More from your Friendly Neighborhood Nanny State.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at January 08, 2008 10:28 AM | Email ThisThis may or may not be a bad idea, but it hardly has anything to do with the nanny state. Nanny state regulations are those which restrict a person's behavior for his own (supposed) benefit. You know, like a nanny.
This is about reducing air pollution, which is a different thing.
Posted by: ScottM on January 8, 2008 10:48 AMIncorrect.
Nanny state regulations are those which restrict a person's behavior for his own (supposed) benefit.
Correct.
This is about reducing air pollution, which is a different thing.
If I burn my lawn waste in a small, controlled, fire -- as required by my burn permit -- I do not cause any significant danger from "popllution" to anyone but myself.
Posted by: pudge on January 8, 2008 11:01 AMI know dumb, but I just couldn't help myself.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 8, 2008 11:11 AMI have always thought of burning as much the same as if I owned a dog and every day I went into my back yard, shoveled up my dogs do-do and thrown it over the fence into my neighbors yard. They are both health issues and I do not have the right to rid my waste onto my neighbor.
I enjoy the mulch from the chopped up branches around my flower bed, my neighbor enjoys the view and the clean air he breaths. And he doesn't have to call the cops for my trespass.
Nanny state? Perhaps viewed by some, but being discourteous to your neighbors (no matter if they live miles away) has always been the cause of new regulations. Solution, do unto others as you would want them to do unto you.
Posted by: Ken Howard on January 8, 2008 11:39 AMAll of these are in place now in cities throughout the country. Nevermind that they often cost more and use more energy than they claim to save. Nevermind that they are often more dangerous with a greater environmental footprint.
It's about control of our lives. And they will continue to live it up and demand that the rest of us live it down. Al Gore is the poster child of this movement.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 8, 2008 11:41 AMDef: karmageddon - It's like, when everybody is sending off all these really bad vibes, right? And then, like, the Earth explodes and it's, like, a serious bummer.
Posted by: Birkenstock on January 8, 2008 11:50 AMNow make the case for why THIS one is. They don't, and neither do you. There is no significant health issue here, if the existing regulations for burns are followed, which means small, controlled, fires.
Heck, mowing your lawn creates far more of a health issue than burning does. Not only does it create all that noise pollution, but it spews exhaust from the engine, and throws -- to many people -- dangerous allergens into the air. Think that's stupid? I have only rarely known someone who has had to avoid a burn, but I know many people who have to avoid being around lawns that are being, or have recently been, mowed. Even people that have to say indoors when their neighbors are mowing.
Sorry, I just don't buy it. It doesn't make logical sense, unless you blow up the problem to be far greater than it actually is.
Posted by: pudge on January 8, 2008 11:53 AMThis is yet another case of the tri-county urban do-gooders trying to instill their beliefs upon the citizens of rural areas (e.g. CAO).
What's going on with that Cascade County movement these days?
Posted by: Smoley on January 8, 2008 12:27 PMNo house can be sealed sufficiently (and should not be) to stop smoke from entering.
I am not trying to blow up the problem, pudge, but it is a problem. Are you a neighbor who throws your dog do-do into my yard? I doubt it.
Government spends a lot of time creating rules for sometimes non-existent problems, such as smoking in a bar. That only affects the people inside. They can choose to stay or leave. Putting them outside the bar where I have to walk through their smoke, to me, created a larger problem than before.
Outdoor burning, burning "wet" wood inside and allowing burning every day are a problem for many people. Perhaps a better regulation is that you could only burn on Saturday (or pick another day). At least those of us with weaken immune systems would not have to breath it day after day and we could remain inside on "Burning Day".
I enjoy the part of summer when there is a burn ban, I CAN BREATH!
Posted by: Ken Howard on January 8, 2008 12:33 PMIf you want to limit it further so it poses less of a risk of a problem, fine. Make sure that fires are small, and burning doesn't happen all the time. We can have that discussion. But outright banning of something that doesn't actually cause a problem, like my once-a-year tiny burn in my yard? I call that nanny-statism.
I think you and I could come to a compromise. The people making this proposal don't seem to be looking for compromise.
Posted by: pudge on January 8, 2008 12:43 PMOn average, I have more than 20 trees per acre. (I had to count them for some goverment thing a few years back.) hese trees are not little ornamental ones either like you people downtown put in planters - I'm talking a thick covering with lots of big ones.
With the exception of my home, barn and about 3 acres of land I use to raise a lot of my own food, the rest of this considerable tract of land if filled with living breathing greenery that takes bad stuff out of the air and puts good stuff in.
