Proposed Ken Mann Resolution Hirst Decision
PROPOSED BY: MANN_
INTRODUCTION DATE:_____________
RESOLUTION NO. _______
WHEREAS, in 2012, a group of citizens and environmental groups, known as Hirst et al, challenged the Whatcom County Comprehensive Plan as it related to residential development and permit-exempt wells; and
WHEREAS, in 2013, The Growth Management Hearings Board ruled in favor of Hirst et al; and
WHEREAS, in 2013, Whatcom County appealed this ruling; and
WHEREAS, in 2013, Whatcom County contracted with Van Ness Feldman LLP, who specialize in water rights, water law and the Growth Management Act (GMA); and
WHEREAS, the State Department of Ecology, Washington Association of Realtors, and Washington Association of Counties, and other groups, sided with Whatcom County and filed Amicus briefs; and
WHEREAS, in 2015, the State Appeals Court overturned the Growth Management Hearings Board; and
WHEREAS, in 2015, Hirst et al appealed to the State Supreme Court; and
WHEREAS, Whatcom County has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees fighting Hirst et al; and
WHEREAS, on October 6th, 2016 the Washington State Supreme Court issued its decision, now known as the Hirst ruling; and
WHEREAS, in response to the Hirst ruling, with unanimous advice from our legal staff, contract attorneys, and the administration, which includes people from both major political parties, the Whatcom County Council issued an emergency moratorium on building permits for properties relying on permit-exempt wells; and
WHEREAS, hundreds of property owners suddenly have been denied building permits for properties they have lawfully subdivided, platted, and even begun infrastructure improvements; and
WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council believes that the Hirst decision is profoundly flawed, both in its legal reasoning and practical implications; and
WHEREAS, with the Hirst Decision, the State Supreme Court has caused devastating financial and emotional hardship for the people of Whatcom County; and
WHEREAS, residential water withdrawals from permit-exempt wells represents a tiny fraction of water consumption in Whatcom County; and
WHEREAS, Washington State and the Department of Ecology have sole responsibility for determining water availability, closing a basin, or issuing or interpreting water rights; and
WHEREAS, while the Hirst ruling impacts 29 counties planning under GMA, Whatcom County is the only defendant in this case and is therefore uniquely vulnerable and subject to immediate review for compliance and subsequent state sanctions, and
WHEREAS, half of Whatcom County’s budget comes from state or federal grants and programs, and
WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council recognizes the precious value of clean and copious potable water; and
WHEREAS, The Whatcom County Council will continue to engage all stakeholders to collaborate on issues of water quality and water quantity; and
WHEREAS, the Whatcom County Council recognizes the financial and environmental impacts created by conversion of resource lands to low-density, residential sprawl; and
WHEREAS, denying citizens their right to use permit-exempt water withdrawals to provide for their homes and families is an inappropriate strategy for preventing sprawl; and
WHEREAS, the employees of Whatcom County are working hard to Hirst without jeopardizing the legal or financial standing of Whatcom County government; and
WHEREAS, we believe that a narrowly-focused, bi-partisan amendment to the GMA can resolve this egregious misinterpretation by the State Supreme Court; and
WHEREAS, there have been productive meetings with the State Legislature, support from the Washington State Association of Counties and other groups, and meetings with local state legislators of both parties and of both chambers; and
WHEREAS, the State Legislature alone has the power to remedy this grievous error imposed by the Supreme Court.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED The Whatcom County Council will send a letter, to be co-signed by as many other Counties as possible, to the State Legislature’s Local Government committee and Agriculture and Natural Resources committee requesting urgent attention to this matter, and requesting a rapid, narrowly-focused, bi-partisan amendment to the Growth Management Act remedying the problems created by the Hirst ruling.
The letter is attached as exhibit A and signed by Council Chair on Council letterhead.