On Wednesday morning, Oct. 30th, last week's editions of the Cascadia Weekly will be taken away and new ones delivered. Until then, concerned citizens will find a petition against the county's new slaughter ordinance in the centerfold. This Tuesday, I recommend grabbing as many petitions as your anti-slaughter and anti-bonehead zoning enthusiasm will allow. Grab a few for others, too. Early Wednesday morning, old Weeklys start heading for recycle and additional petitions will appear only at additional expense (There is an address on the petition to which anyone can send money).

Let's be clear. Some folks oppose slaughter categorically. However, many support locally sourced quality meats. That requires local producers have access to adequate facilities. COWS believe that one or two thoughtfully sited facilities can serve this local need. We oppose the county's blanket approval of slaughter over all 88,000 acres of the Agricultural (AG) district. Even proponents repeatedly testified that one or two facilities would be enough, but they also ardently pressed for a district-wide rezone, as if they knew something big was in the works, or they just didn't want to examine and determine which lands were most or least suitable.

Slaughter has been prohibited in the AG district for a long time. This is to prevent problems with the contamination of crops and livestock and to preserve farmland for farming. Slaughter is an industrial use that produces large volumes of water contaminated with heavy Chemical and Biological Oxygen demands (COD & BOD), massive quantities of offal, solid  and intestinal waste (typically 40% of live kill weight), plus potential human health threats and a number of concomitant social problems.  The County Council property rights majority has now long pursued a recidivist policy of non-compliance with the State Growth Management Hearings Board. This has rendered existing industrial zones unavailable for siting slaughterhouses. Instead of complying with state law, the 'property rights' council majority chose to open all 88,000 acres of AG to slaughter.

The majority's property rights doctrine runs roughshod over the property rights of people already utilizing the AG zone.  The AG district includes a lot of existing homes, schools, churches and businesses. The county's blanket approval means a slaughterhouse can be built next door to any existing investment, with no opportunity for appeal. A property owner doesn't even need to raise animals to site a slaughterhouse as an 'accessory use.' Usually, accessory uses are ancillary to the primary use of that same property.  But under a definition unique to this ordinance, slaughterhouses can be sited anywhere in the AG district as long as it is ancillary to any use anywhere in the AG district. That means anywhere.

Even farmers are concerned. Flies and vermin from slaughter operations can carry pathogens and render nearby crops unsalable. Disease can be spread by birds and insects from animal operations, holding ponds, etc. Slaughter is the most notoriously noisome land use known to the history of human habitation. It was the original stimulus for land use regulation. Violent and sexual crimes are known to increase in communities that add slaughter to their economic repertoire. There is nothing pretty about it.

Consolidation in the industry and a trend toward factory farming has led to increased outbreaks of disease, increased incidence of antibiotics in water supplies, problems with super-bugs becoming resistant to those antibiotics, and generally increased mistrust by discerning consumers in the quality of available product.  Many want to see if we can do a better job locally. This includes both consumers unhappy with factory farming, and local producers who either produce un-inspected "custom" meats, or have to beg for schedules and incur extra transport costs to get their animals to a USDA facility.  They would rather be profitable.

Many communities are trying to address localvore market demand and increase producer profitability.  The successful ones are using COWS recommended approach - building a consortium of producers, consumers, retailers and operators, hewing to quality standards of feeding and treatment that can command a premium brand, and then thoughtfully siting a cooperative facility (or negotiating a better arrangement with operators) to make it possible to produce USDA inspected product locally.  A Lopez Island cooperative has been a successful model for many communities across the nation.  Locally, North Cascades Meat Cooperative is in the beginning stages of organization and following this thoughtful model.  They were unwilling to go on record against the blanket ordinance, but did offer that it was unnecessary to the fulfillment of their plan.

The bottom line is that we don't need 88,000 acres approved for slaughter.  We need one good mobile facility and/or a couple thoughtfully sited acres, preferably served by publicly owned water supply and wastewater treatment.  That's the only way to sure that operators won't be cutting corners and creating environmental risks when things get tight.  In fact, mobile has risks and opening too many possibilities undermines the intended aims, because the business is inherently marginal and allowing too many operations increases the risk of failure for all.  This is the exact reason local producers lack access to adequate local facilities.  Marginal operations are systematically acquired and closed because factory operators know market control is their best management strategy.

If anyone has bothered to read this far, I have some good news and some bad news.  The bad news is that referenda against zoning ordinances are vulnerable to legal challenge.  Despite broad, lofty language about rights reserved by 'the people' in the State Constitution, the Whatcom County Charter and the Secretary of State's Handbook on Initiative and Referenda, the courts have ruled that zoning authority has been delegated from the State Legislature only to lower legislative bodies, not 'the people'.  Hence, any rights to direct democracy reserved by 'the people' are unavailable to the people on zoning matters, according to case law.  The good news is that a petition is still the best way to express a community's concern and to the degree that a petition is successful, it becomes an inexorable force for change that no one can deny.  No one denies a petition without cost.  Furthermore, failure to exert these rights is exactly how we lose them.

The law means we will also have to prosecute our grievance at the Growth Management hearings Board.  The indignity of explanation is upon us (Please note: There is an address on the petition to which anyone can send money).  A successful petition drive is always an American's best insurance. It's how we got started.  It says, "Perk up and pay attention."  Ours will encourage all to undo the horrible zoning error that has been ignorantly inflicted on Whatcom County.  It will work for a new council to reconsider the will of the people.  Even at appeal, it will make the County's defense look less democratic and undermine their enthusiasm. 

Pursuing both the appeal and the petition is the best way to effectively 'picklefork' this issue and ensure its revocation.  Citizens can do this.

The beauty of a petition, like doorbelling a campaign, is that once face-to-face social interaction on an issue has begun, the battles may drag on, but the war, in time, is won!