Title: Washington State Environmental Laws
1Washington State Environmental Laws
Presented by Ken Lederman Riddell Williams P.S.
2- Brief overview of important state laws and
regulatory framework - Trends in state environmental regulation
- Caveats
- Wont be able to cover everything
- The real meat of the environmental laws in WA
is in the adopted rules and regulations - May have to defer in certain areas
3Types of State Environmental Laws
- Command control
- Direct regulation over individual, municipal, and
corporate activities - Water Pollution Control Act, Chapter 90.48 RCW
- Washington Clean Air Act, Chapter 70.94 RCW
- Model Toxics Control Act, Chapter 70.105D RCW
- Haz. Waste Management Act, Chapter 70.105 RCW
- Forest Practices Act, Chapter 76.09 RCW
- Water Law
- Groundwater Regulations
- Stormwater Regulations
4Types of State Environmental Laws
- Indirect regulation
- Requires local governments to adopt rules and to
regulate development with state oversight - Growth Management Act, Chapter 36.70A RCW
- Shoreline Management Act, Chapter 90.58 RCW
- State Environmental Policy Act, Ch. 43.21A RCW
5Water Pollution Control Act
- Ensures protection of all waters of the state for
public health and enjoyment - Prevents and controls pollution with all
available and reasonable methods - Federally delegated program 90.48.260
- Ecology carries out with EPA oversight
- Covers Point Source Discharge, Non-Point Source
Discharge, and National Pollution Discharge
Elimination Permits (NPDES) - Does not cover energy facilities
- Handled by Energy Facilities Site Evaluation
Council (EFSEC) - Compensation schedule for NRD resulting from oil
spills
6Water Pollution Control Act
- Waters of the State 90.48.020
- Very broad covers all fresh and salt water
bodies and watercourses AND covers all
groundwater resources - Pollution 90.48.020
- All chemical and biological properties
- Changes in temperature, turbidity, etc
- Any contamination or alteration of water
- Interpreted very broadly by the courts
7Water Pollution Control Act
- Surface water standards
- Classified from AA through C, with Lake Class
- AA all water supply, stock, fish habitat,
recreation - C only industrial supply, recreation, commerce,
navigation - Effluent Limitation Approach
- Specific limits for a variety of toxic pollutants
- Discharge limits (municipal, commercial, and
industrial) - Antidegradation
- Mandatory protection of natural conditions of
waters - Limited exceptions
- Cannot lower water quality conditions beyond
criteria - Mixing zone
- Areas where water quality standards are not met
- Must comply with All Known Available
Reasonable methods of prevention, control,
Treatment (AKART)
8Water Pollution Control Act
- Enforcement powers
- Any action in law (injunctive relief) may be
brought by AGO - Any act that causes or tends to cause pollution
is unlawful - Includes Organic and Inorganic Matter
- Issue Notice of Violation (NOV) if one violates
law or creates substantial potential to violate
law - 30 days to correct the problem or face penalties
- Criminal violations
- Jail time 10,000 for willful violations
- Civil penalties
- Up to 10,000 per day for each violation
- Factors history severity remedial measures
- Avoid conversion of agricultural land. RCW
90.48.450
9Water Pollution Control Act
- Ecology approves all proposals for sewage
treatment plants (improvements extensions) - Ecology reviews applications and issues NPDES
Permits - Commercial, municipal, and industrial discharges
into waters of the state must have NPDES Permit
from Ecology or EFSEC - Local government can develop their own program to
be approved by Ecology - Also State Waste Discharge Permits and
Construction StormWater Discharge Permits - Ecology sets water quality standards for State
- Coordination with Forest Practices rules and
regulations
10Stormwater Controls
- Stormwater nonpoint source of pollution
- Runoff from all surfaces, not just urban
environment - Currently the leading source of most
environmental contamination of water sources in
Washington - 1987 Congress amends Clean Water Act
