Back to top or back to home page or back to Chapter Index
An annual population growth rate of about two percent a year (the statewide annual average has been about 2.1 percent) makes Lewis County subject to the requirements of the 1990 state Growth Management Act (GMA), including the development of a comprehensive plan that includes long-term land use planning. However, because of a general resentment toward government interference, particularly in the area of property rights, county government has not only dragged its feet throughout the process; it was one of two counties in the state (joining Chelan County in Eastern Washington) that challenged the state over the constitutionality of GMA required planning.
By legislating growth management across the state, the Washington State Legislature aimed to curb uncoordinated and unplanned growth, deemed to be a "threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of this state." (RCW 36.70A.010) In the document Land Use Agenda for 21st Century America, posted on the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Web site, the Legislature outlined principles that guide land use planning under GMA in Washington state. Those principles include:
Lewis County's minimalist approach to land use regulation is reflected in its draft comprehensive plan, a document required under GMA to encourage land use planning and containment of urban sprawl. After losing its long and bitter legal battle challenging the state's ability to force local governments to comply with GMA requirements, Lewis County produced a GMA-required draft comprehensive plan document in 1999 that still fails to meet many of the law's bare minimum requirements. For example, despite extensive flooding in the Chehalis River Valley that has continued to worsen in recent years, due in large part to historic land use and development patterns, the county's draft comprehensive plan makes scant mention of flooding or plans to reduce flood impacts. The same document proposes to allow a uniform housing density of one dwelling per five acres throughout the county, which fails to account for complicating factors such as wetlands, hydric soils, steep slopes and remote, rugged forest land. Lewis County Planning Commissioner Ed Moerke, a Chehalis-area well driller whose business income depends on continued development in Lewis County, defends the county's minimalist approach to land use regulation. "Mixed density is fine to a degree, but there again you are taking away people's development rights," said Moerke in an article in the Centralia-based daily newspaper The Chronicle. Planning Commissioner Kyle Heaton echoed the same sentiments. insisting that local government should decide how local residents can use their land: --We've been told growth management is supposed to be bottoms-up planning," he said. "Personally, I think private property rights are worth fighting for." In the same article, a representative of the local homebuilders association applauded the commissioners for doing a "great job standing their guns to that." (Henderer, April 9, 1999)
Lewis County's refusal to comply with the intent of GMA has not escaped notice in the state capital. In an April 5, 1999 decision, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board - the state board charged with ensuring that local governments follow GMA requirements ruled that Lewis County was out of compliance with the law. Among other shortcomings, the Hearings Board cited vague language in county land use ordinances and a proposed uniform 1:5 housing density ordinance. The Board ruled that the county must adopt a wider range of rural density limits to reflect the diversity of natural features and rural character of' the land within County limits. (Smith, Mudge and Panesko, et. al., v. Lewis County, April 5, 1999)
The inadequacy of planning and mapping related to flooding and related land use regulations has also drawn criticism from the state Emergency Management Division. A scathing letter to the Lewis County planning manager signed by the director of the state Flood Control Account Assistance Program and the state hazard mitigation officer said that within the county's draft comprehensive plan, "there is no discussion anywhere about identifying as a goal the discouragement of inappropriate development in Frequently Flooded Areas, or as an objective to protect the community from future hazards caused by inappropriate land use development. In other words, protecting citizens from flood hazard or inappropriate development is not addressed." The letter goes on to note that more than $20 million in state and federal money has been spent on flood-related needs in Lewis County since 1990, and the county will likely continue to seek taxpayer assistance to address flooding in the future. Therefore, the letter concludes, "this Comp Plan should reflect that the community is planning to help protect citizens in the future, at the least by including an element or sub-element on flooding, by including the designation of Frequently Flooded Areas in Lewis County, and by discouraging development in inappropriate areas." (Agency letter to Graham and Rigsby, Feb. 2, 1999) (See Appendix III.)
Chehalis River Valley residents have also challenged Lewis County's minimalist planning effort, filing a petition with the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board to invalidate the county's Comprehensive Plan. (See Appendix VII.)
Back to top or back to home page or back to Chapter Index
The growth agenda appears to be the main force driving Lewis County land use and flood management policy decisions. For example, Lewis County Board of Commissioners Chairman Richard Graham stated in an interview that the commissioners are reluctant to develop county ordinances regulating land use or flood plain filling and development because of strong local opposition to government regulation, especially around the issue of land use. The commissioners have also continued to refuse to adopt a moratorium on filling in the flood plain despite public complaints and a recommendation by the Flood Control Zone District Citizens' Advisory Committee (CAC). An article in the Centralia Chronicle reports "commissioners acknowledged keeping 'unwise' development out of an 'active flood plain' is a fine idea, but said this might be interpreted as 'arbitrary and reactionary' by developers and potential employers." In the same article, committee member and Pe Ell General Store owner Phil McBride notes with irony that those who want government to stay out of the business of regulating land use are often the same people who expect taxpayers to pick up the tab for flood protection when their investments are protected. "The bottom line is (developers) want to fill the flood plain and they don't want anybody to tell them they can't, and they want somebody else to bear the responsibility when they get in trouble." (Henderer, June 13, 1998)
When the county Planning Commission was asked to support controls on filling in the flood plain, Citizens' Advisory Council members noted that state and federal officials would be more likely to approve funding for the county's flood study if more stringent land use regulations are adopted. The Chronicle quoted then Planning Commission Chairman Fred Breed's response to the CAC: "Isn't that blackmail? Do we have to create an ordinance every time we want something from the federal government?" (Henderer, November 11, 1998)
Lewis County also continues to use out-of-date Federal Emergency Management Agency flood plain maps as the basis for its policy decisions, thereby allowing development to continue in areas that were inundated in the epic February 1996 flood. In a news article, Lewis County Engineer Pete Ringen said the development of updated flood insurance maps based on recent flooding "would be 'so shocking' it would be 'politically unpalatable' to use as a basis for regulation because of the developments it could cripple." (Henderer, October 16, 1998) Without new maps,the county gives tacit approval to development that will likely increase flood heights in the next flood disaster. Relying on the old maps for flood planning also will have a negative impact on the community's rating for federal flood insurance. (Faber, 1996: 13)
Lewis County government continues to use the growth agenda as the driving force behind its policy decisions. However, the results of the survey conducted as part of this project indicate that the values and goals of Lewis County residents are not smoothly aligned with those of the growth coalition. Survey respondents indicated that the three most important goals of a flood reduction plan in Lewis County should be reducing property damage, preserving land for agriculture, recreation and water quality, and protecting public health. (Survey results appear in Appendix VI.)
Back to top
Back to Chapter Index
Back to CRC Index Page
Back to Flood Index Page
Back to Watershed Index Page
Back to Lewis County Issues Index Page
Back to Grays Harbor County Issues Index Page
Back to Thurston County Issues Index Page
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council