The battle against the Brightwater sewage treatment plant has been taken to the state capitol for the second straight year.
Bills to require any large project proposed by a large governmental entity such as King County Metro – if it wants to have the project built outside its “component county boundaries” – to go through the siting process of the jurisdiction in question before property can be taken through eminent domain have been introduced in both houses of the state Legislature.
A hearing was held Jan. 20 in the House of Representatives’ Local Government and Housing Committee. A hearing has yet to be scheduled in the Senate Land Use and Planning Committee, and will not be held before Feb. 13, according to an aide to the committee chair.
The House and Senate bills are identical, lawmakers said. The House bill was introduced by Rep. Brian Sullivan, D-Mukilteo, whose 21st District includes Edmonds, one of the two possible sites for the regional sewage plant proposed by King County. Co-sponsors include reps. Maralyn Chase, D-Edmonds, Al O’Brien, D-Mountlake Terrace and Mike Cooper, D-Edmonds.
The Senate bill is sponsored by Sen. Paull Shin, D-Mukilteo, who also represents the 21st District. Co-sponsors include Sens. Darlene Fairley, D-Lake Forest Park, and Dave Schmidt, R-Mill Creek.
Members of the Washington Tea Party, the Edmonds group that has organized in opposition to the siting of the plant there, testified for the bill at the hearing Jan. 20, Tea Party members said. Citizens of Mountlake Terrace, where some are concerned about pipeline construction and portal location, also testified for the bill, as did Snohomish County Council member Gary Nelson, said Bob Freeman of the Tea Party.
The point of contention for Snohomish County residents and officials is that elected officials in King County are not accountable to voters in Snohomish County, where both possible sites are located. The other site under consideration is along Highway 9 just north of the county line.
Chase, whose 32nd District could be traversed by a pipeline but lies mostly within King County, said “for me the issue of this bill is about democracy and representative government. Democracy and accountability hold for King County as well as Snohomish.”
The bill addresses the current law that “gives King County the authority to just come in and take land if they want it without regard to comprehensive plans,” Freeman said.
Last year’s bill required that a conglomerate government agency such as King County Metro – the two agencies merged in 1990 – receive permission from the governing body of another jurisdiction before siting a facility there. That bill did not get to the floor for a full vote of either house.
This year’s version simply requires that a project be reviewed under a jurisdiction’s comprehensive plans and siting process, as is already required, but with the added provision that property cannot be taken until the process is completed.
“It has teeth in it,” Shin said.
King County agrees, and is concerned. They sent someone to testify against the bill in the House.
“This is going to cost ratepayers more money” by causing delays in the process, said Christie True, Brightwater project manager. Government agencies usually acquire property concurrently with or prior to the permitting process, she said.
“The timeline requires that we have to do things in parallel,” True said.
In the case of commercial or industrial property, which applies to some of the Highway 9 site, business owners are usually anxious to have the process move along so they can reinvest, True said. Also, those whose property is taken for government projects receive a federal tax benefit, she said.
Another complicating factor, True said, is that in most cases “you can’t start that (siting) process until you show you have possession and use of the property.”
The bill would prevent some needed projects from getting built, she contended. She said all jurisdictions currently have the power to take land, not just conglomerates, citing the city of Seattle Water Department running pipelines across jurisdictional lines.
Sullivan said he is aware of King County’s objections, but said they’re beside the point. The issue is, “do we have representation?” he said.
“Siting an essential public facility has to be an arduous process, it has to be transparent,” he said.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
