Legal Opinion
Olympic Stewardship Foundation v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided January 26, 2012No. 40272-6-IIPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPenovar, C.J.
¶1 Rivers alter their course over time, a process known as “channel migration.” In 2009, Jefferson County (County) enacted a critical areas regulation requiring property owners to retain all vegetation located in “high-risk” channel migration zones (CMZs)1 for five of the County’s rivers. The regulation defined “high-risk CMZs” as those portions of the five rivers’ channels that are “likely to migrate” during the next 50 years. In this appeal, Olympic Stewardship Foundation (Foundation) challenges the vegetation regulation, arguing that it violates (1) the Growth Management Act’s (GMA) “best…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1897
- Dolan v. City of TigardSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- City of Redmond v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 1998
- Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd.Washington Supreme Court · 2000
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Department of Revenue v. Sprint Spectrum, LPCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2013
- Ferry County v. Growth Management Hearings BoardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2014
- Olympic Stewardship v. Wash. Growth Mgmt.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2012
- Futurewise v. Snohomish CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2019
- Olympic Stewardship Foundation v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings BoardCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2011