’s Tualatin River watershed.(Appendix 14)
Percentage of E. coli Bacteria Sources: Avian 51%, Rodent 16%, Canine 13%,
Human 4%, Wildlife 6%, Feline 1%, Unknown 9%.
[10]
DOE’s lack of respect for United States Constitutionally Protected
Private Property Rights.
Through the Constitution’s 5th and 14th Amendment, American citizens are
guaranteed property rights protections from regulatory takings of land.
Environmental regulations and DOE’s application of these regulations prevent
people from enjoying use of their property.
FIFTH AMENDMENT TAKINGS
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS – FEDERAL CONSTITUTION (appendix 15).
 Fifth Amendment to the Constitution provides in part “No person shall be
deprived of property, without due process of law; nor shall private property
be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
 Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides in part “No state shall
make or enforce any law which shall deprive any person of property,
without due process of law”.
 The purpose behind the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause is to prevent the
government from “forcing some people alone to bear public burdens
which, in all fairness and justice, shall be borne by the public as a whole.”
Armstrong v. United States 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960).
The United States Supreme Court has held that the Fifth Amendment is made
applicable to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Property Rights, Regulatory Takings, and Environmental Protection.
Jonathan H. Adler, March 31, 1996(Appendix 16)
 A citizen should not be forced to bear the costs alone. Justice should be
borne by the public as a whole. Current environmental laws prevent
individual Americans from building homes, farming land, filling ditches,
felling trees, clearing brush, and repairing fences on private land. These
regulations infringe upon private property rights and violate the Fifth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution’s admonition “…nor shall private
property be taken for public use without just compensation.”
 “The Supreme Court held in Armstrong v. United States that the
Constitutional prohibition on uncompensated regulatory takings was
[11]
By
designed to bar government from forcing some people alone to bear public
burdens which, in all fairness and should be borne by the public as a whole.
[12]
Environmental regulations are de-valuing our land thus eradicating
wealth and tax dollars available to the state.
The effects of wetlands and other factors on rural land values (Appendix 17).
Reynolds, John E.; Regalado, Alex
 In the private land market wetlands are usually not recognized as a benefit
since their advantages accrue to the public and cannot be captured by
individual landowners. The income-earning potential of these lands is
restricted; consequently, wetlands are seen to have a negative impact on
property value.
 Land use regulations are associated with a myriad of forms and documents,
delays, consultant fees, and parcel restrictions, which may add significantly
to the cost of land use changes.
 Most landowners allocate their land resources to obtain the highest
economic income possible. In the absence of wetland restrictions,
landowners could alter the wetlands and generate higher returns to their
lands. Some argue that the existence of wetland regulations prevents the
landowner from altering the wetlands and potentially receiving a larger
stream of future income. The benefits and costs associated with wetlands
influence the rural land market and are ultimately reflected in rural land
values”.
.
Move to lower wetlands value receives praise
The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon
By ANN PORTAL, The Register-Guard (Appendix 18)
 Art Farley, conservation chairman for the Audubon Society, said the
proposed lower values are an important step in planning for the future of
the wetlands in the area, estimated to total about 1,400 acres. “It does
show the beginning of the adjustments that we need to make,” he said.
“That’s obviously what we need to do if those (wetlands) are going to be
environmental resource areas that aren’t going to have the economic
values that they did before.”
[13]
 “At the top end of the scale, industrial lands once valued at $25,000 to
$40,000 per acre would be reduced in value for tax purposes to $800 to
$1,000 per acre, the going price for agricultural land. If approved, the new
values would result in reductions in 1990-91 tax payments due in
November”.



“Steve Tibbitts of Bob Bennett Realty said he wouldn't recommend speculating
on properties with wetlands at any price unless he knew the wetlands
classification was going to be removed or dealt with in some other way”.
“Brokers said they believe the reductions in assessed value are only fair given
the uncertainty surrounding possible future uses of the wetland sites. Since
identification of the wetlands a couple of years ago, property sales in the area
have come to a virtual standstill, they said”.
“He suggested a "wetlands deferral" of almost all property taxes, similar to the
state's Farm Deferral Program, in recognition of the limited economic value of
such sites”.
Implicit Prices of Wetland Easements in Areas of Production
Agriculture. (Appendix 19).

