March 13, 2008
"JZ KNIGHT CHALLENEGES CITY OF YELM'S APPROVAL OF 5 PROPOSED SUBDIVISIONS"
JZ Knight
This writer has received several requests for a further explanation as to JZ Knight's challenge to 5 proposed subdivisions the City of Yelm approved. While The Olympian covered this issue in a brief story on March 5th, the local Nisqually Valley News (NVN) did not.
[UPDATE: The NVN published a front page story on this issue in their March 14th edition, 10 days after Ms. Knight's Press Release.]
This story was covered here on the Yelm Community Blog on March 6th and The Olympian on March 5th.
On April 28, 2006, The Olympian reported this about Lacey, "Last June, the city imposed a de facto moratorium on new development within its urban growth area because it is rapidly running out of water it’s authorized to withdraw." [For access to this story, scroll down on the hotlink to " Lacey signs on to water deal"].
Is Yelm next?
For area readers to see Ms. Knight's views unabridged, the following is the Press Release from her Public Relations firm on this subject:
JZ Knight challenges City of Yelm’s approval of five proposed subdivisions
Knight files Land Use Petition in Superior Court of Washington citing lack of available water resources to meet current & existing demand
Yelm, WA. [March 4, 2008] – JZ Knight, the founder of Ramtha’s School of Enlightenment (www.ramtha.com), has filed a Land Use Petition in the Superior Court of Washington challenging the City of Yelm’s decision (Resolution No. 481, adopted February 12, 2008) approving five proposed subdivisions (Tahoma Terra Phase II, Divisions 5 & 6; Windshadow I; Windshadow II; Wyndstone; and Berry Valley I). The petition states that the Petitioner’s “personal and property rights and interests will be directly and adversely affected by the City’s decision” based on the fact that substantial new development and new water demand will greatly exceed the City’s ability and legal rights to provide adequate water service.
City evidence shows that the City of Yelm exceeded its water rights in both 2006 and 2007 and has not accounted for the water supply that will be needed to serve approved projects. The Petitioner’s opinions are further bolstered by evidence from the Washington State Department of Ecology confirming that the City’s water demand exceeds the City’s water rights.
The Land Use Petition affirms that “Petitioner’s water rights have priority over, and are protected against impairment by, all subsequent new uses of water, including new water rights and changes to all existing water rights, such as would be required to serve the proposed subdivisions.” Yet, despite lack of demonstrable water availability, the five proposed subdivisions were approved by the Yelm City Council on February 12, 2008. In fact, the City’s own Comprehensive Water Plan concedes that acquiring any new water rights is “increasingly difficult, if not impossible.”
With respect to additional water rights the City hopes to acquire by 2012, the City’s own water plan acknowledges that it is “unlikely” that a new well source will be approved or that water rights will be granted by the Department of Ecology. Knight’s Petition asserts that the City’s own water plan undermines the City’s claim that it will acquire significant new water rights to serve future development.
“It is abundantly clear that the City of Yelm does not have an adequate potable water supply to serve these approved projects,” states Knight. “The City has not been able to stay within its legal water rights for the past two years. How will it serve the hundreds of homes it approved last year, which have not yet been built, when it already has a water deficit? And now it wants to approve another 568 homes? As I’ve stated all along, I am in favor of measured growth in Yelm but cannot, in good conscience, remain silent as the City of Yelm continues with unchecked development at a pace that cannot accommodate either current or future water needs without adversely affecting the existing residents of Yelm.”
“This court appeal would have been completely unnecessary if the Washington State Department of Ecology and Department of Health would have stepped in to protect the public interest by requiring that the City of Yelm have responsible plans in place for providing potable water to new development. Unfortunately, the agencies have not used their authority to protect the public’s interest.”
The Land Use Petition also cites a number of erroneous interpretations of the law by the City of Yelm in its final decision on the five proposed subdivisions, including the following: the City relied on erroneous information regarding its legal water rights in making determinations of current and future potable water supplies; the City failed to provide reasonable and non-speculative evidence of an adequate future potable water supply to serve these five proposed subdivisions; and, the City failed to require compliance with the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and other conditions imposed on these proposed subdivisions in the City’s prior land use approvals.
