A plain-language starting point
Understand the line.
Know your next step.
Start with your property, then check the proposal and its sources. You do not need to join a list or agree with us to use this map.
Read at your own pace
Four questions worth asking.
Which rules apply where I live?
The City proposal, County working map and hypothetical what-if band mean different things. Start with jurisdiction.
Understand today, proposed and possible future →What could a wider band change?
See the mapped parcel and acreage comparisons, with the sources and limits beside the numbers.
See the Walla Walla impact →What is required, and what can change?
Separate the state requirement from the City proposal. Get clear answers about repairs, rebuilding and funding.
Read the rules and choices →How do I know the map is reliable?
Follow the City and County data, the method, and the difference between a mapped centerline and a regulated boundary.
Read the method and original sources →State requirement · City proposal · Your say
What is required.
What can still change.
The Walla Walla City proposal raises questions about science, existing homes and funding. Start with the distinction between a legal requirement and a particular draft.
Sources checked October 10, 2026. This section concerns Walla Walla City; County and other city rules need their own review.
Does the state require 100 feet everywhere?
State law requires best available science. It does not set a universal 100-foot width. RCW 36.70A.172 requires cities and counties to include that science when protecting critical areas, with special consideration for fish that migrate between fresh and salt water.
The City cites Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife guidance in support of its proposed minimum 100-foot buffer. Choosing another approach still needs a defensible record. State guidance says a departure from science-based recommendations should identify supporting information, explain the reasoning, and address risks and measures to limit them.
RCW 36.70A.172 ↗WAC 365-195-915 ↗The City’s explanation ↗
A useful question: What evidence supports the proposed width on each creek, and how were alternatives evaluated?
Would this mean I cannot repair or rebuild?
A blanket “no rebuilding” claim leaves out the conditions. Existing City code allows certain maintenance, repair and reconstruction of lawful nonconforming structures. For a damaged nonconforming structure, the code includes a six-month deadline to apply for a permit to repair, rebuild or replace it. Other conditions and permits can also apply.
Repairing a home, expanding it and constructing a new building are different questions. Read the property guide for the draft’s wording and the existing-code provisions, then ask the City for a written answer about your planned work.
Existing critical-areas code ↗Nonconforming structures · Chapter 20.212 ↗Read the repair and rebuilding guide →
A useful question: Which section governs my project, what permits would I need, and what deadline applies?
Does the City lose funding if it changes this draft?
Funding consequences are tied to compliance and program rules. The Growth Management Act provides for financial sanctions through specified findings and procedures. That is different from an automatic loss of all state funding if this particular draft is changed or rejected.
Some funding programs also have their own eligibility requirements. For example, public-works assistance generally requires adoption of the plans and development regulations required by the GMA, with statutory exceptions. The City should identify the specific program, requirement, deadline and amount at risk when making a funding claim.
RCW 36.70A.340 · sanctions ↗RCW 36.70A.345 · findings ↗RCW 43.155.070 · public-works eligibility ↗
A useful question: Which funding source is at risk, under what rule, and would a compliant alternative protect eligibility?
Put a specific question in the record.
Ask for the evidence, the property impacts and clear wording for existing homes. You can read, ask questions and comment without joining a mailing list.
See how to take part →Read it for yourself
The draft is the source.
Read the proposed wording, then ask the planning office how it would apply to your property. The map is a starting point for that conversation.
A neighbor’s next step
You can help shape the conversation.
Send a comment, make time for the hearing, or hear from us when there is something new to know.
Get involved →
Perspectives from the community
Citizen comments.
Read the concerns, follow the sources, and form your own view. Start with this memorandum addressed to the Walla Walla City Council.
Featured memorandum
James K. Hayner
Attorney · Minnick Hayner ↗
In his words
Three points he raises
Summarized by CreekChecker
Science that fits local conditions
Hayner urges the City to develop scientific evidence specific to the local area before settling on its approach.
Pages 1 and 3Clear answers for existing homes
He raises questions about additions, ADUs, rebuilding after a fire, and how long grandfathered rights would remain.
Page 2Housing and property impacts
He argues that the proposed buffer conflicts with the City’s goals for infill, greater density and affordable housing.
Pages 2–3Your experience belongs in the discussion. Use your own words to explain what you want the Council to consider.
How to send your own comment →