OLYMPIA - Department of Ecology director Tom
Fitzsimmons announced the adoption of new shorelines
rules on Wednesday, and the reaction from state
legislators of the Coastal Caucus was immediate and
caustic.
The new rules give local jurisdictions two choices.
Under Path A, local governments have the right to do
their own surveys and set their own guidelines for
requirements such as buffer zones around waterways.
However, Path A carries with it no guarantee of federal
approval, and leaves local governments the
responsibility of negotiating directly with the federal
government over liability issues.
Path B, on the other hand, includes some guarantees
against liability and has been "signed off on" by the
National Marine Fisheries Service, but it includes some
of the restrictive language (such as "site-specific
tree height" buffer zones) that have outraged activists
and government officials in rural counties.
Local governments are also required to update their
master shorelines plans within two years, although many
rural counties say that's not enough time, and no state
money has been allocated yet to cover the costs.
"Is "apoplectic' the right word?" asked Sen. Jim
Hargrove, D-Hoquiam. "I think it's outrageous, for the
governor to wait until after the election like this and
then have the director sign it without any substantive
changes. To talk about how the divide between "the two
Washingtons' is unacceptable, and then lay another
layer of environmental regulations on us is just
unconscionable."
In a conference call Wednesday morning, Fitzsimmons
attempted to deflect some of the criticism, saying that
the department was operating under a legislative
mandate and that the new rules are not aimed at
disrupting "existing uses."
"Two things have kept us going," said Fitzsimmons.
"First, we were obligated clearly by statute to review
and update the existing guidelines. We also have been
strongly motivated by a firm belief that the changes
we've now made will, in the long run, be good for the
people of the state. We do not expect people to tear
down existing homes, quit farming, or go out of
business. We essentially are suggesting, through the
guidelines, that in the future construction or farming
on new, undeveloped properties, will simply have to
take place farther back or in a way that is more
protective of the shorelines."
Fitzsimmons also said the new rules are necessary
because of increased regulation from the federal level.
"We're required to protect against adverse impacts to
the public health, the land, vegetation and wildlife,
waters of the state and the aquatic life," the director
said. "These policies are very clearly stated, but the
fact is that over the 25 years of their existence our
regulations have not done an adequate job of backing
those policies up. You know as well as we that the
Endangered Species Act listings for salmon and bull
trout are very clearly linked to our failure to protect
our shorelines areas."
Rep. Brian Hatfield, D-Raymond, disagreed with
Fitzsimmons' assessment, saying that rural Washington
is already under several different overlapping sets of
shorelines rules - and the real problems are in urban
areas like King, Pierce and Snohomish counties.
"We've said all along we were going to move forward
with legislation on this," Hatfield said. "What we want
to do is not exempt the rural counties from regulation,
but point out that we probably should be exempt because
the existing regulations are already so strict. I think
there's a myth in the urban areas that we're not doing
anything in the rural areas for salmon, and there's
already so much going on.
"Hopefully we can get some legislation out in this next
session to try and rein this department back in. When
you get down to where the rubber meets the road, these
new rules don't work with the rural counties."
One of the controversies over the proposed rule changes
has been legislative oversight: While the Department
claims that a 1995 act of the Legislature mandated the
changes, legislators have said repeatedly that the
department exceeded the mandate of the 1995 decision.
Several legislators have also expressed concern that
Ecology's key decisions on the subject have been made
while the Legislature was not in session.
"In response to that earlier uproar, we set out a
schedule that allowed the legislators all last session
to review the proposal," said Fitzsimmons. "They had
the opportunity to get engaged prior to our adopting of
the rule. The Legislature acted to some degree, the
Senate acted favorably to our proposed timeline and
funding bill, but the house could not find consensus.
We feel the Legislature was given time to respond and
we feel we have addressed the Legislature's issues and
concerns responsibly and fairly as well."
Senate Majority Leader Sid Snyder, D-Long Beach,
disagreed, saying that the combination of 2000 being an
election year and the 49-49 tie in the House made
progress on too many issues simply impossible.
"I think the Department of Ecology and the governor
could have waited until the 2001 Legislature could have
looked over the proposal," said Snyder. "The world
would not have come to an end if they had given us
another six months. In effect, they've turned the whole
shorelines management program into a salmon recovery
program, and I'm sure that was never the intention of
the voters who approved the original Shorelines Act
back in the early '70s."
Rep. Mark Doumit, D-Ilwaco, also said the guidelines
had received insufficient legislative oversight, noting
that the draft the legislators were shown during the
2000 session changed several times.
"We had the opportunity to look at kind of a moving
target," Doumit said. "That draft was changing
throughout the session. We probably had an idea of what
was in it, but that doesn't mean it had any support.
There was no agreement on the Department of Ecology's
latest versions during the session. If it had come up
for legislative review, I think it would have failed to
receive the votes necessary to pass without a lot more
work."
Snyder also said the continuing gridlock in the state
House will make it much more difficult to get funding
for the local shoreline plan updates.
"The two-year deadline is too short," said Snyder. "I
don't think (the new rules) recognize the major
differences between the urban and rural shorelines of
the state."
Fitzsimmons said that Gov. Gary Locke was aware of the
time problem, and would be proposing extensions of the
two-year limit in legislation in the coming session.
However, the director acknowledged that as of now the
two-year limit is the law.
"Last year the governor supported legislation that
would extend that time frame to three, four and five
year periods, and further had in the budget to allow
local governments, cities and counties to update their
plans using funds available," Fitzsimmons said. "We
will have that same legislation proposed this year, and
I am confident we will have the money to help update
funds of local governments."
Hargrove was skeptical.
"Where are they going to get the money?" Hargrove said.
"What set of public schools are they going to close, in
order to fund this?"
Doumit added that part of the battle was philosophical:
Who does the Department of Ecology really answer to?
"There's no doubt that there's a wrestling match going
on here. The way we handled it last session was we
never allowed funding for the new guidelines," Doumit
said. "That way concerned organizations like the
Washington Association of Cities and the local cities
and counties could say "We're not going to implement
these rules without money,' under the law prohibiting
the state from passing unfunded mandates on to local
jurisdictions.
"Virtually anything the department has done, the
Legislature has the ability to undo. But we don't want
to have to do it that way. We want to be able to work
with the department and the Governor's Office, and
create a realistic and workable set of guidelines to
protect the shorelines of this state."
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council