Martha Kongsgaard, chairwoman of the Puget Sound Leadership
Council, has always spoken with a voice of both reason and passion
while guiding the Puget Sound Partnership in its efforts to restore
Puget Sound to health.
Martha Kongsgaard
Yesterday and today, Martha attended her final meeting as a
member of the Leadership Council, the governing body of the
Partnership charged with coordinating Puget Sound ecosystem
recovery.
While listening to presentations on technical and financial
issues, Martha always seems to quickly focus discussions on the key
issues of recovery while asking how to help average people
understand the complex problems.
As a reporter, I’ve enjoyed speaking with Martha, who not only
answers my questions in a direct and revealing way but also
indulges my curiosity. Our discussions often take tangents onto
other interesting subjects, sometimes leading to new stories or old
stories told in a new way.
Nobody doubts Martha’s love of Puget Sound, expressed by her
willingness to spend countless unpaid hours working for a better
future.
Waterfront property owners are a special class of people, and I
mean that in a good way.
When it comes to sensitive shoreline habitat, they are the front
lines of protection. When storms cause property damage, they see
more than their share — and they pay handsomely for the privilege
in both the cost of property and taxes.
Driftwood piles up and helps
rebuild natural habitat after a bulkhead is removed, as in this
example from Maury Island.
Photo: Christopher Dunagan
As I interviewed people and conducted research for a series of
stories on shoreline armoring, I came into contact with dozens of
shoreline property owners who were learning about the latest
science on the nearshore environment. They wanted to know how to
better manage their property. Some were contemplating removing
bulkheads where the wave energy allowed, knowing that many
bulkheads built years ago are not really needed.
The latest stories in our series, published in the Encyclopedia
of Puget Sound, are:
Although I believe that most shoreline property owners are
environmentally responsible, I do wonder about people who have
damaged shoreline habitats to improve their view or water access
without obtaining the required permits. It seems at every hearing
regarding shoreline regulations, somebody will speak up and say,
“It’s my property, and I can do what I want!”
One of the interviews that did not make it into the series was a
discussion I had with Jay Manning, a South Kitsap native who went
on to serve as an assistant attorney general, director of the
Washington Department of Ecology and the governor’s chief of staff
when Chris Gregoire was in office. Jay now serves as a member of
the Puget Sound Leadership Council, the governing body for the
Puget Sound Partnership.
Jay and I got to talking about how waterfront property owners
occupy a special place — literally and legally — when it comes to
protecting the public’s interest in shoreline ecosystems. A balance
of public and private rights is embodied in the state’s Shoreline
Management Act, which demands the highest level of protection for
water bodies and adjacent lands.
The public’s ability to enjoy natural resources along the
waterfront “shall be preserved to the greatest extent feasible,”
the act states. “To this end, uses shall be preferred which are
consistent with control of pollution and prevention of damage to
the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent upon use of
the state’s shoreline.”
As an assistant attorney general representing Ecology, Jay
learned that shoreline ownership embodies a special public-private
relationship.
“It’s much more significant, I think, than what you find with
upland properties,” he said. “The full array of (private property)
rights that you find in upland areas does not apply to shoreline
areas.”
State law builds upon the Public Trust Doctrine, an ancient and
enduring principle that retains certain rights to the public for
all time, regardless of ownership.
Jay, a shoreline property owner himself, says the Puget Sound
Partnership has identified the protection and restoration of
shorelines as a key element in the recovery of Puget Sound.
A few years ago, many cities and counties routinely approved
bulkheads without giving it a second thought. But that has been
changing as local jurisdictions adopt new shoreline master
programs. Now, one cannot get approval to build a bulkhead unless a
house is imminently threatened by waves or erosion.
So far, about half of the 12 counties in the Puget Sound region
are operating under the revised requirements, along with nearly 90
percent of the 101 cities.
Unfortunately, Jay noted, rules related to shorelines have never
been as rigorously enforced as those related to water quality, for
which the threats to human health are more obvious. Counties and
cities vary greatly in the amount of effort they put into land-use
enforcement.
For some people, it just seems easier to move ahead and get the
work done, thus avoiding delays and costs of permitting, consulting
work and mitigation. Some people don’t believe that shoreline
regulations make much sense.
