Imagine living in a country where the government dictates what kind of grass you can grow in your yard. Imagine having to get permission from the state to repair or remodel your home. Imagine living in a place where your life savings can be wiped out with the stroke of a pen. Welcome to Washington state.

How did this happen? When voters adopted shoreline protections in 1972, the Legislature required the Department of Ecology (Ecology) to “review” the rules every five years. But citing the salmon crisis, Ecology has enacted sweeping new land use regulations that virtually dictate your every move. The new rules will incorporate protections for threatened and endangered species contained in the federal Endangered Species Act. But some homeowners may likely feel they are the endangered species under the new rules.

State’s Most Invasive Land Use Policy

“This is the most invasive land use policy in the history of Washington State,” says Karen Camenzind. She and her husband Doug, own an 80-acre dairy farm and nursery in Grays Harbor County. The Camenzinds say that, because the Half Moon Creek and the Willapa River run through their property, the new shoreline regulations could cut the value of their land in half. “Almost half a million dollars gone,” says Karen, “with no compensation.”

The proposed rules create buffer zones up to 150’ wide along streams, rivers, lakes, Puget Sound and coastal waters. No structures or harmful activity are allowed within the zone. Land use attorney Alexander Mackie says this “no man’s zone” hits urban waterfront homeowners hard, because most existing homes are inside the buffer. That makes them a “non-conforming use.”

“State regulators say that existing structures and activities are exempt from the new rules, but there’s a catch,” says Mackie. “Whenever you do anything to your property, change the way you use part of it or remodel or repair your home, the state or county government can step in.”

Home Remodeling Covered

In fact, it is already happening. A Thurston County man remodeling his home was forced to tear out his lawn and replant it with so-called ‘natural vegetation.’ “He was furious,” said Mackie, “But, the county had him over a barrel. He had to complete his remodel and didn’t have time to take them to court.”

Lori Blau of Ponderay Newsprint, and chair of the Association of Washington Business Environmental Affairs Council, believes the state has yet to show any scientific basis for its rules. “Regulators are trying to impose a ‘one size fits all’ rule. “It doesn’t have to be that way,” notes Blau.

“There’s a better model that Ecology should follow,” continued Blau. “The Forests and Fish Agreement that protects 60,000 miles of streams in our state tailors its rules to fit specific situations. Setbacks are determined on a case-by-case basis, depending on the situation, the topography and what you want to accomplish. There’s no reason the state can’t do the same thing with the shoreline rules.”

Ecology’s new rules also raise concerns about whether people will be able to get loans to purchase or repair homes inside the buffer zones — homes that are technically a “nonconforming use.”

If banks see these homes as a risky investment, it would be devastating for older folks who are counting on selling their homes to fund their retirement. As one critic put it, “Who’s going to buy a house that’s sitting in the middle of an environmental no-man’s zone.”

Rural Areas Hit Hard

Karen Camenzind says rural property owners will be hit even harder by the new rules. For example, the rules would prohibit landowners in channel migration zones from halting erosion on their property. “A channel migration zone,” explains Camenzind, “ is anywhere a river has traveled in the last 100 years or might travel in the next 100 years.”

That rule, she says, doesn’t apply to city folks. “These rules clearly target Eastern Washington for preservation, and they will wipe out our economic base.”

Critics say the shoreline rules are complicated and vague, and property owners are often frustrated by the answers — or lack of answers — they get from state officials. “My husband and I have testified at any number of hearings on these rules,” says Camenzind, “and we’ve noticed that you have to be very careful how you ask a question in order to get a straight answer.”

Lawmakers Outraged

A number of elected officials are trying to get straight answers from the Department of Ecology. On August 7, 29 state lawmakers, including Clyde Ballard, Co-Speaker of the House of Representatives, sent a letter to Ecology Director Tom Fitzsimmons asking him for a “detailed response” to their concerns and questions about the proposed shoreline regulations. To our knowledge, to date, they have not received an answer.

Senate Majority Leader Sid Snyder, (D-Long Beach) has seen his legislative district’s economy in southwestern Washington crippled by the Endangered Species Act before. The listing of the Northern Spotted Owl as endangered threw many loggers out of work and DOE’s shorelines rules could do the same to small landowners trying to farm. Snyder says he will support legislation to mitigate Ecology’s rules.

Everyone wants to protect our environment, but the shorelines regulations have the potential for wreaking havoc on homeowners and farmers through the state. The Department of Ecology should go back to the drawing board and look to the Forest and Fish Agreements as a way to protect salmon and people.

(Editor’s Note: Don Brunell is president of the Association of Washington Business, Washington state’s chamber of commerce. Visit AWB on the Web at www.awb.org.).