“Impacts of Fish and Wildlife Service wetland easements on agricultural
land values in North Dakota were estimated by regressing sale prices on
physical and institutional characteristics of sold parcels. While easements
on temporary wetlands did not influence prices, each additional acre of
permanent wetland under easement decreased average prices by $321 (–
79%). Because non-eased permanent wetlands were shown to reduce land
prices by $161/acre, we can estimate the implicit price of a wetland
easement per se to be $160/ acre—6% below historical easement payment
levels in the study area”.
[14]
A proposed process for bringing all citizens together in the quest for
clean water in Washington State!
This proposed process is a paradigm shift. It is used in other states. Rather than
using tax dollars in a battle to “win”, this concept would build a strong
relationship between farmers, ranchers and land owners wanting clean water and
due process. This concept would require the state use sound science to develop
and enact a thoroughly thought out plan. This process would enable money to be
spent on productive remedies resulting in clean water.
Following is an RCW where the principal of Eminent Domain is used to reimburse
property owners for expenses and devaluation caused by regulation:
RCW 35.56.050
Damages — Eminent Domain (Appendix 20).
If an ordinance is passed as in this chapter provided, and it appears that in making
of the improvements so authorized, private property will be taken or damaged
thereby within or without the city, the city shall file a petition in the superior
court of the county in which such city is situated, in the name of the city, praying
that just compensation be made for the property to be taken or damaged for the
improvement specified in the ordinance and conduct proceedings in eminent
domain in accordance with the statutes relating to cities for the ascertainment of
the compensation to be made for the taking and damaging of property, except
insofar as the same may be inconsistent with this chapter.
A proposed concept/solution.
The “J. Stanley Primmer” Bill (Proposed idea #1)
An ACT relating to prohibiting the state of Washington and its political
subdivisions from adopting and developing environmental policies that infringe or
restrict private property rights without due process. The State of Washington and
all political subdivisions may not enforce policy or restrict private property use
[15]
that deliberately or inadvertently infringe on or restrict private property use and
rights without due process as prescribed in RCW chapter 8.
(1) As used in this section, "political subdivision" means the state, any county,
city, public local entity, public-private partnership, and any other public entity
of the State, a County, or City.
Damages - Eminent domain (Proposed idea #2)
If a property owner has land that is devalued by enforcement of regulations in
RCW 90.48, enforcement of the regulations shall be considered by the State a
damage of said property. The State shall file a petition in the Superior Court of
the county in which such property is situated, in the name of the State, praying
that just compensation to be made for the property to be regulated for the
enforcement specified and conduct proceedings in eminent domain in accordance
with the statutes relating to States for the ascertainment of the compensation to
be made for the damaging of property.
The DOE is the policing authority for Water Quality issues. The
concept of reimbursement for damages brought on by regulation can
be used in a manner that does not preclude enforcement of water
quality laws. It will enhance the States right to do so.
[16]
DOE abuse of power
The DOE by flexing the muscles of the States power and assets to force farmers
and ranchers to succumb is reminiscent of bullying. To force an agenda driven
apart from best available science, not tempered by legal statutes like RCW
90.48.010 (Appendix 2) and 90.48.450 (Appendix 21) as mentioned before is bullying.
Americans consider bullying, a serious and distasteful issue in our society. We
strive to stop bullying. It is destructive and corrupt.

Mr. Walt Edlin of the Spokane County Conservation District stated: “If you get
a letter from DOE the only thing Mr. Atkins will accept is fencing”.
 Recently while speaking to an Ag teacher, a farmer and a farmer/Biology
teacher at Freeman High School, Mr. Edlin stated; “The DOE is shooting
themselves in the head”, twice. Mr Edlin was referencing how DOE is acting in
a heavy handed manner with farmers in Eastern Washington. Mr. Edlin has
played an intrinsic role in developing and writing the Hangman Creek
Watershed cleanup efforts.
The DOE is a bullying state agency. The definition our federal government offers
for the act of bullying: “Bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior that involves a
real or perceived power imbalance. The behavior is repeated, or has the potential
to be repeated, over time. Bullying includes actions such as making threats,
spreading rumors, attacking someone physically or verbally”.
