This lengthy named proposed project with a title burdened with pseudo language is equally burdened with psuedo needs, science, and law. It boils down to this; do Washingtonians want to lose vast areas of Farmland and the Property Rights of all to a 1.1 Billion dollar Growth Management Scheme running wild in the guise of restoring shore-lands? To a great many citizens in Washington, the answer is a resounding NO! Their formal comments have been sent to the powers that be. The comment posted here today is especially enjoyable for its hearty, no punches pulled getting to the heart of the matter approach! Enjoy! Written Comment on Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP) Roger H. Mitchell, Washington I strongly oppose the Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP) and, in my opinion, it should be irrevocably terminated immediately. Opinion: The entire premise for PSNERP is scientifically flawed, ideologically driven, and just another veiled attempt to socially engineer and control the lives of private property owners. At it’s best, PSNERP is a government make-work program; at it’s worst PSNERP is merely another chapter in irresponsible environmentalism run amok. Procedurally, this proposed project has been seriously flawed. There are significant inconsistencies and discrepancies between pugetsoundnearshore.org’s website and the website at nws.usace.army.mil. Discrepancies include different numbers of affected acres and in cost projections. If the goal was to confuse the public then, for once, government has succeeded. Why are we just getting to comment now on something that has been proceeding for years ? Why and how are we now being “steamrollered” into supporting this proposal in what appears to be a predetermined outcome that, once gain, bears little resemblance to the “consent of the governed? The proposed project is at odds with RCW 36.70A – the Growth Management Act (GMA). PSNERP will cause destruction and loss of farmland and rural business that is contrary to GMA mandates. Some ideologues have relentlessly made it more and more difficult for farmers to grow the crops that feed the rest of us. Why let PSNERP add to the decline of farmland, farming, and farmers ? Any PSNERP proposed project must show, in detail, how it complies with the GMA. Thus far, that demonstration of compliance has been disregarded, overlooked, or intentionally omitted in PSNERP proposals. Among the many problems with PSNERP and its many clones is that the instigators are never held accountable for their mistakes and failures. They play with other people’s money or, in this case, other people’s properties. Essentially they have no “skin in the game”. Ten years from now, when PSNERP has failed to do anything positive, and has had numerous, negative, unintended consequences, do you think the current PSNERPers are going to say, “Gee; I’m sorry ‘bout that PSNERP thing and wasting that Billion dollars. Do you want your refund in cash or a check ?” Actions: The EIS should be withdrawn. My preference would be to abandon this proposal and not waste another taxpayer dollar on it. There needs to be a true cost/benefit analysis. We’re talking about potential misappropriation and misapplication of taxpayer dollars. Without an honest cost benefit study, the public cannot properly determine whether the proposed project is acceptable or worthy of full funding, partial funding, or, my personal favorite, no funding at all. Let’s have a little chat about “restoration” and unanswered questions: re•store r??stôr/ verb: return (someone or something) to a former condition, place, or position. res•to•ra•tion ?rest??r?SH(?)n/ noun: the action of returning something to a former owner, place, or condition So, I ask you, where are the answers to the following “restoration” questions ? 1.Apparently there is a specific time and condition to which we should presumptively “restore”. How do we know that that chosen time and condition was, in fact, optimal or better in any way relative to the current time and condition ? 2.Who actually knows the details and dynamics of that presumptively chosen optimal time and condition to which PSNERPers would have us restore to from current conditions ? 3.Who gets to make the determination of what time and condition we are restoring to ? 4.Even if the PSNERP proposal could be determined to be either good or bad, who has decreed who has the authority to decide for all of the rest of us whether the proposal is good? 5.The issue is “restoration” projects; these projects do not exist in a vacuum — they affect other people, locations, and conditions as well. Worldviews, movements, and projects — these things all have consequences. What are PSNERP’s costs in resources (time & taxpayer dollars) and what other possible projects and programs will PSNERP preclude ? 6.What are the unintended consequences of the proposed PSNERP projects ? Forces result from interactions. The proposed PSNERP projects are interactive forces. Newton’s Third Law of Motions reminds us that For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. When you poke the balloon in one place it pops out in another. When PSNERP projects “poke” the balloon of status quo, what is going to pop out elsewhere as a result ? 7.Does anyone at PSNERP realize that the earth’s geology, biology, and ecology have been in a constant state of change since their very inceptions and will continue to change for infinity ? How incredibly arrogant, condescending, and egocentric of some to think they can determine exactly what is “best” in terms of time or condition for any of these dynamic, natural processes. 8.By what criteria has someone determined that current conditions are not “best” and has chosen the particular, proposed, “restore to” slice of time and conditions as better or optimal? 9.Purportedly, PSNERP is, like detrimental instream flow rules, all about salmon. Why are some people so wrapped up in attempting to “protect” one particular species (salmonids) to the detriment of others ? Who chose salmonids over other worthy species (including humans) who are left to compete, unassisted and unprotected, in the Darwinian battle with the rest of us ? We call it, “life”. PSNERP proposals have not provided good or acceptable answers to any of the above questions. Fallacies: PSNERP is yet another exercise in governmental fallacious reasoning. Fallacies can be divided into categories according to the epistemological factors that cause the error: •The reasoning is invalid but is presented as if it were a valid argument •The argument has an unjustified premise •Some relevant evidence has been ignored or suppressed The PSNERP proposal has all of these fallacies. But, just be sure, PSNERP also has the types of fallacies listed below: False Dilemma A proposal that unfairly presents too few choices and then implies that a choice must be made among this short menu of choices False Cause Improperly concluding that one thing is a cause of another. Reversing Causation Drawing an improper conclusion about causation due to a causal assumption that reverses cause and effect. Unfalsifiability (Untestability) This error in explanation occurs when the explanation contains a claim that is not falsifiable, because there is no way to check on the claim. That is, there would be no way to show the claim to be false if it were false. There is no null hypothesis. And the environmentalist ideologue’s perennial favorite: Scare Tactic Terrorizing people in order to give them a reason for believing that you are correct. By the way, while we’re “restoring”: While we’re in the “restoration” business I’d like a few things restored, too: •I’d like my inherent, natural property rights restored. •I’d like my pursuit of happiness restored by not being constantly barraged with yet another manic, trumped up, Chicken Little environmental “crisis” that needs to be “mitigated”. •I’d like my Washington State government restored to what the state’s founders intended in Article 1, Section 1 of the Washington State Constitution that calls for “consent of the governed”. Will it help if I ask nicely ? Please ! Stop wasting our time, money, and goodwill. PSNERP is wrong for many, may reasons; it should be irrevocably terminated immediately.
January 9, 2015