Environmentalists and defenders of growth management won a legal victory Thursday when the state Supreme Court ruled that land-use regulations narrowly approved by the King County Council in 2004 cannot be challenged by a voter referendum.

The regulations were adopted in the council's effort to comply with the state's 1990 Growth Management Act, which directs local governments to plan growth, guard the environment and designate and protect "critical areas." The regulations were passed 7-6 as part of a required update of the county's growth management plan. One effect of the regulations was to more tightly restrict some development by rural property owners.

Property-rights advocate Rodney McFarland gathered enough signatures on a petition to force a countywide voter referendum on the regulations. But the undertaking was halted by lower-court rulings that the Supreme Court upheld Thursday.

The court ruled that state laws trump county referendums.

"When the people of the state require action from a local legislature or executive body, those actions are not subject to a veto via a referendum," Justice Tom Chambers wrote for the majority in the 7-2 decision.

Justices Jim Johnson and Richard Sanders disagreed. In the written dissent, Johnson argued that the 1990 law did not require the specific regulations and that they are subject to referendum.

"The majority misconstrues the GMA," Johnson wrote. "Even more disturbing is the majority's apparent disregard of the court's historical presumption of the people's right of referendum."

The county was joined by environmental groups, the Association of Washington Cities and the state Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development in defending the regulations from challenge, as well as by the Master Builders Association of King and Snohomish Counties. The homebuilders' association isn't happy with all of the critical-areas regulations, but it said in a statement Thursday that it favors a more "thoughtful and comprehensive" process of land-use regulation than referendums would afford.

County Executive Ron Sims welcomed the court's ruling. "Property owners, builders and the public benefit from the certainty this decision brings," Sims said in a statement.

But Richard Stephens, McFarland's attorney, said, "I'm obviously disappointed that the court did not protect the right to vote in this case."

State Attorney General Rob McKenna sided with McFarland in the case. McKenna was a member of the County Council's Republican minority that was on the losing side of the 2004 vote.