Conflict of Interest? Clallam Co. versus NOLT
Published October 28, 2011 | from PearlRains-Hewitt
October 27, 2011
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Dale Holiday IS THE Grant Director at Department of Health and Human Services – Clallam County
Dale Holiday IS North Olympic Land Trust (Member Board of Directors and Chair of the Fund Raising Committee)
Why should we worry about the best interest of the public in Clallam County? When Clallam County pays Dale Holiday a Member of the Board of Directors of the Olympic Land Trust as the Grant Director for Clallam County Dept. of Public Health and Human Services.
Whose interest is being conflicted by our County Commissioners?
Welcome to the North Olympic Land Trust
North Olympic Land Trust is a non-profit conservation organization serving the communities of the North Olympic Peninsula. We are working to protect the special qualities of the North Olympic Peninsula in Clallam County, Washington, just outside the internationally treasured Olympic National Park.
Pearl Rains Hewett
CLALLAM COUNTY DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
- Current
-
- Member Board of Directors at Olympic Peninsula Humane Society
- Grant Director at Department of Health and Human Services – Clallam County
- Groups and Associations:
- North Olympic Land Trust (Member Board of Directors and Chair of the Fund Raising Committee)
- Olympic Peninsula Visitor Bureau (Member Board of Directors)
Are you increasing the set back to 50 feet? WHY?
Published October 26, 2011 | TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
I submit this as my comment to the proposed SED
Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee
George C. Rains Sr. Estate
Member SMP Advisory Committee
PROPOSED # 2 FRESHWATER RESIDENTIAL
Like Lake Sutherland
I thought the set back was 35 feet?
Are you increasing the set back to 50 feet? WHY?
Prohibited or discouraged use
Armoring, except when single family residence is in imminent danger.
BY Law there is NO mention of the words” imminent or danger or soft armoring”
IN FACT THE LAW STATES, SHALL PROVIDE FOR METHODS TO achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage.
Is this another WAC overstepping it’s authority and the LAW?
Read on if you are interested
PROTECTION FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY
Protection of single family residences
2
RCW 90.58.100
(6) Each master program shall contain standards governing the protection of single family residences and appurtenant structures against damage or loss due to shoreline erosion. The standards shall govern the issuance of substantial development permits for shoreline protection, including structural methods such as
construction of bulkheads, and nonstructural methods of protection.
The standards shall provide for methods which achieve effective and timely protection against loss or damage to single family residences and appurtenant structures due to shoreline erosion.
The standards shall provide a preference for permit
issuance for measures to protect single family residences occupied prior to January 1, 1992, where the
proposed measure is designed to minimize harm to the shoreline natural environment.
Watch Out, Dungeness, Here They Come – Dungeness Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study
Published October 25, 2011 | TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN – from Pearl Rains-Hewett
WATCH OUT DUNGENESS, HERE THEY COME
Dungeness Wastewater Treatment Feasibility Study
CLALLAM COUNTY DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
(GO ON LINE, LOOK THEM UP, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS)
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
SPECIFICATIONS DOCUMENT
Issue Date: October 11, 2011
THE CONTRACT FOR THE CONSULTANT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
THE APPLICATION FOR THE FUNDING FOR THE STUDY HAS BEEN WRITTEN (SENT?)
Read on if you are interested.
Pearl Rains Hewett
PROJECT TITLE:
PROPOSAL DUE DATE: November 1, 2011
EXPECTED TIME PERIOD FOR CONTRACT:
January 2012 – October 2012
Task 4: Assessment of Alternative Wastewater Solutions in Dungeness
Task Description
With this task the feasibility of a clustered or community option for wastewater treatment and disposal will be determined
for the community adjacent to the mouth of the Dungeness River. In this area, septic system repairs are very expensive
and sometimes unworkable due to poor soils, a high water table, and small lot sizes, and water supply development is
equally difficult. Recent microbial source tracking in the Dungeness Bay shellfish growing area adjacent to this
community (currently closed for commercial harvest) showed that human waste is a contributor, so this task will assess
feasible “small flow” solutions to an insidious nonpoint problem. The
feasibility study would interactively combine
community input into the development of technical options. The outcome would be a community equipped and
mobilized to pursue a facility plan with the best alternative, as per the hierarchy for rural development.
