Environmental advocates testified in the senate budget committee yesterday afternoon against legislation sponsored by Sen. Jim Hargrove that would, among many other things, roll back two key environmental policies.
First, as we reported earlier in the session, it would effectively gut the state Growth Management Act by eliminating citizens’ right to appeal land use decisions under the act.
Currently, most GMA appeals are initiated by citizens and advocacy groups. Under the proposed new rules, anyone who wanted to appeal would have to show that they would be directly harmed by the land use change. The bill would eliminate “standing” in GMA appeals for the following individuals: “a person [who has proven a reasonable relation to the issue] who has participated orally or in writing before the county or city regarding the matter on which a review is being requested.”
In practice, the change would prevent citizens, advocacy groups, and other stakeholders from appealing unless they can prove they would be directly impacted by a decision—a threshold Washington Environmental Council policy director Mo McBroom called “almost impossible.” If a landowner felt he would be harmed by a land use decision, in other words, he could appeal, but no experts would be allowed to testify on his behalf.
In testimony before the senate budget committee, where testimony was limited to the budget impacts of the bill, today, Futurewise lobbyist April Putney said the change would have “huge implications for the state,” which would have to take on all the responsibility for environmental monitoring of land-use decisions or take on responsibility for cleaning up environmental problems after the fact if environmental issues aren’t addressed preemptively.
Additionally, the bill would put off measures aimed at reducing stormwater pollution in Puget Sound by requiring new developments to include green upgrades like permeable pavement, green roofs, and rain gardens. The state pollution control board ordered the Department of Ecology to implement the changes, known as Low-Impact Development, in 2008, but the department has dragged its feet, asking for one extension after another.
Although environmental groups said they were willing to accept a one-year extension, local governments are asking for three more years, a move McBroom says will cost more in the long term, because retrofitting existing infrastructure is more expensive than building to the new environmental standards in the first place.
