Here’s an excellent letter sent by one of our shoreline neighbors regarding HB 1653 now pending in the legislature.
Rep. Christine Rolfes,
Thank you for the courtesy of a reply and for looking into this. I had not previously seen the information statement from DOE, I had only read the actual text of their proposal. While I find their propaganda on this interesting, for me it actually further underscores the need to educate from all perspectives. So to that end I would like to take a moment to explain the real concern here and why this is so important.
The real problem and issue here lies within the details governing actions under the GMA vs. the SMA. Under the GMA the term “Best Available Science (BAS)” is the standard to which property right affecting decisions are held, whereas the SMA requires substantiated real science.
So if DOE is successful they intend to expand their power through the application of the GMA and the much looser standard of BAS as opposed to proven, peer reviewed, accepted real science as required by the SMA. Under BAS any current opinion or community conjecture may be applied as BAS and cause the effective taking of property rights.
The State Supreme Court understood this very clearly and specifically wrote to this point in their decision. When the rights of private property owners are taken we need to be more certain than the GMA and its’ BAS standard affords. The current SMA and ESHB 1933 along with the July 2008 Supreme Court decision clarifies without ambiguity this necessary balance.
As the new SMA’s are completed as already mandated under current law we will gain additional clarity which DOE is seeking without new legislation and further questionable encroachment on individual property rights. The current policy structure along with clarifications from the Supreme Court more than adequately defines the way the existing policies should be applied. The current balance of individual property rights and environmental policy which now exists under current law as envisioned by our lawmakers and their constituents and further reviewed and clarified by our Supreme Court should be maintained.
Thank you very much for your time and representation.
Michael Winter
Bainbridge Island, WA
Please see our Speak Out page if you would like to let your representatives know your thoughts about the bill that would wipe out balance in shoreline regulations.
0 Responses to “House Bill 1653”