Project Area for Task 4
“
Old Dungeness” is a very historic community originally developed as the Clallam County seat, where building sites were
small and waste disposal and domestic water supplies were generally crowded on the same lot. Adjacent to this and on
the east side of the Dungeness River mouth, the mile-long Three Crabs Road can be characterized as a linear sand dune
between outer Dungeness Bay and wetlands. It was originally developed as vacation housing on the seashore. Now the
area has shoreline lots with large full-time residences with added fill to combat normal erosion, tidal action, increasinglyshallow
groundwater conditions (as sea level rises). On the wetlands side, a canal system that discharges to marine water
was excavated to create a 90-lot subdivision. The unique site characteristics and historic land use practices all contribute
to
septic system problems with no good repair options.
The map below for the Task 4 project area illustrates several of the limiting factors for management of wastewater (and
individual water supplies).
THE CONTRACT FOR THE CONSULTANT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
THE APPLICATION FOR THE FUNDING HAS BEEN WRITTEN
1. INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
“Dungeness” is a very historic community originally developed as the Clallam County seat,
where building sites were small and waste disposal and domestic water supplies were generally
crowded on the same lot. Adjacent to this and on the east side of the Dungeness River mouth,
the mile-long Three Crabs Road can be characterized as a linear sand dune between outer
Dungeness Bay and wetlands. Originally developed as vacation housing, now the small
shoreline lots have large year-round residences – sometimes with added fill to combat normal
erosion, tidal action, and potentially rising groundwater as sea level rises. On the wetlands side,
a canal system that discharges to marine water was excavated to create a 90-lot subdivision. The
unique site characteristics and historic land use practices all contribute to septic system problems
with no good repair options. With this project the feasibility of a clustered or community option
for wastewater treatment and disposal will be determined for Dungeness and the Three Crabs Rd.
communities, where septic system repairs are very expensive and sometimes unworkable due to
poor soils, a high water table, and small lot sizes.
Recent microbial source tracking in the Dungeness Bay shellfish growing area adjacent to this
community (portions of which are closed for commercial harvest) shows that human waste is a
contributor to water quality degradation. This feasibility study will incorporate community input
in the development of technical options to address this problem. The outcome should be a
community equipped and mobilized to pursue the next steps toward improved wastewater
management.
Note that while it should be acknowledged that water supply development is similarly difficult,
this project will not explore specific options for community water supply.
Please refer to the grant application (Exhibit C, Task 4) for detailed background information,
maps and references.
From those sites over 92% of the bacteria could be identified to a known host organism. At
least 34 species or animal groups were identified as present at one or more sites throughout the course of the study. The
predominant source identified at all sites was birds, followed by wild mammals. The presence of human sources was
identified at each site as well, with onsite septic systems the likely cause.
NO NET LOSS of Shoreline Ecological Functions IS NOT A LAW
Published October 19, 2011 | TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
I submit this as my comment on NNL
Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee
George C. Rains Sr. Estate
Member SMP Advisory Committee
NO NET LOSS of Shoreline Ecological Functions IS NOT A LAW
FOUND ON PAGE (1) AND PAGE (47) OF A 48 PAGE REPORT AND
KEEPING IN MIND THAT WAC’s ARE NOT LAWS
SMP HANDBOOK Chapter 4
The SMP Guidelines, adopted in 2003, constitute the first actual rule (WAC) in Washington State to incorporate the
no net loss requirement. The concept of no net loss in this State originated with earlier efforts to protect wetlands. In 1989, Governor Booth Gardner signed an Executive Order establishing a statewide goal regarding wetlands protection. “It is the interim goal…to achieve no overall net loss in acreage and function of Washington’s remaining wetlands base. It is further the long-term goal to increase the quantity and quality of Washington’s wetlands resource base.” (E.O. 89-10).
Read on if you are interested
SMP NNL Handbook Last updated 6/22/2010
8.
Specific Shoreline Activity and Use Standards Numerous additional specific references exist in the SMP Guidelines, requiring SMP regulations resulting in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Specific shoreline activity standards referencing NNL are located at: WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(ii)(C) and (D): Geologically hazardous areas. WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iii)(C): Critical saltwater habitats
WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iv)(C): Critical freshwater habitats
WAC 173-26-221(3): Flood hazard reduction
WAC 173-26-221(4)(d): Public access
WAC 173-26-221(5): Shoreline vegetation conservation
WAC 173-26-221(6): Water quality, storm water and nonpoint pollution
WAC 173-26-231: Shoreline modifications, including shoreline stabilization, piers and docks, fill, breakwaters, jetties, groins and weirs, beach and dunes management, dredging and dredge material disposal, shoreline habitat and natural systems-enhancement projects.
