A state growth board has once again sided with Island County in the battle between the county and the Whidbey Environmental Action Network over new farming regulations.

In a decision issued late last week, the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board said the county’s new farming rules do not conflict with the Growth Management Act’s goal of protecting critical areas.

Critical areas are environmentally sensitive spots such as wetlands, streams and steep slopes. WEAN had claimed the new farm rules ran counter to the state’s Growth Management Act, the sweeping state law adopted more than a decade ago to protect forests and farmland from urban sprawl.

WEAN filed three lawsuits against Island County in mid-July asking the growth board to review the new farm rules, which require farmers to complete farms plans for their agriculture operations. WEAN said the county’s rules were inadequate because they did not require the restoration of illegally damaged wetlands, and that the rules would not protect critical areas because they were not written using the best available science.

In it’s Sept. 14 decision, the growth board rejected those claims and sided with the county on two of the three lawsuits; WEAN had voluntarily dropped the third lawsuit that centered on farmlands within drainage and diking districts.

It was the second time within a month that the growth board had ruled in Island County’s favor.

On Aug. 30, the board agreed with the county on a compliance case over critical areas regulations that dated back to the late 1990s. On Sept. 11, WEAN asked the board to reconsider its August decision.

WEAN spokesman Steve Erickson said I-933, the “Property Fairness Initiative” on the November ballot that would compensate property owners when government regulations restrict the use of their land, was a factor in the growth board’s decision last week.

“I really feel like their decision here was politically inspired based on their fear of I-933,” Erickson said.

“I think the political appointees that run the state agencies are flapping and squawking that the sky is going to fall” if I-933 passes, he said. “It just seems to be the general attitude of much of the state agencies on environmental protections.”

The county’s new rules require farmers to complete farm plans for their agriculture operations.

Farmers must follow “best management practices,” or BMPs, that have been adopted by the National Resource Conservation Service. The NRCS is a federal agency that helps property owners protect soil, water and other natural resources.

The county has also adopted a new surface water monitoring program that will test water in watersheds across the county to see if farming operations are hurting water quality after the new rules go into effect.

In its decision last week, the growth board rejected WEAN’s view that the new farming rules would reduce buffers – no-go areas around streams and wetlands – in a way that would damage the environment.

Instead, the board agreed with the county that buffers would increase in size, but haying would be allowed for low-intensity agriculture operations.

WEAN had challenged the scientific basis used to develop BMPs, but the growth board rejected that claim, as well.

“As we did in the compliance case, we find that the county’s program of NRCS BMPs, together with its monitoring and adaptive management program, protect the functions and values of critical areas by regulating agricultural practices in rural lands,” the board said in its decision.

“Although the benefits of standard buffers along streams and wetlands are well-established, the evidence shows that the use of BMPs to regulate agricultural activities near critical areas … can also protect the functions and values of those critical areas. For that reason, both the Department of Ecology and the Department of Fish and Wildlife recommend BMPs to protect critical areas where agricultural practices are in operation,” the board said.

County commissioners unanimously adopted new regulations to regulate existing farms in May. Farmers must follow BMPs or complete custom farm plans that detail how they will manage their farms in earth-friendly ways. Small-scale farmers will be need to fill out a checklist, while others will be required to complete custom farm plans.

The new rules have been highly controversial. The proposed regulations led to the biggest public hearings in Island County history, and many farmers said the rules were excessive and would drive some farmers out of business.

WEAN, however, said the new rules were too lax and complained that existing and ongoing agriculture operations were hurting environmentally sensitive lands, as well as polluting streams and groundwater.

WEAN wanted the county to complete an environmental impact statement on the new farm rules, and claimed that agriculture operations were already polluting streams and groundwater, and farming was a threat to public health.

In last week’s decision, the growth board said WEAN did not have evidence to back up those claims.

WEAN’s request for a reconsideration of the board’s August decision on the compliance case is still pending.

WEAN said a review was needed because the growth board got its facts wrong and repeatedly misinterpreted the law when crafting its decision.

County officials say WEAN is the one that’s wrong.

“The board didn’t make any mistakes, there’s no reason to reconsider,” said Phil Bakke, Island County’s planning director.

“The growth board had the correct facts in front of them when they made the decision,” he said.

Bakke said the county will be mailing checklists to farmers within a few weeks.

“We’re glad to move on and implement the ordinance,” Bakke said.

“We want to start focusing our energy on implementation and stop arguing about whether it is GMA compliant. We’re moving forward on our water quality monitoring program as I

speak. It’s time to get to work,” Bakke said.

Brian Kelly can be reached at 221-5300 or bkelly@southwhidbeyrecord.com.