- Agency
land-grab scheme blasted
WA Ecology rules
hurt property owners, thwart local
control
YAKIMA VALLEY--(Monday,
8-7-00)---The WA Dept. of Ecology's new guidelines
would hurt property owners, prevent local
control
Deeply concerned by the
state DOE's second attempt in two years to radically
overhaul Washington's Shoreline Management Act, 29
Republican lawmakers today took the unusual step of
submitting as a group written comments strongly
criticizing the agency's latest scheme.
"In many ways, this year's
proposal is even worse than the one that was
universally criticized and withdrawn last fall," said
Rep. Clyde
Ballard,
Co-Speaker of the House of Representatives.
"Washington citizens voted to create the Shoreline
Management Act nearly 30 years ago, yet the DOE is now
essentially ignoring the citizens' opinions in order
to impose their drastic changes."
"Private property owners,
businesses and local governments will shoulder the
full cost and liability of the changes proposed to the
SMA, but they haven't been allowed the input they
deserve," said
Rep. Joyce
Mulliken, Co-Chair
of the House Local Government Committee. "We were so
disturbed by this ongoing slight that we decided to
hold DOE accountable by putting the concerns on the
record, knowing the agency is now required to respond
to us."
The SMA directs DOE to
give local governments a set of guidelines for
regulating streams, larger lakes and marine
waterfronts. The new plan is the result of the
Legislature authorizing DOE, in 1995, to review and
merely "update" those guidelines.
"Unfortunately, DOE is
dramatically overstepping its bounds," said Mulliken,
R-Ephrata. "After they had to scrap last year's plan,
DOE officials told me the new version would address
the public concerns they heard, but that simply hasn't
occurred. It remains too complex, too restrictive and
too costly for citizens who own
property."
In their nine pages of
comments, the House and Senate members urged DOE to
submit its proposed changes for a vote by the
Legislature--or, at best, to drop the plan
altogether.
"State agencies should not
be making public policy decisions unilaterally without
any accountability to the public," said Ballard,
R-East Wenatchee.
DOE Director
Tom
Fitzsimmons has
said he will sign the new guidelines by the end of
summer, without submitting them for legislative
review.
The letter submitted by
lawmakers detailed how DOE is overstepping its
authority by proposing such serious changes to the act
and warned of the heavy new financial burdens the plan
poses for property owners and local
governments.
For instance, Ballard
said, the
regulations would tie the hands of everyone who owns
shoreline property, amounting to the unconstitutional
taking of private
land, while making
local jurisdictions liable for such takings as well as
for the substantial costs of implementing and
enforcing these new restrictions.
Such excessive government
regulation would reduce property values on shorelines,
resulting in a property tax shortfall that would force
rural counties to either increase property taxes
elsewhere to make up the difference or reduce funding
for needed local services, he
predicted.
"This plan strips the
rights of property owners and likely would mean higher
property taxes for many - even citizens whose land is
nowhere near water," said Ballard.
The proposal is also bad
for local governments because it forces huge unfunded
mandates on them in exchange for no real choice in how
to regulate local shorelines, said Mulliken.
"The estimated cost to
local governments from last year's proposal was
upwards of $20 million," she explained. "And this
proposal places an even greater burden upon local
governments and property owners, so we anticipate the
costs will be even higher now. However, we don't know
yet how much higher because DOE has dragged its feet
in completing the required cost-benefit analysis."
Mulliken fears the revised
guidelines would also cost local governments the
ability to define their own shoreline management
programs.
"Governments with limited
resources would be forced to choose the most
restrictive of the two options defined in the plan,
virtually eliminating all local control," she
said.
Mulliken also warned the
proposal could pit neighbor against neighbor, as
citizens who have waited to develop or want to
redevelop their shoreline property might find
themselves paying potentially tremendous costs to
address issues created by neighbors who already
developed their property and are exempt from the new
rules.
"Innocent landowners not
only would be held responsible for the actions of
others, including previous landowners, but their land
would also be made less valuable, destroying what they
might have intended to be a retirement investment or a
legacy for their heirs," she explained.
- For more info, contact
Co-Speaker Clyde Ballard / (360) 786-7999
or
- Rep. Joyce Mulliken /
(509) 754-6000