News / Northwest

Bills seek to address growth ruling

2 possible fixes to Hirst decision narrowly pass first committee

By Rebecca White, Columbia Basin Herald, Moses Lake

Published: February 20, 2017, 8:51pm

OLYMPIA — Two bills designed to solve issues created by the Hirst decision narrowly passed through the Agriculture and Natural Resources committee Thursday.

HB 1918, sponsored by Rep. Derek Stanford, D-Bothell, passed by one vote and HB 1885, sponsored by Rep. Larry Springer, D-Kirkland, passed by two votes.

Last year, the state Supreme Court ruled counties were not in compliance with the Growth Management Act, passed in the 1990s. As a result, the court ruled the counties must make decisions about issuing building permits independent of the Department of Ecology’s rules, maps and hydrological information.

Both proposed bills allow counties to depend on the Department of Ecology for rules and hydrological information.

Local Angle:

Clark County officials have been monitoring the potential effects of last year’s Supreme Court decision that requires counties to determine if water is available for a proposed development before issuing building permits.

Unlike counties elsewhere (particularly in less water-rich areas of the state), Clark County hasn’t considered any legislation that would change its permitting process. But that hasn’t stopped councilors and staff from fretting that the court’s ruling will saddle staff with added duties and ultimately restrain growth.

In December, the council held a work session where Chris Horne, chief civil deputy prosecuting attorney, remarked that Clark County’s comprehensive plan, a document required by state law that directs growth, is currently being appealed and the county could be the first in the state where the water ruling is “analyzed and applied” with guidance from the Growth Management Hearings Board.

State Sen. Lynda Wilson, R-Vancouver, has co-sponsored SB 5239, also aimed at the court’s decision. The bill allows counties to revert back to the practice of using rules written by the state Department of Ecology when evaluating water availability during review of building permits.

Early in the legislative session, the council discussed with its lobbyist, Mike Burgess, bills designed to undo or mitigate the effects of the decision. Burgess told The Columbian that Clark County hasn’t taken a firm stance on any particular bill.

“We certainly have time for the county to weigh in,” he said. “We are continuing to monitor the bills and they will be in play until the end of the session.”

— Jake Thomas

Stanford’s bill allows the Legislature to open a Water Mitigation Assistance Account and begin a water banking system. Springer’s bill would grant the Department of Ecology authority to begin a program to alleviate any impacts of exempt wells. It would also allow counties to rely on the Department of Ecology’s information and rules, but would charge a $250 fee for building permit applications to fund the department’s research.

Stanford said his bill is more consistent with past court decisions about water rights and does more to protect senior water rights holders.

“We have a limited resource here,” Stanford said. “If we have mechanisms in place for mitigation then we’ll be able to continue rural development and minimize the disruptions these court decisions have had on some of these communities.”

Springer said he believes his bill may have to go through a lot of changes in the coming weeks, but is willing to compromise so the Legislature can come up with a solution to Hirst as soon as possible.

“There will be a compromise we have to reach,” Springer said. “This is a critical issue that has to be solved and it has to be solved this session.”

Rep. Vincent Buys, R-Lynden, who voted against both bills, said HB 1918 is too close to the Supreme Court’s opinion in the Hirst decision and he does not believe it will solve the larger issues.

“There’s a number of concerns and this bill really doesn’t do anything to address these concerns,” Buys said. “It just codifies what the Supreme Court ruling is and makes a bad decision law.”

Buys cited the $250 fee in his vote against HB 1885. He said the cost associated with the outcome of the Hirst decision should not be shifted to the landowners and the bill does not address all the concerns, he has.

“I think we owe it to these people to come up with a solution to the problem that doesn’t rely on more fees for the property owner and more government involvement,” Buys said. “I appreciate those coming forward; however, I don’t think it goes far enough and still impacts a lot of people in rural communities.”

Rep. Tom Dent, R-Moses Lake, a co-sponsor of the bill, said he still would prefer the $250 fee not be included in HB 1885, but was willing to compromise to move the bill through the process. He said he hopes to combine a bill proposed in the Senate by Sen. Judy Warnick, R-Moses Lake, SB 5239, with HB 1885 to create the best solution for Hirst.

Local Angle:

Related Stories