## Facts

- San Juan County is an island county surrounded by marine waters supporting sensitive ecosystems, including endangered marine mammals and birds, and a tourism economy tied to quiet recreation and wildlife viewing.
- Increased use of motorized personal watercraft (PWCs) in the mid-1990s generated public complaints about noise, high-speed operation near shore, erratic maneuvering, wildlife disturbance, and conflicts with the county’s desired recreational character.
- After public meetings and drafting workshops, the County adopted Ordinance No. 3-1996 (Jan. 30, 1996).
- The ordinance prohibited PWC operation on all county marine waters and one lake, with narrow exceptions (e.g., emergency and law-enforcement use, certain research activities, and limited routing for interstate or foreign commerce).
- The ordinance’s findings cited safety and environmental concerns and relied on a “prudent avoidance” rationale given potentially serious harm.
- PWC users, rental and sales businesses, and industry groups sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing the ordinance exceeded county police power and violated the public trust doctrine.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs and declared the ordinance void.
- The County appealed directly to the Washington Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether the countywide PWC ban was an invalid exercise of county police power because it was arbitrary, unreasonable, or lacked a substantial relation to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
2. Whether prohibiting PWCs on county marine waters violated the public trust doctrine by unlawfully restricting public navigation rights in navigable waters.
3. Whether state boating statutes and regulations preempted the ordinance by occupying the field or creating a direct conflict.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the trial court and upheld the ordinance.
- The Court held the ordinance was a valid exercise of local police power because it reasonably related to safety, environmental protection, and preservation of the county’s tourism-based character.
- The Court held the ordinance did not violate the public trust doctrine because the public retained general navigation and other trust uses through other watercraft and the regulation did not alienate trust resources.
- The Court held the ordinance was not preempted and did not conflict with state boating law because the Legislature had not clearly occupied the field and compliance with both state law and the ordinance was possible.
- The case was remanded for entry of summary judgment for San Juan County.

## Legal Principles

- A local ordinance enacted under police power is valid if it is not arbitrary or unreasonable and bears a real and substantial relation to legitimate governmental objectives (including safety, environmental protection, and community welfare).
- The public trust doctrine protects public interests in navigable waters (e.g., navigation and related uses) but does not guarantee access for every type of vessel or every modern recreational device.
- Regulatory limits on a specific class of watercraft do not violate the public trust doctrine where public trust resources are not alienated and traditional public uses remain generally available.
- Local regulation is preempted only when the Legislature clearly intends to occupy the field or when a local enactment directly conflicts with state law; no conflict exists when simultaneous compliance is possible.

## Conclusion

The Washington Supreme Court upheld San Juan County’s comprehensive PWC ban as a reasonable safety and environmental regulation within local police power, consistent with the public trust doctrine, and not preempted by state boating law.


Weden v. San Juan County, 958 P.2d 273 (Wash. 1998)