Copies of the Land Use Petition filed in the Superior Court of Washington in and for Thurston County are available for review upon request by contacting Liam Collopy, Media Representative for JZ Knight, at 310.300.0950 x 232 or via e-mail at lcollopy@LCOonline.com.
About JZ Knight
JZ Knight was born in Roswell, New Mexico, in March 1946. She is the author of the bestselling autobiography, A State of Mind: My Story, the unique channel of Ramtha the Enlightened One, and one of the most charismatic leaders of the Schools of Ancient Wisdom and the Great Work in the world today.
Press Contacts for JZ Knight:
Liam Collopy
Vice President
LCO - Levine Communications Office
1180 S. Beverly Dr. Third Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90035
E: lcollopy@LCOonline.com
T: 310.300.0950 x 232
F: 310.300.0951
www.LCOonline.com
Andrea Nicastro
Account Executive
E. andrea@LCOonline.com
T. 310.300.0950 x236
I happened across your article while doing a search on the controversy re the developments in the area and JZ’s attempt to stop them.
I read the piece a few times, it kept on mentioning evidence and such as to her reason for her appealing her appeal to stop the permits from being issued.
I was going to ask if you could post it, but a few min. search on the net provided me with some relevant facts and figures.
It appeared her initial arguments were rejected on what seemed to me like very sound grounds, she didn’t like that and filed an appeal but her atty. Mr. Moxon (is that with an r?) failed to make a differing argument. He basically just filed the same augments again. Economical for him (and I would hope JZ), but hardly worthy of any jurisdictions notice. Especially so since she claimed to have damages but failed to list what they were.
For those who wish to read each party’s arguments and the conclusions reached and why see, [the city of Yelm website, as this comment area does not accept URLs]:
I mean, I totally understand wanting to keep a small town small. Yelm is a beautiful place and it smallness has been part of its appeal, at least for a big city guy like myself. If that is what is really going on here, have some integrity and say so, don’t use the water issue as a red herring.
By the way, I was not able to find anything about the location of the developments in relation to JZ’s property, could you point me in the direction if you know where I might find that? Thanks.
Re the water issue, you ran for public office, so surely you must understand the need for advanced thinking, predicting trends, population, tax revenue, etc. I would imagine you would understand why JZ’s request was not only invalid, but also unsubstantiated, as well as unreasonable. I don’t fault her, except her poor choice of battles to fight and her attorney’s inability to form a coherent argument in her favor. Apparently, he did not know the difference between an ordinance and a resolution. Even if he had, he failed to do enough further research and see that that particular resolution had been repealed in the late 90’s!!
I would also hope that you would recognize the fact of Thurston County’s record on water conservation as well as Yelm’s and have some confidence in their ability to handle what they have been elected to do, not what a lone business entity would say they are suppose to do.
The LOTT Alliance reclamation through managed waste is saving over ½ million gallons per day or 146 million gal. per year. The Yelm reclamation project expansion has added an additional 700,000 Gal per day.
That is quite substantial for a town with a population of 4,845 (2007) in addition; the statistics show the towns growth in the last 7 years has slowed approximately 40% since the period of time during 1990-2000.
I think it might be fair to suggest that a large part of the increase during the 1990-2000 period was due in large part to the number of people who moved to Yelm to be closer to RSE as well as being in a purported safe, protected environment as the big dude had been predicting all sort of cataclysms as well as dooms day scenarios and that Yelm was the “safe place to be” (How would that make sense if now there is the fear of there not being enough water to go around???)
You know, thinking about it and after reading your article on the economic impact the population of the school has in the community (by the way, I would hazard a guess that at least 75% of all out of town student $’s get spent towards events and JZK inc. operated entities.), I did some quick math on the effects of water usage using the numbers you provided and figuring the average water usage per capita at being 50 gallons per day which I would think are probably conservative.
