An Island County Superior Court judge this week shot down the county commissioners’ appeal of an earlier decision by a board of state experts concerning the county’s adopted fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas rules.

Unfortunately, the ruling wasn’t based on the merits of their arguments, which would have settled the actual debate, but rather was issued because the county failed to appeal in a proper and timely manner per state requirements. In other words, the case was handled incorrectly and summarily tossed.

While there are times when it’s necessary and appropriate to fight for what one believes, in this instance that time has come and gone. It’s time for the board to call it quits and comply with state law and the Growth Management Hearings Board’s order.

This case has roots that stretch back a decade. The county’s fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas rules were required under state law to be updated in 2005, but the work wasn’t done until essentially forced by the Whidbey Environmental Action Network (or WEAN) to do so.

Despite good-faith efforts by WEAN to get the county to finish the update on its own volition, it remained incomplete until WEAN brought the matter before the hearings board, an organization that exists to settle disputes in land use law required under the Growth Management Act of 1990. Given that the update was already years behind schedule, it’s no surprise that the hearings board agreed with WEAN and that the county was ordered to get it done.

Also unsurprising was WEAN’s later challenge — the advocacy group seems like it’s in a near-constant state of litigation with the county — of 14 pieces of the rules. Seven were tossed, seven were not.

Regardless of one’s personal opinion of WEAN and its environmentally driven agenda, this dispute should have ended then and there. The hearings board is a panel of experts, and they said the county got just about everything right except for a few things.

The county commissioners could have simply complied with the order, and effectively ended an issue that should have been resolved 10 years ago. Instead, they decided to drag it out even further with an appeal — only to have it tossed because it was handled incorrectly.

Apparently the board can appeal yet again, but a decision has yet to be made. We urge the commissioners not to take this step, and instead to comply with the hearings board’s order, putting this issue to rest once and for all.