San Juan County, WA — 2026 Critical Areas Ordinance Update
Know Your Rights
A factual review of proposed regulations that exceed Washington State minimum requirements — and what they could cost property owners, farmers, and small businesses in San Juan County.
Read the AnalysisBackground
What Is the CAO Update?
A Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) is local law that governs how land near wetlands, streams, shorelines, steep slopes, and wildlife habitat can be used. Every county in Washington must adopt one under the Growth Management Act (GMA).
San Juan County is currently updating its CAO. The draft proposes significant changes to buffer widths, habitat protections, and permitting requirements that will directly affect how property owners can build, maintain, and use their land.
Public comment is open. This is your opportunity to weigh in before the County Council votes.
View the County's official CAO update page →Legal Framework
What Does State Law Require?
The Growth Management Act (GMA) requires every Washington county to protect critical areas using Best Available Science (BAS). The GMA sets minimum standards that all counties must meet.
Counties may exceed those minimums — but when they do, they must document the specific justification: what harm the additional regulation prevents and why the burden on property owners is proportionate.
It is important to understand that BAS informs regulations — it does not mandate specific buffer widths, locally invented habitat categories, or particular permitting procedures. Science describes conditions; policy choices determine how to respond.
The provisions below are areas where the County's draft CAO goes beyond what state law requires, without clear documented justification in the public record for the additional burden imposed.
Analysis
Where SJC's Draft Exceeds State Minimums
Six provisions in the proposed CAO that go beyond GMA requirements. Click each to see the state minimum, what the County proposes, and how it could affect you.
State Minimum
No GMA requirement. "Feeder bluff" is a locally invented category with no basis in state critical areas law.
SJC Proposes
New protections for mapped feeder bluffs with setback and buffer requirements that restrict development near coastal bluffs.
Real-World Impact
A waterfront homeowner's buildable area could be eliminated entirely. A routine septic system repair becomes a $40,000 permitting project requiring geotechnical studies and mitigation plans.
State Minimum
No state minimum requires a quarter-mile review buffer for Great Blue Heron rookeries.
SJC Proposes
Quarter-mile (1,320 ft) review buffer around mapped Great Blue Heron rookeries, triggering critical area review for any development activity within the zone.
Real-World Impact
A farmer needs a critical area review and $8,000 in consulting fees just to build a barn. Families living near mapped rookeries face months of delay on routine permits for additions, outbuildings, or land clearing.
State Minimum
WDFW recommends but does not require the SPTH200 model. The gap analysis acknowledges that alternative buffer approaches are acceptable under the GMA.
SJC Proposes
Adoption of SPTH200 riparian buffer widths, which in many cases dramatically expand buffers beyond current standards.
Real-World Impact
A buffer around a seasonal creek expands from 75 feet to 183 feet, eliminating the buildable area on a residential lot. A subdivision application is denied. Land loses significant value with no compensation to the owner.
State Minimum
The GMA does not require the removal of administrative buffer reduction processes. This is a policy preference, not an environmental mandate.
SJC Proposes
Elimination of the existing administrative pathway that allowed staff to approve minor buffer reductions for small projects without a full hearing process.
Real-World Impact
A bedroom addition near a wetland buffer that was previously approvable through a straightforward administrative review now requires a full mitigation process — or faces outright denial. A small business parking expansion that was economically feasible under the old process becomes impossible.
State Minimum
The gap analysis states this change is intended to "reduce County liability" — not to fulfill an environmental protection requirement.
SJC Proposes
Requiring individual property owners to prepare and fund Habitat Management Plans for projects near critical areas, shifting the burden from the County to applicants.
Real-World Impact
Simple landscaping near a stream now requires a $3,000–$5,000 consultant report. A retired couple's modest project stalls indefinitely as they navigate unfamiliar regulatory requirements and wait for consultant availability.
State Minimum
The GMA requires protection of fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, but the extent and specificity of the proposed marine framework far exceeds what is mandated.
SJC Proposes
A comprehensive marine and nearshore Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Area (FWHCA) framework with detailed review requirements for any activity in or near marine waters.
Real-World Impact
A dock replacement becomes a multi-year, multi-agency permitting process. Storm damage repairs that should take weeks instead take two years as property owners navigate overlapping review requirements.
Get Involved
What You Can Do
Public input matters. These are the most effective ways to make your voice heard on the CAO update.
Submit a Public Comment
Send your comments on the proposed CAO to the County planner before the comment period closes. Be specific about which provisions concern you and why.
Email Colin Maycock → colinm@sanjuancountywa.govAttend Council Meetings
Show up at County Council meetings where the CAO is discussed. In-person testimony carries weight and helps Council members understand the breadth of community concern.
Check Meeting Schedule →Share With Neighbors
Many property owners in San Juan County don't know about these proposed changes. Share this page with anyone who owns property, farms, or runs a business in the County.
Our Position
Property Rights and Regulatory Accountability
We are not opposed to environmental protection. We support the GMA minimum standards, which already reflect Best Available Science.
We believe every provision that exceeds those minimums requires explicit, documented justification showing the specific harm it prevents and that the burden on property owners is proportionate.
That justification does not currently exist in the public record for the provisions listed above.
References