Commissioners debate stronger language to pursue coastal highway connection amid funding questions

Clallam County planning commissioners considered draft comprehensive-plan language that would move beyond studying a potential alternative coastal route and instead recommend the county "pursue the development" of a new highway connection from Neah Bay to Ozette.

The shift would change the policy from an advisory review to a more actionable position, but commissioners repeatedly noted that State Highway 112 is a state route and that construction funding and engineering would depend on state and federal resources.

Commissioner Thomas Butler and others raised concerns about the feasibility and cost of building a new coastal route and noted environmental and park impacts, particularly near Olympic National Park. "Is there money to build a new highway right now?" one commissioner asked, and staff answered that most work on the route has been maintenance and repair rather than new construction.

Commissioner Dan May urged that the draft language reflect that the county and public have already identified a need: "You've developed you've already agreed there's a need. People are saying they've commented. There's a need. We have a need. Okay? We're past need. Now we're into well, let's look. Can we develop this perhaps?" he said, framing "pursue" as the next step in a long-running debate.

Staff cautioned that adding a time-bound accountability measure might commit the county to actions it lacks resources to complete, and several commissioners recommended preserving aspirational vision language while avoiding promises that require funding the county cannot guarantee. Commissioners suggested alternatives to "pursue," such as defining a timeframe for study and including clear accountability steps if the county intends follow-up action.

No formal motion or vote to change the policy language was recorded during the meeting; commissioners discussed striking, keeping or strengthening the proposed revision and asked staff to clarify consequences and potential funding pathways before finalizing language in the comprehensive plan.

Next steps: staff will revise the draft policy language options and provide additional context about funding responsibility (state vs. county), engineering challenges and potential timeframes for study or pursuit of a new connection.