Our Federal Government offers the following advice to stop bullying: “Look at
the kid bullying you and tell him or her to stop in a calm, clear voice”. Tell DOE to
STOP bullying farmers and ranchers!
[17]
A practical lesson on the expense heaped upon farmers and ranchers
is crushing to agribusiness. It drives agriculture offshore.
 The state pays $12,000.00 with a 75% max paid by the state (Appendix 3) per
mile for fencing of riparian areas. Yet in Spokane the cheapest bid for a
fence as described by RCW 16.60.010 was $31,680.00 (Appendix 3).
One 14.8 acre pasture with wetlands in the Hangman Creek Watershed would
require 1810 feet of fencing. The fenced area would split the property in thirds.
One third of the property for the fenced in wetlands, one third for the East side of
the pasture and one third for the West side pastures. A bridge and a fenced
hardened path would be required for access to the West third. The expense
would be a loss of 5 acres of pasture, $12,000.00 for fencing, $4,000.00 for
permitting and building of the hardened path and bridge/culvert.
This 14.8 acre pasture will earn a gross income of $592.00 per year (Appendix 1).
There is no way this farmland can stay in production with DOE requirements. The
farmer in question raises organic or natural beef on this land. This farm raises
enough for the organic or natural beef protein for 8-4 person families per year.
The farmer is William N Demers, the writer of this document.
[18]
Consumer and Food Safety Costs of Off Shoring Animal Agriculture.
A report prepared for United Soybean Board
September 29, 2011
Promar International, 333 N. Fairfax Street, Suite 202, Alexandria, VA 22314
(Appendix 22)
 “The cost of environmental regulations is likely to be high, where enacted.”
 “Potential costs would be greatest where regulations are placed on waste
disposal and emissions. Colorado’s experience regulating CAFOs is telling:
pork production there has declined by 50% since1999, when the rules were
put in place”.
 “Because they are costly, environmental regulations must be implemented
carefully, since they carry substantial costs that will negatively impact
farmers, ranchers, and consumers who rely on their ability to provide
food”.
 “The five regulatory trends most likely to generate increased costs for US
consumers in the near term are animal housing, environmental regulations,
the use of antimicrobials and other drugs, labor regulations, and livestock
contracting rules”.
 “It has been estimated that approximately 23.3-27.9% of a slowing of
growth within the industry can be attributed to compliance with
regulation11. This percentage increases substantially for larger farms, with
the largest CAFOs experiencing a 40% decline in growth”.

BBC News, Monday, 25 January 2010 (Appendix 23)
Chinese Milk Scandal
Dangerously high levels of the industrial chemical melamine in powdered baby
milk and other dairy products in China sparked worldwide safety concerns.
5 Food Safety Problems in China
Sep 2, 2011 1:01 pm (Appendix 24)
BY ELEANOR WEST
[19]
 “Tainted vinegar is one of the most serious food crises to hit China recently.
Eleven people have died and nearly 150 have been sickened by vinegar
stored in barrels that, allegedly, previously contained antifreeze”.
 “Yes, that’s right, blue. Uncooked pork was found glowing in the dark due to
a phosphorescent bacteria. An unsuspecting woman bought the pork in a
Shanghai market only to find it radiating later that night on her kitchen
table”.
 “Investigators found that a workshop in Zhejiang province was adding
banned synthetic lemon-yellow dye to steamed buns so that the cheap
wheat buns look like more expensive corn flour buns. Taste is not the only
problem with the yellow dye. Consuming food containing the dye over a
prolonged period of time can lead to liver and nervous system damage”.
 “In yet another case of imitation food, an additive used to disguise pork as
beef”.
Environmental regulations are driving animal agriculture from
America. We can’t expect America’s trends to bypass Washington
State with the current regulatory atmosphere.
[20]
(Appendix 25)
WSDA Future of Farming Project
Discussion Paper on the Impact of Environmental Regulation
on Washington Agriculture: Challenges and Opportunities.
 “The Pacific Northwest is a modern American economic miracle driven by a
flourishing international marketplace – in which agriculture is a critical
component part. The population here is expected to grow by perhaps 5
times over the next century”.
 “Among the issues confronting the future of Washington farmers and
ranchers is the ever intensifying pressure for increased environmental
performance on agricultural lands”.
 “Roughly half of the private land base in Washington is currently in active
agriculture”.
