Timeline for Release of Final EIS for Growler Operations at NAS Whidbey Island Extended
Read the Navy's September 22, 2017 press release.
MILITARY INSTALLATIONS BILLS VIOLATE WASHINGTON STATE’S CONSTITUTION
January 17, 2018, Port Angeles, WA – Two bills being considered in the Washington State Legislature expand military control of private development and land use planning in Washington State, violating several of the most basic and important provisions of the Washington and United States Constitutions.
HB 2341, now in the House Committee on Environment, and SB 6456, a companion bill in the Senate, prohibit local governments from allowing incompatible development in the vicinity of a military installation. Any commander of any military installation operated by the United States armed services within or adjacent to Washington State is given sole authority to determine whether incompatibility exists.
The bills prioritize all military uses, whether they improve or damage the State's economy, over any private, tax-paying, industrial, agricultural, residential or other development. They amend current legislation by:
1. making the prohibition of incompatible developments mandatory;
2. extending the prohibition to lands that are not adjacent to the military installation;
3. applying the prohibition to the benefit of any military installation, no matter how small;
4. allowing the State Department of Commerce to spend up to $25 million every two years to acquire property to eliminate an existing incompatible use, or to increase the availability of housing affordable to enlisted military personnel.
The bills imply that incompatibility exists if development "may interfere" with the installation's ability to carry out its "current or future mission requirements" and suggest the prohibition extends as far away from the military installation as the installation's present or future mission extends. This could result in the prohibition applying to almost any land within Washington State, whether the incompatibility arises from a current mission, or a mission proposed to begin years into the future.
“If a military installation's mission is to train helicopter crews, the bill could prohibit development anywhere along the flight path from launch to landing, depending solely on the military commander's judgment. Where a military mission is to provide howitzer training, the prohibition could apply as far away from the installation as explosive sounds could create an incompatibility, again depending solely on the military commander's judgment,” explained Ron Richards, Chair of Save The Olympic Peninsula.
By handing United States military commanders control of the State's land use powers, the bills violate Article 1, Section 18, of the Washington State Constitution that states, “The military shall be in strict subordination to civil power,” as well as violating the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, that reserves to the States the powers not granted to the federal government or prohibited by it to the States. Sacrosanct among the powers reserved to the States is the power to adopt local zoning regulations.
"By outlawing all land uses that might be incompatible with present or future missions of United States military installations, the bills accomplish an 'inverse condemnation' of property, and expose the State to paying for that property in litigation. This is especially egregious given that Washington state is in default of its 'paramount duty' to fund basic education," Richards emphasized.
Lawsuit Challenges Forest Service
Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics (FSEEE) has filed a lawsuit challenging the Forest Service’s approval of a Navy plan to conduct electronic warfare training on the Olympic National Forest in Washington state.
Earlier this summer, Olympic National Forest officials gave the Navy a special-use permit to park mobile transmitter trucks at 11 locations on the national forest. The permit allows the Navy to operate the transmitter trucks up to 260 days a year, for 8 to 16 hours each day. The trucks would shoot electromagnetic transmissions skyward and Navy fighter jets would try to detect and intercept the signals. The trucks would be surrounded by yellow caution tape when operating on the national forest.
FSEEE claims the Forest Service violated the Olympic National Forest’s land and resource management plan in issuing the special-use permit.
That plan, adopted in 1990 and required by the National Forest Management Act, states that the Forest Service must consider whether an activity can be accommodated on private land before issuing a special-use permit to operate on national forest land. FSEEE claims the Forest Service failed to consider a private land option.
The complaint also alleges that the permit approval violated a requirement that the Forest Service give priority to the interests and needs of the general public when deciding whether to issue a permit.
“Finally,” the complaint reads, “the Forest Service failed to determine that the permitted activity is compatible, and in harmony with, the surrounding landscape, as the (land and resource management plan) requires.”
FSEEE filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Tacoma on Friday, September 15. The complaint asks the court to order the Forest Service to withdraw the permit.
Find out more information about FSEEE at https://www.fseee.org.