Specific shoreline use standards referencing NNL are located at:
WAC 173-26-241(2)(a)(iv), addressing the following uses:
Agriculture
Aquaculture
Boating facilities
Commercial development
Forest practices
Industry
In-stream structural uses
Mining
Recreational development
Residential development
Transportation and parking
Utilities
WACs, “Guidelines” and “Rules” are “not” laws
Published October 12, 2011 | | TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
I submit this as my comment on the Clallam County SMP Pearl Rains Hewett Trustee George C. Rains Sr. Estate SMP Advisory Committee Member
Clallam County SMP – The Federal Public Trust Doctrine Futurewise a special interest group Washington State Administrative Code (WAC) |
|
Regulations of executive branch agencies are issued by authority of statutes. Like legislation and the Constitution, regulations are a source of primary law in Washington State. The WAC codifies the regulations and arranges them by subject or agency. The online version of the WAC is updated twice a month. Copies of the WAC as they existed each year since 2004 are available in the WAC archive.
WAC’S ARE NOT LAW’S?
Guidelines Are Not Law’s?
Rules Are Not Law’s?
Our Elected County Officials take an oath to uphold WA State Laws not WAC’S.
Per FUTUREWISE these are not laws
Restoration and mitigation WAC 173-26-186(8) (c)
Restoration plan goal WAC 173-26-201(2) (f)
Recommended Shoreline stabilization WAC 173-26-231 (3) (a)
Recommendations for shore side uses and structures WAC 173-26-221 (4)
Public Access
A primary objective of SMA Policy
A primary Objective is not law?
Public use and access to the waters of the state is one of the requirements of
the Public Trust Doctrine Includes specific requirements in
WAC 173-26-221(4)– Most developments are required to provide public access
• Not single-family home construction
• Not subdivisions of four or fewer lots
[Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.120, 90.58.200, 90.58.060 and 43.21A.681. 11-05-064 (Order 10-07), § 173-26-201, filed 2/11/11, effective 3/14/11. Statutory Authority: RCW 90.58.060 and 90.58.200. 04-01-117 (Order 03-02), § 173-26-201, filed 12/17/03, effective 1/17/04.]
WAC 173-26-171 Authority, Purpose and Effects of Guidelines.
(1) Authority.
Guidelines Are Not Law’s?
RCW 90.58.090 authorizes and directs the department to adopt “guidelines consistent with RCW 90.58.020, containing the elements specified in RCW 90.58.100″ for development of local master programs for regulation of the uses of “shorelines” and “shorelines of statewide significance.”
Rules Are Not Law’s?
RCW 90.58.200 authorizes the department and local governments “to adopt such rules as are necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of” the Shoreline Management Act.
(2) Purpose.
The general purpose of the guidelines is to implement the “cooperative program of shoreline management between local government and the state.”
Local government shall have the primary responsibility for initiating the planning required by the Shoreline Management Act
and “administering the regulatory program consistent with the policy and provisions” of the Act.“
[T]he department shall act primarily in a supportive and review capacity with an emphasis on providing assistance to local government and insuring compliance with the policy and provisions” of the Act. RCW 90.58.050.
In keeping with the relationship between state and local governments prescribed by the Act, the guidelines have three specific purposes: to assist local governments in developing master programs; to serve as standards for the regulation of shoreline development in the absence of a master program along with the policy and provisions of the Act and, to be used along with the policy of RCW 90.58.020, as criteria for state review of local master programs under RCW 90.58.090.
(3) Effect.
(a) The guidelines are guiding parameters, standards, and review criteria for local master programs. The guidelines allow local governments substantial discretion to adopt master programs reflecting local circumstances and other local regulatory and non-regulatory programs related to the policy goals of shoreline management as provided in the policy statements of RCW 90.58.020, WAC 173-26-176 and WAC 173-26-181. The policy of RCW 90.58.020 and these guidelines constitute standards and criteria to be used by the department in reviewing the adoption and amendment of local master programs under RCW 90.58.090 and by the growth management hearings board and shorelines hearings board adjudicating appeals of department decisions to approve, reject, or modify proposed master programs and amendments under RCW 90.58.190.
