Subscribe to Newsletter

To subscribe to our newsletter simply add your email below. A confirmation email will be sent to you!

Search Results for: critical areas

Living In A Post-CAO World – Critical Areas Ordinance passes in San Juan County

The Trojan Heron Commentary
An investigative newsblog about environmental deception in the San Juan Islands of Washington State

Posted 12/6/2012

Today, we got our first look at the CAOs that were passed yesterday. They can be found at this link.

The County came out with a press release regarding Council CAO approval. As we review and analyze the final version, we will be providing our own commentary. At this stage, it appears as if many of the last-minute changes made by the Council were cosmetic. Councilwoman Pratt is quoted as saying that the CAOs represent “hard work” and “compromises,” but the final CAO text appears to represent neither. It makes us wonder whether Pratt has a grasp of either concept. Continue reading

Farm Bureau challenges county’s new Critical Areas Ordinance

Posted 10/30/2012

by Steve Brown
Capital Press

The state and county Farm Bureaus have appealed the updated Critical Areas Ordinance filed by the Thurston County Commission, claiming it doesn’t abide by the state’s rules.

John Stuhlmiller, director of government relations at the Washington Farm Bureau, said the state’s Voluntary Stewardship Program includes the commitment “to make no changes as it relates to agriculture.”

But the Thurston County Farm Bureau claims the county government did just that when it split farming into “existing” and “new” and then applied different rules to each. It also failed to define what “change of use” is.

Every county in Washington that agreed to participate in the stewardship program committed to involving farmers and other landowners in updating its Critical Areas Ordinance. The ordinance addresses issues including agriculture, wetlands and aquifers, preserving and protecting land from urban impacts. Continue reading

The Trojan Heron follows the Critical Areas Code on the San Juan Islands

from The Trojan Heron
San Juan Islands, Washington State

Bookmark their website to follow environmental issues there.

Posted 8/5/2012


The Critical Areas Ordinances (CAOs) are a requirement of the Growth Management Act (GMA).  Unknown to many is the fact that the oversight agency for the GMA is the Department of Commerce, not the Department of Ecology.  The GMA requires that Commerce consult with Ecology on critical areas.  However, Ecology has no authority, under the GMA, to involve itself at the local level.  Ecology’s local participation occurs only with the tolerance, permission, or invitation of our local government.

According to independent analysis of the County’s critical areas maps, critical areas will affect 50% of parcels covering 78% of the area of the county — even before buffers are added.  Technically, the critical aquifer recharge area (CARA) map affected 100% of parcels, but the land-use restrictions of that particular CAO were slight.  By contrast, the effects of the upcoming CAOs will have onerous restrictions for affected citizens.

When the GMA was enacted, San Juan County was not required to fully participate (fully plan, as it is called).  However, our County Commissioners at the time (Cowan, LaPorte, and Orchid) opted in.  In all, 29 of the 39 counties in Washington were eventually required to fully plan.  While the CAOs are required of all counties, whether they fully plan or not, the CAOs of the ten counties who do not fully plan cannot have their CAOs appealed before the Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB).  That is an often-used legal threat made by Ecology and the Friends of the San Juans:  that if the Council is not appropriately strict, they will be challenged before the GMHB. Continue reading

Critical Areas Ordinance Stories

March 2009 – Seattle, WA: WA State Supreme Court rules against Critical Areas Ordinance freeze on private property

9/7/06 – County sued over meetings – Decisions leading to critical areas ordinanace are questioned – PT Leader

9/7/06 – Critical areas process linked to agenda issue – effectively establishes buffers of 450 feet – PT Leader

6/19/06 – Jefferson County Farmers’ Tractor Protest Gets Results -County commissioners extend deadline for critical areas ordinance – Kitsap Sun

6/16/06 – Onerous Critical Areas Ordinance in the making, says local farm bureau president – Jefferson County residents urged to attend planning commission meeting

Lawsuit over Initiative to Repeal
Clallam County Critical Areas Code

About Home Rule Charters and
County Forms of Government in Washington State

Court decisions

1/6/03 – Ruling by the State Appeals Court

9/4/02 –Initiative 6 goes to appeals court: Citizens claim right under Constitution has been sidestepped by unelected board by Sue Forde, Citizen Review Online

9/4/02 – Transcript of Oral Arguments before WA State Court of Appeals, Tacoma, WA

5/16/02 – Initiative 6 gets a minor win by Sue Forde, Citizen Review Online

5/1/02 – Initiative 6 presses forward in the courts to defend constitutional government – GMA-related local ordinance repeal stopped before going to voters – by Sue Forde, Citizen Review

4/27/02 – Initiative 6 presses forward in the courts to defend constitutional government – GMA-related local ordinance repeal stopped before going to voters – by Sue Forde, Citizen Review

12/7/01 – Initiative 6 – Repeal of Critical Areas Code – gets submitted for review to Washington State Supreme Court by Sue Forde, Citizen Review Online

9/27/01 – Local physician cites breach of oath of office by county commissioner; judge dismisses case – by Lois Krafsky-Perry, Citizen Review Online

9/27/01 Recall petition goes to judge; Initiative petition to go to state Supreme Court? – Sequim Gazette

9/23/01 – Court to decide ‘sufficiency of complaint’ on recall effort

9/21/01 –Activist plans to continue recall battle – PDN

9/21/01 Repeal effort gets additional blow – 2nd judge rules on critical area ordinance  PDN

9/19/01  Recall underway for official – Property-rights activist targets commissioner – PDN 

9/19/01  Recall filed against county commissioner Sequim Gazette

9/19/01 Local citizen honor promise, and files for recall of county commissioner – commentary by Anne Wagner, Citizen Review Online

9/19/01 – Local court rules against initiative right of the people – citizens plan on taking the issue to a higher court – by Anne Wagner, Citizen Review Online

9/19/01 – Judge rules Critical Areas initiative void – Nov. 6 ballot won’t present repeal effort – PDN

9/15/01 – Judge says he won’t force commissioners/auditor to place initiative on ballot until pro-tem judge rules – by Sue Forde, Citizen Review Online

9/14/01 – Critical areas code battle seen as continuing – Sequim Gazette

9/9/01 – Pro tem judge rules to hear Initiative 6 case – denies citizen’s request for dismissalTwo environmental organizations, one property rights group, allowed into case – by Anne Wagner & Lois Krafsky-Perry, for Citizen Review Online

9/9/01 More about 1000 Friends of Washington

9/9/01 The Code under which the two elected judges recused themselves 

9/5/01 Clallam County, WA: Two more judges recuse themselves from Initiative 6 hearing – by Anne Wagner, Citizen Review Online

9/5/01 – There go the judges! by Lois Krafsky-Perry

9/5/01 – Clallam County: Commissioners’ action against the people shows their contempt of the voters – a letter from West Seattle LP chair

9/5/01 – Clallam critical areas issue takes twists – Peninsula Daily News

9/3/01 – Initiative 6 Update: The ongoing battle to get it on the ballot – by Anne Wagner for Citizen Review Online

9/2/01 – Critical areas debate continues – PDN

8/29/01 – Clallam County Commissioners invalidates shoreline regs, but throws I-6 into the court to keep it off the ballot – PDN

8/24/01  Clallam County: Pro-tem judge drops out after question of conflict of interest – initiative backers get minor victory – Anne Wagner, Citizen Review Online

8/24/01 – Judge exists critical areas case – PDN

8/24/01 – BIAW wants to join initiative battle over Critical Areas Code repeal – Anne Wagner, Citizen Review 

8/24/01 – Homebuilders to request joining lawsuit – KONP

8/24/01 – Eloise Kailin of PPF (one of the environmental organizations wanting to join the county in the lawsuit against Bob Forde) comments on the Critical Areas Code Repeal Initiative – from PPF site

8/23/01 – Clallam County: County sues citizen over right of initiative – wants to prevent voters from exercising their right at the ballot  – court case begins Aug. 24th – Anne Wagner, Citizen Review Online 

8/23/01 – Sequim resident fights law he thinks goes too far   – Sequim Gazette

8/23/01 – Critical areas law initiative in court on Friday – PDN

8/16/01 – Clallam County: Environmental groups seeks to join lawsuit against citizen in Critical Areas Code case – wants right to initiative taken from voters – by Anne Wagner for Citizen Review

posted 8/16/01Transcript of Clallam County Commissioner’s meeting where initiative process was referred to courts on July 24, 2001

posted 8/16/01 – Testimony given at Commissioner’s meeting on July 24, 2001

Critical Areas Code, C.C.C. 27.12 (Effective 1/7/2000)

Critical Areas Code, Public Hearing Draft (328k)

Clallam County Home Rule Charter (234k)

The above are PDF files – allow some time for download

Excerpts from the Critical Areas Code

 What is the Clallam County Home Rule Charter?


