Rural Counties Feel Needs Not Met By Gma House Bill Let Small Counties Out Of Land-Use Planning

For some small Washington counties, being bound to the Growth Management Act is like being stuck in a bad marriage without the option of divorce.

The act, while good for urban areas, doesn’t meet the needs of smaller counties, say supporters of House Bill 2542.

The bill would allow rural counties to “divorce” themselves from land-use planning requirements set forth in the GMA, which was passed by the Legislature in 1990.

Gov. Gary Locke said he supports the bill.

“There are counties that have the option of opting in to the Growth Management Act; I think smaller counties should have the option of opting out,” Locke said.

The bill’s prime sponsor, Rep. Joyce Mulliken, R-Ephrata, said the legislation “recognizes that the solution for the large counties is not the same and often causes problems for the smaller counties.”

Under the GMA, fast-growing counties are required to write land-use regulations for protecting farms and forests, wetlands and recreational areas. Urban growth is restricted to areas that have public utilities, roads and other necessary infrastructure.

Several Eastern Washington counties, including Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille and Whitman, would have the option of freeing themselves from growth management requirements if the bill becomes law.

House Bill 2542 defines rural counties as those with 75 percent of their land designated for public or resource use, and that have population densities of 60 or fewer people per square mile.

Supporters of the bill argue that growth management is an unfunded mandate from the state, that its planning time line is too stringent, and that it means a loss of jobs and economic development in the rural areas of counties.

Many consider the GMA an infringement on property rights and local control.

Those who support growth management contend it is beneficial to counties and that good planning is always expensive.

Rep. Bob Sump, R-Republic, a co-sponsor of the bill, said 84.6 percent of the land in Ferry County is held by the government, and that the state shouldn’t dictate what happens to the remainder of the land.

Sump represents the 7th District, which includes Ferry, Stevens and Pend Oreille counties.

“I don’t think the government should tell you what to do with your own land,” he said. Local governments should have the option of following the GMA, but should not be forced, he said.

Sump said the growth management hearings board, which hears petitions on whether requirements are being followed, is a “personal agenda driven appeals board” that “circumvents the will of the people.”

There are three regional growth management hearings boards in Washington, each consisting of three members who are appointed to six-year terms by the governor.

Helen Fancher, president of the Washington State Association of Counties and a Grant County commissioner, said her county couldn’t afford to plan under growth management.

Fancher, who spoke during a public hearing Thursday before the House Government Reform and Land Use Committee, said Grant County budgeted $300,000 this year to comply with growth-management requirements. Grant money from the state to pay for the requirements hasn’t been enough, she said.

Stevens County Commissioner Fran Bessermin said she wants her county cut loose from the GMA because it costs too much in attorneys fees when land-use plans are challenged by citizens or organizations and taken before hearings boards.

“We were assured they wouldn’t become a regulatory body,” Bessermin said.

Supporters of growth management don’t buy most of the arguments made by backers of HB2542.

Steve Wells, assistant director of the Community Trade and Economic Development Department, said more than $50 million has been doled out to counties since the GMA was enacted.

Opting out of growth management won’t rid counties of their problems, he said.

“The formula for solving problems is pretty much the same, so if you opt out of the Growth Management Act you’re going to do pretty much the same thing anyway,” he said.

As for planning deadlines, Wells said as long as counties make a goodfaith effort and make reasonable progress, the state will support them.

“The Growth Management Act brings the county to the table with the cities,” encouraging them to work together, said Gilbert Alverado, planning director for Moses Lake.

, DataTimes The following fields overflowed: BYLINE = Jennifer Lange Staff writer Staff writer Dan Hansen contributed to this report.