Local governments have never faced a more crucial economic decision than what they now face with the new stormwater requirements imposed by the Washington State Department of Ecology.
The issue isn’t water quality (the development community supports Ecology’s water quality regulations).
The issue is quantity. The Department of Ecology is mandating local governments adopt new stormwater regulations that require new development and redevelopment of existing sites to detain stormwater at the same rate that occurred prior to European settlement.
This means urban sites for commercial, residential and industrial uses must be able to absorb stormwater to the same extent as if the site were entirely covered by an old-growth forest. On sites with poorly draining soils that do not discharge directly into a large water body, this would require enormous stormwater ponds taking up more than a third of the property.
Ecology’s mandate is more onerous than any other state in the nation and will stifle economic growth, reduce opportunities for businesses to locate and expand in Clark County and reduce density, increasing pressure to expand the urban growth boundary. It will also lead to lawsuits by landowners.
All told, the proposed regulations will have a significant impact on city budgets and services.
Recognizing these problems, the Clark County Board of Commissioners exercised tremendous leadership by entering a dialogue with Ecology, looking for a creative way to meet the new standard while preserving opportunities for economic growth.
So far, the county’s efforts look promising and make a good blueprint for cities within the county to follow.
The city of Vancouver must follow the county’s lead if Vancouver wants to remain “open for business” during these difficult economic times. The broader issue, however, is whether Vancouver bargained away its right to make its own decision about what ordinances the city council can adopt by signing a 2004 agreement with two environmental groups (Rosemere Neighborhood Association and Clark County Natural Resources Council).
In 2004, these groups sued the city, arguing that Vancouver was not adequately controlling stormwater. Vancouver won the lawsuit and the groups appealed, but before the appeal was heard, Vancouver signed a settlement that included a commitment to adopt Ecology’s stormwater standards by July 17, 2008.
The settlement agreement was adopted in a public meeting, but the public notice did not state that the settlement required Vancouver to meet Ecology’s new stormwater mandates, only that the city was settling a lawsuit. No meaningful opportunity for public comment on this aspect of the settlement agreement was provided.
The lawyer for the environmental groups has threatened to sue if Vancouver doesn’t “fully adopt” Ecology’s mandate this month. The city has previously said it “has no choice” because it already agreed to adopt the new stormwater ordinances.
If Vancouver signed an agreement to adopt an ordinance that benefitted businesses, no one would seriously contend that a business group could enforce the agreement if the city later decided it was not in the public’s best interest to adopt the ordinance.
The same is true of an agreement with an environmental group. A legislative body, such as a city council, cannot bargain away its power to make laws. In this case, Vancouver cannot be forced into adopting the stormwater regulations based solely on the settlement agreement.
Vancouver should not let the Rosemere settlement agreement stop the city from following the county’s lead to find a creative way to meet the new Ecology standard while still providing opportunities for economic growth and reducing urban sprawl.