Aug. 8, 2001 – Clallam County, WA – Critical Areas Ordinance opponent considers county lawsuit a personal attack, affront to voter and property rights – PDN

Aug. 5 – Clallam County: Commissioner Tharinger’s take on the Critical Areas Code (he’s the one who determined to turn the matter to the courts rather than to the voters) – Sequim Gazett]e

Aug. 5 – Charter has little impact on politicos – commentary by Martha Ireland, former Clallam County Commissioner

July 25 – Clallam County:  County commissioners circumvent rights of the people – send initiative to the courts rather than to the ballot box – Citizen Review Online

July 25 – County to fight Critical Areas Code petition – Sequim Gazette

July 25 – Clallam County Critical Areas Code repeal headed for court PDN

July 25 – Commissioners’ actions call for recall, declares local doctor KONP Radio

July 23 – Clallam County voters may decide Critical Areas rules on ballot (with comment) – PDN

July 21 – The count is in: Citizens’ critical areas code repeal initiative is headed for the ballot – Citizen Review Online

July 12 – Critical Areas Code debate re-ignited 
An attempt to throw out the critical areas ordinance has reopened the debate between property rights and environmental groups over the need for such a law.   –
Sequim Gazette

July 12 – Critical County Areas – editorial by the Sequim Gazette

July 10 – Critical Areas Code Repeal Initiative to go on the ballot – local papers report

July 8 – Clallam County: Initiative to Repeal the Critical Areas Code gains sufficient signatures to go on the ballot; next step – to auditor for signature validations

July 8 – Interpretation and enforcement of Critical Areas Code creates a burden on the people – commentary by John Kaufmann

July 3 – Letter to the Editor: Repeal Critical Areas Code – Toni Lyckman

June 27 – Frustrated Clallam County citizen speaks out about extraordinary requirements to place property into “pre-man” condition under Critical Areas Code

June 21 – County passes amended Critical Areas Code, 2-1 – Lone commissioner stands against it- PDN

June 7 – Critical Areas Code revamping makes it tougher on landowners – Sue Forde

June 2 – “No compromise,” says leader of initiative to repeal Critical Areas Code – by Lois Krafsky-Perry


Critical Areas law spurs Sequim dispute ••••

Citizens rally to overturn Critical Areas Code ••••
Citizens rally to overturn Critical Areas Code By Lois Krafsky-Perry for Citizen Review Online Port Angeles, WA – 4/24/01

. Activists mount campaign to repeal Critical Areas Code ••••
Campaign proposed to end critical areas ordinance by Dan Ross, Sequim Gazette 4/21/01

4/12/2001 Activists file initiative to repeal the Critical Areas Code – Sequim Gazette


From the Citizen Review Online:

New strategies for taking private property overlay the Critical Areas Code – 1/16/2001

The ‘water police’ are coming – 1/10/2001

Timber group charges Critical Areas Code as unconstitutional – 1/9/2001

State orders tougher land-use rules, calls for bigger buffers •••

Stories from the year 2000

County ordinance squelches humanitarian act; harms right of private ownership 12/28/2000

Federation joins Libertarians to oppose Critical Areas Code Clallam County, WA – 12/13/2000

.Mike Chapman backs property rights as Commissioner candidate – says he’ll back repeal of CAC – 12/13/2000

County Work Session Announcement Misinformed Public on Scheduled CAO Plans 8/2/2000

Environmental Groups challenge CAC – SG, 3/14/2000

The Embattled Critical Areas Code – 3/10/2000

Staff promotes Conservation Easements as the easier way “to comply” with Critical Areas Code Port Angeles, WA 2/2/2000

Local Libertarian Party pushes to repeal bureaucrat-laden ordinance2/1/2000

Initiative No. 6- Critical Areas Code Repeal Shall Ordinance No. 681, commonly known as the Clallam County Critical Areas Code -1/28/2000

Libertarians petition against CAC SG 1/5/2000 and at
Libertarians petition against CAC SG 1/5/2000  – SG, 1/10/00

Stories from the year 1999

Libertarian Party files for repeal of Critical Areas Ordinance – 12/30/99

Proposed Critical Areas Ordinance Hearing Set – 12/2/99

CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE – Observations about the CAO by Lois Krafsky-Perry 9/2/99

Definitions and Coverage of portions of the Proposed Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) of Clallam County, WA. Compiled by Sue Forde – 9/2/99

by Lois Perry
– 9/2/99

Citizens Address CAO Concerns To Commissioners •••
Citizens Address CAO Concerns To Commissioners 7/26/99

Local Residents Express Shock At Critical Ordinance Proposal Sequim, Washington – July 19, 1999

About the Clallam County CAC – From Other News Sources:

Sequim discusses CAC SG 9/99

Ordinance identifies critical areas – SG 9/99

CAO ready for review – SG – 9/99

Randy Johnson’s take on the interim CAO, 12/17/99

County Commissioners approve the new CAC – SG, 12/30/99
and at


Washington Environmental Council and Protect the Peninsula’s Future have joined in a lawsuit to set aside the Clallam County Critical Areas Code.


News Stories About Critical Areas Codes around Washington State

Feb. 2005 – Opponents of Critical Areas Ordinance stage protest -King 5 News

12/1/04 – ‘Critical areas ordinance’ provokes bitter ‘rural vs. urban’ dispute – Seattle P-I

12/1/04 – Critical areas a critical matter – Seattle P-I

Nov. 2004 – Referendum drive aims to fight land restrictions – Seattle Times

King County to enforce critical areas code more strictly, under “Smart Growth”

Environmental Performance Review in Thurston County – talks about their CAC

Article on Snohomish County’s Critical Areas Ordinance

Lewis County braces for endangered steelhead – tougher critical areas ordinances

June 2004 – Property owners discuss Critical Areas Ordinance – Snoqualmie Valley Record

July 2004 – Buffer debate returns – A proposed critical areas ordinance renews debate over the need for buffers to protect fish and wildlife – Bremerton Sun

July 2004 – Open letter to King County about Critical Areas Ordinance – Property Rights research

Court Rulings

Recent Supreme Court ruling on Recall

For more stories about the Critical Areas Codes – type in Critical Areas ordinance into the Citizen Review search engine below:

WA State Supreme Court rules against Critical Areas Ordinance freeze on private property

“It is now undisputed that the county had no authority to deprive residents of the use of their own private property.”


PLF Lauds Supreme Court for “Driving a Stake Through One of the Most Extreme Assaults on Property Rights in the U.S.”

SEATTLE, WA; March 4, 2009: The Washington Supreme Court has let stand an appellate court ruling that invalidated King County’s freeze on vast areas of private property in rural areas. The rule, part of King County’s Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), was struck down by the Washington State Court of Appeals in July, 2008. The county petitioned the state Supreme Court to hear the case, and yesterday the Supreme Court denied the petition.

“The state Supreme Court has served justice by driving a stake through one of the most extreme and outrageous assaults on property rights in the United States,” said Pacific Legal Foundation attorney Brian T. Hodges, who brought the legal challenge to the CAO rule. “It’s now time, once and for all, for King County to stop enforcing this illegal seizure of people’s property and property rights,” said Hodges, who is managing attorney with PLF’s Pacific Northwest office in Bellevue, WA. “Incredibly, the county continued to enforce this unlawful regulation even after the court of appeals struck it down last summer. Bureaucrats cited a Kent resident for clearing blackberry and hazard trees on his property. The County even imposed thousands of dollars of fines against another rural resident. Why? Because he had the audacity to ask King County to hold off on enforcing the unlawful land-freeze regulation until the Supreme Court ruled on the county’s petition for review.”

The CAO rule forced rural property owners in King County to set aside 50 percent to 65 percent of their property in a permanent state of “natural vegetation,” and prohibited building structures or improvements such as a home, barn, or driveway.

“The death of this rule is a great day for King County property owners,” Hodges continued. “It is now undisputed that the county had no authority to deprive residents of the use of their own private property.” PLF is the nation’s leading legal watchdog organization that litigates for property rights in courts across the country. In the CAO challenge, PLF attorneys represent the Citizens Alliance for Property Rights. “The defeat of this draconian regulation is a landmark victory for everyone’s property rights,” said Steve Hammond, president of the Citizens Alliance for Property Rights. “We’re grateful to be able to partner with Pacific Legal Foundation, especially attorney Brian Hodges, in this successful fight against oppressive government.”

The appellate court held that the 65 percent set-aside rule violates a state law prohibiting a “tax, fee or charge” on land use. Case law establishes that this prohibition “applies to ordinances that may require developers to set aside land as a condition of development,” wrote Judge Ronald Cox in a unanimous decision joined by Judge Susan Agid and Judge Anne Ellington. None of the limited exceptions in the law apply, the court noted. For instance, the state’s Growth Management Act does not require CAO’s uncompensated restrictions on landowners’ use of their property.

