When Nice people Become Predatory- The 2008 Critical Area Ordinance for Jefferson County Washington

1) The Foundation: What the GMA Actually Requires

Our ordinance itself confirms the legal baseline:

• Counties must adopt CAOs [CAO Append...1559582887 | PDF]

• Must protect critical areas

• Must use“best available science” [CAO Append...1559582887 | PDF]

But critically:

The GMA:

• Sets goals and requirements

• Does NOT prescribe exact standards (buffers, prohibitions, etc.)

• Leaves significant local discretion

2) What Jefferson County CAO Does BEYOND GMA (Key Overreach Areas)

A. “Most restrictive standard always applies”

Code:

“The more protective standards shall apply” [CAO Append...1559582887 | PDF]

Why this matters:

• GMA requires protection → NOT maximum theoretical protection

• This clause forces worst-case stacking

• Eliminates balancing of:

  • property rights

  • economic use

  • practical mitigation

• Should be Replaced with:
  “most appropriate standard based on best available science and site-specific conditions”

B. Total burden of proof on applicant

Code:

“Burden… is upon the applicant” [CAO Append...1559582887 | PDF]

Impact:

• Applicant must:

  • prove no impact

  • fund studies

  • meet undefined thresholds

Note:  GMA requires science—but does not require full burden transfer

 Mitigation option:

• Shift to:

  • shared burden

  • county reliance on existing datasets

  • limit study requirements unless impact threshold triggered

C. “No permit without full compliance” / absolute prohibition

Code:

“prohibited without full compliance” [CAO Append...1559582887 | PDF]

Impact:

• Removes flexibility

• Encourages denial instead of conditioned approval

What the GMA actually allows:

• mitigation sequencing

• reasonable use exemptions

• conditional approvals

Mitigation:

• Replace “full compliance” with:

  • “compliance or approved mitigation plan”

D. Extensive “special report” requirement system

Code:

• Required reports for wetlands, CARA, habitat, geotech, etc. [CAO Append...1559582887 | PDF]

Impact:

• High cost barrier

• Consultant-driven system

• Discretion concentrated in staff review

Note: GMA requires “best available science”
…but does NOT require mandatory consultant reports in all cases

Mitigation:

• Create thresholds:

  • Minor projects → no report required

  • Standardized templates

  • County-provided baseline science

E. Administrator discretionary power

Examples:

• Determines:

  • mapping accuracy

  • need for reports

  • adequacy of mitigation [CAO Append...1559582887 | PDF]

Impact:

• Unelected authority

• Variable outcomes (case-by-case)

Note:  GMA allows local admin—but not arbitrary enforcement

Mitigation:

• Require:

  • clearer decision standards

  • appeal rights expansion

  • objective criteria

F. Buffer system rigidity (major issue)

• Fixed buffer widths (e.g., 100–200 feet streams) [CAO Append...1559582887 | PDF]

• “Wider standard applies” stacking

GMA reality:

• Buffers must reflect best available science

• BUT:

  • can be adjusted for site conditions

  • can use performance-based alternatives

• Mitigation (VERY strong position politically + legally):

• Expand:

  • buffer averaging

  • buffer reduction with mitigation

  • alternative compliance (habitat restoration offset)

G. “No net loss” + cumulative impacts standard

Code intent (implicit across sections):

• Prevent ANY degradation

Problem:

• GMA uses “no net loss” concept—but:

  • interpretation is flexible

  • not absolute prohibition

 Mitigation:

• Define measurable standard:

  • functional equivalency

  • regional mitigation banking

H. Aquifer (CARA) restrictions – especially SIPZ

Examples:

• Prohibition of uses

• Mandatory infiltration

• Public water mandates (Marrowstone Island) [CAO Append...1559582887 | PDF]

Issue:

• Goes beyond minimum GMA into policy choice territory

 Mitigation:

• Allow:

  • engineered alternatives

  • case-by-case hydrogeologic approval

  • phased compliance

3) Key Differences Between Appendix A vs Appendix B (Important)

Appendix B (redline) shows direction of policy:

Trend 1: Stronger language (“shall”, “must”)

• Increased enforcement language [CAO Append...1600456598 | PDF]

 Makes code less flexible, more regulatory

Trend 2: Expanded administrative authority

• Administrator judgement clarified and expanded

Trend 3: More procedural layering

• More conditions on exemptions

• More required documentation

Trend 4: Restricting functional isolation

• Adds limits:

“not allowed in CARA or flood areas” [CAO Append...1600456598 | PDF]