- Discharge of stormwater from industries and
municipalities is a point source requiring an
NPDES permit - WA has delegated authority, so it became part of
our state water quality control program - Two Phases
- Phase I Ecology issuance of Stormwater NPDES
General Permits to cover discharges from sites of
5 or more acres, and municipalities with more
than 100,000 people - Phase II Expansion to all municipalities in
urbanized areas, and construction sites from 1-5
acres
11Stormwater Controls
- General Permit
- Requires implementation of a stormwater
management program - Must reduce the discharge of pollutants, reduce
harm to receiving waters, eliminate all
inappropriate discharges, and make progress
towards complying with applicable standards
(water, groundwater, and sediment) - Phase II pushes General Permits onto thousands of
additional construction sites - Includes evaluation process for cities of more
than 10,000 - All Phase II permits targeted for December 2002
12Stormwater Controls
- Stormwater Management Manual
- Promulgated by Ecology with help from WSDOT
- Separate manuals for Eastern and Western WA
- Objective provide a commonly accepted set of
standards and guidance for stormwater control
measures at applicable sites - For use by local governments, state agencies, and
private business - Expectation established practices for
development and redevelopment activities will
lead to compliance with water quality standards
13Stormwater Controls
- Standards
- Must use Best Management Practices (BMPs)
- All projects must use appropriate ON-SITE
stormwater management techniques (recent change) - Flow control requirements to address peak flows
- Redevelopment requirements are generally the same
as requirements for new projects with impervious
surfaces - Doesnt apply to impervious surfaces outside of
project - Erosion control requirements from construction
sites - Attempts to establish consistency with federal
regulations - NOT a rule or regulation
- Guidance document to be used in the permit phase
- Limitations enforced through NPDES Permits
14Water Law
- Washington overhauled the State Water Code and
adjudication process during the past 5 years - Working to reduce a 10-12 year backlog
- Impeding salmon recovery efforts
- Impeding development, especially in rural areas
- Basic primer on Washington Water Law concepts and
new trends
15Water Law
- Washington Water Law
- All waters belong to the public, subject to the
existing rights of others. RCW 90.03.010 - Private rights may not be acquired when use
threatens the public interest. RCW 90.03.290 - Private rights obtained from State after
evaluation of impact on public interest - Once obtained, your water right is a property
right - Cannot be taken without just compensation
- Appurtenant to the land on which it is used
- Can NOT be used on other land without a prior
approval from state for a transfer. RCW
90.03.380.
16Water Law
- Doctrine of Prior Appropriation
- First in time, first in right
- Applicable throughout the western states
- Water right comes into existence only by applying
the water to a beneficial use - Agriculture, mining, power, industrial, or
domestic use - Didnt allow for leaving the water in its natural
setting - Fixed quantity provided
- Any excess use, or waste is strictly prohibited
- Cannot use more than allocated amount (acre feet,
cfs, etc) - Perfecting a right putting it to beneficial use
- Priority date of water right is date that you
started to pursue it - Must act with due diligence
- Perpetuity
- Must be continuous use without a period of
abandonment - Cant carry the right to a newly purchased piece
of property
17Water Law
- Water Rights Permit
- Issued by Ecology after an investigation that
(1) water is available (2) water going to a
beneficial use (3) water right will not impair
other existing rights and (4) no detriment to
public interest. RCW 90.03.290 - Permit cancelled if you dont complete the
project to which the water is directed in a
specific time period - Once the water is put to use, certificate issued.