(b) Under RCW 90.58.340, the guidelines, along with the policy of the Act and the master programs, also shall be standards of review and criteria to be used by state agencies, counties, and public and municipal corporations in determining whether the use of lands under their respective jurisdictions adjacent to the shorelines of the state are subject to planning policies consistent with the policies and regulations applicable to shorelines of the state.
(A) Comply with state and federal laws and implementing rules applicable to shorelines of the state within the local government jurisdiction;
Rules Are Not Law’s?
The Public Trust Doctrine and Coastal Zone Management in Washington State
The Shoreline Management Act which requires a combination of state and local planning, is an example.
The SMA clearly states the need for comprehensive planning to allow multiple uses of the state’s shorelines while protecting the public interest. Such planning is essential to the creation of local shoreline master programs (SMP) which implement the plans.
In general SMPs regulate use in, on, or over shorelines. This feature appears in zoning classifications including natural, conservation, rural, and urban which specify appropriate, conditional, and prohibited uses for each environment. SMPs may also incorporate any other element deemed appropriate or necessary to effectuate the policy of the SMA. This clause is an open invitation for local SMPs to incorporate explicitly public trust doctrine principles.
I find this hard to believe? I would like Sheila Miller to clarify this?
It is on the DOE Public Trust Doctrine web site (88 pages)
Finally, SMPs, unlike other comprehensive plans, are adopted as WAC’S and become part of the state’s Shoreline Master Program. As such, all local SMP rules, regulations, designations and guidelines become state law and are enforceable. In this manner, protection of public trust resources and uses becomes binding.
Conference call set for Oct. 12th for Olympic National Forest’s Dungeness watershed action plan
Published October 2, 2011 |
Posted 10/1/2011
Clallam County, WA – The next conference call to discuss the Olympic National Forest’s Dungeness watershed action plan will be Monday, October 12, at 10:00 AM. The call-in number is 712-432-1100 passcode 277507#. Notes from our last conference call on September 12 are attached.
Following is a draft agenda for the call:
- debrief on Sept. 14 Dungeness River Management Team meeting
- Action Plan workshop Oct. 17 – agenda, logistics, etc.
- Update on development of Action Plan proposals
- Public meeting on Action Plan?
As previously reported, there will be a workshop to review and discuss the Action Plan proposals on October 17 at the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribal Center. Susan Piper will be sending out a notice with details about the workshop in a few days.
Dungeness Watershed Action Plan Conference Call Notes, September 12, 2011
Participants (7): John Woolley, Mike Anderson, Susan Piper, Ross Krumpe, Kathleen Dowd-Gailey, Rebecca Wolfe, Tim McNulty
DRMT Meeting
- The watershed action plan will be on the agenda of this month’s meeting of the Dungeness River Management Team on September 14. Susan and Scott Haggerty will review the status of the action plan. Dean Yoshina and Mike will discuss the potential involvement of the DRMT in plan development and implementation. John, Rebecca, and Ross are also planning to attend.
October Workshop
- Susan said that the Forest Service planning team would be able to have an action plan workshop with interested members of the collaborative group and DRMT on either Friday, October 14, or Monday, October 17. Mike will see if there is a preference for either date among members of the DRMT and the collaborative group.
[Update: since the Tribal conference room is not available on Oct. 14, the workshop date will be October 17].
- The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe’s conference room is available for the workshop. If more than 30 people are expected to attend, the workshop could be moved to the Guy Cole Convention Center.
- The Forest Service will provide a final spreadsheet with project descriptions, staff rankings, and estimated costs a couple of weeks before the workshop.
- Maps will be provided at the workshop, along with background information about the Forest Service’s watershed condition framework process. Project information and discussion will likely be organized by resource area.
Planning Update
- Several additional proposals were submitted before the August 30 deadline – e.g. Tyler Peak access, snag creation, mountain biking trails, and horse riding on Road 2860 segments.
- An off-highway vehicle loop route is being considered on Road 2878-100 in the vicinity of Ned Hill. OHV routes have also been suggested in the Jimmy Come Lately watershed.
- John has field checked the 2878-100 road and found that it was relatively flat ground but thought that it would difficult to connect roads together to make a loop route.
Next conference call of the collaborative working group will be Monday, October 3, at 10:00 AM.