At that rate, the whole city of Yelm uses approx (@ the 50 gal per day per capita rate) approx 88,421,250 gal per year. The new units (given an average household of 2.67) would use approx. 27,677,950gal. Per year. This is a substantial increase (over 30%) to the estimated annual usage. However, when you view in terms of how much the Yelm reclamation expansion saves per year, it is only a bit less then a 10th of that.
In addition, if you figure that each RSE student spends a total of 25 days per year @ 50 gal per day that amounts to 6,778,625 gal per year. Remember that quite a few of these are not even city residents. They drink and use the water that is paid for by the public through taxes and bonds while spending the greater balance of their disposable income @RSE or, RSE related enterprises.
If each one ONLY spent a total of $1,000.00 per year @ RSE or RSE entities, that ads up to over 6 million dollars and I would think I have been conservative in my figures here also.
So, again, I would question the water claim. It was mentioned to me a few weeks ago that the area is expected to experience a bit of a housing boom due to the returning troops from Iraq. (Glad to see them get home!!) While I do understand the desire to keep a beautiful place the same, as with all places, people like to live in nice places and to deny, returning troops the POTENTIAL to have homes in a wonderful community is resisting a change that is inevitable. After all, it is all about being able to change, no???
Again, my math was quick. Should you find substantial errors in the numbers, please let me know.
Regards,
Robert Menna
Hi Steve,
Thank you for eventually getting my comment posted.
There were a couple of things left out, I understand it is because urls are not supported in the comment area (Something that you might want to address since not only were they relevant, but they show the veracity of and supported my comments) They also make it easier for the reader to see where ones information has come from.
In this regard I will put them down here in a way which should be supported.
All one would have to do would be put in front of the address the three w's dot and it will take you to the sites I referenced.
Re: the hearing documentation.
www.ci.yelm.wa.us/agenda/attach/7.htm
Re:the work both Thurston County as well as Yelm have done in water conservation.
www.trpc.org/resources/10_profile06_ch08_environmentnaturalresources.pdf
Re:The Yelm population and growth statistics
www.trpc.org/resources/profile07_statisticalprofiles_yelm.pdf
Re:My suggestion that a large part of the population growth in Yelm during the 90's could be attributed to the large influx of RSE students who moved to the area because they were told Yelm was a protected area from "the days to come".
www.whyaretheydead.net/misc/Factnet/CO0906AB.TXT
In addition, in your note to me you stated "The Washington State Dept. of Ecology has stated that Yelm does not have the water rights the city says they have and therefore, are unable to provide water to all those to which they have committed." I was unable to find where they said that. Could you refer me to where you got that statement from??
Thanks
Robert Menna
In answer to your question, Mr. Menna,
that information was from Ms. Knight's appeal at the Closed Record Hearing & can be found on the City of Yelm website.
www.ci.yelm.wa.us/agenda/attach/11.pdf
Additionally, I contacted the WA. State Dept. of Ecology and verified that to be true. The WA. Dept. of Ecology processes changes to existing water rights and sometimes works on new applications. Yelm has some new water rights applications that are not approved, nor can they be considered to be approved, because their approval is not assured and can take years. Major consideration is given so that original users and senior water rights holders are not impaired.
Therefore, to approve development without first acquiring additional water rights could be a conflict for the city in the future.
Steve,
I noticed you fixed it so that links can now be posted in the comment section, thank you. Would you please re-insert the web addresses in my comments to make it easier for the reader to access the information should they wish to? Thanks in advance.
On your site you have stated:
“The policy of this blog is to always allow anyone to share their views ... with the request that they are based on true facts... With that in mind, let's get the true facts…….”
In the same spirit, I would like to examine the facts you have put forward. My method for doing so will be to include your comments to be clear in context.
Steve Klein said:
""In answer to your question, Mr. Menna,
that information was from Ms. Knight's appeal at the Closed Record Hearing & can be found on the City of Yelm website.
www.ci.yelm.wa.us/agenda/attach/11.pdf""
I was aware of that I read the documents. However, her saying so, does not make it so.
