New House Committees/Emerging Priorities

The House has restructured its committees that deal with environment & water issues. For the past several sessions, Rep. Kelli Linville (D-Bellingham) chaired one or another version of a committee that dealt with these issues. She has moved on to chair the House Appropriations Subcommittee on General Government and Audit Review, and now the Natural Resources Committee, chaired by Rep. Brian Sullivan’s (D-Mukilteo), will address most environment and water, as well as agricultural, issues.

Two new House Select Committees have been formed. The term "select" apparently means they have a narrower focus than other committees. The House Select Committee on Environmental Health is chaired by Rep. Tom Campbell (R-Roy) and will look at environmental health issues such as impacts from toxic substances.

Signaling what may become an emerging critical issue this session, there is a new House Select Committee on Puget Sound, chaired by Rep. Dave Upthegrove (D-Des Moines). This committee will work on a new government structure to oversee expenditures and clean-up of the Sound. AWC strongly supports this effort if the new governance structure is not given any sort of "super agency" powers over land use and other city operations.

The Senate committee structure remains generally the same. The environment and water issues of interest to cities continue to be considered by the Water, Energy and Environment Committee chaired by Sen. Eric Poulsen (D-Seattle).

Phase II NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit for Cities

As we’ve been reporting for months, the Department of Ecology (DOE) is poised to adopt a Stormwater Management permit applicable to the 100 or so largest cities (other than Seattle and Tacoma) in Washington. The permit is over five years in development and Washington is one of the last states in the country to adopt the permit under requirements of the Federal Clean Water Act. DOE will issue the permit on January 17, 2007. Requirements will differ between cities in western and eastern Washington and will include responsibilities in excess of those required by the Clean Water Act.

AWC has been working collaboratively with other stormwater interests and DOE in developing this permit. The permit’s requirements must be addressed in increments over the next several years and will be very costly to implement for both public and private interests. Impacted cities strongly support most of what is required by the permit and understand they have a significant role to play in improving water quality in their communities.

AWC has continuously expressed concerns about a provision in the western Washington permit that will require properties already developed to redevelop to a significantly higher stormwater run-off management standard. Implementing this provision may subject cities to claims of a "taking" by property owners and/or may discourage downtown redevelopment because of the added costs. DOE recognizes these concerns and has agreed to jointly brief the relevant legislative committees on the matter, but has decided to issue the permit with this provision.

The Governor’s budget does include $28 million in funds to help Phase II cities implement this aggressive program. AWC appreciates the administration’s recognition of the importance of this permit and a shared responsibility in ensuring its successful implementation.

Shorelines Master Programs Meeting with Department of Ecology

AWC and representatives from cities met with DOE staff on Wednesday, January 3, to discuss grants, administrative issues and Shorelines Master Programs (SMP) legislation. AWC would like to thank city staff that were able to participate in this meeting via conference call.

Funding Allocation

Cities have been noting that because SMP work did not get underway as soon as originally anticipated, significant portions of grant monies allocated for year one will not be spent in year one. Many cities have been inquiring about carrying-over unused money from year one to year two. According to DOE, grant monies are assigned in dollar amounts to each task and allocated for spending in either year one or year two. Allocations for year one are required to be spent in year one and allocations for year two are required to be spent in year two -- unused money from year one does not carry over to year two. Because these are general fund dollars, the Legislature needs to approve any changes to the distribution of these funds. AWC intends to work with the Legislature to realign this funding to provide for adequate funding for cities in year two.

Shoreline Master Program Extension

DOE has submitted agency request legislation that would allow DOE to give local governments a one-year extension to complete their SMP updates. If an extension is given, cities and counties could spend state grant money over a three-year period of time instead of the existing two-year timeline. This legislation does not increase overall funding. AWC supports the extension to three years and also supports a corresponding increase in overall funding.

Revising the Definition of "Floodway" in the Shoreline Management Act

In the past, many local governments incorporated floodway maps developed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) into their SMPs. A 2002 Court of Appeals decision found that FEMA’s definition of floodway differed too greatly from the state definition and that local governments could not use FEMA maps. This bill would change the definition of a "floodway" in the state Shoreline Management Act (SMA) to give city and county governments the option to use federally produced floodway maps to help update their SMPs.

Shorelines Master Program Update Discussion Group

We are offering to establish and facilitate a discussion group among interested cities on these and any other Shorelines topics. If you’re interested in participating is this discussion group, please contact Tim Gugerty at timg@awcnet.org or 1-800-562-8981.

If you have any input or questions on any of these issues, please email Dave Williams at davew@awcnet.org or Tim Gugerty at timg@awcnet.org or call either by phone at 1-800-562-8981.

Outdoor Burn Ban in Smaller Cities and Towns

AWC received clarification from the Department of Ecology (DOE) that cities and their associated Urban Growth Areas (UGAs) in non-GMA planning counties with population densities less than 1,000 people per square mile are exempt from the rule that went into effect January 1, 2007, banning residential and land clearing burning in cities with populations under 5,000 (and their associated UGAs).

Based on this information, AWC compiled a list of cities under 5,000 in population that are exempt from the burn ban, which can be found online at www.awcnet.org/documents/burnbanexemptions.xls.

AWC intends to introduce legislation to exempt smaller cities in non-Central Puget Sound counties that meet the same criteria as those exempt in non-GMA counties. We are still seeking input from affected cities regarding the burn ban. Were you aware of the burn ban? Have you been able to develop alternatives to burning? Has the state and/or local clean air agencies been working with you to prepare for the burn ban? How will the ban impact your city? To provide input, please contact Tim Gugerty at timg@awcnet.org or 1-800-562-8981.

Background on this AWC priority issue can be found in the November Legislative Bulletin.

[ previous article ] [ return to top ] [ next article ]