The Citizens Alliance for Property Rights turned to PLF after the King County Superior Court rejected the grassroots group’s attempt to place the CAO issue on the ballot. Individuals challenging the ordinance include avid gardeners, horse owners, someone who planned to build a home, and another who hoped to build a garage to accompany his single-family residence. All of them had their plans to reasonably use their private property derailed by the CAO.

Specifically, the CAO limited rural landowners with five acres or more to clearing only 35 percent of their property, forcing them to maintain the remaining 65 percent as native vegetation indefinitely. Rural landowners owning less than five acres were allowed to clear only 50 percent of their parcels. Affected landowners had to continue paying taxes on the portion of the property rendered useless by the CAO.

The case is Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights v. Sims.

A visit to the past: One reason Clallam County made the DCD an elected position

Posted 6/22/2015

(Editor’s note:  This letter from 2001 is self-explanatory.  Shortly after, Clallam County, as a Home Rule Charter County, placed a change to the Charter to see if the DCD [Director of Community Development] should be made an elected position instead of an appointed one.  The issue went on the ballot, and the voters said “yes” to an elected, rather than appointed position for the DCD Director – the first and only in the nation so far.  When the next Charter Review Commission convened, the issue was placed on the ballot again – pressed by those who thought the DCD Director should be an appointed “expert”, despite the fact that the elected position had been working quite well.  The second time – the voters AGAIN voted to keep the position elected.  There is a movement afoot to bring it to the ballot a THIRD time by the current Charter Review Commission.  We shall see if that comes to pass. LKP)


Frustrated Clallam County citizen speaks out about extraordinary requirements to place part of his property into a “pre-man” condition as a result of the Critical Areas Code Continue reading

Clallam Shoreline Master Program – Comments and rights

Jan. 19, 2015

SMP [Shorline Master Program] Public Comment (159)

Clallam County Planning Commission

Public Forums

Pearl Rains Hewett


I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Clallam County Planning Commission, for recognizing the need for this additional  step in the SMP Update  process, and voting to provide the public forums  for us.

I have appreciation and respect  the dedicated members of Planning Commission that made the (4) regional, informal, public forums a reality. The choice of evening forums, and  having the presenters go to meeting at the four locations, allowed working people to attend.


I did attend two public forums

Jan. 8, 2015 Port Angeles Public Forum

The presentation was well done and applauded

Jan 14, 2015 Sequim Public Forum Was a mini- presentation


Jan. 8, 2015 Public Forum at the PA Senior Center

It was very encouraging to see our New County Commissioner Bill Peach, our new DCD Director Mary Ellen Winborn, members of the Clallam County Planning Commission and Home Rule Charter Commission  in attendance. It is vital to have our local representative, Involved in, listening to public questions, comments and the many concerns of our local citizens on the SMP Update.




Continue reading

WA State Laws on Huckleberries?

Posted on August 28, 2014 9:51 am by Pearl Rains Hewett Comment

WA State Laws On Huckleberries?

Unbelievable, WA STATE DNR has the nerve to pass laws and stick it’s greedy fingers into

your “HUCKLEBERRY PIE PICKIN” enterprise.

When we were kids, 1950-1960 our family used to go out and PICK WILD BLACKBERRIES to earn money.

WOW, I’d work for a half of day, crawling over logs, sweating, scratched up, bee stung and sunburned … to get one gallon of berries.  

We’d go home, get cleaned up and deliver the FRUITS OF OUR LABOR  to a Local Restaurants that wanted to make Wild Blackberry Pie.


BUT,  It was a really hard way for a  kid to earn $1.50 for school clothes.


Chapter 76.48.060 RCW Dispositions



[2009 c 245 § 23; 2008 c 191 § 1.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.221 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.


WA State DNR SHALL, by hook or by crook, by law, by permit, by cost, by reporting, display of valid registration certificate required, by TAXING,  by restriction, by rule, by road closure, by destroying roads, by the EPA clean water act, by the ESA endangered Species Act, by endangered habitat areas,  by critical areas,  by RV’S use, And, by LOCKED GATES…..


Right down to $$$ permits, rules, reports and  restrictive regulations FOR SOMETHING AS SMALL AS A WILD HUCKLEBERRY!

And, as usual? They are using? WHAT?



[2009 c 245 § 2; 1967 ex.s. c 47 § 2.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.011 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.




[2009 c 245 § 23; 2008 c 191 § 1.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.221 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.


[2009 c 245 § 12; 2008 c 191 § 4; 2005 c 401 § 6; 2000 c 11 § 19; 1995 c 366 § 14.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.111 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.


[2009 c 245 § 13; 2005 c 401 § 9; 1995 c 366 § 9; 1979 ex.s. c 94 § 11; 1977 ex.s. c 147 § 13.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.121 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.


[2009 c 245 § 2; 1967 ex.s. c 47 § 2.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.011 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.



Chapter 76.48.060 RCW Dispositions



76.48.010  Declaration of public interest.

[2009 c 245 § 2; 1967 ex.s. c 47 § 2.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.011 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.

76.48.020  Definitions.

[2009 c 245 § 3; 2008 c 191 § 9; 2007 c 392 § 3; 2005 c 401 § 1; 2000 c 11 § 18; 1995 c 366 § 1; 1992 c 184 § 1; 1979 ex.s. c 94 § 1; 1977 ex.s. c 147 § 1; 1967 ex.s. c 47 § 3.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.021 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.

76.48.030  Unlawful acts.

[2009 c 245 § 14; 2007 c 392 § 4; 1995 c 366 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 94 § 2; 1977 ex.s. c 147 § 2; 1967 ex.s. c 47 § 4.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.131 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.

76.48.040  Agencies responsible for enforcement of chapter.

[2009 c 245 § 19; 1995 c 366 § 3; 1994 c 264 § 51; 1988 c 36 § 49; 1979 ex.s. c 94 § 3; 1977 ex.s. c 147 § 3; 1967 ex.s. c 47 § 5.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.181 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.

76.48.050  Specialized forest products permits — Expiration — Specifications.

[2009 c 245 § 9; 2008 c 191 § 2; 2005 c 401 § 2; 1995 c 366 § 4; 1979 ex.s. c 94 § 4; 1977 ex.s. c 147 § 4; 1967 ex.s. c 47 § 6.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.081 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.

76.48.060  Specialized forest products permits — Required — Forms — Filing.

[2009 c 245 § 4; 2008 c 191 § 3; 2005 c 401 § 3; 1995 c 366 § 5; 1992 c 184 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 94 § 5; 1977 ex.s. c 147 § 5; 1967 ex.s. c 47 § 7.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.031 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.

76.48.062  Validation of specialized forest product permits — Authorized agents.

[2009 c 245 § 10; 1995 c 366 § 15.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.091 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.

76.48.070  Transporting or possessing cedar or other specialized forest products — Requirements.

[2005 c 401 § 4; 1995 c 366 § 6; 1992 c 184 § 3; 1979 ex.s. c 94 § 6; 1977 ex.s. c 147 § 6; 1967 ex.s. c 47 § 8.]
Repealed by 2009 c 245 § 30.

76.48.075  Specialized forest products from out-of-state.

[2005 c 401 § 5; 1995 c 366 § 7; 1979 ex.s. c 94 § 15.]
Repealed by 2009 c 245 § 30.

76.48.080  Contents of authorization, sales invoice, or bill of lading.

[2009 c 245 § 5; 1979 ex.s. c 94 § 7; 1967 ex.s. c 47 § 9.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.041 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.

76.48.085  Purchase of specialized forest products or huckleberries — Required records.

[2009 c 245 § 12; 2008 c 191 § 4; 2005 c 401 § 6; 2000 c 11 § 19; 1995 c 366 § 14.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.111 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.

76.48.086  Records of buyers available for research.

[2008 c 191 § 5; 1995 c 366 § 16.]
Repealed by 2009 c 245 § 30.

76.48.090  When harvesting permit may be used in lieu of sales invoice or bill of lading.

[1967 ex.s. c 47 § 10.]
Repealed by 1979 ex.s. c 94 § 16.

76.48.092  Surrender of copy of specialized forest products permit to permittee following stipulated use — Penalty.

[1979 ex.s. c 94 § 8; 1977 ex.s. c 147 § 14.]
Repealed by 1995 c 366 § 18.

76.48.094  Cedar or specialty wood processors — Records of purchase, possession, or retention of cedar products, salvage, or specialty wood — Bill of lading.

[2009 c 245 § 11; 2005 c 401 § 7; 1979 ex.s. c 94 § 9; 1977 ex.s. c 147 § 11.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.101 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.

76.48.096  Obtaining products from suppliers not having specialized forest products permit unlawful.

[2005 c 401 § 8; 1995 c 366 § 8; 1979 ex.s. c 94 § 10; 1977 ex.s. c 147 § 12.]
Repealed by 2009 c 245 § 30.

