On August 29, 1990, King County Council passed Ordinance 9614, more commonly referred to as the Sensitive Areas Ordinance (SAO). It built upon and amended Ordinance 4365, passed in 1979, that applied limitations to development in environmentally sensitive areas on a case-by-case basis. Due to limitations in the 1979 ordinance, the King County Council created the SAO to provide additional environmental protections. This blog post explores the history of the SAO, the controversy surrounding it, and its legacy.
What’s the deal with environmental protections?
The 1985 King County Comprehensive Plan encouraged the creation of the SAO, as it underscored the importance of preserving King County’s natural beauty through numerous methods, such as the protection of environmentally sensitive areas. In 1988, King County Executive Tim Hill proposed the SAO. County Council made numerous, major changes to the proposed ordinance before passing it in 1990.
The SAO was designed to protect natural areas that were vulnerable to hazards, supported fragile or unique natural resources, or held, carried, or purified water. These were titled sensitive areas and included wetlands, streams, coal mines, flood zones, seismic and volcanic areas, or steep slopes with an incline of 40% or more.
Many of these areas were determined to be easily damaged by pollution, farming, and construction, which could be detrimental to the wider ecosystem.
The proposed SAO applied development restrictions on a larger scale, so individual cases of environmental degradation did not have to be dealt on a case-by-case basis. It also applied limits on pesticides, plant pruning, livestock grazing, building, and remodeling within designated sensitive areas.
In this 1989 picture from the Seattle Times, a man stands in the middle of a dried-up part of Evans Creek.
Save the creek!
The Evans Creek Wetland provided an example of why the SAO was needed. Even before the passage of the SAO, the wetland was classified as “protected” by King County and named one of the most important wetlands in the county. Despite this classification, the wetland sustained substantial damage due to filling to create dry land, destruction of beaver dams, removal of native vegetation, trapping of native species, and introduction of non-native species.
A 1988 letter from a property owner living downstream of the wetland alleged that the private owner of the wetland destroyed a beaver dam, causing water levels to drop three feet in some areas. This water loss resulted in the death of many salmon and trapped salmon spawn in isolated mucky ponds.
Multiple letters at this time from and to the Washington State Department of Fisheries , King County Natural Resources and Parks Division, the King County Office of the Ombudsman, and the manager of the King County Building and Land Development Division (BALD) addressed the issue of the significant damage to the wetland. Government officials concluded that although the wetland was designated as protected, the county had no procedures to ensure and enforce the protection. Another letter directly noted BALD’s inability to protect King County’s environment under current laws. Various County and State departments initially considered charging the property owner responsible for the dam’s destruction with a hydraulics violation but ultimately decided not to unless further destructive action occurred.
In 1989, a Seattle Times article titled “Wetlands’ signs of life trickling away” documented the dwindling fish population and other native species. Rella Foley, the director of the King County Office of Ombudsman wrote in a 1989 letter to King County Executive Tim Hill, Council Chair Ron Sims, and Chair of the Growth Management Planning and Environment Committee Cynthia Sullivan that the County had built an artificial dam and introduced a fish ladder to help the fish population. In another 1989 letter to Curt Smith, Director of the Washington State Department of Wildlife, Foley mentioned that the department had considered introducing more beavers back into the wetlands but acknowledged that the property owner had a beaver trapping license. Foley recounts how the Department of Wildlife was contemplating revoking the owner’s trapping license, but did not know if that would be an appropriate response.
Not in my creek
The proposed SAO garnered mixed reactions from the public. Hundreds of King County residents wrote letters to council members with their opinions. While some people shared the council’s concern about the county’s wetlands, many landowners believed that the ordinance would infringe on their constitutional rights.
In this info-graphic from a King County Property Owners for Property Rights mailer, property owners are shown the land restricted by the SAO with the title “You Lose This!”
Many organizations, such as legal foundations, real estate agencies, housing associations, timber companies, and agricultural coalitions, wrote to Council expressing their opposition to the ordinance. Some of these organizations distributed pamphlets to convince the public that the ordinance was harmful. Newspapers, including the Journal American and the Valley Daily Times, reported that the proposal was too restrictive.
Under the proposed SAO, property bordering streams or wetlands could not be developed within a certain buffer zone. Additionally, on steep slopes with an incline of 40% or more, there were restrictions on home renovations and planting or pruning vegetation. Many landowners believed that the County was restricting their property rights and decreasing property values.
This cartoon from a 1989 Wetlands Watch newsletter depicts two businessmen outside a government building questioning the importance of the SAO while a truck pours concrete into a wetland behind them.
Vote YES on critical areas protections
Despite the controversy surrounding property rights, many County residents commended the protections outlined in the proposed ordinance. Individuals and organizations expressed their support, urging council members to pass the ordinance. Cases of environmental degradation, like the Evans Creek Wetlands concerned people who felt that the county’s natural resources were not being sufficiently preserved. Multiple organizations, including the Washington Environmental Council, wrote letters to County Council members in support of the ordinance and published educational pamphlets on wetlands protection.
King County introduced the SAO at a time when the United States was focused on environmental protections and regulations. The ordinance was controversial in King County and highlighted the debate over how much individuals should sacrifice for the protection of the environment and the future of local ecosystems. In 2004, Council passed Ordinance 15051, or the Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO), replacing the SAO. The CAO introduced stricter regulations, stirring similar controversy among residents as the SAO. Although now obsolete, the SAO serves as an interesting time capsule about the state of local environmental protection during the late 1980s.
Be First to Comment