But, as many local officials told me, they would like the chance
to talk with property owners about the value of shorelines, explain
the regulations and discuss various alternatives that might even
save money. Most regulations, after all, have a basis in science,
and we can all learn from what the latest studies are telling
us.
Jay Manning, who resigned in June as Gov. Chris Gregoire’s chief
of staff, says he is ready to charge back into work as a private
lawyer, after spending the summer hiking and mountain biking
throughout the Northwest.
Jay
Manning
Manning, 53, a native of Manchester in Kitsap County, returned
today to his old law firm, an environmental practice that now bears
the name Cascadia Law Group. One thing to know about Jay is that
environmental issues have always been a central part of his
life.
Jay took some time to talk with me today about his reasons for
leaving state government and his hopes for the future.
“I had sort of run out of gas,” he confessed. “Although others
disagreed, I thought I was not performing as well as I should be,
such as my ability to solve problems.”
He said he was beginning to worry about his financial condition,
with a son in college and retirement staring him in the face. It
was a factor he mentioned in a going-away e-mail to his staff.
“There was nothing dire there,” he told me, “but it was a
concern.”
Although it may be a cliché, it seems to me that Jay was also
thinking a great deal about his family life. His wife, a teacher,
had been doing double-duty: keeping the home fires burning while
going to work every day. During Jay’s time in state government, his
family time was more limited.
“It was time to put myself back as an active member of the
family, and it has been so much fun to do that,” he said. “Since
July 15, I have really played outside and hung out with family and
friends. I have my energy level back.”
As he traveled about the Northwest, Jay said he has come to
appreciate the splendor of this region even more. He now lives in
Olympia.
Meanwhile, Manning has considered various jobs, including
prospects at environmental law firms. He settled on Cascadia Law
Group, which he believes takes a rare approach to environmental
disputes.
“Unlike most firms, this one does not let themselves get
pigeonholed. In one case, they may be representing regulated
business. In another case, it can be an Indian tribe, and in
another case an environmental group. I like that they represent
different viewpoints.”
Manning’s career path has helped him become a skillful
negotiator with an ability to see various sides of a problem. Most
issues are not black-and-white, he said. People on all sides have
viewpoints that deserve respect.
After graduating from the University of Oregon Law School in
1983, Manning joined the Washington State Attorney General’s
Office, where he and seven other lawyers represented the Department
of Ecology.
When Chris Gregoire became Ecology director in 1987, Manning
became chief negotiator during three years of tough talks with the
federal government over Hanford cleanup. For a time, he went into
private law practice and served on the board of the Washington
Environmental Council.
When Gregoire became governor, she quickly named Manning to head
up the Department of Ecology, where he served for more than four
years before she asked him to become her chief of staff in October
2009.
Manning was grateful. “But for me, it sucked the energy out, in
a way the Ecology job didn’t,” he said. “I knew the chief of staff
job was hard, but until you’re sitting in that chair, you don’t
know how you’ll react to it.”
Manning says his days as a trial lawyer are probably over. He
anticipates working on management and public-policy issues, such as
controversies over water resources in Eastern Washington. He said
he would not be surprised to find himself lobbying for legislation
at some point.
He also discusses how he might help environmental groups, either
professionally or as a volunteer.
“I’m excited to work on energy efficiency, restoration of Puget
Sound and some really exciting water projects on the east side of
the state,” he said.
As Ecology chief, Manning headed up the state’s Climate Action
Team, and I was surprised that he didn’t mention that specifically
as a concern.
“I am concerned,” he told me, “but I don’t talk about it as a
climate issue. It’s about making your home and business more
efficient. You make a more comfortable place to live and your
heating bill goes down. We talk energy efficiency, and climate is
smack dab in the middle of it.”
The need to reduce greenhouse gases is clear, he said, but the
term “climate change” divides people in ways that “energy
efficiency” does not.
I asked him if “energy efficiency” conveys the appropriate sense
of urgency about a problem that has our government tied in
knots.
“That’s a good point,” he said. “My background would tend to
push me toward a strong regulatory response. But I don’t think that
is doable now.”
Does he think he’ll ever venture back into politics?
“I would never say ‘never,’ but I am really going to focus on
being successful with this firm Cascadia. I saw up close what it
takes to be governor. It is hard, and sometimes it is completely
unreasonable. There is a big personal sacrifice to be made. Right
now my focus is on this new job.”
