----- Original Message -----

From: Norman
MacLeod

To: Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights

Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 12:56 PM

Subject: [Capr-discussion] FW: Most recent
draft Policy Statement on WRIA 17

From: Bill Neal [mailto:[email-masked]]

Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 11:54 AM

To: Subject: RE: Most recent draft Policy Statement on WRIA 17

Josh D. Peters,

I have reviewed your attached proposed “Jefferson
County Policy Statement on Implementation of the Watershed Plan for WRIA 17”. The introduction contains
some noble and wise sentiment that I trust are written with sincerity. In your
introduction I note that you state that is not acceptable to “wait until the well goes dry”. I can only assume that you
were talking metaphorically. The reason I assume that is what you meant is
because there is no evidence that the well is going dry. In the end, who will believe our assumptions when presented
without sound scientific evidence? Before we ask property owners in Jefferson
County to voluntarily or at least peacefully accept the eventuality that they
will not be able to use their real property do you not think it would be
appropriate demonstrate to those people the compelling need for them to do so?

In the
introduction you state: “We
recognize that there is broad agreement that we all share this water and that
it is the essential element in our
shared quality of life”. I
suggest that sharing water and the fact that it is the essential element of
life should not be by agreement but by right. Who has the right to deny the
access of water to any human? The government may in its wisdom and in light of
overriding public interest limit the amount of water that a person can access
but to deny all water access to a person is, according to the United Nations (United Nation Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights General Articles 11 and 12) to deny
them life itself. The United Nations clearly and without bias states, "the human right to water entitles everyone to
sufficient, safe, acceptable, physically accessible and affordable water for
personal and domestic uses". It further sates "the human right to water is
indispensable for leading a life in human dignity. It is a prerequisite for the
realization of other human rights". (United Nation Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights General Comment Number 15 (2002)) (italics added)

Do the people of Jefferson County have their “human right” to water for their domestic needs clearly
and without bias established within the current language of the WIRA 17
Watershed plan? If not, why not. Do we ever image a time when Jefferson County
will deny another human being access to water? It is almost unthinkable. Even
hated prisoners of war are allowed access to water of questionable quantity and
quality. How can the people of Jefferson County ever find the will to make or accept reasonable and
just decisions on watershed planning when their own access to water
is not established and protected by law?

Who will be the first in Jefferson County to be denied the ability
to drill a well on their property for their own personal domestic use because
the magical and mysterious reservation, recommended by the WRIA planning group,
is empty? But did we really deny him water they may ask? His water for personal
and domestic is in the form of an inchoate right held by a public water system
and if he would pay for the infrastructure to access the water from the public
water system they will be happy to sell him his water at a “reasonable” rate. Whose water is it
anyway? Does it belong to the public water system that holds it inchoate in the
same aquifer that underlies the citizen’s own land? What difference
could it possible make if the citizen drills a well or extend a pipeline? The
difference is first, cost, second, choice, and third, right.

If any citizen is forced to extend a pipeline from the water
utility to his property the cost, in most all cases is way beyond prohibitive.
It is like telling a person that an operation could save his child’s life and the large
corporate hospital would be happy to perform the operation if only they had the
money. By the way, the parents could save their child’s life with a simple,
inexpensive holistic procedure but the government cannot allow you to do that
because the big corporate water district, I mean hospital, has invested a lot
of money in their infrastructure and they are counting on your business to help
pay for it.

The other difference is choice. Why should be we forced to make
such a choice. We can choose to be off of the electrical grid if we want. Why
not off the water grid. We can choose to have a back up
generator on our property for emergencies. Why are we not
allowed to have a back up well on our properties for emergencies? Why is the
government forcing (another way of saying “taking away our ability to
choose”) people to hook up to public
water with no ability to have any emergency back up
water source and when we could
construct a personal onsite water system for a fraction of the cost? Where is
the overriding public interest that is forcing all citizens to access water from a
municipality?

The last and most compelling difference it will make is in the relinquishment
of our rights. Arguably the people of Washington State have enjoyed the ability
to drill a well without permission from the State for more than a century. In
fact the vast majority of the people views RCW 99.44.050 more as a property
right than and exemption.
When is a right not a right? When some tries to take it away.
Does the planning unit really want to recommend to the legislature that they
limit the (if not established defiantly perceived) right to drill a well? If
so, what specific scientific studies will you base this recommendation on?
Please tell us that the planning group has sound scientific evidence of the
harm that the continued reliance on private domestic wells will have a
detrimental impact on rivers and streams such as to warrant such a massive
taking. The science that I see being promulgated by the WRIA 17 planning group
is at best subjective or at worst disingenuous.

I personally agree with most
of the sentiments that are continued within the proposed “Jefferson County Policy Statement on Implementation of the Watershed Plan for WRIA 17” document. I suggest that
the document is incomplete. Please include an acknowledgement that there must
be a priority when allocating the water resource. The priority must be people.
Include a commitment to the human right to water in this important public
policy statement. Establish and defend the peoples right to drill a well for their personal use,
within established laws, on their property without permission from the state or
local governments. By so doing the commissioners will send a message to the
department of ecology, the legislature, the governor and most importantly their
constituents that the people of Jefferson County must have, at a minimum, their
basic water needs met. Under that assurance the people of Jefferson County will
move forward with much needed action to not only protect stream flows but
enhance them.

Respectful Yours,

_______________________________________________

This list is for discussion of property rights issues
and related subjects. It is provided by Citizens Alliance for Property Rights,
but message content is the responsibility of the sender, not CAPR. Do not infer
that posters are officials, members, or even friends of CAPR. This is an unmoderated list. Anything you send to the list will go
immediately to all subscribers, unless  the
filters think it may be spam. Please observe the common sense rules of civil
discussion.

Subscribe to our main list (Capr-announce) to receive
meeting announcements, etc. from CAPR. Those items will not be sent to this
list.

Capr-discussion mailing list

[email-masked]

http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/capr-discussion