Building Moratorium

Post Reply
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Building Moratorium

Post by Fun CH »

PAL wrote: Sun Oct 17, 2021 8:08 pm
Here is what is being decided. Hopefully quickly means quickly.
Pearl
One proposal, which is simular to an already rejected closed basin water solution, is to deliver water to an on site cistern. So the home owner would have to buy water from a senior water right holder and have it trucked in.

So not allowed to drill a well so as to not impact senior water right holders and then forced to buy that same water from them. Then use fossel fuel to have that water trucked to your home.

Yea, that makes a whole lot of sense (sarcasm).

Water law needs to be updated to this century. Why allow a public resourse as vital as water to be controlled privately and for profit?

That's a bit different than using water for agriculture where we all benefit from the food production.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
User avatar
mister_coffee
Posts: 1388
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:35 pm
Location: Winthrop, WA
Contact:

Re: Building Moratorium

Post by mister_coffee »

dorankj wrote: Sat Oct 16, 2021 6:36 pm The best carbon storage possible is grass, so maybe don’t demonize it quite so heavily.
No:

https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/are ... n-dioxide/
Plants use carbon dioxide (CO₂) during photosynthesis to make glucose. It takes six molecules of CO₂ to make every molecule of glucose, and this basic building block is then used for energy and to make the structure of the plant itself. This biochemical reaction is the same for all plants, but the faster a plant grows, the more carbon dioxide it will use up per second. By that measure, bamboo might be the best at sucking up CO₂. However, fast-growing plants tend not to live long and when a plant dies, all the carbon in the plant is broken down by insects, fungi and microbes and released as CO₂ again.

So the plants that are considered the most adept at locking away carbon dioxide from the atmosphere are the longest-living ones, with the most mass – hardwood trees. It’s all temporary though. Eventually every plant returns all the carbon dioxide it uses back to the atmosphere.

https://www.thoughtco.com/which-trees-o ... ng-1204209

Also, a fun fact. The highest observed land-based biomass production in the world (approximately one hundred tons per acre per year) happens in very young timber stands at low elevation in southwestern Washington and northwestern Oregon (source: Cascade-Olympic Natural History). Typically with Western Hemlock but other tree species (notably Red Alder) are also very efficient. Of course, sea-based plants (e.g. sea grasses and kelp) potentially have far higher biomass production per acre per year.
:arrow: David Bonn :idea:
PAL
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Building Moratorium

Post by PAL »

County Commissioners meeting/hearing.

10-11-2021 Mon PM Summary:
Public Hearing on Ordinance 2021-8 MV Building moratorium. After hearing testimony from many people, some of whom have suffered economic hardship from the building moratorium, the BOCC votes to continue the building moratorium but to work quickly to resolve the issue for the approximately 235 parcels owned by people who have invested time and money in obtaining a building permit, but are unable to because of the moratorium. Other parcels affected will be not be considered such a high priority.

Here is what is being decided. Hopefully quickly means quickly.
Pearl
Pearl Cherrington
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Building Moratorium

Post by Fun CH »

PAL wrote: Sat Oct 16, 2021 6:56 pm
Unfortunate that we humans have to make it so complicated.
truth
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Building Moratorium

Post by Fun CH »

dorankj wrote: Sat Oct 16, 2021 6:36 pm The best carbon storage possible is grass, so maybe don’t demonize it quite so heavily.


That's an interesting way to put it, "demonize it". That's a bit over kill me thinks.

And Ken you don't strike me as a zealot for combating climate change. :mrgreen:

Lawn grass goes dormant if you don't water it. Total waste of ground water to keep it green when its 85 to 100 degrees out. And hey, law says only 1/2 acre of combined lawn and garden, not 5 to 20 acres of lawn for a permit exempt well.

Natural shrubs don't require watering and sequester more carbon then lawn grass does along with other benefits.

https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019 ... estration/

Then there's this.

"When plant growth increases, soil carbon does not. The finding is significant because the amount of organic carbon stored in soils is about three times that in living plants and double that in the atmosphere. Soils can also store carbon for centuries, whereas plants and trees rot quickly after they die"

When they rot, hello greenhouse gasses.

