The state Growth Management Act was bad enough with its one-size-fits-all approach in forcing top-down growth planning on local governments and the people they serve.
Now comes the state Department of Ecology with its new, more stringent regulations on private and public shorelines in the state, including freshwater lakes and streams as well as along salt water. These new rules also take an inflexible approach with little or no allowance for differences in local situations.
The DOE administrative mandates constitute more heavy-handed Big Government.
The new shorelines regulations were approved last week by DOE Director Tom Fitzsimmons.
In essence, the new regulations require more of a setback between shorelines and new development or new agricultural uses.
Heavy public opposition at a series of hearings around the state caused the DOE to back off on implementation of the regulations earlier this year. But despite fierce opposition from private property owners and their advocates at the hearings, the new rules appear to follow the draft proposal that generated the opposition.
In other words, the regulators gave little, if any, credence to the objections and went their merry way. It lends support to the contention of many folks in rural areas beset with increasing regulations on how they can use their private property that public hearings are nothing but a sham, with the government entity conducting them having already predetermined the decision to be made, any public opposition to the contrary.
House Co-Speaker Clyde Ballard, R Wenatchee, sums up well the feeling of many in asserting Fitzsimmons "is a faceless bureaucrat who will never see the light of day who can do pretty much whatever he wants to do and does nothing to answer to the public."
The DOE's shorelines edicts are particularly irksome in that the agency didn't bother to wait for legislative review of the new regulations before enacting them.
True, the Legislature in 1995 ordered DOE to rewrite and update the shorelines rules. But having done that, it seems only reasonable and appropriate the state agency would then refer its proposed new rules to the Legislature to ensure they meet legislative intent in the Shorelines Management Act.
Senate Majority Leader Sid Snyder, D-Long Beach, expressed disappointment that Fitzsimmons "jumped the gun and didn't wait for the legislative session." Another Democrat, Cowlitz County Commissioner Joel Rupley, believes local control on shorelines would be more effective and efficient than statewide mandates. The current Lewis County Commission has expressed unanimous opposition to DOE's overreach.
State Rep. John Pennington, R-Carrolls, who represents the southwest portion of Lewis County and is House speaker pro tem, said he and others of a like mind in the House will "assert all our legislative will and power to overturn" the DOE's regulatory overkill on shoreline regulation.
The bipartisan disdain for the DOE's action by the leader of the majority Democrats in the Senate and the co-leader in the House may bode well for some relief in the upcoming session from DOE's arrogance and exceeding of its authority.
Remember, the Legislature controls the purse that provides the funds for the operation of the DOE and its programs. Perhaps some of the agency's authority should be removed and funds withheld.
Another drawback to the new shorelines edicts is that they are likely to impose another layer of unfunded mandates on local governments already overburdened with such mandates. Consider, for example, criminal justice costs Lewis County is forced to pick up to implement new state laws in that arena.
Where will the cities and counties get the money to implement the shorelines regulations? There is no assurance the Legislature will appropriate the money.
There may be portions of the new shorelines rules that are justifiable and needed to help prevent the flooding and erosion damage Fitzsimmons is concerned about. But the broad-brush approach that infringes on private property uses and rights where that is unjustified, the blatant disregard for public opinion expressed at the hearings, and the apparent blatant exceeding of authority in disregard for our elected Legislature far outweigh any benefit that might occur from the new rules.
This page created and maintained by Chehalis River Council
Send comments or questions to the: Chehalis River Council