76.48.098  Display of valid registration certificate required.

[2009 c 245 § 13; 2005 c 401 § 9; 1995 c 366 § 9; 1979 ex.s. c 94 § 11; 1977 ex.s. c 147 § 13.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.121 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.

76.48.100  Exemptions.

[2009 c 245 § 22; 2005 c 401 § 10; 1995 c 366 § 10; 1979 ex.s. c 94 § 12; 1977 ex.s. c 147 § 7; 1967 ex.s. c 47 § 11.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.211 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.

76.48.110  Violations — Seizure and disposition of products and other items — Disposition of proceeds.

[2009 c 245 § 21; 2008 c 191 § 6; 2005 c 401 § 11; 1995 c 366 § 11; 1979 ex.s. c 94 § 13; 1977 ex.s. c 147 § 8; 1967 ex.s. c 47 § 12.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.201 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.

76.48.120  False, fraudulent, forged, or stolen specialized forest products permit, sales invoice, bill of lading, etc. — Penalty.

[2009 c 245 § 15; 2008 c 191 § 7; 2003 c 53 § 373; 1995 c 366 § 12; 1979 ex.s. c 94 § 14; 1977 ex.s. c 147 § 9; 1967 ex.s. c 47 § 13.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.141 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.

76.48.130  Penalties — Affirmative defense.

[2009 c 245 § 16; 2007 c 392 § 1; 1995 c 366 § 13; 1977 ex.s. c 147 § 10; 1967 ex.s. c 47 § 14.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.151 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.

76.48.140  Disposition of fines.

[2009 c 245 § 18; 2005 c 401 § 12; 1977 ex.s. c 147 § 15.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.171 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.

76.48.150  Department to develop specialized forest products permit/education material.

[2009 c 245 § 24; 2005 c 401 § 13.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.231 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.

76.48.200  Assistance and training for minority groups.

[2009 c 245 § 25; 2008 c 191 § 8; 1995 c 366 § 17.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.241 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.

76.48.210  Sale of raw or unprocessed huckleberries — Requirements.

[2009 c 245 § 23; 2008 c 191 § 1.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.221 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.

76.48.900  Severability — 1967 ex.s. c 47.

[1967 ex.s. c 47 § 15.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.905 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.

76.48.901  Severability — 1977 ex.s. c 147.

[1977 ex.s. c 147 § 16.]
Decodified pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 31.

76.48.902  Severability — 1979 ex.s. c 94.

[2009 c 245 § 27; 1979 ex.s. c 94 § 17.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.906 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.

76.48.910  Saving — 1967 ex.s. c 47.

[2009 c 245 § 28; 1967 ex.s. c 47 § 16.]
Recodified as RCW 76.48.907 pursuant to 2009 c 245 § 29.

This entry was posted in Economic Impact, FACTS are troublesome things, Free Enterprise? Supply and Demand?, How Stupid are They?, How Stupid do they think we are?, Learning From History?, Legislated Economic Oppression, Politically Motivated, Public Access to Public land, The We’s who WANT, What You Want? And What You Get?. Bookmark the permalink.Edit

Continue reading

Opt-out bill hailed as first sign GMA could be eliminated

by Jeff Rhodes
The Olympia Report

Posted 3/17/2014

Property rights advocates are hailing a bill passed overwhelmingly by the Washington State Senate on Tuesday as potentially the first crack in the Growth Management Act dam.

Passed by the Legislature in 1990, the GMA requires state and local governments to manage Washington’s growth by identifying and protecting critical areas and natural resource lands, designating urban growth areas, preparing comprehensive plans and implementing them through capital investments and development regulations. Continue reading

Citizen’s group challenging GMA ruling in San Juan County

Posted 10/8/2013

by Jeff Rhodes
for The Olympia Report


Members of a local citizens group have filed an appeal in Superior Court of recently adopted updates to San Juan County’s Growth Management Act, claiming their aim is to block development entirely rather than address the potential impact of specific projects.


San Juan County, WA – Believing that the San Juan County Growth Management Board failed to address several critical and fatal flaws in its December 2012 Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), both Common Sense Alliance and the Taggares Co. on Wednesday filed petitions for review of the board’s decision in Superior Court.

The court will be asked to stay the Growth Board order to remove the pressure of any compliance deadline.

At issue is whether the CAO was written in such a way as to address the effects of of specific development — as the law requires — or as an obstacle to all development. Continue reading

Guest Editorial: Why is Ocean Science Missing in the SJC’s BAS?

Posted 8/12/2013

as printed in The Trojan Heron

San Juan Island, WA – My wife and I came to San Juan Island in 2009 to enjoy the wonderful ambiance of these Islands.   Like many friends and neighbors, we are environmentally oriented–I having retired from 40 years of ocean technology work, and she a long career in public relations.   We both are alarmed by San Juan County’s recent CAO [Critical Areas Ordinance] developments and public disclosures–her from a public information perspective, and I from an ocean sciences point of view.  Continue reading

Property Rights Are Not Secure in Washington State


By Preston Drew, President,
Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights

Posted 7/6/2013


In 2008 the Washington State Court of Appeals threw out the most controversial section of the 2004 King County Critical Areas Ordinance, which was a provision that called for the set aside of as much as 65% of a rural landowner’s property when applying for a land use permit. The Supreme Court then refused to hear King County’s appeal, thus rendering the Appeals Court decision settled law. Yet the King County administration refuses to change the code to reflect the Appeals Court decision. When queried recently the reply was “Oh, we just don’t enforce that clause”.

Why? Aren’t county officials obligated to have the code reflect the law? Continue reading

Tiny counties seek exemption from Growth Management Act

February 9, 2013

By Jeff.Rhodes
The Olympia Report

Washington state lawmakers on Friday grappled with the question of whether the counties with little history — or prospect — of growth should be held to the same standards as their larger brethren under the state’s Growth Management Act.

Enacted in 1990 and 1991, the GMA is the comprehensive land-use planning framework for city and county governments in Washington state. The law establishes numerous requirements for local governments, including:

• adopting a countywide planning policy;
• adopting ordinances to protect areas designated as critical environmental areas;
• designating urban growth areas and directing future growth into those areas; and,
• adopting a comprehensive plan and regulations to implement that plan within four years.

Continue reading

Ecology’s Q&A session in Sequim about water ‘rule’ leaves many unanswered questions


By Sue Forde
for Citizen Review Online

January 17, 2013 – Sequim, WA – Approximately 120 citizens attended a meeting sponsored by the Washington State Dept. of Ecology and elected and staff members of Clallam County to review and field questions about the new so-called “Dungeness Water Rule” which took effect on Jan. 2, 2013.  The meeting was held on Jan. 17, 2013 at the John Wayne Marina near Sequim, starting at 4 p.m.

DCD [Department of Community Development] Director Sheila Roark-Miller moderated the meeting, with Tom Shindler, permits center manager for the county, and several other county employees present.  Roark-Miller introduced Sally Toteff, Regional Director of the WA State Department of Ecology (DOE), who commented that the people who showed up tonight “shows that you’re ‘ready to soak up information’ about the water plan.”  Others from the agency were Bob Barwin, Mike Gallagher, regional supervisor, Ann Wessell, along with Amanda Cronin and Susan Adams, from the Washington Water Trust (WWT). Later, Anne Soule and Andy Brastad were introduced, who both work for the County.

Of special concern are the areas shown on the “water plan” map.  Depending on the designated area on the map, water use for new wells is being limited to indoor use only, or no water at all in some areas.  People drilling new wells will be required to pay a “mitigation fee”, starting at $1,000, plus pay to install a meter on their well, to be “allowed” to use up to 150 gallon per day (gpd) of water, indoors only.  Previously, a property owner fell under the “exempt well” status, where no such requirements existing.  The WA State Department of Ecology has been pressing for the water restrictions for almost 20 years, and the people have managed to hold it back – until now.  The slideshow presentation by the County can be seen here: County water rule presentation.

Barwin stated that the DOE will be funding the Washington Water Trust (WWT) to “negotiate and acquire water rights from the Dungeness Water Users [Sequim-Dungeness Agricultural Water Users Association]”, who will purchase easements and equipment with the monies they collect from new water users.  “For the ‘customers’ of this program, we’re trying to keep it simple,” he said. This “service”, he said, will determine whether a water use is a “new” use, subject to the new Rules, or not.

Cronin (WWT) said, “We went over the mitigation packages; there are 3 packages we’ll be offering right now – the prices are there in nice round numbers.”  She said “you need to record your mitigation certificate; it’s non-transferrable and will stay with the land.”  The mitigation certificates are available now for applicants with pending projects, she said.  There will also be a “mitigation option”, where a payment of 25% of the indoor mitigation can be paid.  That fee “could” be “partially” applied toward the final mitigation certificate, she stated.  The “option” would be good for year 2, 3 or 4, and a portion might be refundable, for example, $150, $100 or $50, depending on the number of years.  “There may be some price adjustment,” she said.

