By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on several questions regarding the legal authority of the State of Washington to carry out an implementation plan to be submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to Sections 107 and 110 of the Federal Clean Air Act.
This is written in response to your recent letter requesting that we review and comment upon your tentative responses to certain questions relating to a student dress policy covering students attending schools in the Pasco School District, which have been submitted to your office by the superintendent of that district. This policy statement, entitled "Good Grooming Policy," reads as follows:
This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on a question pertaining to the relationship between two statutes which were passed by the 1969 legislature; namely, chapters 188 and 234, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess. We paraphrase the issue raised by your request as follows:
19We are in receipt of your letter requesting our opinion on the following question: "In view of RCW 36.34.330, is a county forbidden by RCW 36.87.130 to negotiate an exchange of properties, involving the vacation of a county road, where the exchange would enable the county to acquire substantially similar property within the same plat and which also abuts upon the same body of salt or fresh water, where the purpose is to enable the county to retain equivalent public access for park, viewpoint, recreational, educational or other public purposes while allowing a re‑plat of the property involved."
By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested an opinion of this office on a question which we have divided and paraphrased as follows:
By letter previously acknowledged, you requested our opinion as to whether the present provisions of RCW 46.61.470 ‑ commonly known as the "speed trap" law ‑ preclude the admission in court of evidence as to the speed of a motor vehicle which is obtained through the use of a certain electronic computer device known as Vascar.
This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the following question: "'Is it the duty of the Prosecuting Attorney to represent the County Disability Boards as authorized in RCW 41.26.110?'"
We acknowledge receipt of your recent letter requesting our opinion as to the ability of the incumbent justice of the peace for Columbia county to continue in office after having attained the age of 75, in view of the provisions of § 1, chapter 6, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess.
Responding to your letter dated December 31, 1969, we would refer you to the decision of the Washington Supreme Court in State ex rel. Evans v. Brotherhood, Etc., 41 Wn.2d 133,247 P.2d 787 (1952), which was cited in our earlier letter to you of December 24, 1969.
By letter previously acknowledged you have requested the opinion of this office on three questions relating to the use of balances remaining from the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to chapter 172, Laws of 1965, Ex. Sess. (Referendum No. 15) and chapter 148, Laws of 1967, Ex. Sess. (Referendum No. 19).