- Establishes the important details of the water
right - Priority date relates back to date of filing of
application
18Water Law
- Water Rights Permit
- Changes to Permit must follow separate
application - For change of place of use, point of diversion,
or purpose - Cannot get a change in Quantity
- Forfeiture / relinquishment
- Failure to use for 5 consecutive years means you
lose it - Some statutory exemptions apply (including use
for municipal supply purposes, litigation, or
determined future development) - Groundwater
- Separate code (Chapter 90.44 RCW)
- Basically, applies prior appropriation doctrine
to groundwater - NO permit required for stock-watering, watering a
½ acre parcel of land, or for a single domestic
use not exceeding 5000 gallons a day - Statutory establishment of Hydraulic Continuity
- Cant have groundwater if it affects surface
water rights. 90.44.030
19Water Law
- Instream flows
- Retention of water in waterbodies to protect
fish, wildlife, and ecological values (serve
both quantity and quality) - Water Resources Act - Chapter 90.54 RCW
- Combines quality quantity with water
resource decisions - Established fundamentals of water management
- Beneficial use can include instream uses
- Future allocations based on maximum net benefits
to public - All water rights permits are conditioned to
protect instream flows necessary to protect
ecological values - Becomes an appropriation entitled to legal
protection - Ecology now enforcing Metering Statute (RCW
90.03.360) - Reserved rights
- Winters Doctrine Tribal reservations have
implied water right to carry out purposes for
which the reservation was created
20Water Law
- Adjudications
- A quiet title action for water rights
- Lawsuit requiring proof of a water claim
- Results in a Decree establishing all of the
rights and priorities of water rights in a
particular drainage basin - Joins ALL persons claiming right to divert water
- Problem
- Supposed to identify all rights before Water Code
- Very few held, so majority of water is not
adjudicated - Cumbersome
- Acquavella 20 years old, 3 Supreme Court
opinions and counting, 4000 participants
representing 40000 users, tribal use issues,
appointment of independent Watermaster, etc
21Water Law
- Recent programs and rule changes
- Dual track water right applications
- Usually, everyone has to get in line (leads to
lawsuits) - New program two separate lines
- 1 line for water right applications
- 1 line for water right change applications
- Allows process of change applications without
forcing consideration of effect on new water
right applications - Ecology can still prioritize change applications,
but not new ones - Water conservancy boards
- Creation of locally-created boards to process
water rights changes, such as change of use, etc - NOT for new water rights applications or tribal
water rights - Streamlines the process, but raises specter for
conflicts - Ecology reviews decisions and can appeal to PCHB
- 2003 Legislative session - Ecology denied ability
to use water-quality laws to limit water rights
and/or water withdrawals
22Water Law
- Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
- Ecology and EPA enter agreement in 1997 for
implementation of TMDLs for the 303(d) list - If Ecology cant complete, then EPA does it for
them - Covers all impaired water bodies in WA
- Designed to ensure water quality standards are
met - Must be considered under RCW 90.54, so will
affect water rights decisions as well as water
quality - Pend Oreille decision (Washington Supreme Court)
- A water right does not excuse compliance with CWA
or Water Pollution Control Act, even if it
affects or impacts your water right - Important for energy facilities
23Washington Clean Air Act
- Goals
- Preserve, protect, and enhance air quality
- Promote regional air pollution control
authorities - Achieve significant reductions in both small and
large quantity sources of emissions - Control wood stove emissions
- Education rather than enforcement
- Can issue no wood stove burning notices
- Another federally delegated program
- Standards of Federal Clean Air Act are
coordinated to secure benefits of federal funding - NAAQS enforced through state regulatory system
24Washington Clean Air Act
- Pollution control
- Controls emissions of all airborne contaminants,
including dust, smoke, matter, gas, vapor, etc - Unlawful to cause air pollution or permit air
pollution to be caused by others - Multi-county authorities established to monitor
and enforce air quality laws - Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (PSCAA)
- Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority
(SCAPCA) - South West Air Pollution Control Authority
(SWAPCA) - Ecology covers all other areas
- Agency / authority programs must be as stringent
or more stringent than Ecology
25Washington Clean Air Act
- Regulatory authority
- Ecology or board must approve plans and specs for
construction of new sources of air emissions (new
source review) - Same is required for replacement or substantial
alteration of existing sources - RACT all existing sources must install and
operate Reasonably Available Control Technology - Must achieve lowest emission limit possible by
application of technology that is reasonably
available - All air contaminant sources must obtain renewable
permits - 5 year period
- Can be modified or amended at request of permitee
- Local air authority can apply to operate permit
system - Includes agricultural burning (wheat, weed,
bluegrass, etc)
26Washington Clean Air Act
- Enforcement power
- Notice of violation
- Restraining order / injunction
- Penalties
- Criminal penalties for willful or negligent
violations - Civil penalties for all excusable violations
