State to Pre-empt Local Authority in HB 1254, International Wildland Urban Interface Code

By Cindy Alia 1/22/25

Analysis of HB 1254  AN ACT Relating to implementing the International Wildland Urban Interface Code; amending RCW 19.27.560; and reenacting and amending RCW 19.27.031.  There is a link on the bill page link for you to comment to your legislators.

HB 1254 is Sponsored by these legislators from the House of Representatives; Representatives Duerr, Berg, Ramel, Macri, Pollet, Davis, and Hunt.  You can Comment to your legislators on this bill. 

The sponsors of this bill intend to remove the rights of local governments and implement the entirety of the Wildlife Urban Interface Code.  This code is used internationally and is a set of regulations designed to mitigate the risks associated with wildfires in areas where urban development meets or intermingles with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels.

The urban interface aspect of the code begs the question of how directly it relates to circumstances in Washington state.  Where exists large urban interfacing with wildlands?  Does it make sense to adopt the code statewide in its entirety, or is the better application of the code as it has been in past legislation, using the code as it may apply to various counties or cities statewide according to local conditions and local regulatory authority? 

This proposed bill will strip local authority to adopt portions of the code that apply to local jurisdiction and force adoption of the entire code through state regulation.

HB 1254 will negatively impact property rights:

Impairment of Property Rights:

• Increased Construction Costs: The adoption of the WUI Code mandates specific construction techniques and materials aimed at reducing wildfire risk, such as class A fire-resistant roofing and non-combustible wall materials. These requirements could significantly increase the cost of building or renovating properties, especially in areas designated as high or very high hazard, potentially affecting property owners' decisions to develop or modify their properties.
• Regulatory Burden: Property owners in designated areas might face new regulatory hurdles, requiring compliance with these codes before they can build, alter, or even maintain their properties. This could limit the freedom of property use, as certain materials or construction methods might no longer be permissible, potentially impeding property rights by necessitating expensive compliance measures.
• Land Use Restrictions: The code might indirectly lead to restrictions on land use, particularly in areas newly identified as hazardous based on the wildfire maps. This could affect the marketability and use of land, thereby impacting property values and development potential.

Funding Mechanism:

• The legislation does not explicitly outline a funding mechanism for the implementation of these new standards, making the required changes to the legislation an unfunded mandate.  This makes it likely the funding would be borne by:
  • Property Owners: Through increased expenses for materials and construction to meet the new code requirements.
  • Local Governments: Potentially through increased administrative costs to enforce these new regulations, which might lead to higher permit fees or other local taxes to cover the administrative burden.

The proposed amendment to the Washington State legislation regarding the International Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Code does interact with existing state laws, and there are potential areas of conflict or at least areas requiring careful legal interpretation.  These conflicts need resolution, likely through legislative clarification or judicial interpretation, to ensure that the new provisions can be implemented smoothly alongside existing legal frameworks.

Costs and burdens will accrue for property owners and local governments in these ways.  In summary, while the amendment aims to enhance wildfire resilience, it conflicts with:

•             The established adoption procedures for state building codes.

•             Local government's regulatory flexibility under current state law concerning building and land use.

•             The timing and methodology for implementing new codes based on still-to-be-completed mapping projects.

1. Conflict with Existing State Building Codes:
   • RCW 19.27.031: This section already specifies the adoption of various model codes, including the WUI Code, but with limitations. The amendment expands the adoption of the WUI Code, which might conflict with the existing structure where only specific portions of the code were adopted. The amendment changes the adoption from "only those portions" to the entire code, which could lead to discrepancies if not all provisions were previously considered or adopted.
   • Adoption Cycle: The amendment allows for the adoption of the WUI Code upon the completion of specific maps, which might bypass the regular three-year adoption cycle for building codes outlined in RCW 19.27.031. This could be seen as conflicting with the established process unless considered under the provisions for off-cycle or emergency amendments.
2. Local Authority and State Preemption:
   • Local Jurisdictions' Authority: The amendment allows counties, cities, and towns to adopt the International WUI Code in whole or in part but also mandates that once state maps are completed, local maps must align with state criteria. This could conflict with local autonomy under RCW 35A.11.010 or RCW 36.70A.040, where local governments have significant control over their zoning and land use laws.
   • RCW 19.27.040: This law allows local jurisdictions to amend building codes to not be less than the state's minimum requirements. The new mandate might be interpreted as limiting local ability to make such amendments if they exceed the state's minimum performance standards under the WUI Code.
3. Mapping and Implementation:
   • RCW 43.30.580: This law mandates the Department of Natural Resources to create wildfire hazard and risk maps, but the amendment's implementation is contingent on these maps, which could lead to delays or conflicts in application if the mapping isn't completed in a timely manner or if there are disagreements about the map's accuracy or criteria.