Cascadia Law Group’s website describes the practice this
way:
“Our clients come to us because we solve problems. We set out
first to understand each client’s objectives. We then apply our
knowledge of the law, persuasive skills, political acumen, and
creative thinking to attain those goals. We have successfully
helped our clients resolve many of our region’s most difficult
environmental issues.”
I’ve talked before about how Jay’s growing up in Kitsap County
shaped his concerns for the environment. Check out previous
comments on Waterways from
Oct. 5, 2009, and
Feb. 17, 2008. I wrote a profile about Manning for the
Kitsap Sun in February 2008.
Cleaning up nuclear waste at the Hanford reservation in Eastern
Washington is one of this state’s most critical and vexing
environmental problems. The site is so dangerous to the people and
environment along the Columbia River that every Washington resident
ought to keep an eye on the progress.
“The contaminants out there are so dangerous and so long-lived…
We should be absolutely insisting that the federal government clean
that site up, whatever the cost,” Jay Manning told me three years
ago.
Manning was the director of the Department of Ecology when I
interviewed him about the state’s top environmental problems. See
Kitsap Sun, Feb. 16, 2008. He has since become the governor’s
chief of staff. See
Water Ways, Oct. 5, 2009.
Since then, the federal government has poured billions into the
project, including a significant boost of dollars with the economic
stimulus package. Now that effort is being pared back, with a
significant loss of jobs, as Annette Cary reports in the
Tri-City Herald.
Converting huge amounts of nuclear waste into a safer form is a
difficult technological and logistical problem, as reporter Craig
Welch points out in a pair Seattle Times stories published
Jan. 22 and
Jan. 23.
These stories bring you into the meat of the problem. But I have
to say that I was equally impressed by a short piece I heard last
night on KUOW radio. Reporter Anna King helps us understand the
nature of problem from the perspective of people who have made a
career out of cleaning up Hanford’s waste. These grizzled employees
have learned from years of experience, and are now about to turn
over their projects to a new generation. The newcomers will learn
to navigate the minefields of nuclear risk — but they, too, may be
retired before the job is done. Quoting from her piece: Continue reading →
If you haven’t heard, Kitsap native Jay Manning has announced
his resignation as the governor’s chief of staff. The
Seattle Times’ Andrew Garber has the story and Jay’s e-mail to
his staff.
I haven’t talked to him since the announcement, but I’ll check
in with him later. After he took the job, we discussed his new
responsibilities, as reported below. For what it’s worth, I wish
him the best.
——
Jay Manning, who has headed the Washington Department of Ecology
the past four-plus years, is moving into somewhat uncharted
territory as the governor’s chief of staff.
Manning, a native of Manchester in Kitsap County, has always
been associated with environmental issues and occasional
environmental battles. Now, he will use his organizational and
negotiation skills to work alongside Gov. Chris Gregoire.
“Jay Manning brings incredible leadership skills and knowledge
of our state to this new position,” Gregoire said in a
news release. “He works effectively with citizens all across
our state. He has an extraordinary ability to bring people together
to forge solutions to difficult problems and seize opportunities
for Washington state.”
I reached Jay Manning this afternoon to congratulate him and ask
him what the heck he was thinking.
He told me that both the Ecology director post and his new chief
of staff position include an “incredible array of issues,” but the
new job comes with a broader range of responsibilities. It will
require him to become more of a generalist, which is a new
challenge for him.
“I have focused on environmental issues my whole career, and
that is where my heart will always be,” he told me. “But I look
forward to a full immersion in all the areas of state
government.”
It will be a learning experience as he gets up to speed on all
state agencies, learns about budgets and economic stimulus
programs, and gets entangled in state politics like he’s never seen
before.
Of course, I am interested in Manning’s successor. Hiring the
new Ecology director will be one of the first priorities of his new
position, he said.
“I think the agency is highly functional as it is, but my job
will be to get good candidates before her (Gregoire) for
selection,” he said, adding that he has placed a proposed selection
process on her desk but hasn’t heard back yet.
I would guess that candidates are likely to come from within
Ecology or at least be someone who Manning and the governor know
fairly well.
“I will want to move quickly on this,” Jay said, “and I think
she does, too.”
Manning has taken on some tough issues as Ecology director,
including battles over Hanford and climate change. Not everyone
agrees with the agency’s decisions, but Manning has never hesitated
to lay out the rationale behind them.
