Washington State Growth Management Act

By state law, the update must include a capital facilities plan that outlines the public facilities such as roads and schools needed to support the additional population and how they will be financed.

The Growth Management Act requires state and local governments to manage growth by identifying and protecting critical areas and natural resource lands, designating urban growth areas, preparing comprehensive plans, and implementing them through capital investments and development regulations.

The act applies only to Washington's quickly growing counties.

Learn more about the County Comprehensive Plan Update Project, Your Future, Your Voice.

"That in itself is a problem, annexing land that doesn't need to be annexed," Foster said.

"But the second part of that is that the land that they want to bring into their urban growth boundaries is currently designated as agriculture, and that is in violation of the Growth Management Act." During the October 5th deliberations, Council Chair Sue Marshall also raised concerns that some of the approved changes could expose the county to litigation under the state's Growth Management Act.

Agricultural land and the cost of growth.

Foster said continued urbanization can make farming more difficult even when agricultural parcels are not directly developed.

Agricultural land and water rights were among the first major topics.

Lee criticized what he described as the use of the Growth Management Act as a barrier to development and said the state should consider allowing smaller agricultural parcels.

I think the best investment the state could make would be modifying the Growth Management Act to allow small families, smaller acreages, and we zone appropriately for agriculture, timber, and growth, Lee said.

Letuch agreed that water access is important for farmers and said the legislature has a role in protecting agricultural water supplies.

"I think the easiest answer is, yeah, the legislature should have a role in that," Letuch said.

And I think at the, the main topic would be affordable housing, and how do we get that here, and how, well, how, what does that look like? So there's lo- lots of different issues.

Yeah, I mean, the regulatory environment, we've, we've, through the Growth Management Act, which has kinda been the Growth Inhibition Act, I think we misnamed that, um, i- i- it really stops that.

You know, critical areas.

Um, it, it over- overly intensive environmental regulation.

How can we build more houses so we've got enough housing for the population? Whereas in Washington State and in all of the Democrat-run states, you've got limitations on where you can build.

Here in Washington State, it's the Growth Management Act.

Got plenty of land to build, but the Growth Management Act indicates you can only build here.

So what happens to the land? It skyrockets in value.

Whereas in Texas, Oklahoma, you just keep going further out.

The citizens grouped in two things at the planning commission stage that turned out to be critical.

First, they backed the community development office position that the rezone would impact the Growth Management Act and the other growth management plans already in place around the zoning.

They did not ask officials to invent a new land use theory on the spot.

They asked them to stand by the plans that were already adopted.

But look, this is, the reason everyone is in the legal world, and I think in the policymaking world, the legislature is talking about this decision is that the court's now saying, well...

I think anticipating arguments that their conclusion means that big complex litigation like the Growth Management Act and the Climate Commitment Act might be unconstitutional because those are hundreds of pages long, lots and lots of different provisions.

The court majority sort of anticipates that and said, oh, no, no, no, no.

You know, those were comprehensive pieces of