 “The official NOAA Fisheries Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Plan completed
by Shared Strategy for Puget Sound specifically concluded that saving our
region’s farms (and keeping them economically viable) is essential to
maintaining the open undeveloped landscapes necessary for salmon
recovery”.
 “Farmers resist when society looks to our farms to bear the cost of
solutions to environmental problems that seem to be created by the
broader public – not by farmers themselves”.
 “Environmental services seem to have no established, commonly
understood dollar value”.
***“The agriculture community is understandably reticent to welcome new
environmental initiatives their experience with these issues has generally been
regulatory and often costly for them. But there are many examples that
decisively illustrate the willingness, creativity, and enthusiasm of farmers to
help if they are properly approached, given a voice in developing programs,
treated with fairness, and reasonably compensated for their efforts”.
[21]
Fencing Riparian Buffers Increase Wildlife in Wetlands
The result is an increase in fecal coli form levels from wildlife. Wildlife
and pets are the leading contributors.
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (Appendix 25)
The program will also provide vital habitat for a wide array of wildlife.
Goals
The goals of CREP are to:

Increase wildlife populations through the creation of riparian buffers.
From Oregon’s Tualatin River watershed.(Appendix 26)
Percentage of E. coli Bacteria Sources: Avian 51%, Rodent 16%, Canine 13%,
Human 4%, Wildlife 6%, Feline 1%, ***Unknown 9%. ***The most Livestock can
be is 9% in this study.
Presence and Sources of Fecal Coli form Bacteria in Epilithic Periphyton
Communities of Lake Superior, August 2005(Appendix 27)
Winfried B. Ksoll, Satoshi Ishii, Michael J. Sadowsky, Randall E. Hicks
Tests results varied from test site to test site: Waterfowl (15 to 67%),
periphyton(Attached Algae and Aquatic Plants )(6 to 28%), and sewage effluent (8 to 28%)
being the major potential sources.
[22]
In nearly all DNA/fecal coli form studies pets and wildlife produce five to
eight times more contaminants than livestock.
Lower Boise River Coli form Bacteria DNA Testing (Appendix 13)
We aren’t regulating pet owners as strongly as we regulate
the food producers we need for sustenance!
[23]
Unintended consequences of fencing livestock from the land.
Often predators like wolves (as in the lower right picture), coyotes and cougars
become fatalities when hunting for food in fenced areas with increased food
sources.
[24]
Conclusion
Large or small, Washington State’s agricultural producers need land. It takes land
to raise livestock and crops. The population is growing yet land available to
farmers and ranchers is disappearing. With urban sprawl temporarily in check
from the sluggish economy, today environmental regulations are the most serious
threat to producers.
Farmers and ranchers do not oppose clean water. We need it for our animals, our
crops and our families. We are your neighbor. We want clean water for you as
well.
90% of all farms and ranches in America are family owned. Many farms and
ranches are incorporated because of tax law and extended family ownership.
Farmers and ranchers need land to make a living. The land is sacred to us. Many
farms and ranchers are five or even six generations old. The land is handed down
from generation to generation. We care for the land!
Farms and ranches are a business first and foremost. If a farmer or rancher does
not pay their bills or taxes they will not be in business very long. Consequently
expenses get passed on to the consumer, you!
Farmers and Ranchers use conservation practices in every decision they make.
For example; a less efficiently growing beef cow gets culled. Only the most tender
and efficiently growing cows are bred. Only the most efficient and best cows are
allowed to impact the land and the environment. We try to stop erosion to stop
loss of topsoil. No top soil equals no grass to feed cattle. All farmers and
ranchers have environmental concerns. A good businessman will constantly work
on improving the conditions on their farms and ranches. If they do not in today’s
competitive world they will be out of business replaced by a better manager..
Farmers and ranchers speak of the Constitution and their property rights.
Farmers and ranchers pay for all our rights with the blood of their children.
Department of Defense statistics prove country kids pay as much as 80 times
more a price for our freedom than urban kids. Yes 80 times! Sociologists in
Wisconsin have stated this.
[25]
When gathering information and advice to write this overview, I was advised to
use the term Rural Kid rather than Country Kid. It has been suggested to me,
when Americans think of the term Country kid folks would marginalize them as
some dumb bubba who didn’t have any prospects, so he or she joined the
military. I use the term Country Kid to honor the folks who feed, clothe and raise
crops to medicate and heal America.
