Clark County has begun to comply with state law regarding its surface mining overlay (SMO) after the Washington State Court of Appeals upheld the Growth Management Hearings Board's (GMHB) decision requiring an environmental impact statement.
In 2022, the council approved an overlay permitting Granite Construction to mine for aggregate on a 330.95-acre property in Chelatchie. However, the governor-appointed Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) ruled the following year that the overlay violated the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), stating the county must provide an environmental impact statement (EIS) before granting approval.
As a result, the county risks losing eligibility for various state grants and short-term loans. In March this year, the State Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the hearings board's decision.
Following this decision, the Clark County Council indicated to staff that they wish to become compliant with state law by repealing the overlay. On Thursday, April 3, the Clark County Planning Commission held a meeting to discuss the next steps in response to the ruling. The commission's deliberations mark the first step in what will be a multi-phase process to bring the county in line with state law. The next planning commission hearing is scheduled for April 17, during which the commission will provide direction to the council. The council is expected to review the matter on May 20.
Planning Commissioner Jack Harroun raised concerns about the implications of the process, questioning whether it would set a broader precedent beyond mining overlays.
"My concern, I guess, is the precedent is set. Is this only going to apply to mining overlays or is this [applying to] subdivision overlays or like anything else?" Harroun asked.
County Attorney Christine Cook responded, noting that if the ruling is interpreted too broadly, it could have unintended consequences.
"I think the concern on staff's part and on my part is if a language is read really broadly, it could apply to all kinds of non-project applications. This is a non-project action," Cook said. "Putting a color on a map is not a project. It's not development to map something. It's not until they get to the project permit stage that we're talking about an actual project."
Harroun later reiterated his concerns about the long-term effects of the decision, comparing it to legal challenges seen in California.
"You can challenge the first EIS on a conceptual project, and then it can be challenged again on the approval if the project [deviates] too much from the first EIS. And then if that doesn't happen, then they can still challenge to the next level of the EIS on that. So, it's a stacking effect. It's a California effect, in fact, in essence, of anti-growth," Harroun said. "And so that's what's really troublesome to me about this."
If the council votes to repeal the mining overlay, the current applicant for the overlay, Granite Construction, would lose the ability to appeal the previous decision, as the county's compliance would render the issue moot.
