Opinion ID: 1426747
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Ordinance is in Conflict with the General Laws of the State

Text: The trial court concluded this ordinance, which absolutely prohibits personal watercraft from the marine waters of San Juan County, conflicts with the general laws of the State and is, therefore, in excess of that legislative authority delegated to the county by constitution article XI, section 11. I agree. A county or local ordinance conflicts with state law when it permits or licenses that which the statute forbids and prohibits, and vice versa. Judged by such a test, an ordinance is in conflict if it forbids that which the statute permits.' City of Bellingham v. Schampera, 57 Wash.2d 106, 111, 356 P.2d 292, 92 A.L.R.2d 192 (1960) (citations omitted). Where a state statute licenses a particular activity, counties may enact reasonable regulations of the licensed activity within their borders but they may not prohibit same outright. Compare Second Amendment Found. v. City of Renton, 35 Wash.App. 583, 589, 668 P.2d 596 (1983); [5] 6A Eugene McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations § 24.54, at 150 (3d rev. ed.1997) (that which is allowed under state law cannot be prohibited by ordinance). [6] For example in Second Amendment Foundation the City of Renton regulated handguns in taverns and bars. In response to a challenge that the regulation of handguns conflicted with state licensing of concealed weapons, the court opined, While an absolute and unqualified local prohibition against possession of a pistol by the holder of a state permit would conflict with state law, an ordinance which is a limited prohibition reasonably related to particular places ... is not preempted by state statute. 35 Wash.App. at 589, 668 P.2d 596. [7] Here the State Legislature has enacted a comprehensive system of licensing and regulation of PWCs. PWCs must be registered with the State and all PWCs must display current registration decals. See RCW 88.02.020 ([N]o person may own or operate any vessel on the waters of this state unless the vessel has been registered and displays a registration number and a valid decal in accordance with this chapter.). RCW 88.02.020 is generically a licensing provision as a license is permission granted by some authority to do an act which, without such license, would be unlawful. Diamond Parking, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 78 Wash.2d 778, 780, 479 P.2d 47 (1971). This state statute first makes it unlawful to operate a PWC in state waters but then expressly invites same by offering a license to do exactly that. RCW 88.02.020. As the trial court correctly concluded, When the state adopts statutes which indicate that before somebody can use a particular vessel on the navigable waters of the state that they must register that vessel[,] the corollary of that is that once registered, the state is granting a license to use those on state waters. Court's Oral Decision at 4-5 (Sept. 30, 1996). As this ordinance defeats the state license by completely banning all PWCs from the marine waters of the very county most appropriate for the very activity the State has seen fit to license, the state license is robbed of its only purpose (to allow use of the craft) as the county ordinance now renders the state permit a license to do nothing at all. One doesn't need a license for that (I hope). In addition to licensing, state statutes provide broad statewide, uniform regulation of the design and operation of PWCs. For example, no one may operate a PWC anywhere in state waters during darkness (RCW 88.12.145(3)); nor while under age 14 (RCW 88.12.145(4)); nor without certain equipment (RCW 88.12.145(1) and .145(2)); nor recklessly (RCW 88.12.145(5)). Further, PWCs are subject to all other state marine-craft regulations including noise muffler regulations (RCW 88.12.085) and prohibitions on operation while under the influence (RCW 88.12.025). These state statutes license and regulate the use of PWCs in Washington. Even assuming localities may further tailor or supplement state regulations, an absolute prohibition of the subject of the state regulation nullifies the very purpose of the regulation which is to affirmatively permit and tailor PWC operation, not prohibit it. [8] If a county ordinance forbids an activity which is licensed by state statute, it conflicts with the statute. Schampera, 57 Wash.2d at 111, 356 P.2d 292. This does. This ordinance broadly bans the use of PWCs in all marine waters within the territorial boundaries of San Juan County. Such waters stretch offshore for hundreds of square miles and include international ferry lanes. There are no meaningful exceptions to the ban within the county's marine watersPWCs are prohibited everywhere. Further, the ban applies around the clock every day of the year. The ban is as absolute as absolute can be. The ordinance conflicts with RCW 88.02.020 because it prohibits that which the State allows. It therefore fails the second test under article XI, section 11, because it conflicts with the general laws.