County Slaughterhouse Proposal Moves Closer to EnactmentPermalink +
Fri, May 31, 2013, 7:20 pm // Wendy Harris
According to the latest County Council agenda update for the Tuesday, June 4, 2013 Council meeting, the Council will discuss the slaughterhouse rezone proposal, now being called the packinghouse proposal, at a special Council of the Whole meeting at 9:30 A.M. The proposal is planned for introduction that evening, which simply means that the public is put on notice that this is moving forward for consideration by the entire Council. A public hearing is tentatively planned for June 18, after which this proposal could be approved.
It is difficult to comprehend why the Council is moving forward with the proposal given the nature and the extent of the obstacles which must be affirmatively ignored to enact this into law. With strong opposition by a number of unrelated stakeholders, and support only from the most rabid members of the AG community (i.e, Council candidate Ben Elenbaas and his friends on the Whatcom County Planning Committee and the Tea Party), it is not clear how it is in any Council member’s political interest to pass this steaming pile of manure. Among the relevant facts being overlooked:
- We have adequate land available for slaughterhouse and processing plants in the County’s RIM (Rural Industrial Manufacturing) zone, located on Portal Way, which provides convenient access from I-5. There are approximately 45 acres of land available for development in this RIM zone. By comparison, the Keizer Meats operation uses slightly more than 1/20 of an acre. Additionally, slaughter houses and processing plants can be sited in our HII (Heavy Industrial) zone at Cherry Point. In other words, there is a more than ample supply of available land.
- The County lacks a supply and demand analysis that indicates the need for a rezone of 88,000 acres of AG land for slaughter facilities and meat packing plants.
- Slaughterhouses and processing plants use intensive amounts of water. Whatcom County is facing a water shortage. Farmers are among those most affected by water quantity issues, with an estimated 75% of farmers lacking adequate water rights to farm their land. We should not be creating additional demand on our limited supply of water in the AG zone. We need this water to grow food.
- Slaughterhouses and packing plants are an industrial use of land, and are known sources of water, soil and air quality degradation. Slaughter and rendering create potential but serious threats to public health and safety.
- The proposal does not prevent a slaughterhouse or packing plant from being built in critical areas, such as wetlands, or critical aquifer recharge areas, or along shorelines and streams. This could have significant impact on the local ground water supply, as well as sensitive environment resources.
- The proposal falsely claims that a SEPA review was conducted. The SEPA review consisted of an applicant, without knowledge of our AG land, answering virtually all questions regarding impacts with “NA.” Worse, the SEPA reviewed an earlier version of the proposal which had lower impact. That version allowed slaughterhouses of up to 5,000 square feet. This version allows meat packing plants of up to 30,000 square feet.
- AG zoning is based on soil ratings. Prime AG soil should not be wasted on non-farm uses that can be sited elsewhere. This proposal will result in a net reduction of farm land, and even worse, it will fragment our agricultural land, which is a threat to the viability of the County’s agricultural economy.
- The USDA supports the use of Mobile Slaughter Units (MSU) as a means of promoting small, local farmers. The County has failed to consider the use of MSU as an alternative to building slaughter facilities and meat processing plants.
- The County has failed to consider the long term financial viability of small slaughter facilities, particularly in light of the high costs to comply with state water quality permit requirements. An economy of scale applicable in the slaughter industry creates a great deal of consolidation. The proposal does not consider this, and with an allowable size of up to 30,000 square feet, does not protect us against consolidation.
If you care about our agricultural land, please ask the Whatcom County Council to do the following:
- Deny outright the proposal to rezone AG land for slaughter and meat processing. It is simply a bad idea that does not support our local farmers, our local food, or the environment.
In the alternative, if the Council refuses to deny this proposal, ask that it be sent back to the Planning Commission for development of the following issues;
- A supply and demand analysis that establishes and quantifies the need for additional land to site slaughter houses and processing plants. This should include a discussion of why the existing RIM and HII zones are not adequate.
- The proposal should be revised so that a rezone reflects the actual land needed, if any, rather than all 88,000 acres of AG land.
- If additional land is determined to be needed, it should be rezoned as RIM or HII, instead of amending the County code to allow industrial operations on farm land.
- Strict prohibition against building a slaughter facility or meat processing plant in critical areas, including aquifer recharge areas or wellhead protection zones, shorelines and streams.
- Consideration of the use of MSU as an alternative to slaughterhouses and processing plants.
Fri, May 31, 2013, 7:20 pm
2 comments; last on Jun 01, 2013
Fri, May 31, 2013, 5:43 pm
1 comments; last on May 10, 2015
Fri, May 31, 2013, 12:01 am
3 comments; last on Jun 02, 2013
Fri, May 24, 2013, 1:18 am
4 comments; last on May 26, 2013
Wed, May 22, 2013, 11:12 am
7 comments; last on May 26, 2013
Mon, May 20, 2013, 12:48 pm
Fri, May 17, 2013, 5:44 pm
9 comments; last on May 24, 2013
Thu, May 16, 2013, 12:55 pm
1 comments; last on May 17, 2013
Wed, May 15, 2013, 11:23 pm
5 comments; last on May 16, 2013
Mon, May 13, 2013, 3:50 am
10 comments; last on Jun 30, 2013
Fri, May 10, 2013, 10:22 am
1 comments; last on May 12, 2013
Fri, May 10, 2013, 12:07 am
Wed, May 08, 2013, 9:53 am
Mon, May 06, 2013, 2:40 am
2 comments; last on May 08, 2013
Sun, May 05, 2013, 3:45 pm
Sat, May 04, 2013, 1:09 pm
3 comments; last on May 11, 2013
Fri, May 03, 2013, 11:16 pm
Wed, May 01, 2013, 11:31 pm
1 comments; last on May 04, 2013
We Thank Our SponsorsClick to See All Sponsors
About NWCitizenDonations maintain site
Thru the years
League of Women VotersCalendar of Events
Videos of Districting Committee
Local Online NewsBellingham Herald
Bham Business Journal
Bham Politics & Econ
KPLU fm radio
Western Front - WWU
Local CausesChuckanut C. Forest
City Club of Bellingham
Community Wise Bham
Futurewise - Whatcom
Lummi Island Quarry
N. Cascades Audubon
NW Holocaust Center
Powder River Basin R. C.
Salish Sea Org.
Save the Granary
WA Conservation Voters
Whatcom Peace & Justice
Our Governments- Whatcom County
Port of Bellingham
US Supreme Court
US The White House
NWCitizen 1995-2007Early Northwest Citizen
Weather & ClimateCliff Mass Weather Blog
EPIC World Photos
Nat Hurricane Center
Two day forecast
Watts Up With That?
Local LeisureAdventures NW
Good Web SitesAl-Jazeera online
Change The Mascot
Edge of Sports
Foreign Policy in Focus
Julia Ioffe/New Republic
Middle East Times
New American Century
Personal bio info
Portland Indy Media
Project Vote Smart
Stand for the Troops
Talking Points Memo
The Crisis Papers
War and Piece
Quiet, Offline or DeadBellingham Register
Bhm Herald Politics Blog
Citizens of Bellingham
Cordata & Meridian
Facebook Port Reform
Friends of Whatcom
Get Whatcom Planning
Intrnational Herald Tribune
N. Sound Conservancy
No Leaky Buckets
Protect Bellingham Parks
The American Telegraph