- Must first issue Notice of Correction in certain
circumstances - Each act and each day is another potential
penalty - Current issues in Washington
- Agricultural burning / ADA controversy
- New source review (national)
27Model Toxics Control Act
- Adopted by Citizens Initiative in 1989-1990
- NOT a federally delegated program
- No Memorandum of Agreement with EPA, so MTCA
determinations are not binding under CERCLA - Significant differences between CERCLA MTCA
- Covers oil and petroleum products
- Corrected the mistakes of CERCLA (more
efficient) - Creation of both a State Toxics Control Account
and a Local Toxics Control Account (to assist
local govts with cleanups) - EPA still has authority to overfile and bring
in CERCLA - Covers lots and lots of sites (meth labs gas
stations) - Lots and lots of public participation
- VERY SUCCESSFUL
- 4800 NFAs (53), 3300 active cleanups (36), 1000
cleanups pending (11)
28Model Toxics Control Act
- Basic legal principles
- Strict liability no analysis of intent
- Joint several liability once youre in,
youre in for it all - Retroactive (doesnt matter when release
occurred) - Liability imposed on (1) owners / operators of
contaminated property (2) generators /
arrangers and (3) transporters of hazardous
substances - Potentially Liable Parties (PLPs)
- Never forget the potentially in PLP
- Covers all releases of hazardous substances
- Broad - no requirement of active or
intentional conduct - Limited judicial appeals
- No pre-enforcement review
- Severe penalties for failure to comply
- 10,000 a day possible treble damages
29Model Toxics Control Act
- Parties who are not liable
- Innocent landowners
- Plume clause candidates
- Lenders / mortgage holders
- Victims of Act of God or Act of War
- Victims of acts of third parties (sabotage)
- Releases solely from application of pesticides
- De minimis (liable, but for a finite amount)
- Passive Migration??
30Model Toxics Control Act
- Recovering costs / funding
- Private contribution actions
- State Toxics Control Account (STCA)
- Funded by Hazardous Substance Tax on petroleum
products, pesticides, and chemicals (8,000
products) - Also receives money from cost recovery, fines,
penalties, fees, etc.. - Local Toxics Control Account (LTCA)
- Supported in same way
- For use by local jurisdictions to assist with
cleanups
31Model Toxics Control Act
- Cleanup Standards
- Set by Department of Ecology Chapter 173-340
WAC - Goal protection of human health and environment
- Use of permanent solutions to maximum extent
practicable - Cost / Benefit Analysis (disproportionality test)
- Maintains compliance with Applicable Relevant
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) - Cleanup must meet all regulatory standards found
in other environmental pollution control statutes - Covers Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) and
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs) - New rules adopted in 2002
- New standards of TPH, Arsenic, Lead, etc
- New requirements to facilitate redevelopment of
property - Incorporation of permit requirements into the
cleanup action plan
32Model Toxics Control Act
- Cleanup standards - How Clean is Clean?
- Essentially, must remediate to the point that the
remaining contamination no longer poses an
unacceptable threat to human health and the
environment - Each medium receives a Cleanup Level
- Must achieve cleanup level at a Point of
Compliance - Specific substances
- Carcinogens must be cleaned to below a level that
could cause an excess cancer risk in humans - Non-carcinogens must be cleaned to below a level
that could cause illness in humans - Combination substances must be cleaned to below a
level that could impact terrestrial or aquatic
receptors
33Model Toxics Control Act
- Cleanup standards
- Method A for the straightforward cleanup
- Provides numerical cleanup levels for 25-30 of
the most common hazardous substances - Numerical levels set in the regulations
- Method B for the more complex cleanup
- Most common method for sites with unusual
substances or combinations of substances - More stringent cleanup standards
- Sets human-health risk levels for particular
substances - Must assess impact on terrestrial ecological
receptors - Method C for every other kind of cleanup
- When Method A or B levels are not technically
possible - Similar to Method B levels of calculating cleanup
levels - Less stringent exposure assumptions good for
industrial sites
34Model Toxics Control Act
- Usual chain of events
- Initial investigation site hazard assessment (1
to 5) - Inclusion on state site hazard list
- Identification of PLPs
- Phase I II site assessments (optional)
- Determine contaminants and scope of contamination
- Remedial Investigation / Feasibility Study
(RI/FS) - Determine where contamination has come to be
located - Cleanup action plan / interim actions
- Long-term monitoring / no further action
- Land use restrictions (restrictive covenant /
zoning overlay) - Implementation
- Agreed order or consent decree
- CD provides covenant not to sue and contribution
protection - Enforcement orders (last resort or emergency
situation)
35Model Toxics Control Act
- Enforcement provisions
- Citizen suits
- To force ecology to perform a non-discretionary
duty - Direct suits against Ecology
- Must give notice of intent to sue
- Petition for reimbursement
- PLP pays money, then asks for it back, and can
then sue once Ecology refuses - Counter-claim to Ecology suit
- Challenges reviewed under arbitrary and
capricious standard - Liability / PLP determinations are reviewed de
novo - No other way to get to court
36Model Toxics Control Act
- Brownfields / Redevelopment of Contaminated
Property - Not statutory!
