Superior Court upholds growth management decisions on Brightwater as an essential public facility

2005 Archived News

Judge Paula Casey of the Thurston County Superior Court this week upheld earlier growth management decisions that invalidated two Snohomish County ordinances affecting siting and construction of the future Brightwater wastewater treatment plant.

Snohomish County had appealed rulings of the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board, which invalidated the ordinances because they didn't comply with requirements of the state Growth Management Act for essential public facilities. Wastewater treatment plants are considered essential public facilities in the state law.

On March 14, King County and the City of Renton argued in Superior Court that the growth board's decisions on the two ordinances were correct. Snohomish County argued that the growth board's decisions on both ordinances should be overturned.

Judge Casey upheld most of both growth board rulings. She agreed that by allowing Snohomish County to deny a permit for an essential public facility, one Snohomish County ordinance violated a provision in the state law that says counties cannot enact regulations making it impossible to site a facility.

Judge Casey also ruled that Snohomish County's definition of a "regional" essential public facility in the other ordinance was "nonsensical" because it did not include projects that serve a regional function such as Brightwater.

"Because of the court decision, Snohomish County will need to revise its regulations for essential public facilities," said Christie True, manager of the wastewater capital improvement program for King County. "The decision means the earlier ordinances continue to be invalid and have no legal effect.

"The Brightwater wastewater treatment system will provide an essential service for cities and communities in both Snohomish and King counties," True said. "The system must be online by 2010 to meet the identified wastewater treatment needs of the communities it will serve -- and to ensure the best possible water quality in streams, lakes and the Puget Sound."

After looking at dozens of potential sites, King County in November 2002 identified a site next to State Route 9 site in unincorporated Snohomish County as its preferred alternative for the Brightwater treatment plant. In December 2003, King County selected that site after extensive environmental review.

In February 2003, Snohomish County enacted an essential public facility ordinance (EPF Ordinance I) giving Snohomish County the authority to deny the siting of an EPF, such as Brightwater in unincorporated Snohomish County. Believing EPF Ordinance I violated the state Growth Management Act, King County challenged it with the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board.

On Oct. 13, 2003, the board found that EPF Ordinance I did not comply with the GMA and invalidated the ordinance. The board concluded that the ordinance created a permit review process that was fundamentally "unfair, untimely and unpredictable" and rendered the siting of EPFs impracticable. Snohomish County appealed the growth board's decision to Thurston County Superior Court.

In February 2004, responding to the growth board's decision, Snohomish County adopted a revised EPF Ordinance II. The growth board found that revised EPF Ordinance II still did not comply with the GMA, and the board invalidated the revised ordinance. Snohomish County also appealed that decision of the growth board.

King County's Wastewater Treatment Division protects public health and water quality by serving 17 cities, 17 sewer agencies and more than 1.4 million residents in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties. Formerly known as Metro, the regional utility has been preventing water pollution for 40 years.