Four Winlock-area Landowners Face Possible Eminent Domain as County Secures Property for Highway 603 Project

Posted

Rebecca Coward lives in a red house on about 8 acres of land tucked back at the end of a driveway off of Highway 603 just outside of Winlock city limits.

Most drivers probably don’t notice her home, as trees on her property provide a buffer between the house and the highway. 

Coward likes her trees and the privacy they provide, and she’s “really angry” that the county is trying to acquire some of her land and two of the wooden giants that provide a shield for seclusion. 

“They keep wanting to take down more of my privacy screen,” Coward said.

The attempted acquisition of land and trees is for a 1.7-mile project to widen and straighten Highway 603 beginning near the Winlock city limits.

The Board of County Commissioners has given notice of its intent to exercise its eminent domain authority on four property owners, and on Aug. 24 the commissioners will consider authorizing condemnation of property.

The county offered Coward $1,700 for 0.09 acres of her property and the two trees on that section. She countered with $10,000. An agreement wasn’t reached.

If the county was just seeking the land, she said she might be more agreeable, but she doesn’t want to give up the two trees.

“My impact is fairly insignificant; however, I bought the trees. When I bought this place, I bought the trees. I have beautiful trees,” she said. 

Coward has lived on the property for 24 years now.

With her most recent offer refused, Coward said she plans to hire a lawyer. 

According to a letter from the county to Coward dated June 12, the agency will reimburse up to $750 of costs to hire a professional to evaluate the county’s offer.

Along with Coward, Lewis County has been unsuccessful in acquiring property from three other property owners for the project.



Agreements for property acquisition have been reached with 17 other private landowners.

Public Works Director Tim Elsea said property acquisition is just part of the process when it comes to construction and that the county will continue negotiations with the remaining owners. 

He hopes the county can settle with all property owners, but thinks an agreement might be difficult to reach with one or two of them.  He and Coward met on multiple occasions to discuss the project. The project was redesigned partially based on Coward’s concerns, he said. 

The redesign actually made the project better, he said, because the speed limit was reduced from 50 mph to 40 mph, which allows for a tighter radius. 

“It looked to me that it would make more sense to lower the design speed limit to (40) mph in that area, especially since you’ve got somewhat urban densities right there,” he said.

Prior to the design change, the county wanted to acquire more of Coward’s property.

“We’ve done our best to work with her and … I think we’ve done a heck of a job in minimizing any impacts to her property there,” Elsea said.

Any other alternatives would force the road onto the property of landowners across the highway, which would affect septic systems.

The county began talking with the affected landowners about the project in the fall of 2013.

Elsea said the county tries to work with all property owners, and that he believes the agency went “above and beyond” for Coward.

“I didn’t go to the county to sell my land. They came to me,” Coward said. “I don’t want to sell my land or trees.”