| The Washington Supreme Court ruled that critical areas adjacent to the state’s largest bodies of water are regulated under the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), not the Growth Management Act (GMA).
In 2003, the Washington Legislature passed legislation stating that critical areas within the jurisdiction of the SMA shall be governed by that Act, and that critical areas outside of the SMA’s jurisdiction are to be regulated under the GMA. The legislation was passed to overturn a Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board decision which attempted to require local jurisdictions to regulate shorelines under the GMA, giving the Growth Boards greater power to regulate development.
Futurewise, Washington Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED), and the state Department of Ecology (DOE) sued the City of Anacortes arguing the City violated the GMA by continuing to regulate its shorelines under the SMA. The anti-growth group and state agencies argued the legislation was prospective in nature. Thus, according to the groups, Anacortes was required to continue to regulate its shorelines under the GMA until DOE approved is shoreline master plan under the SMA.
Justice Jim Johnson, writing for the 5-4 majority, noted the problem with this argument — DOE has only approved three of 39 county shoreline master plans and just a fraction of city master plans since 2003. Thus, under Futurewise’s, CTED’s, and DOE’s reading of the statute, the 2003 legislation wouldn’t go into effect until DOE got around to approving every shoreline master plan. As Justice Johnson noted, at the current rate DOE is approving the plans, “it is unknown when the law would go into effect statewide.”
Joining Justice Johnson in the majority were Justices Charles Johnson, Richard Sanders, Barbara Madsen, and Bobbe Bridge. Dissenting were Justices Tom Chambers, Mary Fairhurst, Susan Owens, and Chief Justice Gerry Alexander.
|
