State board limits developers' ability to avoid water regulations
The ruling says that developers' ability to build without dealing with updated regulations doesn't apply to new water pollution rules. An appeal of the ruling seems likely, however.
Washington Environmental Hearings Office
Far from the shores of Puget Sound lurks an under-the-radar environmental legal case that holds the potential to significantly set back efforts to protect the Sound from its largest source of toxic pollution.
Closely watched by builders and environmentalists, the case focuses on what happens when rainwater drains off roofs, streets, parking lots and other hard surfaces: It streams into nearby waterways carrying pesticides, fertilizer, oil, transmission fluid, dog poop and innumerable other residues of modern urban life.
The polluted water’s result: Poisoned oyster beds. Dangerous flooding.And the biggest source of toxic pollution for Puget Sound. Even a threat to drinking-water supplies in Bellingham.
In the case just ruled on by the Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board, environmental activists are challenging how the state Ecology Department is allowing Clark County, population 432,000 in southwest Washington, to comply with recently beefed-up rules to protect waterways from stormwater.
One aspect of the enormously complicated case is vesting. Clark County and the Building Industry Association of Clark County contend stormwater-control rules adopted by the county in April of 2009 don’t apply to developments approved earlier. The county and the builders contend that stormwater-control regulations are subject to vesting — that is, that they lock in as soon as the builder drops off development plans at city hall.
But, ruling from its offices in Tumwater, the pollution board last week rejected that notion, saying Clark County first dragged its feet in adopting new stormwater rules and then “unlawfully exempted” developers whose building plans were filed during an eight-month period.
While the number of developments that secured building rights in one county in that eight-month period may not seem significant, the pollution board’s ruling is far-reaching, because it says Ecology made a mistake to allow vesting to apply to stormwater regulations in the first place, said Jan Hasselman, the Earthjustice attorney representing environmentalists in the case.
“It’s going to be very difficult in the (future) for Ecology to sweepingly exempt all vested projects,” Hasselman said.
However, Clark County or the developers — or Ecology — could appeal the pollution board’s decision to Superior Court.
James Howsley, the Vancouver attorney representing the building association, said, “We’re not giving up our firm belief that vesting does apply.” For the courts to hold otherwise, he said, “is not only impractical, but it contravenes the state Legislature and local jurisdictions who have tried to throw a lifeline to the building industry by extending vesting.”
For environmentalists trying to protect Puget Sound, the case holds the promise of controlling stormwater pollution in a matter of decades instead of half a century or more.
Getting stormwater under control, they say, means changing building patterns so that developers use “low-impact development” techniques designed to slurp up stormwater before it can carry pollutants into nearby waterways. So far, these building methods have found mixed acceptance among developers and local governments. The pollution control board, however, has said the biggest cities must start to require developers to use these techniques.
Developers, for their part, counter that the majority of the stormwater problem stems from areas built up over many decades — not the relative handful of buildings being constructed now.
“If you want to make it more difficult to develop, tell me that’s your goal,” said Scott Hildebrand, policy director of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties. “And if that is your goal, don’t be upset when housing prices are through the stratosphere.”
Opposing that view is Hasselman, the environmentalists’ attorney.
“Washington state is falling behind the rest of the country in its ability to protect water quality from development,” Hasselman said. “We continue to build projects today using standards that we’ve known for years are harmful for salmon and that degrade water quality.
“If we care about recovering Puget Sound, we have got to get this sorted out.”
InvestigateWest is a nonprofit investigative journalism center based in Seattle. For information on how you can support independent investigative reporting for the common good, go to invw.org.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!











Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Jan 12, 6 a.m. Inappropriate
Seems like "housing prices through the stratosphere" are the least of anyone's worries.
Posted Wed, Jan 12, 8:58 a.m. Inappropriate
It seems to me that the MBA is utilizing hyperbole in their prediction of the affect stormwater regs will have on housing prices. This is becoming a tired refrain often heard from developers, one I believe is intended to frighten the general public. I suspect increases in housing prices have more to do with property values, raw materials, and labor costs. How much more expense can adding a raingarden to a project add to the overall cost of the home? The new stormwater regs are an important tool to deal with a myriad of issues brought on by development. Progress is good, the development status quo couldn't have continued forever, and it's foolish to expect that it should.
Posted Wed, Jan 12, 11:33 a.m. Inappropriate
As a land development engineer, I prefer to know what ordinances and standards are in place prior to performing design and submitting for permits. The entitlement process is cumbersome enough and to have ordinances and standards subject to change in a non-vesting world will only increase the headaches. But hey, I guess from a consulting standpoint it's not that bad. Change order anyone?
The solution is much, much easier. More authority to Ecology such that their "guidelines" become statewide minimum standards, thereby trumping local municipalities. Then rather than duplicating work to create nearly identicial manuals, municipalities issue supplemental addendums if they wish to be more stringent.
Posted Wed, Jan 12, 5:59 p.m. Inappropriate
In King of Fish, Dave Montgomery describes how degradation of Salmon runs in Europe, northeastern America, and now the Pacific Northwest have followed the same pattern. First, that there is disastrous habitat degradation occurring is vehemently denied and no action is taken. Think liquidation of ancient forest until fairly recently. After out-and-out denial is no longer tenable, new laws are passed. Think Endangered Species Act. These are ineffective or simply ignored. Think Oregon's state forestry laws (ineffective) and US Forest Service behavior throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Between ineffectiveness, turning a blind eye, and out-and-out corruption, habitat continues to degrade. Think ancient forest fragmentation. Finally,the situation becomes so untenable that effective laws are finally passed or existing ones enforced. Unfortunately, these almost always grandfather existing insults, even if built in blatant violation of the laws at the time. Think Washington water rights.
Washington's vesting doctrine goes a step further: it grandfathers FUTURE degradation. If the future matters at all to this society, this has to change.
Posted Fri, Jan 14, 10:16 a.m. Inappropriate
The developer certainly should have rights to vesting and have some provision to mitigate their risk to regulatory change. The primary issues are should you vest at plat approval or permit submission; and more importantly how long can you vest once you submit your plat or permit. Additionally, if another body deems that project permitting invalid and or illegal, such as under the GMA, should the vesting be irrevocable.
It seems like you could have a scale: vest for 2-3 years under a plat and 2 under a permit (most permits are only valid for 18 months) with maybe one short-term extension. What we have are merchant plat developers running around the state buying up land and vesting for 20 years with no intention of building immediately only wanting to vest under less stringent regs. New vesting laws should be put into place to eliminate that aspect of development.
Posted Fri, Jan 14, 1:51 p.m. Inappropriate
This "vesting for the future" resembles the timber contracts of the '70s, where stumpage was purchased with no compunction to log for the next 7 years (or at all if a profit margin didn't pan out... & DNR bailed a lot of outfits out of their liability).
That's not the only problem, though. The 'vesting'/'grandfathering' modality essentially sets up two (or more) classes of citizens... just as the current commercial fishing license process has done (& there are other examples). Do "we" want to go to a place where those who moved quickly are like those who came here and claimed water rights- even where no water was available- just because they got their claim in "first" (ignoring entire cultures and all ecological considerations)? ^..^
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.