Washington state bureaucracy’s idea of “shoreline management”
Published September 28, 2011 | Regarding:
Our Elected Officials
LAKE SUTHERLAND THEIR PROBLEMS IN DETAIL
by Pearl Rains-Hewett
Posted 9/28/2011
About 8-10 people from Lake Sutherland attended the Jan. 26, 2011 Focus Group meeting (uninvited by the County).
They had several concerns, large white boats cruising slowly around the lake taking pictures of their homes, docks and property from every angle. When residents asked who they were, they said they were from the State.
They had airplanes overhead going around and around taking pictures of their homes and property.
They had strangers trespassing and walking all over adjoining upstream property, throwing white tapes in their only source of drinking water. When asked who they were, they identified themselves as Dept. of Fish and Wild life. (personally involved)
They had concerns about the impending SMP 200′ set back that would make all of their homes nonconforming.
They expressed concern with selective enforcement/retaliation.
I discussed their fear with another person that attended the focus meeting.
These were not just concerned citizens, these were fearful citizens. These people were afraid of what their government was going to do to them.
I made comment at the next Commissioners meeting, “When citizens of the United States Of America are afraid of what their government is going to do to them, that is unacceptable to me”.
Call or write to your elected officials?
I did, 3 calls about Lake Sutherland homeowners on Jan 27, 2011, the day after the first Focus Group Meeting.
Who did I call in Olympia and leave messages for?
Steve Theringer (360) 786-7916
Senator James Hargrove (360) 786-7646
Kevin Van DeWege (360) 786-7916
Response to date April 30, 2011….ZERO.
There are 300 homes around Lake Sutherland. The problem they have been facing for several years was a rise of up to 2 feet in the level of the lake. Their docks were under water and their beach front property was flooded. The problem was a log jam in the outlet at Indian Creek. They tried to remove the jam in small boats with chainsaws, ropes, tugging and pulling to no avail.
It took them a few years to get help from Clallam County, the DOE and WFDW.
I found this on line WA State RCW 90.24.010 to help LAKE SUTHERLAND property owners with one of their problems.
I gave copies to a Lake Sutherland homeowner at the public SMP meeting held at the Senior Center and sat in on a group discussion on Lake Sutherland.
| RCW 90.24.010
Petition to regulate flow — Order — Exceptions. |
Ten or more owners of real property abutting on a lake may petition the superior court of the county in which the lake is situated, for an order to provide for the regulation of the outflow of the lake in order to maintain a certain water level therein. If there are fewer than ten owners, a majority of the owners abutting on a lake may petition the superior court for such an order. The court, after notice to the department of fish and wildlife and a hearing, is authorized to make an order fixing the water level thereof and directing the department of ecology to regulate the outflow therefrom in accordance with the purposes described in the petition. This section shall not apply to any lake or reservoir used for the storage of water for irrigation or other beneficial purposes, or to lakes navigable from the sea.
[1999 c 162 § 1; 1985 c 398 § 28; 1959 c 258 § 1; 1939 c 107 § 2; RRS § 7388-1.]Notes:
| Effective date — 1985 c 398: “Sections 28 through 30 of this act shall take effect January 1, 1986.” [1985 c 398 § 31.]
Lake and beach management districts: Chapter 36.61 RCW. |
Too much land owned by govt.
Published September 17, 2011 | AUDIT SUMMARY February 1998
Since its creation in 1961, Menominee County has had difficulty in meeting its financial needs because of a severely limited property tax base. Most of its land is tax-exempt because it is held in federal trust for the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, whose reservation includes the county and the Town of Menominee. Only 1 percent of land is taxable, and 94.4 percent of that land is residential property in a lakes area, including a development known as Legend Lake. The Tribe continues to purchase small amounts of land to be placed in federal trust, further reducing the tax base.
US Budget in Household Terms… think we’ve got a spending problem?
Published September 13, 2011 |
US Budget in Household Terms… think we’ve got a spending problem?
• U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
• Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
• New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000
• National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
• Recent budget cut: $ 38,500,000,000
Now, remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budget …
• Annual family income: $21,700
• Money the family spent: $38,200
• New debt on the credit card: $16,500
• Outstanding balance on credit card: $142,710
• Total budget cuts: $385
Sort of brings the true issue “home” doesn’t it?
