Get legislators to tell the truth about environmental costs

Dear Editor,

A recent performance audit of the state Department of Transportation (DOT) reveals interesting information affecting highway costs/gas taxes.
A 1991 news article quoted DOT and King County officials: "So much of King County's share of the gas-tax increase earmarked for road improvements is being spent to cover the cost of new environmental regulations that less than half of the new money is going to the projects themselves."

A '97 article described a 6:1 ratio of wetlands creation as mitigation for straightening a highway curve, involving turning 9 acres of farmland into wetlands. ( The audit described wetlands restoration/creation as $50,000 to $150,000/acre "excluding acquisition of real estate.")

Despite indications of extremely high environmental costs here, the audit estimated those costs at only 8-10% of highway expenditures, based on research in OTHER states and an interesting cost-concealment subterfuge.
Actual environmental mitigation costs are "balanced" by placing a subjective monetary value on benefited environmental elements and then subtracting those subjective values from the actual costs, thereby arriving at a much lower listed "cost". So the red flag of an environmental cost of 50% of the total is lowered to a reasonable 8-10%, with the subterfuge built into the computer modeling program for permanent concealment.

If the public never knows the true cost of environmental mitigation, will the public ever question a 6:1 wetlands creation ratio, or King County's "Zero Water Rise" rule which led to a projected 280% higher cost for the SR 169, 196th S.E. bridge?

Tell your legislators to insist that true environmental costs be laid on the table, for determining which are legitimate and worthy of raising the gas tax.
Sincerely,
Maxine Keesling, Woodinville, WA