Court ignores environmental factors

I have received word that a state appeals court has struck down King County's "65/10 rule," requiring property owners retain 65% of forest and limiting impervious surface to 10%. This rule is critical to the issue of reducing stormwater runoff, which is a major source of pollutants that enter Puget Sound.

65/10 is meant to comply with Washington State Growth Management regulations, but my source has told me the appeals court has held the rule to be an illegal fee.

More as it develops.

Update (1518 PDT): The Seattle P-I has the first media report on the ruling. (since updated and extended)

Update (08 July 0926 PDT): King County's rural-land restrictions go too far, court rules - "In a case that could determine how far local governments can go in limiting forest-clearing across entire watersheds, a state Court of Appeals panel ruled Monday that King County's critical-areas law went too far.
. . .
‘I am a happy man today,’ said Steve Hammond, who voted against the ordinance as a Republican council member and is now president of [the Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights, CAPR]..." (Seattle Times)

From the portion of the opinion quoted in the article, it appears the court indeed ignored the environmental dimension and focused narrowly on its interpretation that 65/10 is an illegal development tax -- even if indirect.

The court seemed to say 65/10 could be made legal by making it apply on a case by case basis, not as a blanket rule. But this would be a huge staffing burden on the County, that is already facing a multi-million dollar budget shortfall. Case by case evaluation of 65/10 would require a massive spending increase -- wouldn't that be a tax?

Basically, the ruling is a victory for right-wing 'property rights' advocates. Clearing land relates directly to increases in surface runoff, aka stormwater, which as already mentioned is a leading source of Puget Sound water pollution. By pulling the protections of the 65/10 regulation, the appeals court is removing protections from entire watersheds -- which shed water that flows downhill into rivers and streams that enter the Sound, thus the name (duh, Your Honors). Gravity does not take property boundaries into account.

The next appeal, if the County decides to go there, would be to the State Supreme Court -- which has a sizable property rights contingent. And in fact, the new ruling cites as its precedent for preservation=tax the Supremes’ own ruling in Isla Verde v. City of Camas (2002). In other words, 65/10 is likely muerta.

By the way, the Steve Hammond mentioned above is the former county councilman who, following Hurricane Katrina, proposed making prevention of looting a higher priority than rescue. Predictably, in addition to being a Resmuglican he is also a former evangelical minister.

Update (10 July 1545 PDT): King County will appeal to the Supremes