“These projects are either stalled, or have revised their plans to meet the default standard,” said Golemo.
New permit
Jamie Howsley, land use attorney with Jordan Ramis PC, said that the county may ask for an extension in the federal case, because a new Phase 1 stormwater permit from the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE) becomes effective this August, and appeals to that permit will go to the PCHB in October. Howsley said that the appeals to the new permit are a bigger issue than the federal court case. Golemo said that almost every large city in the state has entered an appeal to the new permit, citing concerns with long-term maintenance, monitoring requirements and unproven technology.
“Clark County is not in it alone this time,” said Howsley.
According to Bill Moore, manager of the DOE’s water quality permits, “the new permit appeals will set the target that [the county] has to meet.”
“We are preparing for the October hearing with the board to influence the permit to better balance our social, economic and environment goals,” said Wierenga.
A fresh spring of hope?
The county may yet develop an alternative stormwater permit that meets state and federal requirements while supporting viable economic development in the county.
Late last month, DOE director Maia Bellon issued a letter to Representative Dave Upthegrove (House Environment Committee Chairman), stating a commitment to “working with Clark County staff and interested citizens to develop an alternative stormwater pilot program.” According to Upthegrove, the letter is a result of Representative Liz Pike’s introduction of HB 1237 and her “hard work on the issue.”
Howsley said that it was unique to have so many trade organizations and economic development groups working together, actively lobbying for the pilot project bill. He cited as examples the Columbia River Economic Development Council, Identity Clark County, BIA, Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce and Clark County Association of Realtors.
“All the players were what encouraged the DOE to issue the letter,” said Howsley. “Ecology believed the county’s proposal has merit, and can lead to better environmental results, but there are some things the county has to do to make that possible and some deficiencies definitely can be addressed.”
Moore stated that the new permit appeals will probably need to be resolved before the DOE and the county move ahead with the pilot program. But, he added, “we wanted to let them know we are open to alternatives, as long as they are legal.”
Golemo said that the PCHB appeals process revealed that the original alternative permit was “too complex” and the board feared there was a lack of funding to implement the plan. Further discussions between the DOE, county staff and business stakeholders, said Wierenga, have identified ways to “address board concerns and create a valid defensible way to meet the board’s goals.”
“We want to capitalize on Ecology’s willingness to work with permittees,” said Wierenga.
{jathumbnail off}