Tom Shindler said that the role of the permit center is an “ongoing relationship”. He added that the county would “go to Ecology for the complex questions”.  He reviewed the county website ( as to where to seek information about the various layers of regulations on a piece of property.  “Every parcel is tagged on the map,” he said, “and we are going to add tags as certificates are issued.”

“We have a ‘product’ called ‘project review’ to outline the requirements on a property, Shindler stated.  The county planning department will “coordinate all the permit requirements”.  They will send the mitigation certificate request to Washington Water Trust, who in turn will review and then issue the certificate.  It is returned by email, and must then be signed, notarized and recorded.

“Don’t drill your well first; you may be in a Group A system”, Shindler said.  “We don’t know everything yet.”  Building permit requirements include road approach, drain ditch permit, critical areas review, septic permit, potable water availability (including quantity, quality and legality), and a water system or a well.

The question was raised by an audience member, “Who determines what is timely and reasonable?”  Shindler replied that a “year” is “timely.

He pointed out that the cost to connect to a water system is estimated to cost 1-1/2 to 2 times the cost of drilling a well.

Pearl Rains-Hewett of Port Angeles commented that our county is going to be doing all the work.   “It’s a money deal,” she said, adding, “Ecology sucks.”  The 71-year-old stated that the US Constitution is on her wall.  “Is Clallam County still in the U.S.?  Where are we living now?” she asked.  She talked about the problems on the Skagit River with Ecology.  “Has Ecology learned anything from the debacle in Skagit?” she wanted to know.

The DOE department director answered that the results with the Swinomish Tribe are still unknown.  Kittitas County needs to plan ahead to be sure people can develop their property “for your use and future generations”, he said. The State Supreme Court case is pending right now.

Karen Pritchard asked whether mitigation water is available now. “No” was the response.  “When might they be ready?” she wanted to know.  Cronin said the applications for indoor water should be available in “a week or two.” If in the “green” area on the map, mitigation projects with irrigation will “probably” will be selling outdoor packages in the summer, Barwin said.

Pritchard then asked, “After the salaries and monies are paid, where is the remainder of the money [collected from users] going?”

Cronin said they have to “move water” to the site; there is no “excess” money; it covers the cost for the “exchange.”

More questions were raised about the financial aspects of the WWT.  With the first 100 permits, what estimate of turnaround time, and what is the cost to the WWT?  Cronin responded that there is an “annual work plan”, a “local advisory board”, and “tax statements are available.”

Annie O’Roarke from the Builder’s Association asked whether there is “due process required”.  “How many packages can outdoor water purchase for a parcel – for example, 5 acres?”  “Just one per parcel,” Cronin responded, no matter what the size of the parcel.

“Do these packages apply to commercial projects?” one person asked.  Cronin said it “depends on the type of commercial business, domestic – industrial/manufacturing not covered.  The WWT will work on a case-by-case basis”, she continued. “There will be custom packages, which amounts only for indoor use.”

One person posed the question about the use of water if there are 8 foster children in a home, where definitely more than 150 gallons per day would be needed.  Shindler responsed that those packages are mitigation packages, “these numbers represent averages”; the program is “averaged out”, and that “not every person is limited to 150 gallons per day.”  He added that “adjustments may be made in the future – we’ll adjust over time if we need to.”

O’Roarke wanted a clarification: “So there is no personal ramification if a household is using 400 gallons per day?” she asked.  Shinder said, “If your use is consistent, a variation on the same question – you’re over 150, you’re fine.  If you ‘add’ a use – like a garden – that’s ‘not’ fine.”  He added that “Metering informs us, ‘are the averages correct’ – not for individual accountability.”

Mike McAleer said he is currently working with an engineer with a law degree.  He’s wanting a 5 acre parcel, and the property was in the ‘yellow’ area for a few days.  That means, no garden, no fruit trees, etc.  In the Bigfoot area.  Then the map line changed.  There is no county code to change the map – now it’s a different map.  What is the public process to change the mapping?

Roark-Miller said the process is in an advisory board or committee.  “We don’t have to change the code; it is passed down from the State – we have to implement it,” she said.

Shinder added that regarding the map issues, the county had to find out how DOE wanted it defined.  Their original map was from “old data”, it’s now been updated.

One person asked how the subsidized funding woks – is it ‘grant-driven”?  Where does the money go?

McEntire answered that it is event-driven; if more than 100 people want to start houses, the county will be asking the State legislature for additional funding.

Kaj Ahlburg asked how the amounts for mitigation fees were arrived at.  “How are  the amounts to be charged for mitigation arrived at?  At 10% consumptive use, $1,000 for 150  gpd of domestic mitigation corresponds to a cost of $43 million/cfs.  At 90% consumptive use, the additional  $1,000 for a 89 gpd Basic Outdoor mitigation package correspond to a cost of  $8.1 million/cfs for the additional water, and the additional $2,000 for a 200  gpd Extended Outdoor mitigation certificate correspond to a cost of $7.2  million/cfs for the additional water.  The midpoint of Bob Barwin’s estimate of the likely cost to Ecology of  mitigation water in WRIA 18 was about $1.2 million/cfs (or $1,700/acre  foot).  These are markups of between  500% and 3,400%.  Where is the extra  money going?”

Shinder said it’s hard to exactly say how – all the complexity – all the risk.  The buyers get the mitigation; Ecology takes the risks.  It’s not about putting water in a bucket several streams; anyone could have a problem – it covers operations for the long term.

Someone asked, “What about natural recharge?”  Shindler said that they were starting with the small lawn packages.

Ahlburg talked about the visibility to the public; time will tell whether that works out.  He wondered if there is a commitment after a certain amount of time to reassess, and whether the actual revenues and expenses would be available for the public to review.

Cronin stated, “Absolutely.  This is the lowest cost of mitigation in the State of Washington.”

Jeff Monroe of Quilcene asked whether the 150 gpd might be off by two or three times.  Shindler answered that “we’re talking about averages.  This is based on the data in Sequim.”

Someone said that there are a lot of people who don’t even know about this meeting.

Roark-Miller said “I hear your concern about the 150 gpd.”

Shindler said, “Our behind-the-scenes debiting is a program management problem – using the metering.”

Roark-Miller added that the market price may change, so the price for the mitigation certificate may change as well.

“Once you reassess, what’s your next move, now that you have your foot in the door?” one person wanted to know.  What is your flow currently?  What penalties for noncompliance?  Can you shut off people’s water?  Are there fines?

Barwin responded that “if you overuse – use up the mitigation program, cost will likely rise. We will look at the average use.” He added, “If you use 175 gpd, Ecology will not consider that a violation.”  A violation could result in fines up to $5,000 a day; and you could have your water ‘curtailed’, he said.

One person said, “Neighbors against neighbors?”

Dick Pilling said, “I’m always a little leery when government comes to ‘help’ me.  Can we use storage tanks to capture water?”

Roark-Miller responded, “With a building permit.”  There are restrictions on water caught and stored.

Christina Nelson-Gross asked about mitigation for final plats.  Under the subdivision code, she said, it is required that water is “available”.  She referenced the JZ Knight case.  According to RCW 58.17, water must be found at the time of approval.  Now we have to pay for mitigation.

Carol Johnson asked by what authority does the WWT act as the “water bank.”

Jim McEntire said the county had a grant from DOE during the water rule.

Barwin said the WWT has been in business for 12 years, and has been working with Ecology.

Johnson then asked how the WWT became the “water bank” throughout Washington State.  DOE is the authority which took on the WWT.  It’s in Walla Walla and here; are there other water banks across Washington?  How about Skagit?

The response was that Skagit does not have a water bank.

Johnson asked, “For outdoor water, what constitutes a change in use?  A lawn to a garden?  Horses to llamas?”

Barwin said “no.”

Roark-Miller said “If you have a home that you are watering when you sell, and the person who buys it wants to build a mother-in-law building or addition, that would be a change of use.”

“What science was used for the yellow part of the map?” asked one member of the audience.  “What value was assigned by DOE for the value of the property to go down?”

Shindler responsed that it was his “best professional judgment for the lines on the map”.  The science, he said, was “hydrology by modeling.”

“Are the lines on the map for all time?” queried one person.  Shindler responded, “No, just for this year.  We are working with other ‘partners’ to “expand the green areas”.

Barwin said the “numbers are not readily available.  The cost benefit analysis has to do with where “we think the growth will be.”

Rick Rose asked how DOE established mitigation requirements.  “What number was used for all the ‘exempt’ wells?, he queried.

Shindler said they didn’t look at existing wells.  They used the information from gages in the river. The mitigation program was built on 150 gpd and 10% consumption.  Irrigation, he said, is at 90% evaporation with a garden or a lawn.

