By Marcy Stamper
Assertions that Okanogan County’s approach to all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) could damage sensitive environmental areas and lead to violations of the law are merely speculative, Okanogan County Superior Court Judge Henry Rawson has ruled.
Rawson’s Dec. 26 decision was issued in an appeal by two environmental organizations of the county commissioners’ decision to allow ATVs to ride on all roads with speed limits of 35 miles per hour (mph) and below.
Plaintiffs Methow Valley Citizens’ Council (MVCC) and Conservation Northwest argued that the county had failed to do an adequate environmental review of the impact of the opening of 421 miles of county roads to ATVs.
In his decision, Rawson noted that when the state legislators passed a law in 2013 giving local officials the option of allowing ATVs with certain safety features to use roads with speed limits up to 35 mph, their primary intent was to “stimulate rural economies … advance self-policing and abuse intolerance and increase opportunities for ATV use.”
“Clearly the Legislature understood the economic impact of this newer form of recreational activity and has thus authorized the Defendant [Okanogan County] to decide whether its roadways are suitable and appropriate to be ‘shared’ with other recreationists,” wrote Rawson.
Rawson noted that the county commissioners had previously upheld the adequacy of the environmental review by the county’s planning director, Perry Huston, and said Huston’s decision should be accorded substantial weight.
Rawson said the plaintiffs had submitted “some evidence” of unlawful use of ATVs by “those that scoff at the law,” but ruled that such examples do not require an environmental impact statement, the more detailed environmental review the plaintiffs said was necessary. He said they had submitted only “speculative or hypothetical disagreement, based upon conjecture.”
Rawson likened the opening of roads to ATVs and the corresponding requirement for policing to enforcement of other rules of the road. “Just as our state highways have speed limits with enforcement penalties in place, persons still exceed those limits and ‘probably’ will continue to exceed the limit. With ATVs, ‘probably’ individuals would drive off of the county roadway; however, would they damage the environment and to what degree is speculative and conjecture,” wrote Rawson. He said the county had taken provisions, through law enforcement and signage, to prohibit unlawful activity.
The commissioners’ June 2014 resolution opened 421 miles of roads to ATVs, the majority unpaved, adding to 336 miles that were already open to the vehicles.
At the court hearing in November, the plaintiffs had argued that many of the county roads opened to ATVs have short, higher-speed sections where ATVS are prohibited, which they said would create confusion and encourage riders to disregard the law. Rawson did not address this contention is his opinion.
In a statement about Rawson’s decision, MVCC said, “We remain convinced that opening all county roads with speed limits 35 mph and below to ATVs is a mistake, both legally and environmentally. We will consult with our attorney and the Board of Directors will decide if an appeal to the State Court of Appeals is appropriate.”
