a bill about: Restricting the use of certain parcels of public land to access a public body of water.

One to watch for looks like its written with a vague description to support someones agenda .

Introduced by Rep. Haler. He represents the 8th legislative district out of Richland

What is "adequate" parking? As written, the governmental agency could be county, state, or federal. 1/4 square mile or less in size denotes total area. What if it is a long, narrow piece of property alongside a river, lake, or saltwater beach that is say 100' wide above the high water line that can't handle an "adequate" parking area? Could be a real headache for the agency and the recreational license holder.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=2342&year=2013

____________________________________________
HOUSE BILL 2342
_____________________________________________
State of Washington 63rd Legislature 2014 Regular Session
By Representative Haler
Read first time 01/15/14. Referred to Committee on Government
Operations & Elections.
1 AN ACT Relating to restricting the use of certain parcels of public
2 land to access a public body of water; adding a new section to chapter
3 79.02 RCW; and prescribing penalties.
4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
5 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. A new section is added to chapter 79.02 RCW
6 to read as follows:
7 (1) If a parcel of public land is one-quarter of a square mile or
8 less in size and is adjacent to a body of public water and the land is
9 or can be used to access the body of public water, the governmental
10 entity which has jurisdiction of the land must provide adequate public
11 parking for persons utilizing the land to access the water.
12 (2) If adequate public parking is not provided, using the land to
13 access the water for other than a governmental purpose is prohibited.
14 If adequate public parking is not provided, the governmental entity
15 which has jurisdiction of the land must post a warning sign for the
16 public that clearly shows that using the land to access the water is
17 prohibited and states the sanction for a violation of the prohibition.
p. 1 HB 2342
1 (3) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
--- END ---

By my math, a quarter of a square mile is on the order of 160 acres (640/4). That means most of the WDFW access sites for lakes and streams would fall under this. There is no definition for adequate.

For lakes, parking may be "adequate" for 364 days a year but not on the opener.

Interesting to see WDFW's and WADNR's response to this.

I've asked the question. It was news to my contact and will be looked into. Will pass along what I can.

....and, as written, it can be read to include all government lands - city, county, state, federal.....

There have been issues in some locales where very small pieces of public property either have been used for public access and/or advocacy groups have been pushing for access. My specific recollection is of streets dead-ending onto public tidelands and lakes. Adjoining property owners have a problem with that type of access due to lack of adequate parking, no restroom/garbage facilities, difficulty in emergency response as well as policing. Not sure if that is the issue in his district but someone certainly has this legislator's ear.

The Point No Point boat ramp is very likely under 160 acres, could be denied if this law goes into effect......time to get serious, could close lots of other small access points also, in fact most of the ones local here in Kitsap.

I agree with Larry about the postage stamp-sized properties at the end of a street that are used as accesses and cause a lot of problems. That does need addressing but with a scalpel and not a nuke.

Insofar as that project has undergone a public review and upland develpment permitting I would opine that it meets the requirement for adequate parking.

Now all WDFW has to do is receive the permitting from the Corps for the actual heart of the project which is the ramp.

I'd bet a dollar that what you have is one landowner right next to one of the wildlife areas between Tri-Cities and Priest Rapids Dam, and that the area his property is adjacent to is popular enough to attract more cars/hunters/fishers than the lot allows (if there is a lot at all), and they park on the road in front near his house...and he happens to be friends with Representative Haler.

That's about all it would take to get the ball rolling on this one.

Fish on...

Todd

Very likely but on the other hand that wouldn't necessarily make the adjacent landowner's concerns/complaints as being without merit.

I suspect it would have plenty of merit...and plenty of "that's what you get when you live next to a wildlife area access point", too.

Fish on...

Todd

Sometimes the landowner was there first.....