The DOE must change how it does business. It must honor folks’ property rights.
It must use the best, most up to date science in decision making. It must be fair
and stop overpowering citizens of our state. Changes of attitude, mandates by
law rather than suggestions and using the concept of Eminent Domain will bring
about a spirit of cohesion and teamwork in our state. Instead of spending money
on battles it would channel money to the impacted.
Legislators in Washington must act courageously to seek a change in the
paradigm we are currently bulldozing along. People are often afraid of paradigm
shifts. Show courage and make wise decisions. Seek a change for the better!
[26]
APPENDIX’S AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
RCW 16.60.010
Lawful fence defined.
A lawful fence shall be of at least four barbed, horizontal, well-stretched wires, spaced so that the top wire
is forty-eight inches, plus or minus four inches, above the ground and the other wires at intervals below
the top wire of twelve, twenty-two, and thirty-two inches. These wires shall be securely fastened to
substantial posts set firmly in the ground as nearly equidistant as possible, but not more than twenty-four
feet apart. If the posts are set more than sixteen feet apart, the wires shall be supported by stays placed
no more than eight feet from each other or from the posts.
[27]
Appendix 3
From: Walt Edelen <walt-edelen@sccd.org>
To: 'Bill Demers' <redoakarts@yahoo.com>
Cc: 'Vicki Carter' <vicki-carter@sccd.org>
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2013 8:11 AM
Subject: RE: Fence funding
Mr. Demers,
Here is the table for assistance limits from the Dept of Ecology's SFY 2014
Water Quality Financial Assistance Guidelines. It is available online at
this URL: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/1210038.html
The information you have requested is found on page 91-92. I copied it
below. This what I was referring to during our discussion. Please remember
that this is only for riparian fencing. It does not include perimeter or
cross-fencing.
Table K1 - Miles of Livestock riparian Exclusion and Financial Assistance
Limits
Miles of Livestock Riparian Exclusion Financial Assistance Limit (per
project)
Greater than or equal to 1 mile and less than 1.5 miles 75 percent of total
eligible cost or $12,000 (whichever is less)
To my knowledge, the funding does not state any additional increase due to
difficulty of terrain. I believe it is built into the caps that are stated.
Normally, the fence will not meet the cap.
In FY15, there have been changes. Here is the new Ecology guidance
document. They have raised caps or % cost-share for some BMPs and they have
inserted all the language regarding the new riparian buffer requirements if
you use their cost-share.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1310041.pdf You will
be interested in appendices J, K, and L.
In addition, here is the new buffer map that Ecology just came out with
recently. It indicates the buffer required on every stream.
http://waecy.maps.arcgis.com/explorer/?open=d5478a4aaf704d81bac63ffc934e1549
&extent=-13922905.3138354,5784350.44593158,-13140190.1441951,6268043.9609202
1
Regards,
Walt Edelen
Water Resources Manager
Spokane Conservation District
210 N. Havana
Spokane, WA 99202
Ph: (509) 535-7274 ext. 24
[28]
Fax: (509) 535-7410
Appendix 4
[29]
Appendix 5
Appendix 6
[30]
Appendix 7
RCW 90.48.010
Policy enunciated.
It is declared to be the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards
to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof,
the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial
development of the state, and to that end require the use of all known available and reasonable methods
by industries and others to prevent and control the pollution of the waters of the state of Washington.
Consistent with this policy, the state of Washington will exercise its powers, as fully and as effectively as
possible, to retain and secure high quality for all waters of the state. The state of Washington in
recognition of the federal government's interest in the quality of the navigable waters of the United States,
of which certain portions thereof are within the jurisdictional limits of this state, proclaims a public policy of
working cooperatively with the federal government in a joint effort to extinguish the sources of water
quality degradation, while at the same time preserving and vigorously exercising state powers to insure
that present and future standards of water quality within the state shall be determined by the citizenry,
through and by the efforts of state government, of the state of Washington.
Appendix 8
EB1775
Riparian Grazing
By Edward B. Adams
Partial funding for this publication was provided by the Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency through CWA 319 Water Quality Grants. By Edward B. Adams, Ph.D.,
Washington State University Cooperative Extension
Eastern Washington Water Quality Coordinator, WSU Spokane.