I don't use pesticides or other chemicals. It's all natural.
You taxpayers in the city don't pay a cent for all the work my land does in syphoning bad stuff out of the air nor for the water than makes its way through the ground into the water table.
Now, after a windstorm I MIGHT collect all the downed branches and drive them the 20 miles each way to the transfer station where they would be come part of our very limited landfill.
I'm not sure that's good environmental policy. Do you city dwellers have any kind of understanding of how limited the landfill capacity is or how much you pay for it.
My ranch truck (which is what I would use) gets about 8 miles a gallon and it would probably take 10 trips or so each year. I don't know how much pollution it burps out, but I'm sure it's plenty.
(Before anyone whines too much about this, I guess I should say I bought the truck in 1992 and have less than 30,000 miles on it. It's not exactly been a huge source of pollution either and scrapping it would probably cause more pollution than continuing to use it to pull stumps and haul hay.)
You clowns in the city want to impose this rule? that's fine I guess. I'll probably find a way to kill off the trees that drop the most branches as a result. Save me some time and clean-up. I might pollute the air with my big old truck a lot more, and fill up your landfill faster.
But, truth be known, I'll probably STILL burn a ton of downed tree branches and yard debris because the law will let me do it anytime there is an "emergency need" - which is about twice a year when the winds kick up and we get the big storms. That's when I do most of the burning anyway.
I'll also remind my good neighbors that once again the Seattle liberals are imposing their senseless laws on us when they have no understanding of what they are doing. Then I'll pass the hat for Tim Eyeman and the GOP like I always do and the checks (always generous anyway) will likely get a little bigger.
Posted by: johnny on January 8, 2008 01:18 PMWith all due respect sir you have obviously suffered a case of reintarnation; and you need to clean up your frickin act!
Def: reintarnation - Coming back to life as a hillbilly.
Posted by: citidweller on January 8, 2008 01:28 PMGood topic. I spent 4 years on the PSCAA Board of Directors fighting this very issue. The urban dwellers just don't understand the lifestyle of the rural home owner.
Some back ground, burning yard debris inside any city or urban growth area is already illegal. So the proposed ban is limited to rural and resource lands which have typical 5 acre zoning with scattered higher density where previous zoning laws allowed it.
King and Pierce County have already imposed county wide bun bans. Up to this point Snohomish County has resisted the Ban. With the currently green County Council, I think all resistance is gone. One member of the County Council sits on the Board of PSCAA, currently assigned to Mike Cooper.
Back to the five acre minimum zoning issue. Any five acre homesite is now required to leave around 3 acres in restricted no clear open space as required and enforced by the various Critical Area Ordinaces of each County. Each County is a little different, but each strives to maximize the native growth and limit the impervious surface (read usable) space.
With three acres of rural land native land to be a good steward of, the typical land owner encounters multiple piles of wind debris, tree prunings, detroyed blackberry infestations, weed control etc... every year. Sometimes every season depending on storm activity.
The simple tried and true solution is to procure a burn permit with the local fire district (yes in rural Snohomish County the fire departments are independant government bodies, unlike King County which controls it all) to burn legally in small defined piles. This alerts the fire district that if the get a call to 101 Rural Road that a burn permit has been issued and there is no immediate emerency. Done properly, it limits costs to area fire districts.
The new reg's would have each land owner hauling all their debris to the local drop box, of which three exist in the entire east half of Snohomish County. Then pay a fee to deposit the material. The County then transports the material to the Rossevelt land fill in South Central Washington via rail car (at a substantial expense) or pays a local composting firm (Cedar Grove et al) to take it off their hands, also at an expense to the County.
Cedar Grove the composts the debris and sells it back to the very urban dwellers who want the ban to feed their flower beds in the urban areas.
It seems to me that the rural bun ban is a solution looking for an expensive answer, an expense to be born by the rural land owner for the benifit of the urban dwellers who all live up wind anyway.
Sorry for the long post.
Best to all,
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff Sax on January 8, 2008 01:39 PMMore from your Friendly Neighborhood Nanny State.
Just more nanny state trying to regulate the proper flow of traffic on the roads. Damn the State and their evil traffic light ways....I want to go where I want when I want. Safety of others be dammed!!
Is that what your arguing here Pudge, have you gone over to the Ron Paul side?
There are many things/laws/restrictions that absolutely make sense for some areas, but not everywhere. A complete ban is probably a good thing in urban, high density areas. It is beyond comprehension to even consider a total ban in rural areas.
Our problem with most County agencies is that policy is dictated to the Rural by the Urban. Urbaners know nothing about rural life. Urbaners should stay in the big cities where they belong and regulate themselves. Leave us rural folks alone!
