Partnership preparing for shoreline moratorium battle.

According to an article in the Kitsap Sun, the Puget Sound Partnership is preparing several requests for the coming legislative session. One of them is a shoreline moratorium that would halt construction of bulkheads and docks in “sensitive areas” until new rules are approved.

Because of the importance of “feeder bluffs,” which create gravel beaches, as well as spawning areas for small forage fish, one proposal would halt shoreline construction in the vicinity of these areas. Degradation could be reduced until new rules and incentives are in place.

State Rep. Christine Rolfes, D-Bainbridge Island, cited her city’s legal defeat over a shoreline moratorium and recommended against such temporary measures. What may be needed instead, she said, is better enforcement of existing rules through permits issued by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Josh Baldi of the Washington Department of Ecology said his agency has not yet decided whether to support the idea. Existing shoreline rules require “no net loss” of ecological function, he said. If that’s not happening now, is a moratorium the solution?

Expect a shoreline moratorium in 2010. (updated)

House Bill 1379 has it made it’s way through the legislature and was signed by the governor on May 11. When it takes effect, local governments will be able to establish an 18 month moratorium on shoreline building permits in 6 month increments while their planning departments work on Shoreline Master Program updates. If a local government has a moratorium in effect when it submits its SMP update to the Department of Ecology, the moratorium will remain in effect until DOE has taken its final action, or a total of six months.

Eighteen months plus “how ever long it takes” can be a very long time if you are waiting for a building permit. And unless your interest is “vested” — meaning that you had filed your application before the moratorium went into effect — new, more restrictive land use rules may be applied when the moratorium is lifted.

The bill does say that “all lawfully existing uses, structures, or other development shall continue to be deemed lawful conforming uses and may continue to be maintained, repaired, and redeveloped, so long as the use is not expanded, under the terms of the land use and shoreline rules and regulations in place at the time of the moratorium.” It doesn’t say what this means for an undeveloped lot.

Legislation to merge SMA & GMA dies in legislature.

We have been concerned that proposed legislation would have wiped out the balance between environmental concerns and property rights carefully crafted in the Shoreline Management Act, essentially giving the Department of Ecology and local planners carte blanche to enact shoreline management program updates without concern for shoreline homeowners. According to an email from Sam Jessup, session aide to Senator Phil Rockefeller…

Thank you for contacting Senator Rockefeller about Senate Bill 5726 and House Bill 1653, both of which clarify the integration of shoreline management act policies with the growth management act. I thought you would be interested to know that the HB 1653 was not voted out of the House of Representatives by yesterday’s “cutoff” deadline. This means that neither HB 1653 nor SB 5726, which died in committee in late February, will move further in the process this year.

Please see our original post on this topic: The SMA is about balance.

House Bill 1653

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.

New law aims to wipe out balance in shoreline regulations.

House Bill 1653 (and its companion Senate Bill 5726) may seem like routine housekeeping to our legislators, but its effect may be to wipe out the balance between environmental protection and property rights inherent in the Shoreline Management Act (SMA).

With hundreds of bills totaling thousands of pages, it us unlikely that anyone but a few staffers will read more than the executive summary of these bills before they are passed out of committee and voted into law. If they do become law, it is likely that the right of shoreline homeowners to protect their property will erode faster than an unprotected bluff in a winter storm.

Who needs science? We have a bandwagon!

From the Washington Policy Center’s Blog, Feb 5…

“Within a span of 13 months, we had two 100-year floods,” Gregoire said this was evidence of climate change. Gov. Gregoire, quoted in TVW Capitol Record, January 29, 2009

“President Obama may be in the White House, but we’re not out of the woods yet! The wheels are falling off the old economy, I-5 has been closed by floodwaters 2 years in a row… Governor Gregoire has just introduced a bill to cap and reduce global warming pollution and put Washington at the forefront of building a new energy economy.” Kerri Cechovic, Environmental Priorities Coalition, e-mail to supporters on the need for a cap-and-trade bill to address climate change, February 2, 2009

“How many times have you heard that severe windstorms and heavy rains will increase in the Northwest under global climate change? The truth is, there is no strong evidence for these claims and the whole matter is being actively researched. Some portions of the Northwest have had more rain and wind during the past decades, some less. And initial simulations of future Northwest climate do not suggest heavier rain events.” University of Washington atmospheric scientist Clifford Mass, Seattle Times editorial, January 13, 2009

Jan Angel says review Growth Management Act.

From the Kitsap Sun 2/6/09…

“Angel is pressing for a formal review and update of the state Growth Management Act, which was adopted by the state Legislature in 1990. Angel, who formerly worked in the real estate industry, often sided with property rights proponents on issues related to the GMA. Updating the document is high on her list of priorities. “People seemed open to it,” Angel said. “They listened. I didn’t get any push-back from them.”

By Chris Henry, “Port Orchard’s Angel Finds Her Footing in Olympia“