9/1/2025 By Cindy Alia
CAPR Fought Hard for Property Rights in the battle for property use in the 2005 Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) Making. What seemed a savage assault on a constitutionally fair and reasonable regulatory environment suffered in the name of environmentalism. Now King County has almost completed its update to the CAO for 2025, and it is clear the lessons of the past have not become an intrinsic motivator for ordinance makers at the county. They are in fact doubling down on such things as fish life, buffers, and more complicated and less equitable regulatory features.
Here are the two most useful summary of information links, you can peruse them to see if there are features to the planned ordinance you find objectional.
- Striking Amendment Summary 21. 2024-0408_ATT9 Summary of Key Striking Amendment Changes - updated 8-12
- Original Legislation Summary 11. 2024-0408_ATT4 Review Matrix 4-16-25,
- The Striker Amendment requests to the council are due September 22, and the legislation will be heard for a final vote of the whole council on December 2. So, if you want to send a letter, it is best done before the September deadline.
If you want to contact your Councilmember, you can find there information here: King County Councilmembers and districts - King County, Washington.
Please read below for the CAPR Comments to the King County Council regarding the proposed Critical Areas Ordinances for the 2025 update to the same.
To the King County Council,
CouncilCompPlan@kingcounty.gov CouncilCompPlan@kingcounty.gov
Comments regarding the proposed Critical Areas Ordinance updates 2025
As farmers and property owners in unincorporated King County, we demand that the 2025 Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) update, including Striking Amendment S1 to Proposed Ordinance 2024-0408, address our concerns to protect our livelihoods and property rights.
As public servants, you are accountable to us, not to speculative environmental policies. The CAO’s reliance on the precautionary principle, which imposes restrictions without proving specific harm from our land use, erodes the essential nexus test required by law, risking unconstitutional takings. Below are our concerns and demands for a fair and balanced CAO.
Concerns
1. Expanded Buffer Widths Reducing Usable Land
Buffer increases (e.g., 100–225 feet for wetlands, 50–150 feet for streams) drastically cut arable and developable land, reducing a 10-acre farm’s usable area by 30–50% and limiting construction. This threatens our $150 million agricultural economy and property values. The precautionary approach, lacking a clear cause-and-effect link to our activities, unjustly restricts our land. We demand site-specific buffer adjustments, universal flexibility beyond Agricultural Production Districts, and proof of harm per the essential nexus test.
2. Costly and Complex Permitting Processes
Stricter permitting, with environmental assessments costing $5,000–$20,000, burdens small farmers and owners, delaying projects by 6–12 months. These costs, driven by precautionary regulations, hinder farm upgrades and development without proven necessity. Simplify permitting, provide subsidies, and ensure restrictions are tied to specific impacts, as required by law.
3. Economic Impacts on Property Value and Farm Profitability
Buffer expansions and zoning restrictions reduce property values (e.g., 40% loss on a 5-acre parcel with a 2-acre buffer), threatening financial stability. Precautionary rules, lacking a nexus to our land use, risk takings without compensation. Implement tax relief or compensation to address these losses.
4. Erosion of Property Rights by Precautionary Regulations
The CAO’s Best Available Science (BAS) prioritizes speculative environmental goals over our property rights, restricting farming and development without proving harm. This mirrors past ordinances upheld despite lacking an essential nexus, undermining our rights. Involve stakeholders in BAS reviews, exempt low-impact farming, and justify restrictions with clear causation.
5. Inaccessible Mitigation and Incentive Programs
Mitigation programs like the Voluntary Stewardship Program are complex and costly, with credits unaffordable for small farmers and owners. Precautionary burdens without a nexus make compliance inequitable. Simplify these programs and fund them to ensure accessibility for all.
6. Floodplain Management and Climate-Driven Flood Risks
Floodplain buffers restrict mitigation projects (e.g., drainage improvements), exacerbating climate-driven flooding losses ($1–2 million annually for farms). Precautionary restrictions, without proving our activities cause harm, limit resilience. Allow climate-adaptive measures like water storage, tied to a clear nexus.
CAPR Demands
- Apply site-specific buffers with proven harm, per the essential nexus test.
- Simplify permitting and fund subsidies for small stakeholders.
- Provide compensation for reduced property values.
- Include stakeholders in BAS reviews and exempt low-impact uses.
- Make mitigation programs accessible with increased funding.
- Allow climate-adaptive flood measures with clear causation.
The county must balance environmental protection with our rights and economic needs. The precautionary principle’s overreach risks takings, as seen in past legal challenges. Revise the CAO to comply with the essential nexus test and serve our community.
Signed,
Cindy Alia
Citizens’ Alliance for Property Rights
September 1, 2025