Posted by: Seabecker on January 8, 2008 01:45 PMMy parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles and neighbors all incinerated EVERYTHING that would burn... AND my Greek neighbor, who was top of the fads in the 70's with her disposable diapers, burned those... filled!
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on January 8, 2008 01:47 PM
nj: burning garbage is already illegal in Washington State. And no, I am not in favor of a new farm near me. I am not against zoning laws, I am against rezoning as a means of control. Big difference.
Angry White Guy: if you are going to construct logical fallacies, at least try not to make them so obvious. I mean come on, a red herring AND a straw man! You obviously didn't read the discussion if you think that I am against all limits on burning.
Seabecker: exactly. My area is a small planned community in the middle of a rural area. Some limits make sense, but a total ban is nonsense. (Incidentally, at recent HOA meeting, we had a fireman present, and people asked about burning, and not a single resident complained about neighbors burning, they just wanted to know what the rules were.)
Burning garbage of any kind anywhere in Washington State is and has been illegal fo years. This issue is about yard debris, period.
Posted by: Jeff Sax on January 8, 2008 01:54 PMYeah, I am unsure what will happen. You're right that there is little resistance in principle, but they seem to have become a little smarter about enacting regulations that will anger the rural voters. We'll find out soon how much smarter.
And you are absolutely right (of course!) about all you said. It is going to make me pay more for pickup, or to haul it. Thankfully, I don't have to haul it as *far* as many, since we have a station in Arlington, but it costs me almost $20 to drop it off last I checked, and it fills up the landfills for no good reason.
We use burn permits (I'll need a new one this spring). They work. You pay a small fee, and you only burn small piles, and you can't burn any garbage, only yard debris, and so long as you don't do it all the time -- and come on, nobody does that, and if they do, fine, then try to restrict how often someone can burn instead of banning the whole practice -- it's just not a big deal.
I hate to tell you this, but my school had a incinerator too. OOOO the worlds end is near.
LOL
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 8, 2008 02:01 PMDef: osteopornosis - A degenerate disease.
Posted by: citidweller on January 8, 2008 02:34 PMJust for the record, yes, I call it them "ranch trucks." What would you call a vehicle primarily used for hauling hay and yard debris that probably hasn't been been on paved streets more than a dozen times in the last 10 years? Wow, is that too much for you to get your mind around?
Calling city people "city dwellers" makes me a hillbilly? What would you call them? Who's calling who names here?
I guess, reading back my note, I do sound just a bit distainful of the city and it's laws, but you do have to admit they often appear silly to those of us that don't live there. (Free needle exchange programs and allowing drug-addled bums to take over the parks where children are supposed to play while preaching "Dont' do drugs," million dollar porta-potties, 1% of budget for art so you can build statues in front of garbage dumps and behind walls at the Port of Seattle that no taxpayer is allowed to see... I could go on.) So I guess I'm a little bit guilty of not appreciating diversity either at times too.
The big difference is that people in rural areas don't spend a lot of time telling people in the city how to live their lives or manage their property.
We're getting pretty damned tired of people who've probably only seen our property from the air (so they can collect taxes on it when we make any changees) telling us that we're not having enough respect for our land, air and water. Especially when it's the same people that put most of their land under concrete and cement years ago. (And now can't keep the potholes filled or the freeways from crumbling.)
Any home in my little town is probably more waterwise than your average urban planned community because we live on wells and don't want to pollute our own groundwater. You dont' see beer cans and cigarette butts all over the public areas in my town and I'm sure that my road has more homes with solar panels than any street in Seattle. We own our land so we respect it in ways that you probably have never even considered.
One of the reasons we spent our money on lots of land instead of big lofts downtown is that we want to live our own lives, respect the privacy of others and expect the same. When people who know nothing about country life come in and try to accuse us of contributing to air pollution when we're the ones that own the truly green property, well, yes we do believe that's unfair.
If I sound like I've lost my sense of humor on the whole "city vs. country" thing, I guess I have. Next time you and your clan are out here on your Sunday bicycle rides screwing up our traffic, take a minute to really look at where we live and think about why we're just a bit cynical when we hear your lectures about "going green."
Posted by: citidweller on January 8, 2008 03:05 PMBoggle.
Of course, he couldn't provide a single example, but that's to be expected.
Posted by: pudge on January 8, 2008 03:30 PMOver on the D side we are VERY happy with our candidates. We feel your pain. You may get over it in 12-16 years or so. Good luck with that.
