On Aug. 5, I went to the Critical Areas Ordinance meeting. I understood that:

• It may cost $30,000 to survey a site for a “smaller house” to assess impact of CAO regulations.

• Compliance costs could not be estimated but “mitigation” might involve works beyond the site, even outside the county.

• County has no people qualified to undertake such surveys and that such people would be “expensive”.

• Work on defining the new regulations is proceeding, but no related costing is in hand.

• Anticipated cost is not a factor in defining the new regulations.

• No cost-benefit determinations are being performed.

Then, S&P downgraded the U.S. I read that Senator Barrasso had stated that in July alone, the Administration had introduced 379 new regulations that were expected to cost $9.5 Billion.

We, country, state and county are presently in dire financial straits.  We may expect increased interest rates from the “downgrade,” the cost impact of much increased national and state regulation and higher taxes shortly plus our dramatically increasing deficit interest.  And yet we are busily at work drafting a whole new set of regulations that will place new, undefined costs on our property owners in the form of increased property taxes plus direct costs of compliance.   Despite the potential impact of this on island population – tax payer base – we are not apparently recognizing these costs.

Finally, I question whether you have thought through the unintended consequences. I enjoy the wildlife of Orcas, I would not like these new environmental rules to result in its depletion. However, one must envision the possibility of people faced with massive “mitigation costs” versus the cost of “re-locating” a plant or small animal, making a simple “cost –benefit analysis.”

S. John Gorton

Orcas Island