In our view May 24: Measured Growth

Thursday's ruling by Superior Court Judge Robert Harris that would allow a greater development of Clark County farmland than allowed by a state board last year is troubling, but not totally so. As Michael Andersen reported in Friday's Columbian, Harris' decision knocked back a challenge by environmentalists to the county commissioners' 2007 growth plan. But because the judge also apparently prohibited urbanizing several hundred acres that had been allowed in the 2007 plan, local environmentalists are seeing this latest development as a "split decision," in boxing terms, and it's uncertain if an appeal of Harris' decision will be filed.

The Columbian has editorially opposed the 2007 growth plan, which would add 30 square miles of urban expansion in the next couple of decades. Instead, we preferred a 2004 growth plan — formulated by a previous board of county commissioners at great expense and after extensive research and community input — that would have added nine square miles of urban growth. We have conceded, though, that the 2004 plan is dead, and now look for consolation prizes wherever they can be found. One is Harris' apparent prohibition of urbanizing 780 acres of agricultural land south of Brush Prairie, where the county visualizes a large industrial park.

To his credit, Harris also opposes development of 343 acres at the northern tip of Lacamas Lake.

The best approach for local growth is measured and moderate, neither rampant nor firmly blocked. For that matter, there is even one provision in the 2007 plan that makes sense although it was not included in the 2004 plan. Cash-strapped La Center, we have long argued, deserves the same presence on Interstate 5 that Ridgefield has enjoyed. Harris' ruling would allow that kind of revenue-producing growth. (County growth plans and related rulings have no affect on the Cowlitz Tribe's proposed mega-casino at the La Center junction of Interstate 5. That would be the worst kind of development for many reasons, not the least of which is the threat to tax revenue received by La Center, which depends heavily on nontribal card rooms.)

Harris' eight-page decision also would allow annexations in Camas and Washougal. But a few factors keep all of these possibilities ultra-long-term. The first is the current economic crisis. Until that gets corrected, growth discussions are more conceptual than real, which isn't altogether bad in a county that has had difficulty keeping up with growth in recent decades.

The second factor protecting the status quo of local growth is uncertainty about future legal extensions of this dispute.

A third factor is the clarification of Harris' ruling that the county plans to ask the judge to give. Any forthcoming explanations could alter the course of this issue.

The judge cited the steep and apparently permanent decline in recent years of local commercial farming. A 2005 economic study showed only 170 local farms earning more than $25,000. That is lamentable, but in part offset by a rapid increase in small farms. The 2007 Census showed a 33 percent growth in small-farm income in the previous five years and an 11 percent growth in midsize farms. And that is encouraging.

Growth in Clark County continues to be an immensely complex but crucial issue, constantly affected by emerging variables. Although not everyone agrees on the proper pace of local growth, the efforts of county and judicial officials are intense, well-reasoned and praiseworthy.