Issued by Washington State University Cooperative Extension and the U. S. Department of Agriculture in
furtherance of the Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914. Published March 1994.
Appendix 9
Water Quality Conditions Associated with Cattle Grazing and Recreation on National Forest Lands
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=AiI.qDfmEZ9KA8Tt8nqITnibvZx4?p=Water+Quality+Conditions+Associated+
with+Cattle+Grazing+and+Recreation+on+National+Forest+Lands++Leslie+M.+Rochel%2C+Affiliation%3A+Depart
ment+of+Plant+Sciences%2C+University+of+California%2C+Davis%2C+California%2C+United+States+of+America+
[31]
+Lea+Kromschroeder%2C+Affiliation%3A+Department+of+Plant+Sciences%2C+University+of+California%2C+Davis
%2C+California%2C+United+States+of+America++Edward+R.+Atwill%2C+Affiliation%3A+School+of+Veterinary+Me
dicine%2C+University+of+California+University+of+California%2C+Davis%2C+California%2C+United+States+of+Am
erica++Randy+A.+Dahlgren%2C+Affiliation%3A+Department+of+Land%2C+Air%2C+and+Water+Resources%2C+Un
iversity+of+California%2C+Davis%2C+California%2C+United+States+of+America++Kenneth+W.+Tate%2C+Affiliatio
n%3A+Department+of+Plant+Sciences%2C+University+of+California%2C+Davis%2C+California%2C+United+States+
of+America++Published%3A+June+27%2C+2013&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-316
Leslie M. Rochel, Affiliation: Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, California, United States
of America , Lea Kromschroeder, Affiliation: Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis,
California, United States of America, Edward R. Atwill, Affiliation: School of Veterinary Medicine, University of
California University of California, Davis, California, United States of America, Randy A. Dahlgren, Affiliation:
Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources, University of California, Davis, California, United States of America,
Kenneth W. Tate, Affiliation: Department of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, California, United States
of America
Published: June 27, 2013
Appendix 10
Documentation of Nitrogen and Phosphorus Loadings From Wildlife Populations David C. Moffitt
April 2009
http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_013181.pdf
Appendix 11
WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH GRANT PROPOSAL
An ongoing study supported, in part, by the Montana Water Center
Duration: 14 months (1 March 2000- 30 May 2001)
Principal Investigator: Clayton B. Marlow, Animal and Range Sciences, MSU-Bozeman
Co-Investigator: Donald E. Burgess, Veterinary and Molecular Biology, MSU-Bozeman
water.usgs.gov/wrri/00grants/MTcoliform.pdf
Appendix 12
Doctor Monsor Samadapor
Mansour Samadpour is the Chairman of Institute for Environmental Health Inc.



President of J & L Laboratory Services Inc.
Member of Dezz Holdings LLC
Published more than 19 studies:
http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Author/23560051/mansour-samadpour
[32]
Appendix 13
Lower Boise River Coliform Bacteria DNA Testing
Prepared for
Lower Boise River Water Quality Plan
October 2003
http://lowerboisewatershedcouncil.org/05_water-quality/sed-bacteria/dna_test/DNA_Rpt_Final.pdf
Appendix 14
Clean Water Services
DNA Fingerprinting of Bacteria Sources in the Tualatin Sub-basin
The DNA fingerprinting was done by Dr.
Mansour Samadpour at the Institute for Environmental Health (IEH) in Seattle. Apr, 2002
http://www.cleanwaterservices.org/content/documents/Watershed%20Info/Bacteria%20DNA%20Fingerprinting%
20Study.pdf
Appendix 15
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/takings.htm
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fifth_amendment
http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/amendments/5/essays/151/takings-clause
Appendix 16
Property Rights, Regulatory Takings, and Environmental Protection
By Jonathan H. Adler
March 31, 1996 http://cei.org/studies-issue-analysis/property-rights-regulatory-takings-and-environmentalprotection
Appendix 17
The effects of wetlands and other factors on rural land values.
