|
Rural interests promised a voice in shoreline
talks
By Rob Burns - Daily World Writer OLYMPIA, WA - 9/27/01 - The fight over shoreline regulation is heading to the negotiating table. Rural interests, who rose up against what some called "environmental communism," fear they are once again getting short shrift. But a spokesman for business says private landowners "absolutely" will be part of the process. The state Attorney General's Office, along with the Department of Ecology, the Association of Washington Business and the Washington Environmental Council, agreed Tuesday to negotiate a settlement on the controversial guidelines. The announcement came on the deadline to appeal the state Shoreline Hearings Board's Aug. 27 decision invalidating the regulations that were put into effect last November by Ecology. The decision was considered a victory for rural landowners, businesses and "country mice" lawmakers, who said unelected bureaucrats were making laws that run roughshod over private property rights. Proposed by the Department of Ecology, the negotiations will try to put an end to the misconceptions that all sides have concerning the guidelines, said Sheryl Hutchinson, an Ecology Department spokeswoman. "There's no one at this table who has not been there before," Hutchinson said. "There has been a lot of misinformation on the table that has been hard to get past. We wanted this in order to put everything on the table and resolve our differences without a lengthy court battle. "This is a path that wasn't available to us until now," Hutchinson added, "and we're optimistic that we can work together to provide better protections for the state's shorelines." Doubtful is Doug Camenzind, a Lebam farmer who has been one of the more vociferous critics of the regulations and a plaintiff in the appeal of the rules. He said it appears that one group is missing from these negotiations - private landowners. "It's too soon to tell, but they may just take away all of the rules involving endangered fish and then resubmit the rest," Camenzind said. "I'm not saying that the shoreline doesn't need protection, but there has to be a better way. Private property owners need to be involved in this process in order for there to be a true compromise." Camenzind fought alongside the Association of Washington Business in the appeal. The president of the association, Don Brunell, said Camenzind should be reassured. "Absolutely (private landowners) will be a part of the process," Brunell said this morning. "We have a coalition of 36 local governments and a sizable group of landowners who will have a say in what happens. The process, which is just beginning, will be inclusive rather than exclusive. "Our organization wouldn't stand for them not being at the table with us." The state and other parties had 30 days to decide whether to appeal the Shorelines Hearings Board's decision. All four groups have filed separate appeals to protect their legal standing in the case, said the Attorney General's spokeswoman, Cheryl Reid. Reid added that it is unknown when the appeals will begin to flow through the court system, beginning at the Thurston County Superior Court. Also, if negotiations between the groups fall apart, then they can still pursue their cases in court. The shoreline rules, meant to update the 30 - year - old Shoreline Management Act, were struck down by the independent board, which concluded that Ecology had overstepped its authority. Aimed at reducing erosion, flooding and pollution, the rules Ecology had adopted placed limits on everything from home and dock building to industrial development. The hearings board invalidated the guidelines on the grounds that Ecology illegally tried to incorporate the federal Endangered Species Act into the guidelines without the Legislature's approval. However, the board upheld the department's claim that it had approval to draft tougher shoreline guidelines. 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. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml] |