Skamania County v Columbia River Gorge Commission :: 144 Wn2d 30
Category: Land Use and Property Rights
In November 1996, Brian and Jody Bea (Beas) applied to Skamania County (County) to build a one-story house, a barn, and a shop on 40 acres of property they owned in Washington State, within the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. Following receipt of the Beas’ application, the County gave notice to the congressionally created Gorge Commission (Commission) and other interested parties. Following approved administrative timelines, the County issued the building permit and construction began on the Beas’ property.
On July 27, 1998, the Commission served the County with a “Notice of Alleged Violation,” alleging the County’s approval of the Beas’ project violated the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area Act. The Commission ordered all development on the Beas’ property immediately stop, the structures—already half-built—be relocated, and the County rescind the Beas’ approved building permit. The County refused and, together with the Beas, appealed this decision ultimately to the State Supreme Court.
What was the basis for the Commission’s demand to overturn an approved building permit? In short, the Commission argued that, although they already had the opportunity to appeal and ultimately deny the Beas’ application, any time limits for appealing permit approvals do not apply to them. The Commission essentially claimed unlimited authority to overturn well-established principles of law concerning finality in land use decisions.
Fortunately, the Supreme Court decided in favor of the County and the Beas. The Court found that Congress never intended for the Commission to have carte blanche authority to ignore approved procedures for appealing permit approvals. Additionally, the Court reaffirmed the longstanding principle supporting administrative finality in land use decisions. The Court emphasized that “if there were not finality [in land use decisions], no owner of land would ever be safe in proceeding with development of his property.” We applaud the Court for both insights.
We believe that if nature-loving citizens and bureaucrats are so selflessly devoted to the preservation of the natural scenic beauty of the Gorge, they are welcome to use their own treasure to purchase and maintain Gorge property in its pristine, natural condition. Trampling the property rights of other citizens, however, ought not be an option available to them.
Rating the Usual Suspects:
| pass | Anderson, Bradley W | |
| pass | Bridge, Bobbe | |
| pass | Cohee, Lynne M | |
| pass | Groen, John M | |
| pass | Guy, Richard | |
| pass | Harris, Timothy M | |
| pass | Hillis, Jerome L | |
| pass | Johnson, Charles | |
| pass | Madsen, Barbara | |
| pass | Sanders, Richard | |
| pass | Smith, Charles | |
| pass | Williams-Derry, Amy C | |
| fail | Alexander, Gerry | |
| fail | Brush, Bart A | |
| fail | Duskin, Francis J | |
| fail | Gregoire, Christine | |
| fail | Gurish, Jonathon | |
| fail | Ireland, Faith | |
| fail | Kahn, Gary K | |
| fail | Ladley, James | |
| fail | Myers, Hardy | |
| fail | Pflaumer, Kate C | |
| fail | Reynolds, Michael D |