Dear Asshat,
Dear Mr. Asshole Who Sent Me and the Legislators a Nasty ,
I read with interest your comments in response to my email of February 28th, 2008. I would like to point out that at the end of my email was my phone number, and that in the future you can feel free to pick up the phone and call me at any time to let me know if we have failed to account for a previous site visit when commenting on one of your proposed dam sites. In this case, this may have saved you and your Watershed Joint District (WJD) some embarrassment (and a lot of time), since the site you refer to as having been previously evaluated for the presence of Broadhead Skink habitat (site xxx) is not, in fact, the site referred to by my comments or the public notice (PN). The PN referred to site yyy. From a phone conversation with Mr. Jerky Engineer Who Actually Wrote the Letter You Signed, and numerous helpful reminders from other assholes, I’m now aware that you do not receive a copy of these PNs because you're too lazy to download them off the web, and I will endeavor to include the location of the site I am evaluating more prominently in the future. Because apparently putting it in the subject line and the first sentence of my email isn't enough.
As to your other comments, I’d like to take this opportunity to respond to some of your assertions and clarify our position:
- “[Your agency's] inference that this project will degrade a uniquely valuable aquatic habitat is absurd unless aquatic habitat that are very limited in extent and connectivity, and substantially devoid of water in excess of 90% of the time are inordinately valuable!” [emphasis by author]
This is, in fact, exactly what we are suggesting. Ephemeral and intermittent streams are heavily used by many species of native fish, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates. These habitats are often temporally important refuges and spawning grounds, and they are rapidly disappearing from this state's landscape. The mere fact that they are dry or greatly restricted for much of the year is, actually, one of important characteristics that make them so valuable for these species. Permanent pools, and perennial streams, often include predatory fauna (e.g., fish, waterfowl, etc.) that would extirpate many native species.
We do recognize that the term “valuable” has a variety of connotations. We are tasked with acting as an advocate for wildlife and wildlife habitats. As a result I use the word value in relationship to wildlife, not in terms of monetary gain. From the perspective of a publicly funded entity like a WJD, value might mean something different. For example, placing dams on streams with virtually no water or connectivity to the rest of the watershed my have little value for a WJD.
- “[Your agency's] assertion that the number of dams in [this state] is proof that appropriately sited, designed, and managed dams can’t relieve flood damages is just as ridiculous as the widely presumptive representation on their part that landowner investments in wildlife populations and habitat pale in comparison to theirs.”
For the most part, we are confused by this statement. Nowhere in our initial response did we refer to landowners, to our own investments in wildlife, or to the relative merits of landowner vs. state-sponsored wildlife initiatives. Nor did we assert that the number of dams in this state was proof that dams were incapable of flood control. I have attached the original email to this, so that you may re-read it to confirm these details yourself. Proof is a nonsensical term in science. In science, the weight of evidence is used to determine whether a theory is strongly supported or should be discarded. For instance, a vast amount of scientific evidence exists suggesting that dams and reservoirs alter the species diversity, flow regime, nutrient processing, and thermal regime of downstream reaches. Pointing out that this state's amazingly ambitious history of dam-building over the past 100 years has not prevented flooding is not proof of anything, merely a fact.
Personally, I am unaware of any agency policy whereby we diminish the importance of landowners or “conscript and internalize all of the credit…for the widespread support for wildlife populations”.
- “…[your agency's] assertion that this proposed structure may negatively impact the Broadhead Skink or it’s critical habitat is almost as ludicrous as the fact that [your agency] listed this invasive species in the first place and has enthusiastically used it to take thousands of acres of property and associated financial resources from both public and private projects over the past two decades in the name of species protection and mitigation.” [emphasis by author]
After reviewing our permits from the past twenty years, I can find no evidence “thousands of acres” of Broadhead Skink habitat have been appropriated by our agency at any time or in any fashion. In fact, our agency is unwilling to acquire any land for the purposes of Threatened and Endangered species mitigation. We also hold no conservation easements for the purposed of Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species mitigation. This is a public agency acting on behalf of the citizens of the state, whose elected officials felt that the conservation of T&E species was important enough to pass the Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act. Subsequent polls have generally shown that act to be well supported by public opinion, and a recent review of the act by the legislature resulted in no significant changes.
Accusing this agency of acting against the interest of the public is particularly ironic for a WJD whose very existence would not be possible without state laws forcing all residents of a watershed to pay for structures that benefit few (by your own admission this dam site has very limited connectivity to the rest of the watershed). This is particularly egregious when these watershed structures are primarily for the purpose of “recreation enhancement and protection” on private land with no public access. The use of public funds for private “recreation enhancement” can hardly be construed as anything less than a violation of the public trust.
If you and your fellow members of the WJD are so inclined, you are welcome to file a petition to change the status of the Broadhead Skink (I’ve include the form as an attachment here). There is broad support for such a change within the agency, but unfortunately the agency does not unilaterally determine whether species are added, removed, or changed on the state list.
I would also be interested in reading any scientific study or analysis that describes the Broadhead Skink or its critical habitat as invasive species. Such studies would also be useful to include in any petition to de-list the species (although I am not involved in that process).
- “…their demand in the subject e-mail for “holding all other permits in abeyance”…is symptomatic of their limitless and unjustified lust to conscript any and all natural resources to their control.”
Comical rhetoric aside, we have no authority to demand other agencies issue or not issue permits (feel free to re-read the email in question). Certainly, we hope that other agencies do not issue permits to project sponsors who are unwilling to comply with state statutes, and we have reciprocated that policy for other state agencies. I fail to see how requesting project sponsors abide by state laws constitutes “unjustified lust” for control.
Finally, I think of myself as an enlightened and polite person. I'm not the kind of person who would point out what an asshole you are, or the fact that you're too much of a fucking coward to return my phone calls. I'm not going to point out to all the world that you're just using an antiquated piece of legislation to line your own pockets with public money. And I'm certainly
above pointing out that the people you hired to work for you were all fired from previous jobs for laundrying money, stealing, and disregarding state and federal laws. I'm not above pointing out that I will be watching your WJD very, very, closely in the future.
Sincerely,