I'm talking about local jobs that provide homes with the construction industry being a major economic driver.

So we don't drill here or develop new homes so people down stream can drill and develop their area?

Perhaps I don't understand the issue because my bias is towards sharing this place just as it was shared by those who came before me. I was also in the construction industry and helped build this place. That job allowed me to live here.

Yep, Cut down sequestered carbon and build with it. Grow another tree, capture more carbon and provide shelter for a new family and a whole lota jobs.

Share water, conserve it so 95% is returned to the aquifer after used in the home.

Or deplete the aquifer by growing grass, and lavish water hungry landscaping in a srub stepp. Yea, that makes sense.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
PAL
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Building Moratorium

Post by PAL »

Balance. But as Chris says, we do live in an arid climate.
Unfortunate that we humans have to make it so complicated.
Pearl
Pearl Cherrington
dorankj
Posts: 838
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2021 1:08 pm
Contact:

Re: Building Moratorium

Post by dorankj »

The best carbon storage possible is grass, so maybe don’t demonize it quite so heavily.
User avatar
mister_coffee
Posts: 1388
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2020 7:35 pm
Location: Winthrop, WA
Contact:

Re: Building Moratorium

Post by mister_coffee »

Average per-person household water usage in the United States: 80-100 gallons. That is to me a scary number because it is an average and that means there are boneheads out there using 500 gallons per person per day.

In theory with an exempt well you are only allowed to irrigate about half an acre. That seems to be honored only in the breach and isn't enforced as far as I can see. Also, using irrigation shares to do anything but grow food (e.g. water grass for a golf course or extensive lawns) is legal but inappropriate and isn't a something a Good Citizen would do.

Changing water laws and requiring metering is likely to be a political food fight of mind-boggling proportions. I'm not saying it isn't a good idea and isn't needed I'm just saying it is likely to get ugly, no matter how well-intentioned and modest your goals might be.
:arrow: David Bonn :idea:
PAL
Posts: 1304
Joined: Tue May 25, 2021 1:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Building Moratorium

Post by PAL »

Chris, this is one thing I agree with you 100%. Outdated rulings need to be changed.
Pearl
Pearl Cherrington
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Building Moratorium

Post by Fun CH »

MVN headline


"Building moratorium stays in place while commissioners seek resolution"

https://methowvalleynews.com/2021/10/13 ... esolution/

"Most speakers said they supported protecting water resources and controlling new development to preserve the valley’s rural, agricultural character. But imposing a moratorium retroactively — on lots created over the past two decades through subdivision — penalizes individual property owners for miscommunication between the county and the state, one speaker said."

What's interesting to me is that many desire to restrict further development after they move to the Methow Valley.

"Please let us in and we'll help lock the gate".

The water issue in the Methow is simple. Every well needs to have a meter on it and water use from that permit exempt well needs to be restricted to what each person actually needs for domestic water use.

How can water use be allocated if we don't know exactly how much water is being drawn from the aquifer? And remember the DOE estimates that 80% of domestic use water is returned to the aquifer.
That number could be higher if water drawn from wells is not used for mega lawns.

A reasonable number for domestic use is somewhere around 50 gallons per person per day. The current 5,000 gallons a day is outdated. The Methow is now more like a city suburb than the rural area that it once was which would have required more self-sufficiency and therefore water.

The DOE needs to step in and enforce the 1/2 acre limit on water use for lawn and gardens and maybe even reduce that limit. Wells should not be used for this purpose, only ditch irrigation.

We need to all start behaving like we are living in an arid climate, which we are, to ensure everyone shares water equitably that allows our Community to continue to grow.

Or we can just say to the hard-working construction workers who built this place and all the supporting industries such as logging, survey crews, miners,building supply workers, truckers,real estate agents, etc;

"take a hike, we're done with you now in this Valley."

Those that say they want to preserve the rural and agricultural values of this place, I say " look around that ship has already sailed".
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
Fun CH
Posts: 1440
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Building Moratorium

Post by Fun CH »

pasayten wrote: Fri Oct 01, 2021 8:53 am

1. Properties that have irrigation systems in place separate from any draw from a well are not going to be affecting the “in stream flow” with their domestic well nearly as much as properties without separate irrigation rights.
it seems that is true if the well water is metered at something like 50 gallons per person per day.