The focus returned to the WWT.  Greg McCarry asked “What can the public do for oversight?”

Cronin responded that there is an “advisory council.”

McCarry pressed on.  “How do we see the books?  Are the meetings public?  Who’s on the advisory council?” he wanted to know.  “Can I accumulate the minutes I save in the winter for summer use?  We get roughly 9 minutes of watering time under the “Rule””.  You said earlier you are not going to enforce the amount of water used?  “Are we to take your word for that?”

Marguerite Glover said that Bob Barwin told us we could buy mitigation for the property.  Now tonight, we can’t.  “Why can’t we buy mitigation now?  Why are there so many things we don’t know about?  Why wasn’t this map [she held up a DOE water rule map] available?”

Shindler said, “The map was available.”  Glover then pointed out that a “different” map was available for the public to view at the public hearings than is now being used.

Shindler stated the change in the map was a “mistake.”

A woman asked “Why do we need a building permit for our well?  We just want to raise cattle on our property.”  Shindler told her she needs to go directly to the Water Exchange (WWT) for agricultural use.  “When you build, you’ll have to get another mitigation permit.”

“For agricultural use, what will it cost?” she asked.  “Can we even get it?”

Susan said it’s done on a case-by-case basis, and has no ballpark of the cost, if they even allow water usage.

Cherie Kidd wanted to know about Ecology’s enforcement action.  “Where can we view this information on the website?”  What protocols to monitor the Rule; can the Rule be abandoned, if so, what is the timeline?

Tom (DOE) answered that she can look at RCW 90.03.600 and 605 for information about enforcement.  “There are other scattered authorizations for enforcement,” he said.  He added that the Dungeness River Management Team would review the conditions and reconvene another group if there is a controversy about the set flow.  It’s currently set for 105 cfs flow; we’ll talk about a higher flow once we get there.

Mrs. Cameron asked why WWT is no longer working in Walla Walla.  The response from Ecoogy was that they were paid to run the bank for two years; it is being turned over to the county.

It was asked about the cost of the meter that will be required when any new “use” takes place. Tom responded that a meter runs around $250 plus the cost of installation.  The going rate is approximately $95 per hour for labor.

Tom Martin from PUD said the water rights will “run out in about five years”.  He wanted to know how future customers will work through the water exchange after the water rights run out.

Commissioner Jim McEntire has stated repeatedly that there is no water crisis on the North Olympic Peninsula.

You can access the State Department of Ecology’s website re: the water rule here:

See a list of questions raised by individuals which may or may not have been answered adequately by the DOE and county staff: WRIA 18 WATER EXCHANGE QUESTIONS

Stories by the Sequim Gazette about the watershed plan – click here

Previous stories about the watershed plan as posted in the Citizen Review Online – click here

The WA State Department of Ecology’s take on “Sustainable Development”

What IS Sustainable Development?  Watch this 20 minute video to see how it will affect YOU.

Property owners air grievances with Growth Management Act

By Jeff Rhodes
The Olympia Report

January 21, 2013

Judging from the parade of witnesses testifying on Friday before the House Local Government Committee in Olympia, many Washington residents would dispute the Wikipedia definition of Washington state’s Growth Management Act.

According to the online encyclopedia, “Rather than centralize planning and decision-making at the state level, the GMA built on Washington’s strong traditions of local government control and regional diversity.

“The GMA,” the narrative explains, “established state goals, set deadlines for compliance, offered direction on how to prepare local comprehensive plans and regulations and set forth requirements for early and continuous public participation. Within the framework provided by the mandates of the Act, local governments have many choices regarding the specific content of comprehensive plans and implementing development regulations.”

In the view of those speaking at Friday’s hearing, however, the impetus of the GMA is anything but local.

“If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, the GMA is a freeway,” said Glen Morgan, property rights manager for the Olympia-based Freedom Foundation. “I would recommend repeal of the GMA and sending decisions on land-use policy back to the local level, where they belong.” Continue reading

County increases buffers to development near streams

By Steven Friederich
The Daily World


MONTESANO, WA — On a split vote, the Grays Harbor County commissioners approved changes to the county’s critical areas ordinance, which increases the “buffers” land owners must leave between development and

A rural area near the Chehalis or Wynooche rivers would have had to leave a 50-foot buffer under the old rules. But, under the newly-adopted rules, that buffer is increased to 150 feet.

Gone also are the old permitting rules under the critical areas ordinance that allowed a single-residential home to be treated differently than a major industrial site. Now, all applications are treated the same with identical buffers. Continue reading


By Lois Krafsky-Perry
Citizen Review Online

(Ed Note:  Written first in 2001, this look at the Olympic Peninsula in Washington State is a good reference point to what has been happening here and in other places over the years.)

Clallam County, WA – 6/28/01 – The North Olympic Peninsula is gripped with alarm, while citizens continue with their daily plans of building, remodeling, and simply living.

Something is different, and most tax-paying citizens do not realize what it is until they apply for permits with county planners.

Looming in front of the unexpected applicants is a list of specifications that would make their forefathers wipe their brows in dismay.

That list is joined together with something called the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO). Not only is this an onerous ordinance but, suddenly a team of non-elected bureaucrats have leaped over the rules of county government (The Home Rule Charter) and are making demands that many of their elite don’t understand. Since their demands by- pass reason and logic, and play upon the whimsical perceptions of the latest designer, most ordinary citizens do not have a clue about what is happening to their beloved community.

Long before Ernest Callenbach’s books, “Ectopia”, and “Ectopia Emerging,” an extensive appetite for control was calculated by a diverse legion of schemers; and this new way of thinking was developed. Continue reading

Wild Olympics Part I: Ideas run ‘wild’ around Olympics

By Martha M. Ireland – Column for May 18, 2012 – Peninsula Daily News

Posted June 10, 2012

Part I of II.

Olympic Peninsula, WA – IT’S HARD TO ARGUE with the contention that Olympic Peninsula wilderness should be preserved and protected from development.

U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks and Sen. Patty Murray signed on to the Wild Olympics Campaign last year. In the congressional version, dubbed the “Path Forward on Olympic Watersheds Protection,” the proposed National Park expansion was scaled back from 37,000 acres to about 20,000 acres.

At a public meting in Grays Harbor last week, congressional staff assured proponents that Dicks and Murray will continue to push for higher levels of protection, and attempted to placate opponents with news that land acquisition has been dropped from the proposal.

Backing off from park expansion is understandable.

Olympic National Park currently encompasses 922,650 acres—nearly 1,500 square miles—from the Hood Canal view-shed to the Hoh Rainforest, plus 64 miles of Pacific coastline.

Olympic National Park, Olympic National Forest, state-managed Trust Lands and private and tribal timberlands cover more than 90 percent of Clallam County’s 1,754 sq. miles.

Under current designations, all other land uses in Clallam County—cities, homes, businesses, industry, public infrastructure and agriculture—jockey for space on the remaining less-than-175 sq. miles. Minus, of course, areas restricted by critical areas, shoreline and other burgeoning regulations.

Jefferson County has at least as large a percentage of its land base tied up in Olympic National Park and forest. The park and forests also cover significant portions of Grays Harbor and Mason counties.

A glance at the map should convince everyone that the Olympic Peninsula simply does not have any capacity for more parkland.

Nevertheless, in this the latest chapter in the long history of Olympic preservation, Wild Olympics advocates bemoan the “loss” of what they hoped to capture, and double down on their demand for higher levels of “protection” for what is already protected.

Protected it is:

  • Pres. Grover Cleveland created the Olympic Forest Reserve in 1897.
  • Pres. Theodore Roosevelt declared alpine and sub-alpine Mount Olympus a National Monument in 1909.
  • Pres. Franklin Delano Roosevelt visited in 1938 to sign legislation that expanded the protected area and gave it the further protection of national park status.
  • Olympic National Park was declared an International Biosphere Reserve in 1976 and a World Heritage Site in 1981.
  • In 1988, Congress designated 95 percent of the park as the Olympic Wilderness.

The Pacific Ocean off Olympic National Park’s coastal beaches became Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary in 1994. The sanctuary encompasses 3,189 square miles, and overlays the Flattery Rocks, Quillayute Needles and Copalis Rock National Wildlife Refuges.

Much of the 633,677-acre Olympic National Forest, which surrounds the park, is also designated wilderness, leaving a tiny remnant available for tightly regulated logging.

State-managed trust lands and tribal and privately-owned timberland make up the majority of the non-federal land on the peninsula.

The state-managed lands were specifically set aside to generate revenue to support local government and schools. Together with private timberlands, they were intended to be harvested and replanted in rotation, producing sustainable yields forever.

However, in 1994, timber production was slashed by 95 percent, as a result of the Northwest Forest Plan, which was adopted in the name of preserving spotted owl habitat.

Ever since, the once-working forests have been producing about 5 percent as much timber as they previously generated, with comparable curtailment of revenue and jobs.

