Beheading the Department of Environmental Stewardship
||| FROM CINDY WOLF |||
In the State of Washington, responsibility falls on the local and Tribal governments to execute Salmon habitat conservation and restoration projects, which is a focused way of saying projects addressing marine health in general. This mission dovetails nicely with the clean water utility function of keeping pollution out of the stormwater and surface water. The solid waste utility is also clearly a part of attempting to keep trash out of the water that feeds us and gives us air to breathe.
The perception that somehow these utilities do not belong with Environmental Stewardship puzzles me greatly, as does the perception that utility funds were somehow improperly used to fund Environmental Stewardship. I am aware there were float funds in the utilities that were used for qualifying projects until such time as reimbursement was received from the granting agencies. I am also aware that work done by Environmental Stewardship staff for utility work was properly compensated with utility funds. I also know when staff was compensated by the use of float funds for work exterior to the utility, those funds were reimbursed when reimbursement was received by the granting agencies. I have repeatedly reached out for current Council to explain this system, but only Council Member Fuller has made the effort to thoroughly understand the complex system of grants, floats, and long term projects that make up the world of environmental work in this County.
A few people have asked whether the State will pick up the slack? In the case of the Salish Sea, the State functions only as a land holding entity, regulatory agency and a block grant style conduit for funds. Puget Sound Partnership and Northwest Straits are the tables at which the money gets parceled out by consortiums of local and tribal governments and citizens councils in competitive grants based on where the biggest ROI can be found for the health of the whole Salish Sea.
By dividing and dismantling the Department of Environmental Stewardship and removing a program from the CIP that has already been approved for funding, you are sending a strong signal that San Juan County is no longer interested in participating in Salmon habitat restoration. In fact, you are destroying the ability to do so.
A proposal has been made that one day in some theoretical future the legislature will approve a 1/10 of 1% sales tax which then must be adopted by a future Council who then must agree to approve use of the funds to reconstitute the department. This is a simple and inadequate solution to a complex problem. Such a tax would only produce in the neighborhood of $850,000 per year. Where are you getting the float money for multi million dollar projects? How are you compensating skilled staff who split their time between grants funded projects and utility work? You are about to lay off the one person in the County government with Flood Plain Management certification. Where are you going to source that? What guarantee is there that future Councils will honor the thousands of personnel hours of and years of effort that are spent on all levels of government by the time a project gets to the design phase?
You have been called upon repeatedly by the people of this county, especially those young enough to have to live through the future you are creating, to prioritize environmental work. No one else can or will do that work here in this county. It is on you to create the circumstances that make the grant funding flow and the execution of this work possible. Understand the repercussions of shirking that duty are existential. No one is coming to save us.
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
I am sad to report that the San Juan County Council voted today, October 5, 2027, two in favor with Council member Jane Fuller abstaining, to adopt the proposed 2027 county budget without restoring the integrity of the Environmental Stewardship Department.
Council members cited, among other reasons, the Trump administration’s intent to jail any government official who signed to accept a grant related to protecting our environment.
We, both here in the Puget Sound as well as at the federal level, are in serious trouble. As the environment dies… we die. Thank you Cindy and thank you councilwoman Fuller for your clear thinking and for being unafraid to speak out.
This is a wake up call, and an issue that will surely be revisited in November.
Clarification: I was struck by Janet’s last comment reporting on the Council’s deliberations, and so I (forgive me) decided to ask Google’s Gemini if that was true. This is its response (likely not the last/only word on this issue, and I wouldn’t put it past this administration to keep trying):
There is no law, policy, or announced intent by the Trump administration to jail any government official simply for accepting an environmental grant.
The claim appears to be a misunderstanding of high-profile, politically fraught legal battles surrounding Biden-era climate funding under the Inflation Reduction Act.
The Source of the Confusion
The idea that the administration wants to “jail” people stems from an investigation into alleged fraud, rather than a criminalization of environmental work itself:
• Fraud Investigations: After taking office, the Trump administration and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin froze and attempted to claw back tens of billions of dollars in “green bank” and climate grants, publicly accusing the recipient nonprofits of mismanagement and fraud.
• The FBI & Citibank Inquiries: In early legal proceedings, it was revealed that federal investigators had requested information regarding these grants, leading to social media commentary and news headlines stating that the administration was trying to “criminalize climate work” and “jail” grantees.
• No Evidence Found: A Justice Department probe initiated to look into the EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund failed to find any meaningful evidence of criminality by government officials or major misconduct by vendors.
The Current Legal Status of the Grants
Rather than officials going to jail, federal courts have repeatedly blocked the administration’s attempts to cancel these environmental programs. Multiple judges have ruled that cutting the funding was unlawful:
• Political Targeting Ruled Illegal: Federal courts ruled that the administration acted illegally by blocking billions in clean energy grants, with one judge noting the administration openly admitted to pulling funds based on whether a state voted for the opposition party in the 2024 election.
• Court Losses for the EPA: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and other federal district courts have ordered the administration to stop blocking the money, ruling that the EPA cannot unilaterally terminate billions in climate and environmental justice grants authorized by Congress.
In summary, while the Trump administration has aggressively moved to cancel and claw back federal climate grants, these actions have been fought through civil contract lawsuits and administrative law disputes in federal courts—not through criminal prosecutions or jail time for government officials.
Thank-you for the clarifications, Matthew.
It does matter that our Council Members perceive the threat to be real.
They may feel that our county lacks the resources to fight back legally.
The law is on the side of those who have received grants.
My alumni association sent the information below to me recently. It is about a class action suit that has, so far, restored nearly a billion dollars in research funding to University of California scientists and scholars. The litigation is ongoing.
Such litigation is expensive and requires courage.
Council member Paulson did say that he was not afraid of going to jail.
So courage is not lacking.
It is a question of resources and time.
“On September 17th, the Cal Alumni Association and California magazine partnered with the Berkeley Art Museum and Pacific Film Archive (BAMPFA) to present another thought-provoking installment of our speaker series, California Live!
That evening, California magazine’s Editor-in-Chief Pat Joseph sat down with Berkeley Law Professor Claudia Polsky for an engaging discussion, centered on the ongoing threats to American science and research, the rule of law, and what it means to fight back. Professor Polsky, who is determined to confront the Trump administration’s assault on higher education, spearheaded a class action suit that has, so far, restored nearly a billion dollars in research funding to UC scientists and scholars. The litigation is ongoing.
We hope you were able to join us for this inspiring event, but if you weren’t able to attend in person, you can catch the full conversation on YouTube: Fighting Back: Berkeley Law’s Claudia Polsky on Taking Trump to Court.”