Dear Watchers

The southern population of orca whales, the J, K and L pods of which we are most familiar, has plummeted drastically in recent years and is on the road to extinction. The southern residents, 83 of them at last count, do not interbreed with other killer whales. They are considered a discrete population by all, but the federal government agency National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) decided that they were not a “significant” population, and therefore they were not listed as “endangered,” but as the less protective “depleted.” This decision was challenged by a coalition of environmental groups. The ruling, just out on Dec. 17, 2003, determined that NMFS decision was not based on the best available science and that NMFS must re-evaluate their decision. NMFS has one year to re-evaluate their orca listing, and the final outcome is not known.

The listing will direct state agencies to consider the orca whale when they are issuing permits for projects. The listing will also raise awareness of the orca, its decline and its importance. Protections enabled by the state endangered listing are very weak when compared to those of the federal listing, but the state listing will undoubtedly put pressure on the federal government to also protect these whales.

The comment deadline for the proposed Washington state listing of our southern resident orca population as endangered is February 3.

Harriet Allen
Wildlife Program, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife,
600 Capitol Way N.
Olympia, WA 98501-1091

http://www.wa.gov/wdfw/do/oct03/oct3003a.htm. §

Vote 192. I voted against the flood tax because the council changed the way we fund flood management to a tax on the assessed value of everyone’s property. The assessed value of someone’s property has nothing to do with that property’s contribution to, or benefit from, flood management controls.

The original fee format was not legal because it was also based on the assessed value of property. Fees cover services that the county provides. Instead of going to a tax that has no relationship to flood controls we should have set up a legitimate fee schedule that required those who benefit the most from flood management to pay the most.

There should be a flat basic fee—much lower than it has been—for all properties in Whatcom County because we all benefit when public infrastructures, such as roads and bridges, are protected from flooding. Then there should have been a tiered schedule for those properties that benefit the most from controls or contribute the most to flooding problems, recognizing that agriculture-zoned land is highly valued as a resource and allowing a discounted rate for such land.

The original fee was unnecessarily doubled a few years ago with a large portion of the funds going illegally for programs unrelated to flood management. This shell game of restructuring has brought the amount down to where it should have been but did not accomplish it in a fair manner.

Vote 194. I voted against adoption of the budget because the council was not given accountability for over $6,000,000 even though I had requested the information in a timely manner.

The administration said it would provide the information but claimed it didn’t have the figures at our budget hearing. We pay a lot of money for computers and personnel to crunch out figures much more complicated than those for which I was asking. Furthermore, we have programs that directly compete with private nonprofits. We have positions in nonessential services that do not appear to be necessary. We have unmet urgent needs in our essential criminal justice system that were not rectified.

My job is to be a check and balance to the administration; otherwise we would not need a council. It is not my job to just take the administration’s word that money is being spent appropriately. It is my job to see actual numbers and determine their legitimacy.

Vote 196. I voted against the property tax levy because it increased property taxes by over seven percent without any cuts. For example we have a specialist position that was filled by a lay person with no background in the specialty. Furthermore we don’t need this position since we have a local nonprofit that can very professionally supply the county with specialty information we need. We must ensure that we have no waste in government if we are raising peoples’ taxes.

Vote 200. I do not support eliminating an important way for persons to give immediate family members land without having to go through an extensive development process. Many residents are not developers and only wish to guarantee property to their children. Whenever the property is developed it will have to be developed under the same strict standards as other properties. The misuse of some persons receiving gift exempted land and turning right around and selling it to unsuspecting buyers who may not know about problems with the property could have been easily eliminated by requiring recipients of gift exempted land to retain the land for five years. That would have discouraged anyone who was just interested in turning the land over immediately for a profit. It would have also given the county ample time to close loopholes before the five-year period expired without leaving property owners in limbo as they now are.

Vote 203. I voted against this request because I don’t believe the council should be giving ourselves a raise, albeit a small one, when so many taxpayers are struggling to make ends meet. I especially do not believe the executive should be receiving thousands of dollars in increased salary at this difficult economic time, as the county just raised taxes 7 percent and we continue to dip deeper into our county reserves. I also do not support the increase as a percentage. Especially in hard times, there should be an amount of money divided evenly among all county employees. Otherwise you have some employees, such as the executive, receiving large increases and other employees receiving so little it makes virtually no difference. §