 This removes a key mitigation pathway

 Campaign point:
“Flexibility removed over time”

Trend 5: Increased reporting and mitigation requirements

• More triggers for:

  • geotech review

  • habitat reports

  • hydro studies

4) Where Mitigation/Reform Is MOST LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE

 STRONG (low legal risk)

1. Expand buffer flexibility

2. Limit when special reports are required

3. Clarify administrator discretion

4. Allow alternative compliance (performance-based standards)

5. Streamline exemptions

 MODERATE (defensible with science)

1. Reduce default buffer sizes (if supported by updated science)

2. Modify SIPZ rules

3. Expand reasonable use provisions

 HIGH RISK (likely challenged)

1. Eliminating protection categories

2. Ignoring “best available science”

3. Removing mitigation requirements entirely

4. Weakening endangered species protections

5) I am not proposing  “repealing environmental protection”

Instead:

 “Restoring balance and local control within GMA”
“Making the code science-based, not process-heavy”
“Reducing cost barriers while maintaining environmental protection”

6)  “The Growth Management Act requires us to protect critical areas—but it gives counties flexibility. Jefferson County’s ordinance goes far beyond those requirements by mandating one-size-fits-all buffers, shifting all costs to property owners, and concentrating power in unelected staff. My goal is to keep environmental protection while restoring balance, fairness, and affordability.”

7) Bottom Line

• Our county CAO is legally required

• But its current form is a policy choice—not a mandate

• There is significant room for mitigation and reform

• The strongest areas to act:

  • buffers

  • reports

  • administrative discretion

  • flexibility mechanisms

Below are specific, line‑level code edits we can propose. I’ve structured them so you can:

• see the original language

• see a recommended replacement

• understand why it’s defensible under GMA

• use them directly in policy or ordinance amendments

I’ve focused on the highest‑impact, legally defensible changes.

1) GLOBAL STANDARD – “MOST PROTECTIVE APPLIES”

Current (A §18.22.200(5)):

“the wider and more protective standards shall apply” [CAO Append...1559582887 | PDF]

Replace with:

Plain Text

When critical areas overlap, the administrator shall apply the standard that best protects critical area functions based on best available science and site-specific conditions, while achieving reasonable use of property.

Show more lines

Why:

• Keeps GMA compliance (“best available science”)

• Removes automatic worst-case stacking

• Introduces balancing (legally allowed)

2) ABSOLUTE PROHIBITION LANGUAGE

Current (§18.22.200(3)):

“Land disturbing activities… are prohibited without full compliance” [CAO Append...1559582887 | PDF]

Replace with:

Plain Text

Land disturbing activities within critical areas or buffers shall require compliance with this chapter or an approved mitigation plan that ensures no net loss of critical area functions.

Show more lines

Why:

• Keeps protection

• Enables conditional approvals instead of denial

• Aligns with “no net loss” instead of “zero impact”

3) BURDEN OF PROOF ON APPLICANT

Current (§18.22.220(6)):

“the burden… is upon the applicant” [CAO Append...1559582887 | PDF]

Replace with:

Plain Text

Applicants shall provide reasonable information necessary to demonstrate compliance. The county shall utilize available scientific data and mapping to avoid unnecessary duplication of technical studies.

​

Why:

• Reduces cost burden

• Keeps compliance requirement

• Prevents consultant overuse

4) SPECIAL REPORT REQUIREMENTS (MAJOR COST DRIVER)

Current (§18.22.220(5)):

“administrator may require a special report…” [CAO Append...1559582887 | PDF]

Replace with:

Plain Text

Special reports shall be required only where a proposed activity is reasonably likely to result in significant adverse impacts to a critical area. Minor developments and activities with minimal impact shall not require special reports and may rely on standardized best management practices.

Show more lines

Add new subsection:

Plain Text

The county shall provide standardized mitigation and design templates that applicants may use in lieu of site-specific professional reports.

​

Why:

• Keeps GMA science requirement

• Prevents “report for everything” system

• Politically popular with builders/property owners

5) ADMINISTRATOR DISCRETION

Current (§18.22.210(3)):

“administrator’s determination shall prevail” [CAO Append...1559582887 | PDF]

Replace with:

Plain Text

The administrator’s determination shall be based on documented evidence and subject to appeal under Chapter 18.40 JCC. All determinations shall include written findings referencing best available science or adopted county standards.

