EVERETT — A group of local developers and business owners are challenging a ballot initiative passed in Everett last fall that grants legal rights to the Snohomish River Watershed.
The Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties filed a complaint Tuesday in Snohomish County Superior Court, arguing the measure falls outside of legal parameters and conflicts with other environmental regulations.
In November, 56% of voters approved of Everett becoming the first city in Washington state to grant legally enforceable rights to a natural ecosystem.
Now, any city resident can take anyone negatively impacting the Snohomish River watershed’s health to court.
To file and prove a case scientific evidence is necessary, however scientific certainty is not.
The idea is that if someone can prove there’s harm or the likelihood of harm based on evidence, if they have to wait until there’s absolute scientific certainty, it’s too late, Standing for Washington co-founder Rachel Kurtz-McAlaine wrote in an email.
“For example, a company pours a new chemical into the river that has some proof of toxicity but studies haven’t yet been published in a journal. If we wait until studies have been done and published to show harm to salmon, it’s too late,” she said. “The salmon have already been harmed.”
The voter-approved statute includes all connected waterways within city boundaries, including Port Gardner Bay, Union Slough as well as tributaries of Pilchuck and Allen creeks.
Individuals, companies or businesses found responsible for disturbing the watershed are liable for damages and have to pay the city for restoration projects.
But the builders association and other local groups believe the new city statute is unconstitutional and conflicts with other environmental regulations already in place.
“As homebuilders, our members are proud of their role in upholding our community’s investments and expectations for protecting the environment that we all share,” said Jerry Hall, executive director of the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties, in a press release. “We cannot afford for the existing environmental regulations enforced by state and local jurisdictions to be undermined by the type of local initiative that our state Supreme Court has already found to be illegal.
In 2009, Envision Spokane, a civil action group, authored a Community Bill of Rights for its city. The bill focused on residents’ rights to a locally based economy, affordable housing and energy, neighborhood planning and flourishing natural environments.
Spokane’s bill was voted down in 2009 and again in 2011. In 2013, a group of local businesses and government entities challenged the proposition, arguing it was too vague. The case ended up in the state Supreme Court, where a judge decided that the bill exceeded the scope of local initiative power and should not have been put on the ballot.
Both Spokane’s and Everett’s measures state that natural resources have the right to “exist and flourish.”
Challengers of Everett’s initiative believe the courts will follow legal precedent from the Spokane case.
“Everett’s Initiative 24-03 includes a preemption clause, which explicitly states that the initiative is subject to and does not override existing state and federal laws,” Abi Ludwig, executive director for Standing for Washington, a statewide environmental policy nonprofit that spearheaded the initiative campaign last year, wrote in an email. “This important provision was designed to ensure that the initiative works within the boundaries of higher government authority, addressing a key issue that led to the failure of Spokane’s similar initiative.”
The clause helps avoid the conflicts in the Spokane initiative that were struck down by the courts, making the measure more legally sound, Ludwig said.
Opponents of the initiative vowed in a press release Tuesday to keep protecting the environment.
“Our members operate under strict and appropriate regulatory oversight to ensure that their business operations are in alignment with our state’s values of environmental stewardship,” said Cory LeeAnn Shaw, executive director of the Washington Aggregates and Concrete Association.
Every plaintiff listed in the complaint “is a developer or business with a vested interest in maintaining a system that allows these gaps in enforcement to persist, benefiting them financially even as it fails to fully safeguard our environment,” Ludwig said.
Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly stated that no scientific evidence was needed to create a case. Filing and proving a case still requires scientific evidence, just not evidence proven with scientific certainty.
Eliza Aronson: 425-339-3434; eliza.aronson@heraldnet.com; X: @ElizaAronson.
Eliza’s stories are supported by the Herald’s Environmental and Climate Reporting Fund.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
