|
Environment & Water
AWC Priority
Clean Up and Protection of the Puget Sound (2SHB 1374/ESSB 5372)
Over this past weekend, both the House and Senate versions of this bill passed. 2SHB 1374 was passed by the House on a 78-19 vote and ESSB 5372 was passed by the Senate on a 41-5 vote. The Senate version is scheduled for a hearing before the House Select Committee on Puget Sound on Friday, March 23 at 8 am. A hearing in the Senate on the House version has yet to be scheduled.
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.
Both bills contain many provisions supported by AWC. Overall, the House version, 2SHB 1374, contains the clearer language describing what any new plan or action agenda will require of local governments.
In last week’s Bulletin, AWC expressed concerns about language in what is now Section 129 of the latest version of the Senate bill, ESSB 5372. Following consultations with Sen. Phil Rockefeller (D-Bainbridge Island) and others, the language that AWC, the counties and the ports objected to has been modified as follows. The counties and ports have similar provisions.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 129. A new section is added to chapter 90.71 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 best of its ability when implementing the applicable requirements and timelines of the Puget Sound action agenda adopted under section 112 of this act.
We appreciate the removal of the directive to use existing legal authorities "to the fullest extent possible" but are still not clear about the legal mandate and meaning of the new term "to the best of its ability." AWC and other local government interests accepted the language change as a step in the right direction rather than create confusion and controversy on the Senate floor when leadership was trying to move the bill forward for discussions in the House. AWC and other local government interests did make it clear, however, that this language needs work.
AWC Priority
Residential Yard Waste Burning in Small Cities (SSB 6081)
This priority bill surprised many by moving out of the Senate on a unanimous vote. While the bill is not all that we had hoped for, in its current form it will help many smaller cities and towns outside of highly-urbanizing areas.
The "compromise" version that passed the Senate was offered by the Department of Ecology (DOE) and would extend allowing such burning until July 1, 2008 in all cities with a population of 2,500 or less in all fully-planning GMA counties except King, Pierce, Snohomish, Kitsap, Thurston, Clark, Yakima, Walla Walla and Spokane.
AWC’s original bill included cities under 5,000 in the same counties, as well as in Yakima, Walla Walla, Spokane, Clark and Thurston counties. Cities with 5,000 or fewer residents in these counties, and the cities still covered by the bill, were allowed to burn residential yard waste up until December 31 of 2006.
DOE objected to allowing cities of any size to continue burning in Yakima, Walla Walla, Spokane, Clark or Thurston counties because they are deemed susceptible to being declared as "non attainment" counties under the Federal Clean Air statutes. DOE also objected to allowing cities greater than 2,500 from continuing to burn and originally offered to "cap" population at 500 or fewer.
The bill has been referred to the House Environmental Health Committee and has yet to be scheduled for a hearing. AWC will seek a hearing and intends to outline for the committee the need to address issues related to both residential yard waste burning and disposal in landfills. The committee will hear the pros and cons of allowing burning in cities of various sizes and in multiple counties.
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.
The House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee will consider this bill on Thursday, March 22 at 10 am. The bill is generally supported by AWC and a number of cities actively engaged in the development of reclaimed water.
Federal Issue
EPA Proposed Changes to NPDES Stormwater Funding Under the Clean Water Act
In December, the U.S. Environmental Proection Agency (EPA) proposed a rule that would provide "incentives" to states that shifted a larger portion of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit fees to "those who benefit from NPDES permits." States, local governments and small businesses are opposing this proposal since the intention appears to be a continuation of EPA's efforts to shift clean water infrastructure costs from the federal government to states and local governments.
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) is circulating a letter requesting the EPA to cease promulgation of its proposed role on Section 106 of the Clean Water Act. Please contact your U.S. senators and representatives and ask them to support Senator Wyden’s letter.
A copy of Senator Wyden’s letter and a fact sheet with additional information can be found on AWC’s Federal Issues website at www.awcnet.org/federalissues. If you have questions on this issue, please contact Tim Gugerty, timg@awcnet.org.
[ previous article ] [ return to top ] [ next article ]
|