""Additionally, I contacted the WA. State Dept. of Ecology and verified that to be true. ""
Unfortunately, you neglected to give the name of the person you spoke with at the WA. State Dept. of Ecology [WSDE]. So, when I spoke with Mr. Tom Loranger, Regional Office, Resource Water Manager, I was unable to let him know who had given you your information. In any event, your information was incorrect. Mr. Loranger stated the WSDE never said that Yelm was not able to provide water to all those it had committed to.
Again, the only person who has said that is JZ Knight via her attorney Mr. Moxon and again, just because they say so, does not make it so.
Now, there had been discrepancies between the calculations of water flow between WSDE and Yelm. Mr. Loranger said that these have been resolved. With Yelm agreeing to use the same computations as the WSDE. In addition, Yelm has agreed not to exceed their water rights use in 2008. They will be reporting their water use using the new computations based upon the WSDE.
All in all it appears the system is working just fine. Several jurisdictions have resolved discrepancies in dealing with each other. With the State prevailing over the town, the same way in which I would imagine the State probably complies in certain respects to the Federal.
""The WA. Dept. of Ecology processes changes to existing water rights and sometimes works on new applications. ""
Mr. Loranger said the WSDE does not really get involved in permit disputes.
""Yelm has some new water rights applications that are not approved, nor can they be considered to be approved, because their approval is not assured and can take years.""
Unfortunately, or, fortunately, if one looks at it, there is not much that is “assured” in this life. What you are attempting to say does not make sense.
You are saying Yelm has new water rights applications that are not approved and that some how the fact that they cannot be considered to be approved (at this point in time, because they are not approved), Their approval is not assured???? I have to use a much-maligned CA saying here…DUH!! So what??
If all permits were assured how would that work exactly?? Kind of takes the meaning out of the word permit doesn’t it??? Can you really imagine going to the Office of Assured Permits???
""Major consideration is given so that original users and senior water rights holders are not impaired.
Therefore, to approve development without first acquiring additional water rights could be a conflict for the city in the future.""
Here again, you say therefore, relying on your previous erroneous statements that by approving development without acquiring first additional water rights could be a conflict for the city in the future.
Fact is that is exactly how it is normally. One should have “reasonable” expectations of how the future should be perceived. The County acts in good faith with the town and visa-versa there is a level of trust involved that perhaps you are unfamiliar with. Governments function like that so that things can get done and not get bogged down in minutiae that is what I see JZ knight doing. In the process, she adds to the taxpayer’s burden through their paying the costs of her senseless appeals.
To my knowledge Government has done a commendable job (talking Thurston County). Especially with regard to water usage, conservation and adjudication.
I do not believe that you “reasonably” expect to walk into the Office of Assured Permits to Eliminate All Conflicts in the Future.
Then again, perhaps you can create that reality more then just in print. I assure you, I would I would stand in line there too when you do!
Published in the NVN on March 21, 2008
Editor:
The shortage of water is not confined to Yelm alone. As this week's issue of the NVN headlines, "Rainier weighs options as water hookups dwindle".
Readers of the Olympia paper will know that the cities of Lacey, Olympia and Tumwater have all been eagerly vying for the water rights of the historic Tumwater brewery since its closure.
A quick search on Google for "water shortages" will yield a plethora of water woes worldwide as this precious commodity becomes scarce from frivolous, wasteful usage
to outright pollution and careless management.
Anyone championing the conservation of water, coupled with wise growth management, is to be commended for their far vision which protects many, instead of a few.
With respect to your subtitle "Legal fees alone will cost the city more than $50,000" in the accompanying article about JZ Knight's appeal concerning water rights, it is
difficult to feel sorry for the city when it had every opportunity to pursue her request during normal council meetings, as reported previously by the NVN, and which
could have avoided the necessity of taking the matter to court.
The city chose unwisely.
It is the moral obligation and responsibility of the city to provide enough water for its existing residents and businesses. If it cannot do so, common sense dictates a
moratorium on development so that the needs of the many may be preserved over the needs of a few.
Let us pray such wisdom prevails.
Very truly yours,
Victoria Blazejewski
The grand thing about this issue is that a court will be looking at the views presented from all sides and make a determination.
That is what is so wonderful about our how our country handles its issues!