Shoreline residents swamped by regulations
Published September 12, 2011 | Please read this attached document sent to me by another CAPR President on the west side of the state. These types of regulations are exactly what Dr. Michael Coffman refers to in his UN Biodiversity Map that he did for the UN program called the “Wildlands Project” that seeks to “re-wild” over 50% of the USA. His map describes how people will eventually be regulated away from all waterways, even small creeks. I have attached a copy of the Coffman Map so people can review the “restricted zones” that say “little to no human use”, and the “buffer zones” with “highly regulated use”. It took 40 years for them to start enacting these regulations, as they are now beginning to enact many of their old plans for Agenda 21.
Their methods are effective because they don’t force you out. Instead they give you the option to stay if you will constantly comply with their barrage of new and outrageous regulations that continually ask for more and more from you each year.
Sincerely,
Rene’ Holaday
STORY FOLLOWS:
Shoreline residents swamped by regulations
Premium content from Puget Sound Business Journal by
Aaron Laing
Date: Friday, September 9, 2011, 3:00am
PDT
Storm-water runoff from public roads and highways is
the single largest source of contamination to lakes, streams, rivers and the
Puget Sound. Municipal wastewater is a close second, as large rain events often
result in sewage overflowing into our waterways.
Current regulatory efforts, however, put an undue
burden on shoreline property owners to solve a problem that is almost entirely
not of their making. To restore the health of the Puget Sound, regulatory
efforts need to focus first and foremost on the primary sources of pollutants.
While shoreline regulations play a role, burdensome, complex regulations will
undermine restoration efforts and divert funding away from much-needed upgrades
to regional storm-water treatment facilities.
The state’s Shoreline Management Act of 1971 requires
cities and counties to work with the Department of Ecology to develop shoreline
master programs (SMPs) to regulate the use of shorelines within their
boundaries. Under the law, local governments must update their SMPs according to
the schedule set by the Legislature. Many Puget Sound jurisdictions either
recently completed or are in the process of completing these updates. The
ostensible purpose of the SMP update is to ensure that shorelines have adequate
protection based on the best available science. Unfortunately, the result has
been the preparation and, in some cases, adoption of arcane, phone-book-sized
regulations that do little to address water quality issues.
For example, Bellevue’s draft SMP is about 350 pages
long and would effectively render much of the existing development on the shores
of Lake Washington, Lake Sammamish, Phantom Lake and Bellevue’s many streams
nonconforming. That is, many existing homes and landscaping would be prohibited
under the new code. Depending on the scope of repairs or improvements,
homeowners could be required to remove landscaping and place deed restrictions
on their properties. Even mundane projects could require homeowners to hire
expensive consultants and go through a complex permitting process. The effect
would be to restrict efforts to maintain existing homes and yards. New
construction could be difficult, if not impossible, depending on the
site.
The problem with such regulations is threefold.
First, they place a disproportionate responsibility on shoreline property owners
to maintain and restore the health of our waters, while ignoring the largest
source of the problem: contaminated storm-water runoff. Shoreline properties
represent a virtual drop in the bucket when it comes to land area and impervious
surface area in the Puget Sound watershed. One need only drive over the
Interstate 90 bridge during a rainstorm and observe the storm water discharging
directly into Lake Washington to understand the source and scope of the true
problem. Overregulating the shorelines will not solve the problem of rainwater
washing harmful pollutants off of thousands of miles of roads and millions of
acres of upland properties that are not subject to such
regulations.
Second, costly, complex and unreasonable regulations
create a disincentive for homeowners to go through the permitting process that
might require reasonable mitigation, such as infiltrating storm water from roofs
instead of piping it straight into lakes and streams. Even worse, such
regulations invite costly litigation. This is wasteful on many
levels.
Third, the Legislature acknowledged that restrictions
could affect the fair market value of affected properties. The act thus requires
that county assessors consider the effect of such regulations in making tax
assessments. By adopting highly restrictive regulations, the assessed value of
shoreline properties is diminished. This, in turn, could reduce tax revenues
needed to upgrade regional wastewater and storm-water facilities. Ironically,
highly restrictive shoreline regulations could have the effect of worsening
water quality over time.
The Shoreline Management Act does not mandate such
results. The law calls for balance. Local governments and the Department of
Ecology should be guided by the law’s purpose and avoid adopting onerous
regulations that do little or nothing to address the key threats to the Puget
Sound.
AARON LAING is a land-use attorney at Schwabe,
Williamson & Wyatt. He can be reached at alaing@schwabe.com.
Recent Comments