Washington Farm Bureau announces property-rights initiative campaign

OLYMPIA, Wash. — The Washington Farm Bureau on Monday announced a campaign for a property-rights initiative similar to one in Oregon that was widely passed by voters but struck down by the courts.

The initiative would require landowners to be compensated by governments if an action damages either the use or value of private property, or would require governments to waive regulations on that land.

Dan Wood, the group's director of government relations, said the initiative would not change current planning and agricultural zoning ordinances or the state Growth Management Act.

"There's this culture of conflict out there because agencies come in and say we're putting a buffer on your land," he said. "They just change the rules on people. When the landowners feel they're being disrespected, it's very natural that they get real worked up about that. What we're going to say is let's just change the approach."

Wood said habitat designations, requirements for buffers along waterways, and efforts to remove tide gates are examples of government efforts to devalue property.

"There's nothing wrong with environmentalism," he said. "It's just environmentalism on the cheap, when we're expecting the private landowner to pay for the public benefit, that we have a problem."

Wood said the initiative is only in its initial draft form and he expected several more drafts to be drawn up during the group's annual meeting this week in Yakima. Backers need 225,000 signatures to qualify for the ballot next fall. They said they plan to file the initiative with the secretary of state's office in January.

He said the group's initiative was different in scope from Oregon's Measure 37, which was approved last year by 61 percent of the voters. A circuit judge struck the measure down last month, saying it violated five provisions of the state and federal constitutions.

Last week, the Oregon Supreme Court said it will expedite its review of the judge's order. and will hear oral arguments in the case on Jan. 10.

Wood noted that under the Oregon measure, compensation would be calculated by the date of acquisition of property by the owner, or a family member, whichever came first. There's no such retroactivity under the proposed Washington initiative, he said.

The draft of the initiative also would require agencies to work with property owners, either providing incentives or assistance for environmental restoration. There would be an exemption for regulations necessary to protect public health and safety, including structural requirements to alleviate damage from earthquakes, flooding or other natural disasters.

"If you want to prevent harm to the environment, that can be done without compensation," he said. "But if you want to provide additional environmental enhancements, then you have to work with the landowner to figure out how to do that. You can't just come in and say you have a 300-foot buffer on your property."

Environmentalist and growth management groups said there didn't appear to be many differences between the Oregon initiative and the Washington proposal.

"The basic thrust of it is the same," said Aaron Ostrom, executive director of Futurewise in Seattle. "What it does is create giant loopholes that developers will exploit. The bottom line is it's good for irresponsible developers, and it's bad for our quality of life."

In September, the U.S. House passed an overhaul of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, which would require payments to property owners if species protection measures foil their development plans. The measure also would put political appointees in charge of making some scientific determinations and would stop the government from designating "critical habitat" for species where development is limited. The measure awaits action in the Senate, where it is expected to face opposition.