County finally beats WEAN

Published 6:00 am Saturday, September 2, 2006

It was a long time coming, but Island County finally beat the Whidbey Environmental Action Network in a dispute brought before the Growth Management Hearings Board.

The state board on Wednesday approved the county’s plan to use so-called “best management practices” rather than inviolable setbacks to protect critical areas in non-commercial, rural-zoned farmlands.

The decision means the county’s rural protections are finally in compliance with the state Growth Management Act.

The board’s 22-page decision was downright complimentary in places. “Island County has done a thorough analysis of its local circumstances and come up with an admirable commitment to preserve its rural character while protecting the functions and values of critical areas in the rural areas,” states the opinion by board members Margery Hite, Holly Gadbaw and Gayle Rothrock.

The board was in Coupeville June 22 to hear WEAN and the county argue the issues. The county was represented by land use consultant Keith Dearborn and Josh Choate, deputy prosecutor.

“Yes, we lost,” said WEAN’s Steve Erickson on Thursday. “They ruled against us on every point.”

Erickson was obviously surprised, as WEAN had won repeated rounds in the past, both before the hearings board and in court dating back to 1998. But this time the county scored a knockout.

“They’re siding with the county on every point,” said a joyful Phil Bakke, director of the county’s Department of Planning and Community Development. “This represents one of the biggest team efforts we’ve ever undertaken.”

After the previous rules were ruled invalid by the hearings board, the county started forging a new ordinance to protect farmlands in the rural zone, recruiting help from the farmers, the general public, WSU Extension, Whidbey Island Conservation District, and various state agencies.

The end result, adopted May 15 by the Island County commissioners, required more paperwork for farmers, ranging from an environmental checklist to standard or custom farm plans, but allowed farm activities to continue.

Commissioner Mike Shelton was also pleased by the hearings board’s ruling. “It’s a decision like we’ve never gotten before,” he said. “It’s totally one-sided in favor of the county. I don’t think it gets any better than this.”

But Shelton cautioned farmers that this decision “doesn’t mean it’s business as usual. I hope farmers comply, because this is the way we’re going to have to move forward.”

Don Meehan, WSU Extension agent, said small farmers can probably live with the system now in place. “It’s a pretty decent system,” he said Thursday. “The county’s really gone to great lengths to comply with the Growth Management Act and protect critical areas.”

Still, the additional paperwork isn’t something farmers are happy about. “Farmers are bummed out,” Meehan said. “They feel quite burdened, but the county made it as simple and easy as possible.”

Farmers will soon have more help in drawing up and complying with farm plans. Besides the resources of the Conservation District, Meehan has received authority to hire a new agricultural agent “to work with farm families.” A teaching position, it will be funded by Island County and Washington State University.

In Erickson’s view, the board’s ruling leaves the county’s critical areas with less protection. “It almost totally reverses their 1998 decision which is really surprising to us,” he said. “There’s no requirement for buffers at all now.”

The hearings board addresses Erickson’s concern on buffers, saying it’s “not wholly accurate.” In the board’s opinion, critical areas can be protected through the use of best management practices rather than standard buffers. As an example, haying can be allowed near wetlands in the dry season with BMPs, while it would be precluded by strict buffers.

The board commended the county for its educational approach through the use of farm plans, saying it’s “an interactive process that involves and educates the landowner in the effect of critical areas on agricultural practices.”

Bakke was proud of that point. “The focus is on outreach and education,” he said.

If a farmer doesn’t comply with a farm plan, the county can revert to a strict buffer requirement, the board notes. “This is a key aspect of the program since it provides an ongoing incentive to the landowner to meet his or her commitments in the farm plan. … Island County has achieved compliance in an impressive way that could be a model for other jurisdictions.”

WEAN can appeal the board’s decision to Superior Court. Erickson said the organization is watching a couple of similar appeals wending their way through the court system, and it’s too soon to tell if WEAN will go back to court.

Meanwhile, WEAN will monitor how the county is implementing and enforcing its new rules governing agriculture in rural zones.

“We’re pretty dubious, but we’d love to be proved wrong,” Erickson said.