- Criteria for brownfields redevelopment
- Yields substantial new resources to facilitate
cleanup - Expedites cleanup
- Redevelopment will not further contribute to
release of waste, impede remedial actions, or
increase health risks - Prospective Purchaser Agreements (PPA)
- Settlement with a non-liable party who wishes to
purchase contaminated property, clean it up, and
redevelop it - Only 13 since 1986, and not binding on EPA
- Successor liability protection for the purchaser
of property - Brownfields funding
- grants from EPA supervised by Office of Trade
Economic Development (OTED) - Expanded technical assistance available
37Model Toxics Control Act
- Voluntary cleanup program
- For simple sites (gas stations,
single-contaminants, etc) - Independent cleanup with limited Ecology
oversight - Must obtain Ecology approval at end of process to
ensure that the cleanup performed is the
substantial equivalent of an Ecology-supervised
cleanup - Cost-effective (dont pay for Ecologys oversight
costs) - Current / future trends
- Constitutional challenges
- Area-wide contamination
- Complex cleanups (Spokane River, Mining Sites,
Duwamish Waterway, Lake Roosevelt,
ASARCO) - New regulations
- New standards remediation levels Financial
Assurance - Model remedies?
38Hazardous Waste Management Act
- State system for enforcement of RCRA
- Federally delegated program
- Equivalent or more stringent than federal RCRA
- Provides cradle-to-grave regulation of
hazardous waste and dangerous waste - Pre-empts local governments from regulating
hazardous waste facilities - VERY CONFUSING
- Does not cover domestic sewage, wastewater
discharges, agricultural waste, asphalt or wood
waste, recycled oil filters, etc.. - Recyclables (oil, anti-freeze, E-waste)
39Hazardous Waste Management Act
- Definitions
- Dangerous Waste all discarded or abandoned
materials which pose a hazard to human health and
environment - Extremely Hazardous Waste all dangerous waste
which - will persist
- presents a significant environmental hazard
- is highly toxic
- Hazardous Waste all dangerous waste that
designates as hazardous waste and all extremely
hazardous waste - Listed by adopted regulations
- Meets 1 of 4 characteristics ignitability,
reactivity, corrosivity, or toxicity - Contained in Waste for complex mixtures
40Hazardous Waste Management Act
- More stringent that RCRA (broader, less
exemptions) - Governs all Treatment, Storage, Disposal
Facilities (TSDs) - Enforces the land ban
- Includes both civil and criminal enforcement
power - Manifest requirements for all transportation of
hazardous waste - Small Quantity Generators and Generators of
Household Wastes are Exempt from most
requirements (Rule of 22) - TSD permits for facilities
- Meets basic minimum technical standards (liners,
GW monitoring, etc) - Clean Closure requirements
- Financial assurance requirements
- Prevents the dump and run
41Hazardous Waste Management Act
- Corrective Action
- Ecology can order TSD to address pre-existing or
recently-caused contamination - Covers any hazardous substance released at a TSD
- Can go beyond the TSD property boundary
- Corrective Action performed primarily through a
Joint MTCA / RCRA Corrective Action Order - RCRA requirements enforced with overlay of MTCA
cleanup standards - Regulation vs. Enforcement / Liability
42Forest Practices Act
- Goal
- Sound natural resource protection
- Maintenance of forest products industry
- Protection of soils, water quality, recreation,
scenic beauty, species, etc - Creation of Forest Practices Board
- 11 members
- Ecology, Public Lands, CTED, Agriculture, Elected
County Legislator, 5 public landowners appointed
by the Governor - No local governmental control over forest
practices
43Forest Practices Act
- Adoption of Forest Practice Rules
- Class I forest practices that have no direct
potential for damaging a public resource - No application or permit needed
- Class II forest practices which have a less
than ordinary potential for damaging public
resource - May be conducted 5 days after notification with
no application or permit needed
44Forest Practices Act
- Adoption of Forest Practice Rules
- Class III anything outside I and II
- Must be approved by DNR within 30 days of receipt
of application - Class IV anything outside I and II where a
potential for substantial impact is noted - Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) required if
DNR determines it to be necessary (all other
classes exempt from SEPA) - Must be approved by DNR after EIS and within 30
days of receipt of application
45Forest Practices Act
- Reforestation
- Must occur within 3 years after forest activities
completed - DNR must review and approve reforestation
activities, or additional activities may be
required - Conversion
- Must notify DNR if land to be forested will be
converted to a use other than commercial timber
production within 3 years - If so, reforestation requirements do not apply
- Enforcement
- Includes water quality and forest resource
damages - Can include a lien against the property
46State Environmental Policy Act
- Modeled after NEPA
- Commits all agencies of state local government
to maintain and improve environmental quality - Full compliance with procedural requirements
- Recognition of each persons fundamental and