Logging has always been prohibited within the park and is now severely restricted outside the park.

Zoning adopted under the state Growth Management Act protects virtually all private forestland in the region from conversion to non-forest uses.

The Elwha River dams have just been torn down and there is zero possibility of more dams being built on the Olympic Peninsula, in or out of the park.

Still, cries for more protection echo like the howl of wolves under a full moon.

Actually, with all the “protection” now in place, the only truly threatened resources on the Olympic Peninsula are private property and the dwindling remnants of working forestland.

Click here to read Part II of this series.

Oregon candidate exposes social, economic catastrophe caused by federal control in Josephine County

by Liz Bowen
Pie N Politics

February 26, 2016

An Open Letter to Presidential Candidates from Josephine County, Oregon

By Toni Webb, candidate for Commissioner of Josephine County

TO: Candidates running for President of the United States

This letter is to inform you of the struggles faced by the people of Josephine County, Oregon, due to ongoing problems with the federal government’s control of our public land, including our once-productive forests. Bad policies and misguided management by federal agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management, have left our rural county economically and socially devastated. I hope that you, as candidates for President of the United States, will seriously consider why the effort to transfer the ownership and control of public lands back to western states, like Oregon, is so critical to our survival. Continue reading

U.S. Representative Kilmer – Champion of Nature?

by Pearl Rains Hewett
Behind by

Posted 10/21/2015

 Rep Derek Kilmer Champion of Nature?”

Experts are often fallible, so expert advice should be examined carefully

Published 16 October 2015


“Experts must be tested, their biases minimized, their accuracy improved, and their estimates validated with independent evidence. Put simply, experts should be held accountable for their opinions.”

While many governments aspire to evidence-based policy, the researchers say the evidence on experts themselves actually shows that they are highly susceptible to “subjective influences” — from individual values and mood, to WHETHER THEY STAND TO GAIN OR LOSE FROM A DECISION — and, while highly credible, experts often vastly overestimate their objectivity and the reliability of peers.


Fallible by definition: adjective. (of persons) liable to err, especially in being deceived or mistaken. 2. liable to be erroneous or false; not accurate: fallible information.

—————————————————————————————— Continue reading

Shoreline Master Plan: What has Clallam County got to lose?

by Pearl Rains-Hewett

Posted 3/21/2015

RCW 90.58.290
Restrictions as affecting fair market value of property.
The restrictions imposed by this chapter shall be considered by the county assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property.
[1971 ex.s. c 286 § 29.]



Just Water Alliance fights for water rights

from Just Water Alliance

Posted March 5, 2015

The Just Water Alliance,  a non-partisan group of citizens, farmers and landowners that demand an open, fair and transparent water planning process in the Skagit River watershed, is urging folks to pay attention and support the following bills:

As posted on their website:

1)  Request Support for Senate Bill 5801 (by Senator Pearson) – “The legislature finds that there is a critical need to establish a single purpose agency to administer Washington’s water resource laws and that the agency be directly accountable to the voters of this state.”

If passed, the bill would create a new water commission, thereby terminating the Department of Ecology’s role as manager of our State’s water supply. A public hearing was held by the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Water & Rural Economic Development at 8am on Feb. 10th. Unfortunately, due to such short notice, we were unable to get to Olympia in time to testify. However, Tom Loranger, Ecology’s Water Resources Director, protested vehemently, as did lobbyist Bruce Wishart who obviously hasn’t paid attention to Ecology’s sorry history regarding water resources management practices during the past two decades. Continue reading

WA State: Bills Affecting Property Rights Weekly report

Feb. 16, 2015
goto CAPR WEB site

Washington Legislative Bills Weekly Update

Another busy week in Olympia with hearings taking place on many bills effecting your property rights. (Thus we have a very long report today) Use the links below to contact committee members and your legislators on the bills important to you.


Bills before the Washington Legislature Affecting Property Rights
Full Weekly Report February 16, 2015
NEW Bill
HB 2046 Streams, definition in SMA
CAPR Recommends DO PASS CAPR rating = 10 (Outstanding) Impact is Critical
Establishes a definition of “streams” in the Shoreline Management Act to mean naturally occurring bodies of periodic or continuously flowing water contained within a channel.Excludes certain water features from the definition of “streams,” including artificially constructed waterbodies, hydroelectric canals, and natural channels or swales that would normally be dry, but for the presence of irrigation and irrigation return water. Continue reading

Tharinger, Greisamer debate at Sequim forum

Posted 8/18/2014

Tharinger, Greisamer debateCandidates for State Legislator debated at a forum held Sunday, August 17 at the Sequim Senior Center sponsored by the League of Women Voters (LWV).

There were approximately 50 people present to listen to Home Rule Charter District 1 candidates introduce themselves, and hear Dr. Tom Greisamer and incumbent Steve Tharinger debate the issues.

In a nutshell, Tharinger favors more taxes to cover an ever-rising budget at the state level, while Greisamer believes there is enough money already, and commonsense adjustments need to be made, especially in the bureaucracies. Continue reading

Fears of EPA ‘land grab’ create groundswell against water rule

The Hill

Posted 7/2/2014

Lawmakers are up in arms over an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposal that they fear could give federal officials expansive new powers over private property and farmland.

The EPA is seeking to redefine what bodies of water fall under the agency’s jurisdiction for controlling pollution. The scope of the final Clean Water Act (CWA) rule is of critical importance, as any area covered would require a federal permit for certain activities.The rule is facing a groundswell of opposition from lawmakers, who fear the EPA is engaged in a “land grab” that could stop farmers and others from building fences, digging ditches or draining ponds. Continue reading

Improving the Endangered Species Act for the 21st century

Opinion by Reps. Doc Hastings and Cynthia Lummis
for Daily Caller

Posted 3/13/2014

Over forty years ago, Congress passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) with the noblest of intentions – conserve and recover wildlife facing preventable extinction. This is a moral obligation on which we can all agree. But with a species recovery rate of only two percent, the ESA has proven to be ineffective at protecting truly imperiled species and has unnecessarily hurt people’s livelihoods in the process. We can protect endangered species without unduly burdening the American people, but to do so we need a stronger, more effective ESA. Continue reading

Editorital: A War on Wild

Editorial series by Pearl Rains-Hewett

Posted 1/31/2014

Part 1:

There is a time to be silent and a time to speak

 A time to keep and a time to throw away

 There is a time for every activity

 Now is the time for many of us to speak of a War On Wild and keep our rights.

Is it your time?

We are American citizens, we are private property owners, we are the stewards of our pristine forest land, it is our heritage, it is who we are and what we do, it is our way of life, it is our source of employment and income, it provides our shelter, the roof over our heads, food on our tables and heat from our hearth, indeed it has been  the  lot of our lives for many generations of local  families.

So I saw that there is nothing better for a person than to enjoy their work, because that is their lot That each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil Continue reading

Sage grouse plan impacts ranchers disproportionately, OCA says

A new plan to protect the sage grouse in eastern Oregon would disproportionately affect ranchers in certain designated areas. The proposal would cut grazing by about 118,000 acres in the region.

Cattle grazing reductions likely in some areas under proposal

By Mateusz Perkowski
Capital Press

Posted 12/12/2013

Some Oregon ranchers would be disproportionately harmed by grazing restrictions under a proposed plan to protect sage grouse, according to leaders of a state cattlemen’s group.

The U.S. Bureau of Land Management recently offered a draft plan for managing the greater sage grouse, a candidate for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act.

The agency’s “preferred alternative” under the plan would prohibit grazing on nearly 118,000 acres in eastern Oregon. Continue reading

Fired up over foolish federal forest policies – ‘No logging’ doctrine leaves a tinderbox

by Rick Manning

Posted 9/15/2013

Forest fires are raging throughout the western United States as they often do this time of year, and just as thunder follows lightning, we can expect to hear environmentalists and their political shills blame global warming for the tempest.

In fact, a quick Internet search of the terms “forest fires” and “climate change” provides a cascade of responses ranging from attacking California Representative Dana Rohrabacher for dismissing the concept that forest fires and global warming are related to detailed explanations of how the purportedly warming atmosphere is creating drought-like conditions. Continue reading

“Spatial” planning on Washington’s Pacific Coast

Before you begin reading the commentary below, a few terms might need to be defined:

Spatial planning, according to Wikipedia, refers to the methods used by the public sector to influence the distribution of people and activities in spaces of various scales. Discrete professional disciplines which involve spatial planning include land useurbanregionaltransport and environmental planning. Other related areas are also important, including economic and community planning. Spatial planning takes place on local, regional, national and international levels and often result in the creation of a spatial plan.