Burning is already banned within the growth boundary. Why can't people inside those boundaries leave the people outside of them alone? I live in a rural area with alot of trees, and almost everyone burns a small about of yard debris on occasion after a big storm. And no one ever complains. There's far more smoke in the air every winter from wood stoves anyway. I'm surprised the nanny state hasn't banned those too.
Posted by: Palouse on January 8, 2008 07:34 PMurine or flaming hardwoods/leaves; your preference
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 8, 2008 11:13 PMI am part owner of a heavily forested thirty acre parcel of land outside Auburn, WA. The property is managed as a working forest with the management goals of increasing the value of the timberland and improving the overall forest health.
Jim Nolan of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency and the Fire Warden at the Enumclaw office of the Washington Department of Natural Resources advised that outdoor burning would be prohibited on my property if the burn ban proposal is implemented as written.
I am concerned about my ability to continue managing our private forest without being able to burn the forest debris on the property. As a working forest, a large amount of branches, tree limbs, and other woody organic matter accumulate on the forest floor. The woody debris increases the forest fire danger and makes the woods more prone to forest fires. Maintaining a "healthy forest" by thinning selectively and reducing the fuel load is considered a best management practice to reduce the risk of wildfire. [1] Collecting the woody debris into piles and burning the matter is an effective way of reducing the fuels in the forest and minimizing the fire danger.
We all saw the immense devastation that the wildfires caused in California in 2007. I would sincerely hope the governments in the Puget sound region would create policies that encourage the removal of fuel building rather than encouraging landowners to allow it to accumulate.
Our forest contains a large amount of hardwood undergrowth, including vine maples and alder. The diameter and quantity of hardwood trees are not valuable for timber production and I will improve the timber quality of my forest by cutting, piling, and burning these small diameter hardwood trees. Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and western red cedar will be planted to replace the hardwood trees. Removal of the hardwood and replacing with conifer species is considered a best management practice by King County DNRP. [2] The thirty acre forest contains a lot of small diameter undergrowth and it would be cost prohibitive to haul and dump the small diameter hardwood at the composting centers.
The property also has a small five acre field that has been overgrown with blackberries, scotchbroom, and Canada thistle. As well known to the King County Weed Control, these species are very difficult to control and eradicate but the county recommends that all landowners control these weeds to promote a healthy ecosystem.[3] I intend to cut the blackberry canes, pile them into manageable piles in the meadow, and burn the piles of canes, as recommended by the Oregon State University Extension Service.[4] Other methods of removing the canes include curbside yard waste disposal, onsite mulching, and offsite hauling. Each of these methods would greatly increase the cost of removing the blackberries. There is no legal requirement to control the invasive species and I would be unlikely to control the invasive blackberries if burning was no longer an option.
I read in the News Tribune that the burn ban policy will primarily affect land developers and builders. I'd like to mention that I'm not a developer, corporation, or other profit-motivated organization. I'm simply a private landowner that is trying to improve the forest health and protect the environment by engaging in good forest stewardship. I'm only able to engage in low cost forest management techniques and am concerned the burning ban will greatly increase my expense in maintaining the forest.
For the reasons explained above, I believe that outdoor burning is a forest management practice that is essential to managing and maintaining my forest. As time goes on, more and more rules are being passed that make it more difficult for me to continue forestry in King County, and if too many additional rules are passed, it may be necessary to sell my forest to a developer and continue foresting in a more rural location. King County has expressed a desire to keep working forests alive in King County and I hope that the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency can ensure that outdoor burning can be used as a forest management practice in the future.
Sincerely,
Greg Magone
Note: The Puget Sound Clean Air Agency has said the outdoor burning ban will not apply to silviculture burning. I contacted Jim Nolan of the PSCAA and the fire warden for the Enumclaw district of the Department of Natural Resources. They explained that the DNR cannot issue a silvicultural permit for my parcel of land because it is within the boundaries of King County Fire District #44, which has assumed total responsibility for all fires (including forest fires) in the district and is the only authority that can issue burn permits. The fire district would only issue a landclearing or residential burning permit, both of which would be banned under the proposed PSCAA rule.
[1] "Be Firewise: Fire Safety Tips for Homeowners"
http://www.metrokc.gov/ddes/fire/pdfs/FirewiseBrochure.pdf
[2] "King County to harvest alder stand on Taylor Mountain Forest" http://dnr.metrokc.gov/dnrp/press/2004/0809taylor.htm
[3] "Himalayan Blackberry" http://dnr.metrokc.gov/wlr/lands/weeds/pdf/Blackberry_factsheet.pdf
[4] "Managing Himalayan Blackberry in Western Oregon Riparian Areas." http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/pdf/em/em8894.pdf
We have two woodstoves in our home, and unless the government is going to pay for new pellet stoves or some other alternative, they aren't going anywhere.
