From: "Norman MacLeod" To: "Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights" Subject: [Capr-discussion] State, Kent battle over wetlands Date: Friday, July 15, 2005 7:22 AM http://www.kingcountyjournal.com/sited/story/html/212251 Loca juristictions have less power in some areas they used to, particularly where environmental regulation is concerned. Here, the Washington Department of Ecology is suing Kent, which had determined that there was no need to widen wetland buffers. I prefer that municipalities be allowed to retain their authority in such matters. It's far better from the property rights perspective to force Futurewise and its fellow-travelers to have to keep an eye on hundreds of government entities than to have them be able to foist their druthers on us through working with a single government entity...DoE in this case. Norman _____ State, Kent battle over wetlands 2005-07-15 by Bruce Rommel Journal Reporter In a case being watched by cities throughout King County, the state is challenging Kent's new ordinance regulating development near wetlands. The dispute sets the stage for a potential legal battle pitting the Puget Sound region's building industry against state officials and environmental interests. An appeal filed by the state claims Kent's critical areas ordinance fails to adequately protect wetlands. State ecology officials want the city to require wider buffers near streams or wetlands where no development is allowed. ``My perception is that the state Department of Ecology is worried that what Kent is doing might set a precedent that other cities might want to follow,'' said Bob Johns, the Bellevue attorney representing the Master Builders of King and Snohomish Counties. Master Builders and the Olympia-based Building Industry Association of Washington, which represents about 11,500 builders, remodelers and developers statewide, have filed to intervene on Kent's behalf. Bellevue, Seattle, Federal Way, North Bend and other cities are considering critical areas ordinances now. Some see the appeal as a possible precedent that might determine how wide buffers should be, which has been the focus of ongoing debate. Environmentalists and state officials want wider buffers to protect wetlands, which improve water quality and enhance streams and wildlife habitat. Many property owners and builders say the current standards are sufficient. They say wider buffers mean less buildable land, which drives up housing prices throughout the region. ``This is a raging debate, to say the least,'' Johns said. The Kent City Council in April rejected requests by state officials and environmentalists to increase buffer requirements to match the state's recommendation. The Kent ordinance allows smaller buffers, but offers incentives to builders to preserve or enhance existing wetlands. Kent's ordinance generally requires minimum buffers of 25, 50 or 100 feet, depending on the quality of the wetlands. State officials want those minimums increased to 50, 100 and 150 feet. The state's appeal is scheduled to be heard Oct. 27 before the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearing Board, which hears cases based on the state's Growth Management Act for King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap counties. If the three-member board agrees with the state, Kent will have to amend its ordinance, unless the city decides to appeal in court. Officials for Kent and the state offered little comment because of the pending litigation. Nor would they comment on current talks to find common ground. In a letter to the city, the state suggested the possibility of a comprehensive program to restore or enhance wetlands to offset what state officials called Kent's ``minimal regulations.'' ``Let's just say we are working with the state to see if we can find a compromise we can all live with,'' Kent Mayor Jim White said. State officials contend Kent's regulations fail to comply with the state's Growth Management Act, which requires cities and counties adopt local regulations that protect wetlands. ``We think there are ways to both protect the environment as well as allowing a community to meet economic development goals,'' said Nancy Ousley, assistant director the state Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. State laws do allow for flexibility for local ordinances, Ousley said. She and other state officials say the law requires cities and counties to consider ``best available science'' when adopting wetlands regulations. And science and recent studies, they say, indicate larger wetlands are more effective at protecting water quality and habitat. However, ``best available science'' is just one of many considerations, said Andy Cook, the attorney for the Building Industry Association of Washington. Cook said the state law also requires that wetlands regulations accommodate future growth and economic development, including new housing and commercial projects, future schools, new streets and parks, and other development. ``The `best available science' requirement shouldn't trump all other considerations,'' Cook said. Cook and others argue the state law means builders must protect wetlands, but they say state officials are pushing to expand that to require builders to restore or expand wetlands. ``Our argument is, under the state Growth Management Act and case law, local jurisdictions are supposed to make these type of decisions,'' Cook said. Master Builders has been lobbying cities to retain existing wetland buffer regulations instead of increasing them to meet the state's recommendation. Allison Butcher, a spokeswoman for the group, said expanding buffers significantly reduces areas of buildable land for new housing and other development in the Puget Sound region. That will drive up the cost for buildable land and new homes, and eventually for all housing, she said. Bruce Rommel can be reached at bruce.rommel@kingcountyjournal.com or 253-872-6722