A state hearings board rejected the critical areas ordinance the county adopted last February because it was temporary.
The ordinance was challenged by the Whidbey Environmental Action Network, or WEAN, which repeatedly questioned the county’s environmental ordinances for not offering proper protections.
“We would have accepted what they did if it hadn’t been interim,” said WEAN’s Marianne Edain. “You can’t ask for permanent resolutions when you have your fingers crossed and hope to change it in a year.”
The Growth Management Hearings Board found in a ruling dated May 4 that the county remains noncompliant in regulating critical areas such as wetlands, aquifers and wildlife habitats in some agricultural areas.
The board agreed with WEAN’s argument “that a jurisdiction cannot achieve compliance through the adoption of an interim ordinance.”
Regardless, Island County Commissioner Helen Price Johnson said she considers the ruling a win for the county because the Hearings Board didn’t find any other problems with the ordinance.
Planning Director David Wechner said the county hoped the Hearings Board would accept the interim ordinance because it included a work plan, allowed per state statute, outlining a plan to address the ordinance further in the Comprehensive Plan update due next year.
“The board thought it would be less confusing to do it all at once,” Wechner said. “Apparently the Hearings Board disagreed.”
The Hearings Board ordered the county to adopt a permanent ordinance by Nov. 13.
While the temporary ordinance required agricultural activities in the rural zone to comply with critical areas protections, WEAN remains concerned about the effects of agriculture.
Under the temporary ordinance, which remains in effect, existing and ongoing agricultural properties zoned as commercial agriculture and rural agriculture will be exempt from the critical-areas ordinance, if best management practices are used.
“Numerous studies have now found that most surface water on the islands violates state standards for bacterial contamination, temperature, and other water quality criteria,” said Steve Erickson of WEAN in a press release. “There are multiple causes and agriculture is certainly a contributor.”
Edain said she hopes a balance can be struck.
“We believe that its possible to have both viable agriculture and effective environmental protection, and look forward to working with the county and others to achieve that,” she said.
Edain and Erickson were critical of what they see as the county’s “stonewalling” efforts to come into compliance over the years.
The original ordinance was adopted in 1998, and the group challenged the county’s treatment of wetlands on farmland in 2000 and won. Previously, the county had exempted all agricultural zones from wetland protection, which WEAN argued was contrary to GMA.
