When the County "Finds Wetlands" During A Permit Review, then a Different Regulator Offers to Sell You Mitigation Credits at $400,000 an Acre "As a Private Citizen", and the County Doesn't Care.
- Brian Gass
- 6 days ago
- 3 min read
This article is part of our continuing investigative series, “When Whatcom County Protected a Corrupt Natural Resources Planner — and Then Became Corrupt Itself.”
Our reporting documents how Planning Departments wield near-absolute power over what property owners can do with their land — power that is subjective, opaque, and functionally unaccountable. This piece focuses on a moment when County leadership explicitly used
regulatory authority for private gain.
One of the most revealing documents in this entire record is not a permit, a contract, or an investigative report.
It is the letter from Whatcom County’s Planning Director, Mark Personius, where he threatened a citizen who dared to call BS on the incompetent, inept, and ethically compromised "investigation" (we cover here).
He also asserted that a current County wetlands regulator could engage in private mitigation work “as a private citizen” — even when that work involved land acquired under questionable circumstances (see Part 1) and mitigation credits generated by the same regulatory system his office administers.
That statement matters because it shows this was not a misunderstanding or a loophole.
It was approved.
Mitigation Credits Are Not a Side Hustle
Wetlands mitigation credits are not a normal commodity. They do not exist without regulation.
Their value is created by:
regulatory classification
enforcement decisions
discretionary approvals
scarcity produced by land-use restrictions
A person who regulates wetlands does not merely participate in that market — they define it.
When the county finds wetlands, and then a different regulator from Natural Resources sells mitigation credits privately, they are not selling a product. They are selling relief from a system they help control.
That distinction is fundamental.
What the County Approved — In Plain Terms
Here is what the County accepted as permissible:
A current Natural Resources Planner acquired 7.5 acres of land for $10,000 and no net compensation
The seller paid approximately $12,000 out of pocket to close in a DUAL AGENT SITUATION
That land was later positioned to generate wetlands mitigation credits
Comparable mitigation credits in the area are valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars per acre
The Planning Director characterized this activity as acceptable because it was done “as a private citizen”
The County:
did not interview the seller
did not review the transaction documents
did not examine whether the seller understood the regulatory value of the land
did not examine whether the regulator’s role influenced acquisition or timing
Instead, it treated the arrangement as ordinary commerce.
It is not.
“Private Citizen” Is a Legal Fiction Here
There is no meaningful separation between “public” and “private” when:
the individual is a current regulator
the product being sold exists only because of regulation
the regulator possesses superior knowledge of enforcement and approval pathways
and the County office is actively working on the same regulatory ecosystem
You cannot take off regulatory authority like a coat at the end of the workday.
Calling this “private citizen” activity does not resolve the conflict. It conceals it.
The Economics Make the Problem Obvious
The numbers alone expose the issue:
Land acquired for no net consideration
Seller pays tens of thousands of dollars to exit
One acre of that land later generates mitigation value of $300,000–$400,000 per acre
That value exists solely because of regulatory designation and approval
There is no ethical framework under which this outcome can be described as acceptable for a regulator.
The County never explained why it thought it was.
This Was Not an Oversight — It Was an Endorsement
What makes this moment so important is that the County did not merely fail to stop the conduct.
It affirmatively endorsed it.
By putting in writing that a regulator could privately sell mitigation credits derived from land acquired through a process his office regulates, County leadership:
normalized self-dealing
erased the distinction between regulator and market participant
and signaled that conflicts would be managed rhetorically, not prevented
At that point, the problem stopped being individual.
It became institutional.
Why This Matters Beyond One Case
If this model is acceptable, then any regulator can:
acquire land under regulatory pressure
benefit from information asymmetry
monetize regulatory relief
and rely on leadership to label it “private”
That is how public power turns into a private revenue stream.
And once that line is crossed, the public has no reason to believe land-use decisions are being made for environmental protection rather than personal advantage.
The Question the County Still Hasn’t Answered
The County has never answered a simple question:
Why is it acceptable for a wetlands regulator to privately profit from selling mitigation credits generated by land acquired under a regulatory system that his own office controls?
Until that question is answered — honestly and publicly — every assurance about ethics, oversight, and public trust rings hollow.
This reporting is ongoing.
Additional documents and analysis will continue to be published as they become available.
Comments