inalienable right to a healthful environment - Ministerial decisions become discretionary based
on environmental consequences - Alternatives must be reviewed, proposed, and
analyzed - No substantive requirements
- BUT the procedural requirements are significant
determinants of substantive decision-making
47State Environmental Policy Act
- How it works
- Submitting a proposal for development triggers
SEPA requirements - Threshold determination
- Documented through an environmental checklist
- Primary source of info documentation repository
- Determination of significance - DS
- Reversed on appeal? Only if arbitrary
capricious - Determination of non-significance - DNS
- Must be based on demonstration that environmental
factors were considered to establish prima facie
compliance - Reversed on appeal? Only if clearly erroneous
- Mitigated determination of non-significance -
MDNS - Stopping impacts ahead of time
- Can be very controversial removes public input
48State Environmental Policy Act
- Determination of Significance
- If any action might significantly impact the
environment - Very low standard (any moderate effect)
- Focus on intensity of development and
vulnerability of affected environment - No analysis of socio-economic benefits
- No analysis of alternatives at this stage
- Begin the scoping process (gathering all
documentation) - Prep for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
- Notification to any affected party for review
comment
49State Environmental Policy Act
- Environmental Impact Statement
- Provides more intense environmental scrutiny of
project - Elements explain the project, the impacts, the
alternatives, the short and long term
consequences, and the resource commitments - Adequate? Governed by the rule of reason
- Case by case review
- Determine if effects and alternatives are
sufficiently disclosed and substantiated - De novo review by court (no deference)
- Must do Supplemental EIS if substantial changes
proposed to project or new data is uncovered
related to potential environmental impacts - You can use pre-existing or existing
documentation in certain circumstances (no
requirement of redundancy)
50State Environmental Policy Act
- Effects on substantive agency action
- SEPA is stronger than NEPA
- Local government can deny if SEPA identifies
significant environmental impacts that cannot be
mitigated under any proposed alternative - 3 primary effects
- Must interpret and administer all state laws in
accordance with SEPA - Supplements environmental decision-making
authority - Judicially enforceable substantive standards on
government action / decision-making
51Shoreline Management Act
- Designed to strike a balance between pressure for
shoreline development and protection of shoreline
ecological resources - Unrestricted construction is not in best public
interest - Promotes planned and rational effort to balance
environmental protection with private property
interests - Statewide interest over local interest
- Increase and preserve public access
52Shoreline Management Act
- Jurisdiction
- 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark
- Outside of that, no regulatory control
- Once youre in a little, youre in for all
- Shorelines of statewide significance granted
greater protection - Designated by Legislature
53Shoreline Management Act
- State Local Interaction
- Designed for cooperative relationship
- Each local government develops a Shoreline Master
Plan based on adopted Guidelines from Ecology - Ecology approves each Master Plan
- Controls both development and uses
- Local government has primary control, with
state maintaining necessary oversight to protect
the public interest - Local government sets forth shoreline
designations (natural, recreational,
residential, commercial, etc) in master program - Single family residences are preferred
- Local government then administers the SMP
- Ecology evaluates permit decisions
54Shoreline Management Act
- Development is allowed so long as it is
consistent with SMA and the local Master Program - Substantial Development cannot be undertaken
without a shoreline permit - Anything over 2500
- Anything that interferes with normal public use
- Does not include maintenance or repair
- Does not include bulkheads for single family
homes - Does not include agricultural activities
55Shoreline Management Act
- Substantial Development Permit
- Issued by local governments for construction
- Must be appealed by Ecology if inconsistent
- Conditional Use Permit
- For a conditional use or a change of use
- Must be approved by Ecology (Permittee can appeal
if denied or conditioned) - Variance
- Allowing an otherwise unauthorized development
within prohibited area (within an otherwise
prohibited area or zone) - Must be approved by Ecology (permittee can appeal
if denied or conditioned)
56Shoreline Management Act
- Appeals to Shoreline Hearings Board
- 3 members of Pollution Control Hearings Board
- 1 member of Association of Counties
- 1 member of Association of Cities
- 1 delegate from Dept. of Natural Resources
- Must have at least 4 out of 6 for decision
- A 3-3 tie affirms the status quo
57Shoreline Management Act
- New Guidelines
- Implementation of performance standards
- No reference to ESA requirements, but.
