Legal Opinion · Dissent

Snohomish County v. Pollution Control Hearings Board

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided January 19, 2016No. 46378-4-IIPublished

1Dissent

Bjorgen, A.C. J.

(dissenting)

¶63 The application of the vested rights doctrine proposed by Snohomish County, King County, and the Building Industry Association of Clark County (collectively appellants), in my view, is both preempted by federal law and in conflict with governing state law. Therefore, I would affirm the decision of the Pollution Control Hearings Board (Board).

I. Federal Preemption

¶64 The issue in this appeal is whether the state vested rights doctrine excuses a specific class of applicants from compliance with new storm water regulations adopted by local governments to implement…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Hines v. DavidowitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1941
  2. Crosby v. National Foreign Trade CouncilSupreme Court of the United States · 2000
  3. Pud No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of EcologySupreme Court of the United States · 1994
  4. Hillman v. MarettaSupreme Court of the United States · 2013
  5. Tunstall v. BergesonWashington Supreme Court · 2000

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API