Washington State Coastal Zone Program 
As the first State to have its program approved by 
the Secretary of Commerce, Washington has estab- 
lished the effective level of Federal acceptability. 
That is, other States could not reasonably be asked 
to provide more than Washington. The State has re- 
ceived two administration grants under Section 306, 
the only State to do so through 1977. 
While details of the State’s program are peculiar 
to the specific act on which it is based, the basic 
dynamics of the Washington program, specifically 
the State-local government relationship, probably 
will be representative of those States which gain 
eventual Federal approval. 
Several features of the State of Washington’s 
coastal zone program are basic to understanding how 
it operates. . 
First, the coastal zone management program is 
based on a State Shoreline Management Act ® 
covering all major inland rivers and lakes, as well as 
the saltwater coast. 
Second, the “program” consists of individually 
prepared local master programs by each municipality 
and county along the coast, developed under broad 
State guidelines. Each “shoreline master program” 
reflects the political, social, and economic makeup 
of the particular jurisdiction. 
Third, State intervention in local development 
decisions, after approving a local master program, 
is concentrated on the first 200 feet inland. The 
State is given an opportunity to appeal any local 
development decision in this area to an independent 
Shorelines Hearing Board; it does not have the 
power to overturn such decisions directly. And the 
jurisdiction of the hearing board does not apply to 
the land area inland of 200 feet (with exceptions for 
certain wetlands). Activities beyond the 200-foot 
line which would affect the coastal area are obliged 
to meet the goals of the shoreline program, providing 
an opportunity for more extensive State coverage. 
The basic control mechanism operating in the 
200-foot coastal area is the requirement that a shore- 
line permit be obtained from the local government, 
beyond whatever other permits might be required. 
Certain activities are exempt from this permit re- 
quirement, notably construction by the owner of a 
single-family house. Homes constructed by a devel- 
oper for sale would require a permit. The thinking 
was that single-home construction did not create the 
qualitative problems prompting adoption of the pre- 
gram. Also, the exemption was felt necessary polit- 
ically. 
Implementation of Program 
The Washington State program has had three dis- 
85 RCW, Chapter 90.58. 
tinct phases. The first was between June 1971 when 
the State legislature acted and November 1972 when 
the voters sanctioned shoreline management. The 
second was between November 1972 and varying 
times after 1974 when locally prepared master pro- 
grams for the shorelines were prepared. The third 
phase, still not reached in a few jurisdictions, is the 
administration stage when local governments issue 
the required permits according to the State-approved 
master program and send the required notice of each 
such action to the State. 
Washington at first funded the shoreline activity 
entirely by itself, perhaps in anticipation of eventual 
Federal assistance. The State was one of the first to 
be funded under the national coastal management 
program in May 1974. An initial two-thirds Federal 
grant of $388,820 was followed by a second grant 
of $774,000 for program development in July 1975. 
Table 4—7 shows the sequence of major events in the 
Washington State program as they relate to the time- 
table of the national coastal management prograni. 
The real beginning of the program can be dated 
from 1974, when the first locally prepared master 
program was approved and permits were issued 
based on it. Once approved, such programs become 
State law and can only be amended with State ap- 
proval. 
The shoreline management process began with a 
mandatory inventory of resources by local govern- 
ment units. Generally, the work was performed by 
existing planning agencies. Of the 15 coastal coun- 
ties, all had already zoned at least part of their land. 
Comprehensive plans had been adopted by 89 per- 
cent of the coastal cities and 80 percent of the 
counties. By virtue of the shoreline management re- 
quirements of local governments (if a unit failed to 
produce a plan, the State was empowered to do so), 
four planning offices were established and one com- 
prehensive plan stimulated.®* 
Following development of the resource inventory, 
shoreline/coastal programs were developed accord- 
ing to State guidelines which spell out both the time- 
table and the content required. The original dead- 
line was met by less than 10 percent of the statewide 
eligible entities; after a 6-month extension granted 
by the State legislation, half of those eligible sub- 
mitted master programs.*’ As of November 1977, 
about 200 cities and counties had completed the 
66 Jens Sorensen, Researcher, Institute of Urban and Regional 
Development, University of California. State-Local Collaborative 
Planning: A Growing Trend in Coastal Zone Management. 
Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA, Washington, D.C., 
October 1977, pp. 5—S5. 
67 Ibid. pp. 5-30. 
IV-35 