​

Why:

• Keeps authority

• Adds accountability + appeal clarity

• Reduces arbitrary decisions

6) BUFFER RIGIDITY – CORE REFORM AREA

Current (§18.22.630 buffers):

(fixed 100–200 ft buffers etc.) [CAO Append...1559582887 | PDF]

Add new flexibility clause:

Plain Text

Buffers may be modified through averaging, reduction, or alternative mitigation where the applicant demonstrates, using best available science, that critical area functions and values will be maintained or improved.

``

Add:

Plain Text

The county shall allow performance-based alternatives, including habitat enhancement, off-site mitigation, or mitigation banking, as substitutes for prescriptive buffer widths.

​

Why:

• Fully allowed under GMA

• Huge economic impact

• Keeps environmental protection (function-based)

7) FUNCTIONAL ISOLATION (REDLINE RESTRICTION ROLLBACK)

Current (B §18.22.270 limit):

excludes CARA, flood, etc. [CAO Append...1600456598 | PDF]

Replace with:

Plain Text

Functional isolation may be applied to all critical area types where a qualified analysis demonstrates that the buffer no longer provides ecological function relative to the protected area.

​

Why:

• Restores flexibility removed in redline

• Focuses on function (science-based)

• Strong defensibility if documented

8) “FULL COMPLIANCE BEFORE PERMIT / OCCUPANCY”

Current (§18.22.220(7)):

no certificate until mitigation complete [CAO Append...1559582887 | PDF]

Replace with:

Plain Text

Final approval may be granted upon provision of financial assurance or bonding for completion of mitigation measures, where appropriate.

​

Why:

• Standard planning practice elsewhere

• Prevents project delays

• Keeps enforcement via bonding

9) EXEMPTIONS – TOO RESTRICTIVE CONDITIONS

Current (§18.22.230(6)):

exemptions must show no impacts, no alternative, etc. [CAO Append...1559582887 | PDF]

Replace key language:

Plain Text

shall not alter, impact, or encroach

​

With:

Plain Text

shall minimize impacts and implement best management practices; minor and temporary impacts may be allowed where restoration occurs.

​

Why:

• Makes exemptions usable in practice

• Still protects resources

10) CARA (GROUNDWATER) – HIGH IMPACT USE PROHIBITIONS

Current (§18.22.330):

outright prohibitions of uses [CAO Append...1559582887 | PDF]

Replace:

Plain Text

shall be prohibited

​

With:

Plain Text

shall be subject to conditional approval based on a hydrogeologic analysis demonstrating no significant adverse impact.

​

Why:

• Keeps protection

• Removes absolute bans

• Allows engineered solutions

11) MARROWSTONE / PUBLIC WATER MANDATE

Current:

“No permit shall be approved if public water cannot be provided” [CAO Append...1559582887 | PDF]

Replace:

Plain Text

Alternative water supply solutions may be approved where a hydrogeologic evaluation demonstrates sustainable yield and no seawater intrusion risk.

​

12) “MOST RESTRICTIVE STANDARD PREVAILS” (GLOBAL RULE)

Current (§18.22.200(6)):

“most protection… shall apply” [CAO Append...1559582887 | PDF]

Replace with:

Plain Text

Where regulations conflict, the county shall apply standards that achieve the objectives of critical area protection while allowing reasonable use, based on best available science.

​

13) ADD A NEW SECTION (IMPORTANT POLITICAL WIN)

New Section Proposal:

Plain Text

18.22.285 – Reasonable Cost and Proportionality

 

Regulations and mitigation requirements imposed under this chapter shall be roughly proportional in cost and scale to the impacts of the proposed development. The county shall avoid imposing unnecessary or disproportionate burdens on property owners where impacts can be effectively mitigated through less restrictive means.

​

14) ADD CLARITY ON “BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE”

New clarification:

Plain Text

“Best available science” shall include consideration of site-specific conditions, peer-reviewed studies, and accepted professional judgment, and shall not rely solely on generalized models or default assumptions.

Show more lines

15) ADD APPEALS SAFEGUARD

Plain Text

All administrative determinations under this chapter shall include written findings and be subject to administrative appeal. Applicants shall have the right to submit independent professional review.

​

FINAL PRIORITY LIST (WHAT YOU SHOULD LEAD WITH)

If you can only push a few:

1. Buffer flexibility (Section 18.22.630)

2. Limit special reports (18.22.220)

3. Remove “most restrictive applies”

4. Clarify admin discretion

5. Allow conditional approvals instead of prohibition

Bottom line for your campaign

These edits allow you to say:

“I am not eliminating the Critical Areas Ordinance. I am bringing it back into alignment with state law—protecting the environment while restoring fairness, property rights, and affordability.”