Pre-GMA Legislation

Prior to 1990 and the enactment of the Growth Management Act, Washington adopted several measures designed to address land use and environmental concerns in the state.

The overarching statute is the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) adopted in 1972. SEPA was modeled on the federal National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) originally sponsored by Senator Henry Jackson of Washington. SEPA applies to nearly every governmental action that has the potential for adversely impacting the environment and it applies to all levels of government in Washington. Although it has its detractors, and complaints about its process are frequent, few criticize one its underlying purposes - to inform decision makers about the environmental impacts of their decisions. For its supporters, SEPA is viewed as the most important tool available to protect against environmental degradation.

The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) was also adopted in the early 1970s, at about the same time as SEPA, by a vote of the people. The SMA approved by the voters was a legislative alternative to a proposal put forward by the environmental community. As with SEPA, there are those who object to some of the procedural aspects of the SMA. But also as with SEPA, few dispute the underlying purpose of the SMA to protect the state's shorelines. With only a few exceptions, every city and county required to adopt a shoreline master program has completed that task. Many jurisdictions have updated their plans over the years to keep them current with scientific knowledge and changes in circumstances. The SMA has been largely effective in limiting many types of development that were common prior to its adoption. As a result, the shorelines look considerably different than they would have if there had been no SMA.

Growth Management Act

The Growth Management Act (GMA), adopted in two steps in 1990 and 1991, was an outgrowth of recommendations from the Growth Strategies Commission appointed by Governor Gardner in 1989. The GMA initially required 19 counties and their cities to adopt comprehensive plans and development regulations to plan for and address the impacts of growth. Perhaps the most important change made by the GMA to the local government land use process was the requirement that development regulations be consistent with the comprehensive plans. Coupled with limitations on how often a comprehensive plan can be changed, this substantially changed the way land use issues were addressed by counties and cities.

As of early November, 1998, 29 counties and 213 cities were required to have comprehensive plans adopted by December 1, 1998. 23 counties (79 %) and 188 cities (88%) had met that requirement. This is an indication of substantial progress towards meeting the goals and policies of the GMA.

Regulatory Reform

In 1993, Governor Lowry created the Governor's Task Force on Regulatory Reform in part to address land use issues not resolved by the Growth Management Act. He charged the Task Force with looking at how "the state's environmental and growth management requirements and processes [can] be integrated so that the goals of environmental protection, orderly and planned growth, and sustained economic development are achieved."² The Governor also directed the task force to look at project approval, permitting, and appeal processes.

The Task Force reported its final recommendations on December 20, 1994. Many of its recommendations concerning the integration of land use and environmental laws and permitting and appeal reforms were incorporated into ESHB 1724, passed by the Legislature in the 1995 session.

ESHB 1724 included some substantial changes to the local government procedures for reviewing proposed development. It required the local government to make a decision on an application within 120 days after a complete application was submitted. It also required the local government to limit the numbers of hearings on an application and to provide a procedure for coordinated local government permit review.

ESHB 1724 also included provisions to begin integrating SEPA, SMA, and the GMA. It provided a means by which counties and cities could resolve with finality some land use issues during comprehensive plan development. With appropriate environmental review, these decisions would not be subject to environmental review during the project review process. ESHB 1724 also provided for some integration of shoreline master programs and GMA comprehensive plans, by incorporating the goals and polices of the SMA into the GMA. Procedural aspects relating to the adoption of those different plans were not addressed at that time.

ESHB 1724 also reformed the archaic process for judicial review of local government land use decisions and replaced it with the Land Use Petition Act. Although some problems with the new legislation have been identified, by nearly all measures it has brought greater certainty and fairness to the judicial review of land use decisions and allows those decisions more often to be resolved on the merits rather than on procedural technicalities.

ESHB 1724 also provided for the establishment of the Permit Assistance Center in Ecology and for a coordinated project review process at the state level. The Permit Assistance Center has recently undergone sunset review and has received a positive review. It has assisted thousands by providing information about state and local permit requirements. It has also overseen a limited number of consolidated permit reviews.

Growth Management Act Refinements

In its first substantive recommendations to the Governor and the Legislature, the Commission in 1997 recommended modifications to the GMA in order to resolve some of the issues about which the Commission heard frequent comment during its first year. With the passage of ESB 6094 by the 1997 Legislature, several nagging issues with the GMA were addressed.

Most significant among the changes was the addition of more legislative direction to counties on what was expected in the rural element of their comprehensive plans. In addition, counties were given clear choices to allow for development in rural areas consistent with rural character. ESB 6094 also addressed several aspects of the Growth Management Hearings Boards, including the standard of review that they apply and the implementation of their authority to invalidate comprehensive plans and development regulations. These changes, while not resolving all of the disagreements over the Boards and their place in the land use regulatory system, did address some of the problem areas to a considerable extent. Since enactment of ESB 6094 discussion about the GMHBs has been more often focussed on what their role should be and less on the decisions that they have rendered.

ESA and Salmon Listings

The future for Washington's land use and regulatory system holds many unknowns. A significant reason for that is the anticipated listing of several salmon stocks under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Large areas of Washington are likely to be affected by the listings, including most of the major population centers in the state.³ Although the response to the listings is still unknown, the ESA's broad sweep will ensure that nearly all governmental actions affecting salmon habitat, including water quality and quantity regulations, land use, forest practices, and stormwater control, will be affected. This will also have a direct impact on the private sector.