Through it all, it seems that Jay has remained well respected
among those who have dealt with him. Of course, I wish him well in
his new position and look forward to working with his
replacement.
If you’d like to read a profile on Manning and hear him discuss
the issues in his own words, go to the Feb. 16, 2008,
story in the Kitsap Sun.
UPDATE 2, Monday, Sept. 29, 10:51 a.m.
The Department of Ecology has issued has press release which begins
“Contrary to a story in today’s USA Today, Washington has not
banned residential car washing.” I’ll provide a link once it’s
posted on Ecology’s Web site.
UPDATE, Monday, Sept. 29, 9:30 a.m.
USA Today offered a story on this issue 14 hours ago, and
already 120 comments — including one from Sandy Howard of Ecology —
have been recorded.
—————-
If you wash your car and notice that soapy runoff is washing
down a storm drain that flows into a stream or other waterway, you
are technically in violation of the law.
The Washington Department of Ecology wants cities to adopt a
standard, as part of their local stormwater rules, that recognizes
the problem of soaps and detergents carrying toxics into the
state’s waterways.
Now, before anyone gets up in arms about Big Brother watching to
see who might be washing his car, Ecology officials have stated
that nobody should worry about getting a ticket or facing legal
action for allowing soapy water to run down a driveway.
In fact, since this issue blew up in Clark County, Ecology
Director Jay Manning has come out with a detailed,
two-page letter (PDF 52 kb) covering the law of car washes and
calling for a little common sense.
Jay Manning, director of the Washington Department of Ecology,
was in Bremerton today to get the lowdown about low-impact
stormwater management from folks at the Home Builders Association of
Kitsap County.
Art Castle of the association is leading a local group of
officials in the development of a “cook book” of low-impact
practices designed to dovetail with state rules for managing
stormwater.
Art Castle, left, pours water
on pervious asphalt while Jay Manning watches. The water does not
run off or pool up; it just runs through.
Kitsap Sun photo
The parking lot at the office of the Home Builders Association
happens to be built with pervious asphalt and various kind of
pervious pavers. Manning watched as Castle poured water from a hose
onto the pervious asphalt. No runoff or pooling was evident, as the
water penetrated straight into the pavement.
Castle was glad to have some time to talk with Manning, a native
of South Kitsap, because the Home Builders group has run into some
regulatory obstacles with respect to the upcoming “cookbook.”
For example, engineers are debating how fast water can pass
through pavement within a given design and whether that rate of
penetration will hold up over time. Pervious pavement depends on
creating “pores” during construction and keeping those pores open
as time goes on. Sometimes the owner must use a pressure washer to
reopen the pores.
In this example, the debate is about finding an acceptable rate
of water penetration for a given design. If the assumed rate is too
low, a developer will be required to build a backup stormwater
system, such as a pond. That raises the cost of development and
discourages the use of low-impact methods.
If the assumed rate of penetration is higher than what actually
occurs in a heavy storm, then the water runs off the pavement with
no place to go. That leads to flooding of streets and other
problems.
Those are the kinds of issues that Castle wanted to address with
Manning.
Manning told me that this meeting comes at an opportune time,
because his agency must decide how to respond to a recent ruling by
the Pollution Control Hearings Board that mandates the use of
low-impact development wherever “feasible.”
See Kitsap Sun story of Aug. 8.
Manning asked Castle to describe when low-impact development
would not be feasible. Castle said he knows of three conditions
that would preclude the use of LID: on sites with steep, unstable
slopes; in places where you find especially dense clays that cannot
pass water; and in areas with high groundwater levels that prevent
water from soaking in.
Manning said he faces a decision about whether to appeal the
hearing board’s decision to court or else live with it.
“If we live with this decision,” he said to me, “then what’s
that going to mean for the Phase 1 permit (larger cities and
counties) and the Phase 2 permit (smaller cities and
counties)?”
Basically, state requirements would have to be rewritten.
The specific ruling (PDF 212 kb) by the Pollution Control
Hearings Board was for Phase 1 jurisdictions, but it signals the
board’s position for the Phase 2 hearing, scheduled for October,
Manning said. If Ecology does not appeal the ruling to the courts,
agency lawyers could try to settle some key issues before the
October hearing, he said.
