This Washington
State House Bill: Growth Management Act? We Didn't Really Mean That.
Republicans push bill to undermine Growth Management Act with key Democratic cosponsor.
A bill sponsored by state Rep. Joel Kretz (R-7, Ferry County) would allow three smaller counties—Garfield, Columbia (in rural southeastern Washington) and Pacific (on the Pacific coast)—to pull out of the Growth Management Act. While Kretz's bill is mostly co-sponsored by Republicans, Democratic Rep. Brian Blake (D-19, Pacific County), the seatmate of local government committee chair Rep. Dean Takko (D-19), has signed on. Takko's committee held its second hearing on the bill this morning, which is a bad sign for environmentalists—indicating that the Democratic chair is okay with undercutting the GMA.
The landmark GMA, passed in 1990 and '91, restricts development in rural areas to minimize sprawl and regulates land use planning to make the most efficient use of resources and infrastructure.
"Our community worked hard to pass the GMA, and we believe this [bill] weakens the very laws communities across the state have depended on for the last 20 years," says Cliff Traisman, lobbyist for the Washington Environmental Council and Washington Conservation Voters.
When the GMA passed, counties that didn't meet population and growth thresholds were given the choice of opting in or out of GMA planning. Nine opted in. Since growth management is about long-term planning and coordination, they were not given the option to change course and back out. (If a county's population growth eventually bumped it into the mandatory GMA category, they would have to get on board as well.)
Kretz's bill would authorize some backtracking: Any county that has signed on, but still doesn't meet the population threshold, could choose to opt out now. Those counties are Garfield, Columbia, and Pacific.
In addition to Kretz and Blake, the bill has five Republican cosponsors.
Kretz is well aware that his own Ferry County is—thanks to its rate of population growth—not eligible to back out of the GMA under his bill, but his office says he's working on an amendment to make sure the legislation allows Ferry County and some additional counties from the original nine—Columbia, Douglas, Ferry, Garfield, Kittitas, Pacific, Pend Oreille, Stevens, and Walla Walla—to bail on the GMA.
I've got a call in to Rep. Kretz, but here's one reason he may be pushing the bill. The GMA requires participating counties to designate and protect farmland. Ferry County ranks eighth when it comes to acres of farm and ranchland in Washington, with 749,452 acres. However, the county's GMA plan designated zero acres as farmland. They were sued and forced under GMA to protect the nearly 800,000 acres.
A bill sponsored by state Rep. Joel Kretz (R-7, Ferry County) would allow three smaller counties—Garfield, Columbia (in rural southeastern Washington) and Pacific (on the Pacific coast)—to pull out of the Growth Management Act. While Kretz's bill is mostly co-sponsored by Republicans, Democratic Rep. Brian Blake (D-19, Pacific County), the seatmate of local government committee chair Rep. Dean Takko (D-19), has signed on. Takko's committee held its second hearing on the bill this morning, which is a bad sign for environmentalists—indicating that the Democratic chair is okay with undercutting the GMA.
The landmark GMA, passed in 1990 and '91, restricts development in rural areas to minimize sprawl and regulates land use planning to make the most efficient use of resources and infrastructure.
"Our community worked hard to pass the GMA, and we believe this [bill] weakens the very laws communities across the state have depended on for the last 20 years," says Cliff Traisman, lobbyist for the Washington Environmental Council and Washington Conservation Voters.
When the GMA passed, counties that didn't meet population and growth thresholds were given the choice of opting in or out of GMA planning. Nine opted in. Since growth management is about long-term planning and coordination, they were not given the option to change course and back out. (If a county's population growth eventually bumped it into the mandatory GMA category, they would have to get on board as well.)
Kretz's bill would authorize some backtracking: Any county that has signed on, but still doesn't meet the population threshold, could choose to opt out now. Those counties are Garfield, Columbia, and Pacific.
In addition to Kretz and Blake, the bill has five Republican cosponsors.
Kretz is well aware that his own Ferry County is—thanks to its rate of population growth—not eligible to back out of the GMA under his bill, but his office says he's working on an amendment to make sure the legislation allows Ferry County and some additional counties from the original nine—Columbia, Douglas, Ferry, Garfield, Kittitas, Pacific, Pend Oreille, Stevens, and Walla Walla—to bail on the GMA.
I've got a call in to Rep. Kretz, but here's one reason he may be pushing the bill. The GMA requires participating counties to designate and protect farmland. Ferry County ranks eighth when it comes to acres of farm and ranchland in Washington, with 749,452 acres. However, the county's GMA plan designated zero acres as farmland. They were sued and forced under GMA to protect the nearly 800,000 acres.
