  |
|
|
Ecology home > SEA Program home > Shoreline Management Home > Laws, Rules, and Cases > Futurewise v. Anacortes Decision
Since 2003, there has been significant confusion about critical areas and shorelines due to ambiguous language in ESHB 1933. The 2003 law included a clear intent for critical areas in shoreline jurisdiction to be protected solely by Shoreline Master Programs (SMPs) adopted under the state Shoreline Management Act (SMA), rather than by critical areas ordinances (CAOs) adopted under the Growth Management Act (GMA). However, the 2003 law was not abundantly clear on when a local SMP would take over from the CAO. That ambiguity unfortunately led to differing, and sometimes contrary, legal interpretations. (Background information.)
On March 18, 2010, Governor Chris Gregoire signed Substitute House Bill 1653. The bill clarifies that, with certain exceptions, critical area regulations adopted under the Growth Management Act apply within Shoreline areas. These regulations apply until Ecology approves either a comprehensive new SMP that meets Ecology’s guidelines, or a SMP amendment specifically related to critical areas.
The exceptions in SHB 1653 address concerns raised by business and farming groups regarding the status of legally existing structures and uses in shoreline areas that are within protection zones created by local CAOs. The new law specifies that these uses may continue as conforming uses. The law also provides criteria about how these structures and uses may be redeveloped or modified. In addition, the bill also addresses existing and ongoing farming practices.
The bill contains other important details not included in this brief overview (full text of the final bill signed by the Governor).
Tom Clingman,
Department of Ecology, 360-407-7448
Tim Gates,
Department of Commerce, 360-725-3058
Copyright © Washington State Department of Ecology. See http://www.ecy.wa.gov/copyright.html.
