Last week, my colleagues wrote about the Whatcom County v. Hirst decision by the Washington Supreme Court. As a consequence of Hirst, if public water is not available to serve a development, a county must independently verify that water from wells is available before it issues permits, even for single-family or small-development construction that, in the past, relied on permit-exempt wells. No longer can a county assume an adequate water supply, even if the Department of Ecology has not closed the basin to new development. This decision could interject uncertainty, delay, and cost into the land use permitting process.
Latest Post
More Posts
Washington Supreme Court Strikes a Blow to Vested Rights
SCOTUS Provides Pathway to Courts’ Challenging Army Corps’ Wetlands Calls
Creative Way to Deal With Easement Dispute Fails
A Washington Court of Appeals Reaffirms State’s Strong Vested Rights Doctrine
Leasing Restrictions in Condominiums Are Still “Use” Restrictions
If Your Company Uses Subcontracted Labor, the NLRB May Find You to Be a “Joint Employer”
As a Matter of Fact, Raisins Are Protected By the Fifth Amendment
Neighbor Loses Right to Use Driveway: Part II
Are Raisins Protected by the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
Subscribe: Subscribe via RSS
Blogs
Firm/Org