| Main |

“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 its 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 Yelms 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 Ramthas School of Enlightenment (www.ramtha.com), has filed a Land Use Petition in the Superior Court of Washington challenging the City of Yelms 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 Petitioners personal and property rights and interests will be directly and adversely affected by the Citys decision based on the fact that substantial new development and new water demand will greatly exceed the Citys 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 Petitioners opinions are further bolstered by evidence from the Washington State Department of Ecology confirming that the Citys water demand exceeds the Citys water rights.

The Land Use Petition affirms that Petitioners 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 Citys 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 Citys 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. Knights Petition asserts that the Citys own water plan undermines the Citys 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 Ive 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 publics 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 Citys 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

Posted by Steve on March 13, 2008 at 6:34 am | Permalink

Post a comment

4 comments

  1. 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.
    http://www.ci.yelm.wa.us/agenda/attach/7.htm

    Re:the work both Thurston County as well as Yelm have done in water conservation.

    http://www.trpc.org/resources/10_profile06_ch08_environmentnaturalresources.pdf

    Re:The Yelm population and growth statistics

    http://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”.

    http://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

    Comment by Robert Menna on March 18, 2008 at 6:52 pm

  2. 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.

    http://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.

    Comment by Steve Klein on March 20, 2008 at 12:19 am

  3. 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

    Comment by Victoria Blazejewski on March 22, 2008 at 3:14 am

  4. 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!

    Comment by Steve Klein on April 6, 2008 at 4:06 am

The comments are closed.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Categories

Archives

Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com