Cominus.com :: Moore V Whitman County

In the past, God overlooked mans' ignorance, but now He commands all
people everywhere to repent. For He has set a day when He will judge
the world with justice by the Man, Jesus Christ; the One He has appointed.
He has given proof of this to all men by raising Him from the dead.
                                                                                        -Acts 17:30-31

Moore v Whitman County :: 143 Wn2d 96

Category: Land Use and Property Rights

When the Legislature enacted the Growth Management Act (GMA) they established three review boards (Board). The Eastern and Western boards had jurisdictional boundaries within their respective sides of the State that included “all counties that are required to or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040.” [At 100]. Under the statute, Whitman County was not required to plan, nor did they choose to. The Moores had sued the county to conform to the critical areas requirement of the GMA. The trial court upheld the decision of the Board. The Supreme Court reversed it.

The Court argued, “If we apply RCW 36.70A.250 as written—without “construing” it—this court can come to no other conclusion but that the Legislature intended to limit the jurisdiction of the boards to those counties which plan.” [At 101]. In his dissent, Talmadge calls this straight explanation of the plain wording a “strained interpretation.” [At 105].

His arguments focus on protecting the environment not protecting the law. He argued the trial judge was correct when deciding the “Board’s allowance of an existing use exemption to the critical areas mandate of the Act was error.” [At 107]. In other words, he claimed the Board decision that confirmed the county must designate critical areas but permitted the county to allow existing uses (farms) within those areas was wrong. Whitman County is more than ninety-five percent farmland (at 99). He further contends, “The majority today deprives these sensitive areas of any real protection by gutting the Board’s authority.” [At 115]. Only a college or trial lawyer groupie could conceive the notion that farming is hazardous to critical areas and that without the oversight of bureaucrats and attorneys, our farmers will decimate the ecology.

Rating the Usual Suspects:
passAlexander, Gerry  
passBridge, Bobbe  
passGuy, Richard  
passIreland, Faith  
passJohnson, Charles  
passKaufman, James  
passMadsen, Barbara  
passSanders, Richard  
passShirley, Ronald  
passSmith, Charles  
failCopsey, Alan  
failGregoire, Christine  
failMcPhee, William Thomas 
failReynolds, Dawn  
failSmitch, Marjorie  
failTalmadge, Phil  

«« Back To Case Reviews


2TI 1:12 [NIV] :: That is why I am suffering as I am. Yet I am not ashamed, because I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him for that day.

SITE MENU
HOME

God's Call

Tandem Vincitur Firmly Established Isaiah's Warning Salvation - Who? Salvation - How? Prayers

Cominus' Agenda

Cominus Papers Under Tower Babel Blog Dean's Recipes Work For FOO

Judicial Forum

Judicial Reviews Judicial Ratings Judicial Elections Judicial Questions Justice Goodloe

Site Docket

Contact Us Privacy Policy Terms Of Use

Our Products:
Content Management
Domains For Lease
Diesel Database
For Sale File
Fun Feed
Bargain Patrol
Google Zoogle

Our Clients:
Extreme Coatings
KMSGC Pr Wash
Jack Case Cowboy
Idaho Truck Repair
Import Profile
Const'l Income
Truth In Taxation

Our Businesses:
Cougar Gulch Group
Unique Motif
Buy Cadillac
Idaho Contractor