Legislature Addresses Whatcom County v. Hirst

January 24, 2018  by  Jill Dvorkin
Category:  Water Resources ,  Court Decisions and AGO Opinions ,  New Legislation and Regulations

A new law addressing Whatcom County v. Hirst was recently enacted, providing some clarity and a way in which some development can be permitted in rural areas. Legal Consultant Jill Dvorkin reviews the major points of the legislation in this post. 

Read more

The Effect of Hirst on Non-GMA Counties and Issues Other Than Water

November 10, 2016  by  Neil Caulkins
Category:  Water Resources ,  Court Decisions and AGO Opinions ,  Guest Author

This is the fourth post of a five-part series discussing the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Whatcom County v. Hirst. This post considers two additional questions: (1) the potential impact of the Hirst decision on counties that do not plan under the GMA; and (2) whether Hirst has application to issues other than water.

Read more

What is a “Determination of Water Availability” Under Hirst?

November 3, 2016  by  Neil Caulkins
Category:  Water Resources ,  Court Decisions and AGO Opinions ,  Guest Author

This is the third post of a five-part series discussing the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Whatcom County v. Hirst. In Hirst, the Washington Supreme Court made clear that counties have the responsibility under the Growth Management Act to make determinations of water availability for development permit approval. This post discusses what exactly is a “determination of availability” and how it is different than a “determination of adequacy” under chapter 19.27 RCW.

Read more

Approaching Your County’s Post Hirst Water Resource Responsibilities

October 31, 2016  by  Neil Caulkins
Category:  Water Resources ,  Court Decisions and AGO Opinions ,  Guest Author

This is the second post of a five-part series discussing the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Whatcom County v. Hirst. This post provides an overview of the water resource responsibilities and options that GMA counties now have in light of the Hirst decision. 

Read more

New Ruling Affirms GMA Counties’ Big Role in Water Resource Planning

October 27, 2016  by  Neil Caulkins
Category:  Water Resources ,  Court Decisions and AGO Opinions

This is the first post of a five-part series discussing the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in Whatcom County v. Hirst. This post provides a general overview of the decision, which held that counties have the responsibility under the GMA to make determinations of water availability for development permit approval and cannot defer to Ecology or rely upon the decision of others when making these determinations.
 

Read more