House OKs bill aimed at resolving quarrels before they hit the courtroom
OLYMPIA – Balance. Yes, you’d better believe this one’s all about balance. The House of Representatives today passed legislation prime-sponsored by state Rep. Dean Takko to emphasize balance in the way public law protects watersheds, preserves agricultural lands, and promotes farming.
Takko’s bipartisan bill seeks to implement recommendations from the Ruckelshaus Center process, specifically “upholding appropriate watershed-developments, preservation of agricultural lands, and flexibility for counties in choosing a workable approach.”
The bill would set up a Voluntary Stewardship Program. Participating counties could then use the tools in the program to protect critical areas in regions used for agricultural activities, rather than having to plod their way through the regulatory requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA).
Administrative duties for the program, according to another directive in the measure, would fall under the Washington State Conservation Commission, using advice provided by a statewide advisory committee.
“This bill creates an alternative to the regulatory approach under the Growth Management Act for complying with critical-areas ordinances on agricultural lands,” Takko explained. “The bill creates a voluntary program. Counties would be authorized to opt out or fail out of the program.
“Every year, citizens, local governments and organizations invest a lot of time and sweat – not to mention a heck of a lot of money – updating the GMA,” he continued. “The process never fails to spark controversy and spawn lawsuits. The point of this legislation is to get away from the lawsuits. Let’s find a way to keep the honorable, good-intentioned sides of these issues out of the courtroom.”
“This legislation provides an optional route for counties to assure that critical areas associated with agricultural activities are protected,” said Eric Johnson, Executive Director of the Washington State Association of Counties. “The proposal would allow a county to establish a collaborative approach to work with farmers to apply voluntary measures that protect critical areas associated with agricultural activities. This legislation creates a program that we believe, when it is adopted, should reduce costs to counties – and at the same time provide better protection to critical areas and result in better environmental outcomes.”
“This is a new way of dealing with agricultural lands,” said Bill Robinson, Director of State Government Relations with the Nature Conservancy Washington Program. “Rather than writing more regulations, it gives counties an option to use a voluntary approach to encourage landowners to improve the quality of our streams and other critical areas. A key to the success of this new approach will be having local communities identify goals and benchmarks for measuring achievement. We want this new approach to be successful and we want to use it as a model for other parts of Washington and other states.”
Dan Wood, Director of Local Affairs with the Washington Farm Bureau, said that “this is a major reform of the Growth Management Act. It will allow local efforts to protect critical areas and agricultural activities at the same time. This legislation will be seen as the turning point when farming and environmental interests moved from fighting in the courts to cooperating in the fields. We look forward to demonstrating early success of the voluntary program.”
Local governments, as well as farming and other environmental voices have contributed in the lengthy process with Takko to develop the measure.
Agriculture in each and every one of Washington’s 39 counties is a $35-billion-a-year industry. More than 130,000 Washington citizens make their living on farms here in the Evergreen State.
Takko said that the GMA must recognize the importance of the agriculture industry, and the industry in turn must recognize the legitimate function of the GMA. The GMA specifies that critical areas must be protected and that agriculture must be preserved – but neither one of these requirements should takes precedence over the other.
House Bill 1886 passed the House, 95-2, and it’s now in the Senate awaiting further consideration.