If 5,000 gallons of water from the well is used per day in addition to the irrigation water then that's a lot of water which will deplete the aquifer.

So what amount of water usage will be metered from the wells exactly?

It doesn't seem fair and I agree all the lots that have already been created should be allowed to be developed.

That includes closed Basin Lots many of which were already legally subdivided prior to 2002.

I also think that 5000 gallon per day draw for permit exempt wells needs to be re-examined. Water needs to be divided equitably in this Valley.

Too many extremely large green lawns. Many folks on the westside let their lawns go Brown during the summer drought. But not here, many desire 5 acres of green lawn and lavish water hungry Landscaping, in a desert landscape where water is a precious commodity and should not be wasted.

With Equitable and fair use of water in this Valley , perhaps then there would be enough water so land development for homes could be resumed.

We could then welcome more people to this Valley and keep the local economy rolling for it's local workers including the construction workers who literally built this place.

More affordable housing could be built.

Too many people want to close the gate to the Methow after they move here.

That certainly wasn't the spirit of this place for those that welcomed me here.
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding--Nick Lowe
Can't talk to a man who don't want to understand--Carol King
User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 2444
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Building Moratorium

Post by pasayten »

Fron Heidi...

There are many important points that can be made, looking at a lot of different angles of this issue, however the exception that I am asking for is the following:

An exception in this ordinance for properties who have BOTH irrigation district rights with irrigation systems that are already in use and set up prior to the moratorium, AND have wells on their property already existing prior to the attorney general office January 13, 2021 letter, providing the property owner agrees to provide a well meter to prove their usage as a line item necessary to acquire a building permit.

Other important points you could make:

1. Properties that have irrigation systems in place separate from any draw from a well are not going to be affecting the “in stream flow” with their domestic well nearly as much as properties without separate irrigation rights.
2. It’s extremely difficult to care for agricultural property if you don’t live on or near the land.
3. Time is of the essence. Property owners who have loans that they are paying off are acutely economically harmed by this. It’s difficult to find contractors who are available at short notice, and as of now, if this moratorium is still on until February 2022, it’s likely that those property owners won’t be able to build until 2023 at the very earliest.
4. It’s one thing to put a moratorium on new divisions of property, but an entirely different situation to take away the rights of property owners that the county has already approved, i.e. approved water adequacy, site analysis, septic, etc.
5. This compounds the lack of housing situation in the Methow and only drives up prices of existing homes adding, to the affordable housing problem.

https://okanogancounty.org/government/p ... otices.php
pasayten
Ray Peterson
User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 2444
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Building Moratorium

Post by pasayten »

Hearing BOCC Ordinance 2021-8
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

INTERIM CONTROLS IN WATER RESOURCE INVENTORY AREA 48

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Okanogan Board of County Commissioners will conduct a public hearing on October 11th at 1:30 p.m. to take public testimony regarding ordinance 2021-8 approved on August 10, 2021 that adopted interim land use controls applicable to water resource inventory area 48 with the exception of the Columbia River influence that prohibits the acceptance of any building permit applications for residential development projects within water resource inventory area #48 (with the exception of the Columbia River influence)on parcels of land that were subdivided after March 28, 2002, if the application requires water adequacy/availability determination under RCW 19.27.097 and relies on a withdrawal that is exempt from water rights permitting under RCW 90.44.050. The public hearing is scheduled to meet the procedural requirements found in RCW 36.70.795.

The public hearing will be conducted on October 11, 2021 at 1:30 p.m. The virtual/telephonic public hearing will be held over Zoom web application. You can attend the meeting by using one of the following methods:

By online video conference: Zoom meeting link https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83440791433
Meeting ID: 834 4079 1433.
By telephone: +1 253 215 8782 OR +1 669 900 9128 OR +1 346 248 7799 Meeting ID: 834 4079 1433
Written comments will be accepted prior to the hearing and may be submitted in writing or electronically to Pete Palmer, Director of Okanogan County Planning & Development, at 123 5th Ave N Ste 130, Okanogan, WA 98840 or at spalmer@co.okanogan.wa.us. Comments must be received by 5 p.m. on October 10, 2021.

