County council votes down fee for conservation district

The Clark Conservation District will have to look elsewhere for funding sources after the Clark County Council voted against a $5-per-parcel charge on most county properties.

The council voted 4-1 against the approval of the charge during their Sept. 11 meeting. Councilor Marc Boldt was the sole vote in favor of the fee, which would have charged $5 per parcel annually except on designated forestland which would have had a $2.96-per-parcel rate.

The conservation district estimated that the fee would generate close to $700,000 annually which would help expand its resources while also replacing funding sources no longer available. Zorah Oppenheimer, interim director of the district, explained that recent changes in grant requirements with the Washington State Department of Ecology have made it impossible to still rely on that avenue for funds. Instead they’ve turned to local means.

Proponents of the district highlighted its work with local property owners to improve their land. The district formed in 1942 and was described by Oppenheimer as a “quasi-governmental” entity offering services in a non-regulatory manner.

Oppenheimer gave examples of district work, including installing a watering facility to keep livestock from drinking from a river, helping landowners develop plans to be in compliance with the county’s habitat ordinance and replacing a failing culvert with a bridge in Yacolt, connecting more than 30 homes in the area to the rest of the road network.

Oppenheimer also noted the education the district provides landowner “on a daily basis.” 

The rates and charges would allow the district to fund farm and livestock best management practices countywide, expand its farm equipment rental program and help fund development of farm plans with landowners.

Local dollars would allow for local control of projects, Oppenheimer explained, whereas relying on grant dollars made the district beholden to the requirements of the granting agencies. Out of the top-eight counties in the state by population, Clark County is the only one to have a conservation district without a stable funding source, she said. 

Regarding support, Oppenheimer mentioned a petition organized by environmental stewardship group, Friends of Clark County, that received more than 1,000 signatures, as well as more than 70 letters of public support.

Jamie Housley, an attorney representing the Clark Conservation District, presented a letter signed by both him and David McDonald, an attorney for environmental stewardship group Friends of Clark County. Housley noted that when representing past clients in land use issues, he and Friends of Clark County have often been on different sides of GMA litigation.

“But we do agree on the good that the conservation district does, and we do firmly believe that the work that it does will help the county not only comply with the Growth Management Act, but the county’s comprehensive plan as well,” he said.

Councilor concerns

Councilor Eileen Quiring questioned how much work the district actually does.

She referenced a staff report that showed from 2007 to 2017 the district provided financial assistance for 70 projects and technical assistance to 12 watersheds, affecting about 160 property owners. Oppenheimer took issue with those numbers, saying that the district provided technical assistance to 1,000 landowners annually.

Though Quiring lauded the efforts of the district, she listed several entities that do similar work including the county’s noxious weed board, the Washington State University extension office, the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board and Clark County Public Health’s work with septic systems. 

Both Quiring and councilor John Blom touched on service overlaps.

Blom said that it was important to balance fiscal and environmental stewardship. He felt it wasn’t fair to characterize non-support of the district financially with a lack of support of clean soil, water and air. 

“There are a lot of great organizations like the conservation district that I feel are doing this work,” he said.

Furthermore, implementing the charges following tax increases from school funding this year wouldn’t be fair to those paying, Quiring reasoned.

“There are people that are really hurting from the taxes that have been placed upon them this past year alone,” she said.

Councilor Jeanne Stewart said that for landowners in more urban parts of the county there would be “limited if any” benefit from the district’s program expansion through the fees.

“I know how I feel about one more item on my tax bill,” Stewart said. “To me it’s a hard sell to charge everybody $5 per parcel.”

Public hearing

About two dozen individuals testified for roughly an hour during a public hearing.

National Association of Conservation Districts Washington Board Member Doug Rushton said the district’s request was on par with districts statewide. 

In Thurston County, where he lives, property taxes are presented in a pie chart format on the bill — the $5.50 he pays for the conservation district “doesn’t even show up as a line” in the visual, he said. 

State Conservation Commission Southwest Washington Regional Manager Stu Trefry said the bulk of the district’s money comes from the commission, explaining that a parcel fee “is the only funding source that is wholly, fully responsive to local natural resource priorities.”

“Every other funding source has other strings attached. The only strings that are on this money are the ones you put on yourself,” Trefry remarked.

Trefry said that for a group dependent on its partnerships with landowners and other agencies, the Clark Conservation District was able to develop strong ones “on a shoestring.”

“This is a good district. It’s a district that has been crying out for increased capacity for decades, maybe even 75 years,” Trefry said. 

Clark County Clean Water Commission Vice-Chair Brendan Addis also touched on the local control that a parcel charge would allow.

“It is nice to know that when you are paying $5 you know exactly where it is going in your community and can see the benefit, which can’t be said about all the taxes we pay,” he said.

Ridgefield resident Laurie Perron Mednick said she knew nothing about farming when moving to her parcel five years ago, though now her family raises dozens of turkeys and chickens on top of their day jobs.

“Without (the district) we could still do the work (but) I don’t think we would,” she said.

David Morgan said he was the “poster child” for the conservation district, using it throughout his life managing 1,700 acres in Ridgefield. 

“It is incredibly useful and incredibly efficient,” he remarked.

Officials from the Clackamas Soil and Water Conservation District, the Clark County chapter of Trout Unlimited, the Watershed Alliance of Southwest Washington and the Urban Greenspaces Institute also testified in support of the proposed charge.

Steve Derringer was one of a few who testified that did not laud the district, instead asking that the district either become a full government agency or to make sure it “does not feed from the tax trough.” Derringer believes the urgency in the funding could have been alleviated with proper planning, likening the request to extortion. 

Backdoor to regulation

Carol Levanen, executive secretary for Clark County Citizens United, a property rights group,  said the district “has stepped far outside the intended boundaries dictated by the legislature and the law.”

“The five-year plan of the district begins with reasonable expectation, but ends with a political lobbying campaign to control land use and affect growth management zoning, comprehensive planning, allowable uses, designation of critical areas and beyond,” Levanen said. She explained that the district, which in much of its material notes it is a non-regulatory authority, would be able to meet those ends by working with its partners that do have the authority, mentioning two specifically — the Clark County Food Systems Council and the Columbia Land Trust — as being “controlled” by Friends of Clark County.

According to Levanen, county residents were being “hoodwinked” by the district.

“In reality they are working toward government control of their land,” she said. 

Following Levanen’s testimony, several individuals pushed back on the idea that groups were being controlled by outside influence.

“I just want to clarify that we are not a program or department of Friends of Clark County,” Columbia Land Trust Conservation Lead Alice Williamson said following CCCU’s testimony. The land trust was in support of the proposed charges.

Heather Tishbaum read a message from Clark County Food Systems Council Vice President Holly Hanson where she stated the council was “controlled only by our commitment to a healthy, sustainable food system in our region.” Tishbaum, a founding member of the council, reiterated the council’s autonomy.

A big mistake

The only vote in favor of the district’s proposal, Boldt explained that voting down the fee could be “one of the biggest mistakes we have ever made” as a council. With the district in possible jeopardy without a replacement funding source for dwindling grants, it would not be able to continue its work preserving natural environments, a key focus of the state Growth Management Act to which the county must comply.

Boldt, a former farmer himself, noted that the district oftentimes serves as an ally for farmers. Relying on government-based resources could prove ineffective.

“I have known a lot of farmers that you cannot begin to take a car with a county seal on it in that driveway,” Boldt remarked. But those same farmers, he said, would allow the conservation district to come in to analyze and improve their land. 

Moving forward, the district said its board will reconvene in October to assess options.