- No effect on agriculture or single family homes
- Restoration requirements
- Protection of ecological functions and processes
- Integration of GMA requirements
- Local governments must adopt new guidelines and
submit to Ecology for approval - Must inventory all shorelines and revise
designations - Money?!?!?!
58Growth Management Act
- Determination of what development is desirable
providing adequate facilities to meet the demand
for private development - Local jurisdictions can no longer act as an
independent or isolated entity - Coordination cooperation integration
- Putting public facilities in place before new
development occurs - Coordinate private development with public
facilities (transportation) - Requirement of concurrency in planning /
development - Central concept concentrate growth in existing
urban areas - Urban Growth Area (UGA) permanent intensive
use - Outside a UGA (i.e. rural areas), only
low-density development can occur
59Growth Management Act
- Who must comply with GMA?
- High-density areas
- County with 50,000 people and 17 increase in
population in past decade - County with more than 20 increase in population
in the past decade (regardless of current
numbers) - Any city with the aforementioned counties
- Volunteers
- Any city or county can opt in
60Growth Management Act
- Basic principles
- Adoption of county- and city-wide planning policy
- Designation of critical areas, agricultural
lands, forest lands, and mineral resource lands - Adopt regulations to protect them
- Use interim regulations until a comprehensive
plan is in place - Critical Areas wetlands, floodplains, water
recharge areas, critical habitat areas, hazard
zones, etc - Designation of Urban Growth Areas (UGAs)
- Adoption of a comprehensive plan
- Must be submitted to state for approval
(including amendments) - Master planned communities / resorts
- Intensive development can be allowed outside of
UGA - Must meet very specific criteria to prevent
development of areas surround the master planned
community / resort
61Growth Management Act
- Comprehensive Plan Elements
- Land Use distribution and location of land uses
(housing, agricultural, etc) - Housing ensure vitality and character of
established neighborhoods - Capital Facilities inventory of current
facilities and forecast of future needs - Utilities location and current / future
capacity - Rural low intensity areas should be protected
from conversion into sprawl - Transportation estimated traffic impacts and
future facility / service needs
62Growth Management Act
- All comprehensive plans subject to a 10-year
review - Public participation required
- Growth Management Hearings Boards
- 3 Boards (Western, Central, and Eastern)
- Hears appeals related to GMA compliance
- Does NOT have jurisdiction to hear appeals on
individual decisions on specific development
projects (must be filed under Land Use Petition
Act) - Presumption of validity (burden on challenger)
- Noncompliance? Possible sanctions from governor
(including withholding tax revenue)
63Growth Management Act
- Major industrial developments can occur outside
of UGA if certain conditions are met - Can NOT prohibit establishment of residential
daycare facilities in commercial or residential
areas - Local shoreline master plan is considered an
element of the comprehensive plan - Current trend COMPLAINING!
- I-933
64Questions?
- Please contact me any time with additional
questions.
Ken Lederman206.624.3600klederman_at_riddellwilliam
s.com