Environment & Water

AWC Priority
Clean Up and Protection of the Puget Sound (2SHB 1374/SSB 5372)

2SHB 1374 was pulled to the House floor the morning of Friday, March 8, and could be acted upon at any time. The Senate bill is also expected to move to the floor soon. Ultimately, one of these bills is expected to pass in some version and reach the Governor’s desk for signature.

This legislation will have long-lasting impacts on the health of the Puget Sound and, likely, how all cities in the 12 counties adjacent to the Sound will conduct land use, environmental protection and capital budgeting activities.

AWC has continuously testified in overall support of these bills that create a new "high profile" entity that will develop a Puget Sound Action Plan by the fall of 2008. The Action Plan will provide guidance on how to clean up the Sound by 2020. Neither bill gives the entity regulatory powers, but both bills (in differing ways) include language requiring state and local governments to conform to the yet-to-be developed plan.

AWC supports, in particular, language in the House version, 2SHB 1374, about how local governments will work with the new entity and respond to its Action Plan. Like its Senate companion bill, the House version is undergoing a re-write before floor action based upon stakeholder discussions (including AWC) and consultations with the Governor.

Concerns About/Opposition to Section 128 in SSB 5372

AWC, the Washington State Association of Counties (WSAC), and the Washington Public Ports Association (WPPA) have been working with the sponsor of SSB 5372, Sen. Phil Rockefeller (D-Bainbridge Island) to remove language in the bill that reads as follows for cities. The bill also includes similar provisions for counties and ports.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 128. A new section is added to chapter 35.21 RCW to read as follows: Each city responsible for implementing provisions of the Puget Sound action agenda developed under section 108 of this act shall use its existing legal authorities to the fullest extent possible to conform to the applicable requirements and timelines of the agenda.

Why does this language concern AWC? While we are very supportive of the development of a new and aggressive Puget Sound Action Plan, language in both this bill and the House version clearly states that the entity developing the plan will not have any regulatory authority.

The Plan is intended to provide a path to a clean Puget Sound by 2020 and is appropriately led by science. The entity is supposed to lay the foundation for how to clean up the Sound and prioritize public investments to support that aim; the entity should not make decisions about how to balance those efforts with, for instance, determinations about where to put the next one million people or how to best manage shorelines or stormwater. Those decisions remain with local governments through implementation of the Growth Management Act, Shorelines Management Act, stormwater services, and other plans and regulations articulated in other statutes not being changed by this Puget Sound legislation.

As such, there is not clarity in Sec. 128 of SSB 5372 about how local governments are supposed to use their existing legal authorities to the "fullest extent possible to conform to the applicable requirements and timelines of the agenda." The meaning and outcome of this language is questionable and AWC has concerns about what new litigation this language might spark.

For example, what if the Action Agenda states that shorelines of the state should no longer have bulkheads? Cities managing shorelines under the Shoreline Management Act are not currently required to mandate their removal now nor under the recently-adopted state rules guiding updates required over the next few years. Does the language in Sec. 128 of SSB 5372 infer that cities should or must do more? If so, how? Does this language imply that cities will need to condemn bulkheads on private property using eminent domain authorities (which cities have, but appropriately rarely use)?

The executive directors of AWC, the WSAC and the WPPA sent a letter to Sen. Rockefeller asking him to remove Sec. 128 from SSB 5372. If it is not removed, association staff will continue to lobby to have these sections removed.

Other parts of each bill are being worked on in such a way that AWC hopes to maintain active support of passage. For more information, please contact Dave Williams at davew@awcnet.org.

AWC Priority
Residential Yard Waste Burning in Small Cities (SSB 6081)

This priority bill has moved to the Senate calendar for action. While the bill is not all that we had hoped for, it will help many smaller cities and towns outside of highly urbanizing areas. As reported in last week’s Bulletin, a "compromise" version was offered by the Department of Ecology that would extend allowing such burning until July 1, 2008 in all cities of 2500 or fewer in population in all fully-planning GMA counties except King, Pierce, Snohomish, Kitsap, Thurston, Clark, Yakima, Walla Walla and Spokane. The bill also creates a task force to assess the issues around burning in these small and often isolated communities. The task force would report findings to the 2008 Legislature. The Legislature would have an opportunity then to address whether or not to extend the ban beyond July 2008.

This version of the bill is on the Senate Calendar for consideration, as of this writing. AWC strongly supports moving this bill forward and encourages interested cities to contact your senator to encourage support for passage.

For more information, please see our updated Fact Sheet on this issue at www.awcnet.org/smallcityburnban or contact Tim Gugerty at timg@awcnet.org.

Hearing Next Week of Interest

The Select Committee on Puget Sound has scheduled a work session on challenges and impacts of urban industrial activities on the Puget Sound. The work session is scheduled for Friday, March 16 at 8 am.

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