Date of publishing is September 29th and 30th, 2021.

A copy of the interim controls may be viewed on the Okanogan County Planning Department website at https://www.okanogancounty.org/governme ... /index.php.

Information regarding this proposal can be obtained from: Okanogan County Office of Planning and Development, Pete Palmer, Director of Planning, 123 5th Avenue North, Suite 130 Okanogan, WA 98840 (509)422-7218 or spalmer@co.okanogan.wa.us .
pasayten
Ray Peterson
User avatar
pasayten
Posts: 2444
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:03 pm
Contact:

Building Moratorium

Post by pasayten »

Social media post floating around the Valley...

Hi there, sorry about the random nature of this, but I’m trying to contact everyone I know who may have an opinion on this issue.

As you may or may not know, I bought property a couple of years ago over on East County road with the hopes of having a small farm project and homestead there. Now the property is affected by the recent building permit moratorium. This moratorium affects any property that was divided no after March 2002, no matter what. The issue at hand is water usage and availability, but all properties divided after 2002 are being affected arbitrarily.

Believe me, I definitely don’t want a bunch of new subdivisions here in the valley, but for things that have been already divided and sold, and improved on, in small 2 or 3 parcel “subdivisions” legally zoned over 5 acres, The retroactive nature of this moratorium is truly unjust.

My particular property is a 5 acre lot in a three lot “subdivision” in which each of the lots are legally zoned, and already had an existing 25gpm well before I bought it (which was approved by the county and the DOE ). All three lots have irrigation systems in place that are served by the Barkley division of the MVID. I was able to get my site analysis approved, septic permit approved septic and water hook up electric etc. all in and approved, and now I am being denied the right to build on the property. I have planted a small orchard, and have grown a couple of rounds of cover crop to improve the soil, and my original plan was to have a home there.

For the last couple of summers I have been changing the irrigation on the land, and caring for it in my free time, but I find that it’s really hard to properly care for land when you don’t live on it. If I’m not able to make a home there, the land will not be cared for, which is detrimental to not only myself and my life savings, but also harms the land and the community who want to support local agriculture on the few agricultural pieces that still exist.

The Methow Conservancy folks have also expressed that this harms their ability to acquire parcels like this as agricultural conservation easements because if there can’t be two appraisals (One appraisal for if it was ag. land only, and one appraisal for if it was a domestic use parcel) then they can’t buy it from the owner. They are frustrated by this as well.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for a moratorium on new divisions of land, especially until an appropriate way to allocate water rights in the future can be agreed on by state and county government. However, this retroactive moratorium is a completely different story, that only hurts property owners who purchased property that was divided since 2002, and is of little ecological benefit.

This has been a huge weight on my heart, mind, and spirit as I watch other homes being built on hillsides and forested areas that have huge fire danger. My parcel is on the valley floor, surrounded by other homes with irrigation rights as well, all very fire defensible. The sensible place to have a home.

I was just at the commissioners office yesterday, talking with County planning, and it sounds like so far the commissioners have not been willing to evaluate all these different properties under this moratorium based on each parcel’s logical ability to comply with the combined 5000 gallons a day rule in RCW 090.44.050. We are all lumped into the same category whether we have irrigation rights separate from the well or not.

I am arguing for, and basically pleading with the commissioners to make an exception in this ordinance for properties who have BOTH irrigation district rights with irrigation systems that are already in use and set up prior to the moratorium, AND have wells on their property already existing prior to the attorney general office January 13, 2021 letter, if the property owner agrees to provide a well meter to prove their usage.

The commissioner’s office strongly suggested to me that I try and get as many like minded folks, who would agree with this irrigation exception to the Ordinance 2021-8 to submit public comments prior to the October 10th. There will be a Hearing on the 11th regarding the issue.

I’m wondering if you would be willing to submit a public comment?
Please let me know, and I will attach the link to the page describing the ordinance and where to send comments.

Again, sorry to bug you, but this is some thing that is hugely important in my life, and I don’t know what else to do.
I hope you and your family are well! I really appreciate your time.

Heidi Dunn
pasayten
Ray Peterson
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest