Deciding what is "productive" based on a possibly out-dated federal
survey; the increasing amounts of fertilizer required in some areas and
the new "poison" signs in fields make me wonder. And even though deemed
"unproductive" for grains, that same land may be good for hay and grazing;
both in short supply recently.
Strip development along highways and near existing towns. While
concentrating (containment) development may sound good to farmers and
other rural residents, I also think that small "clusters" out in the
county might not be as bad as it sounds. Small rural developments would
perhaps better manage sewage (instead of 20 individual wells, a small
water system and sewage system by the developer might be better over time)
and water. It also builds a sense of community, and perhaps over time
will be a new town/small business center.
I would also like to see something to encourage SMALL farms; our large
farming operations here didn't just sprout fully grown; while trying to
preserve the rights of large farmers/ranchers by restricting small land
purchases, are we denying that future farmer the ability to begin small?
And however we decide to encourage growth, I think the county needs to
revisit some of the setback requirements for drain fields/septic systems
and wells both between neighboring residences and their proximity to
streams- either year-round streams or temporary ones; some of these may
need revision in light of new concerns about water quality and well
contamination/mining.
Comments on these areas encouraged here. Thanks
Jo Williams tajs@potlatch.com