There are numerous definitions of spatial planning. One of the earliest definitions comes from the European Regional/Spatial Planning Charter[1] (often called the ‘Torremolinos Charter’), adopted in 1983 by the European Conference of Ministers responsible for Regional Planning (CEMAT): “Regional/spatial planning gives geographical expression to the economic, social, cultural and ecological policies of society. It is at the same time a scientific discipline, an administrative technique and a policy developed as an interdisciplinary and comprehensive approach directed towards a balanced regional development and the physical organisation of space according to an overall strategy.”

Numerous planning systems exist around the world. Especially in Northwestern Europe spatial planning has evolved greatly since the late 1950s.

 “Ocean Acidification” is another Agenda 21 term for the supposedly “endangered” oceans with a changing pH balance. According to Science and Public Policy, this is just another “global warming” scare to achieve control of the people.  See the Science and Public Policy story here.  (Or down the pdf here – acid_test.)







Comment by Pearl Rains Hewett

Posted 7/26/2013

Written comments will be accepted until 5 pm, September 23, 2013
Marine Spatial Planning (MSP)
After a long and trying session, Washington lawmakers approved $3.7 million for coastal and marine spatial planning onWashington’s Pacific Coast in their final budget on June 27th 2013.
Washington Coastal Marine Advisory Council (WCMAC) under the executive office of the governor

No MSG, Smart Resistance – Why it is wise to reject a National Heritage Area

by Cindy Alia
from Citizens Alliance for Property Rights

Posted 7/6/2013

“What is a National Heritage Area?” Good question indeed and one that is commonly asked in almost all documents I have read in the feasibility study phase of creating such an area.

The Mountains to Sound Greenway National Heritage Area is one where this question is addressed. It is difficult and time consuming to go online and find a document that addresses the heritage area planned by this benevolent NGO. However, I was able to find the document that is the feasibility study of MSG NHA and to see how that question was addressed ( Continue reading

Propagandizing the Plebs: The Common Core Curriculum Meets The GED

By Larissa Atbashian
American Thinker

Posted 5/6/2013

Adult basic education and GED programs, with about 800,000 students taking GED tests each year, serve a segment of society that escaped government schools, including many homeschoolers. But the national propaganda effort called the Common Core Curriculum is spreading its tentacles to them. 

While many may not take the GED seriously, calling it the “Good Enough Diploma,” consider that quite a few homeschoolers take GED tests as a way to cancel out high school attendance requirements and lessen the record-keeping burden on home educators caused by compulsory attendance laws in every state. Continue reading

Tipton hits Forest Forest Service Hit For Extorting Water Rights From Private Owners

Tipton hits Forest Service on water rights – Purgatory’s CEO says federal actions would put resort operations ‘in extreme jeopardy’

By Stefanie Dazio The Durango Herald staff writer

Posted 5/6/2013

WASHINGTON – U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton and two witnesses at a water-rights hearing Thursday bashed the U.S. Forest Service for what they characterized as the agency’s attempts to take away private water rights.

Tipton questioned Geraldine Link, director of public policy for the National Ski Areas Association, and Randy Parker, Utah Farm Bureau Federation’s chief executive officer, about ski-area water rights in a House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water and Power hearing.

The hearing, “Federal Impediments to Water Rights, Job Creation and Recreation: A Local Perspective,” did not include any witnesses from the U.S. Forest Service. Continue reading

New CAO rules not backed by science | Guest Column

By Bob Levinson
for San Juan Journal

JULY 30, 2012 · UPDATED 7:36 PM


San Juan Islands, WA – According to County Councilman Howie Rosenfeld, we now know the council will be passing the Critical Area Ordinance (CAO) by a majority of 5-to-1.

It has been over three years since the San Juan County has been involved with the CAO process. From the start the public has been asking the council and staff “What is the problem” without getting a reasonable answer.

The public, whom you represent and basically work for, deserve an answer from each council member giving us the reasons you are getting ready to pass a more restrictive CAO that will have profound impacts to our county. Continue reading

Skagit Co., WA: Envision Skagit 2060 – RIP?

The Whatcom Excavator
Submitted by a Skagit County contributor

Posted 3/28/2013

On Monday morning, February 25, 2013, a notice was sent out from the Skagit County web server announcing a special ceremony the next day.   The purpose was to celebrate Skagit County’s receipt of the Smart Communities Award from former Governor Gregoire and to recognize the outstanding contributions of over 60 local community leaders in a project that had taken over three years and cost in excess of 1.2 million, most of the amount in tax dollars, in the form of a grant from the EPA.  The county was obligated for an additional third of that, but was able to satisfy the requirement by “in-kind” contributions utilizing paid staff as well as volunteers.   After an intense process of goal setting, obtaining grant money, establishing committees, hiring inspiring speakers, obtaining studies from well paid consultants, conducting local meetings to obtain citizen involvement in predetermined outcomes and drafting a series of recommendations, the project was presented to the public and elevated to the Skagit Council of Governments (SCOG) in April 2012 for consideration and implementation. So, an awards ceremony recognizing the county for its progressive vision and complementing those who played a key role seemed appropriate after the completion of such a long and arduous task.      Continue reading

Open letter to DOE: Does Ecology exceed EPA requirements?

from Pearl Rains Hewett

Posted 1/30/2013

Clouded Waters: A Senate Report Exposing the High – U.S. Senate

 United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

Minority Staff

Released: June 30, 2011


Matt Dempsey (202) 224-9797

Katie Brown (202) 224-2160

Report Online at


With this additional attached documentation, in its entirety
I am again, requesting the WA State DOE to respond to my questions.


Throughout the development of federal water laws it was the responsibility of states to achieve water quality,4 and many of them have continued to go above and beyond EPA’s minimum federal standards. Instead of acknowledging this progress and empowering it.



These rulemakings are not the result of legislation or the outcome of scientific findings. Instead, these are the result of lawsuits by environmentalists and represent changes in long-held EPA positions, making discretionary duties non-discretionary. Additionally, in a rush to regulate, EPA/DOE  is moving ahead without solid science and with no input from the communities who will shoulder the costs.

Continue reading

Environmental group sues over road maintenance

Capital Press

Posted 1/5/2013

An environmental group has accused the U.S. Bureau of Land Management of unlawfully clearing roads in eastern Oregon without studying the effects.

The Oregon Natural Desert Association has filed a legal complaint challenging the agency’s “landscape-scarring mechanical blading, grading, reconstruction and improvement” of 133 miles of roads on public land.

According to the complaint, the agency maintains these roads even though they’re often so overgrown, washed-out or eroded as to be functionally non-existent. Continue reading

New “Water ‘Management’ Rule” by WA State Dept. of Ecology a “travesty”

Public comment for the Local Leaders’ Water Group Meeting
by Marguerite Glover

Posted 12/12/2012

Sequim, WA  – Here is my public comment for the Local Leaders’ Water Group Meeting on the 12th of December. I plan on being there; but, I may have to leave early. I also want to submit my comments about Casselary Creek, separately. Thank you.

It irritates and frustrates me that the main purpose of today’s meeting is to congratulate the Local Leaders and others, for putting into place the Dungeness Water Management Rule.

This Rule penalizes rural landowners who do, or who will, draw water from a well. Not all of th­ose wells capture water that would go to a stream or the River–whether in Summer, or at another time of the year. Many of these rural landowners have small farms that feed them, and/or bring fruits and vegetables to local farmers’ markets. Continue reading

Vilsack gets earful in California town hall meeting – Residents express frustration over loss of jobs for spotted owl

Capital Press

Posted 12/11/2012

WEAVERVILLE, Calif. — More than 200 residents of this spotted owl-weary mountain community crammed into a veterans’ hall Dec. 10 to tell U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack a thing or two about rural America.

Many in a standing-room-only crowd during a two-hour town hall meeting lamented the loss of timber jobs here because of Endangered Species Act protections for the owl and urged the U.S. Forest Service to expedite the thinning of fire fuels from forest floors. Continue reading

Washington Dept. of Ecology restricts water use in Sequim area

Seattle Times

November 26, 2012

It’s hard to imagine a fight over water in western Washington, a region that typically evokes images of rain gear and umbrellas.


Olympic Peninsula, WA – It’s hard to imagine a fight over water in western Washington, a region that typically evokes images of rain gear and umbrellas.

But in the rural Dungeness Valley on the Olympic Peninsula, known for its lavender fields and namesake crabs, the debate has been fierce over how much water land owners, irrigators, Native American tribes and others can use while still keeping enough in streams for threatened fish. Continue reading

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment for non-profit research and educational purposes only. [Ref.]

Search Citizen Review ARCHIVES for keywords, stories


Search Citizen Review
(Current News - from Jan. 2012 to present)

Note about Searching this Website

If you wish to use this website to research by topic or keyword, there are TWO search engines - one for the current stories as posted in our Wordpress format, and the ARCHIVE search engines, which goes back in time to 1999.  Be sure to use both to access stories relative to your search that covers both time periods. - Ed.