Posted by: Palouse on January 9, 2008 10:22 AM"Smoke from fireplaces and wood stoves and from backyard and land-clearing burn piles is composed of fine particles and a toxic mix of other carcinogens that are hazardous to human health. Fine particles are associated with serious health effects, as the tiny size of these pollutants allows them to be easily inhaled, bypassing the immune system and proceeding deep into your lungs, where they can cause respiratory and cardiovascular problems, including premature death.
"Our current levels are higher than the health goal established by the Clean Air Agency's Board of Directors, which is why achieving further reductions in fine particles is one of our top priorities to protect public health."
And their suggestions:
"Heat smart, heat healthy. In your home and business, opt for the cleanest heating practice available to you."
"Spurn the burn outdoors. Curb, chip, or compost your yard waste instead."
Now, you could believe they don't want to ban wood stoves and fireplaces. But since they are trying to ban outdoor burns, I am not sure why anyone would believe they don't want to ban indoor burns. They want to make the second suggestion the law, and I have every faith they also want to make the first suggestion the law.
Granted, they won't try to ban your existing fireplace and wood stove. They'll just try to ban it from new construction and installation.
Posted by: pudge on January 9, 2008 11:39 AMI see the same thing every time the we have an inversion in the air--many clear their lots of down-fall.
Forget the people like me with health problems, forget the people blinded by the smoke driving down the road, just use some common sense when burning.
By the way I live in a rural area of a very rural county and moved here to get away of the people on all four sides of me (Marysville) who burned wood in their fire places from October to June.
Posted by: Ken Howard on January 10, 2008 11:51 AMSeriously, you have to admit that your condition is obviously not even close to one that is normal. Just because you have bad luck healthwise doesn't mean that the rest of us should have to give up being able to clean up after storms, use our wood stoves, etc. You'll just have to buy some air filters and shut your windows on the rare spring and summer day when the neighbors burn, just like I have to stay away from most packaged foods and not eat in fast food restaurants.
Here's a thought you probably haven't had: Do you have any realization that if we rural landowners can't get rid of their downed branches and other yard debris easily, it will likely just begin piling up. (We live where neighbors can't see us. If we don't clean up the downed branches and leaf piles from our yards, the homeowners association doesn't complain.) That is a recipe for a different kind of summer disaster - the grass and forest fire. If you hate what the smoke of a controlled burn does to your lungs, just wait to see what an uncontrolled grass fire can do to your house, car, etc.
Don't think that's a realistic scenario? Read up a bit on the problems in California forests. They banned controlled burns and now uncontrolled burns wipe out large areas all the time. (I actually just got back from a trip to California. Lots of burned out hulls from what used to be beautiful million dollar houses as you travel about 10 miles northeast of the city.)
Your example of three drivers being blinded by smoke is about a 1 in a million thing, and I'm pretty sure there are already laws on the books that make something like that illegal anyway. (The consideration of obstructing traffic visibility places limits on commercial signage, new construction - even landscaping. I'm sure it has a thing or two to say about any kind of activity - be it commercial lighting or smoke - that blocks road visibility on a highway.)
I think the real definition of nanny state is those that seek to seriously encroach of the freedom of most people for the benefit of the incredibly few. If your personal constitution really is as weak as you say it is, I'd say you qualify as one of the incredibly few.
I know that there is an Americans with Disabilities act to help people with health problems, but even that doesn't mandate that people should build elevators and ramps in their personal homes on the off chance someone in a wheelchair MIGHT want to visit. The idea that I should stop clearing my land because there's a one in a zillion chance someone like you might be around close enough to be impacted is silly. (Heck - the closest house to mine is like 5 acres away. I can work for a week on my property and not see anyone but a family member and maybe the UPS man.)
Final thought on this: If you hate the occasional smell of smoke in the air when I burn downed branches, just think about how much you're going to hate the sound of my 2 stroke chainsaw and industrial woodchipper. (Not to mention all the smoke and pollution THEY put into the air.) That would be the next thing I'd do, and I'm sure I'm not at all alone on that.
Posted by: johnny on January 10, 2008 12:22 PMQuestion for the folks complaining about the occasional burn. Have you considered the positive effect that having all of these trees on private property has on air quality? If you make it more difficult/expensive for property owners to maintain all of these trees, many of them will choose to just cut them down. I don't think many people favor that.
Posted by: Palouse on January 10, 2008 03:40 PM