Author:
Reynolds, John E.; Regalado, Alex
Publication:
Appraisal Journal
Geographic Code:1USA
Date:
Apr 1, 2002
[33]
Appendix 18
Move to lower wetlands value receives praise
The Register-Guard, Eugene, Oregon, NEED DATE 5/28/1994
By ANN PORTAL
The Register-Guard
http://www.rice.edu/wetlands/newsartfull.html
Appendix 19
Implicit Prices of Wetland Easements
Steven D. Shultz, North Dakota State University
&
Steven J. Taff, University of Minnesota
July, 2003
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/22163/1/sp03sh03.pdf
Appendix 20
RCW 35.56.050
Damages — Eminent domain.
If an ordinance is passed as in this chapter provided, and it appears that in making of the improvements
so authorized, private property will be taken or damaged thereby within or without the city, the city shall
file a petition in the superior court of the county in which such city is situated, in the name of the city,
praying that just compensation be made for the property to be taken or damaged for the improvement
specified in the ordinance and conduct proceedings in eminent domain in accordance with the statutes
relating to cities for the ascertainment of the compensation to be made for the taking and damaging of
property, except insofar as the same may be inconsistent with this chapter.
The filling of unimproved and uncultivated lowlands of the character mentioned in
RCW 35.56.010 shall not be considered as a damaging or taking of such lands. The damage, if any, done
to cultivated lands or growing crops thereon, or to buildings and other improvements situated within the
district proposed to be filled shall be ascertained and determined in the manner above provided; but no
damage shall be awarded to any property owner for buildings or improvements placed upon lands
included within said district after the publication of the ordinance defining the boundaries of the proposed
improvement district: PROVIDED, That the city shall, after the passage of such ordinance, proceed with
said improvement with due diligence.
If the improvement is to be made at the expense of the property benefited, no account shall be taken
of benefits by the jury or court in assessing the amount of compensation to be made to the owner of any
property within such district, but such compensation shall be assessed without regard to benefits to the
end that said property for which damages may be so awarded, may be assessed the same as other
[34]
property within the district for its just share and proportion of the expense of making said improvement,
and the fact that compensation has been awarded for the damaging or taking of any parcel of land shall
not preclude the assessment of such parcel of land for its just proportion of said improvement.
Appendix 21
RCW 90.48.450
Discharges from agricultural activity — Consideration to be given as
to whether enforcement action would contribute to conversion of land
to nonagricultural use — Minimize the possibility.
(1) Prior to issuing a notice of violation related to discharges from agricultural activity on agricultural land,
the department shall consider whether an enforcement action would contribute to the conversion of
agricultural land to nonagricultural uses. Any enforcement action shall attempt to minimize the possibility
of such conversion.
(2) As used in this section:
(a) "Agricultural activity" means the growing, raising, or production of horticultural or viticultural crops,
berries, poultry, livestock, grain, mint, hay and dairy products.
(b) "Agricultural land" means at least five acres of land devoted primarily to the commercial production
of livestock or agricultural commodities.
Appendix 22
Consumer and Food Safety Costs of Offshoring Animal Agriculture
A report prepared for United Soybean Board
September 29, 2011
http://www.unitedsoybean.org/wp-content/uploads/Consumer-and-Food-Safety-Costs-of-OffshoringAnimal-Agriculture.pdf
Appendix 23
BBC News
Page last updated at 09:47 GMT, Monday, 25 January 2010
China milk scandal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7720404.stm
[35]
Appendix 24
Food Safety Problems In China
Sep 2, 2011 1:01 pm Food safety headline stories from China BY ELEANOR WEST
http://www.foodrepublic.com/2011/09/02/5-food-safety-problems-china
Appendix 25
WSDA Future of Farming Project Working Paper and Statistics on Farmland in Washington
October 2008 Prepared by:
Don Stuart Pacific Northwest States Director American Farmland Trust dstuart@farmland.org
http://action.farmland.org/site/DocServer/Agricultural_Lands_Statistics_Working_Paper.pdf?docID=1482
Appendix 26
Conservation Reserve Program
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/crepar01.pdf
Appendix 27
Presence and Sources of Fecal Coli form Bacteria in Epilithic Periphyton Communities of Lake Superior,
August 2005 Winfried B. Ksoll, Satoshi Ishii, Michael J. Sadowsky, Randall E. Hicks
http://aem.asm.org/content/73/12/3771.abstract?maxtoshow=&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=ishii&author2=sado
wsky
[36]