Critical Year for Environmental Protection in the State Legislature

Dave Schmalz is a longtime Bellingham resident. He is currently vice president and conservation chair for the North Cascades chapter of the National Audubon Society.

The 2003 session of the Washington State Legislature is underway in Olympia. Each session offers unique challenges and opportunities to maintain, strengthen and enact new laws which will protect our state’s land, air, water and wildlife. Because of the severity of this year’s state budget shortfall, we face an enormous challenge just to retain the levels of environmental protection that we have worked so hard for in the past.

Perhaps more than in past sessions, it will be the sheer magnitude and intensity of connection with legislative officials that will tip the balance between losing precious ground or holding the line in the effort to protect natural systems and the environment. Many of the issues at stake are fundamental, and general statements of values, as opposed to technical comments, will carry tremendous weight this session.

The following guide provides information for use in developing comments on many of this year’s most important environmental issues. Each topic features background information, anticipated legislation and key messages for legislators that may be used throughout the session. Comments need not be specific to a particular bill in order to be effective.

Sustaining connection with legislators throughout the 120-day session will be crucial this year. There is a common misconception by citizens that when they read or hear that a bill has “passed” anytime during the session, that the bill has been established as law. In fact, a bill must “pass” through several layers of committees and both the Senate and House before it is sent to the Governor who may sign it into law or veto it.

Please consult the following information and connect early and often with your local representatives. Your participation will make a difference.

Washington state is currently facing a $2 billion budget shortfall which will have serious implications for virtually every state environmental program and natural resource agency. Natural resource programs currently comprise only 1.5 percent of the General Fund or Operating Budget, down from 3 percent just 10 years ago. Historically, environmental programs and natural resource agencies have been cut at higher proportions than other sectors of government.

Often, the policy bills are what capture the public’s attention, however, the budget is the state’s principle policy statement. Environmental laws and programs are only as effective as the money that backs them. Likely impacts from this year’s proposed cuts are closure of state parks, reductions in dairy farm compliance inspections (water- quality impacts), decreases in fish and wildlife personnel and a decrease in the state’s ability to enforce existing environmental laws.

Messages: One percent of the state’s General Fund is too little to adequately protect our land, air and water. Cutting environmental programs is not ecologically or economically viable. It is far more cost effective to protect and prevent damage to the environment than it is to provide restoration and remedial actions once it has been damaged.

Our state’s population is expected to double in the next 50 years. Even at our current population, native plant and animal habitats continue to disappear at an alarming rate, and many of our recreation areas and parks have become overcrowded and are not adequately maintained.

1) The Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program (WWRP) was established by the legislature in 1990 in response to growing public demand for outdoor recreation and concern over loss of wildlife habitat. Since then, WWRP has conserved thousands of acres of exceptional natural areas and critical wildlife habitat. WWRP has been instrumental in several local actions including the Clayton Beach and other additions to Larabee State Park.

Anticipated Legislation: A $55 million capital appropriation for WWRP to protect priority habitat areas and provide recreation access and improvements all across the state has been requested. Governor Locke has proposed a $30 million appropriation. The $55 million request represents the average given over past sessions and the minimum level promised to the program when it was created 12 years ago.

Messages: We need to invest in land protection around the state while opportunities are still available. If we don’t act now, many of Washington’s best places will be lost forever. Support the $55 million capital budget request for the Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program.

2) The Trust Land Transfer Program (TLT) was established in 1989 as a way to protect areas that are a part of the state’s 1.8 million-acre state trust lands system. Washington schools’ trust lands, created at statehood, generate income for school construction by cutting and selling the trees on the land. The TLT program provides a way to increase school revenues without overcutting the forest.

Anticipated Legislation: A $53 million appropriation for the TLT program that would protect approximately 9,000 acres of valuable forest and provide needed additions to parks, wildlife areas, and preserves around the state has been requested. The governor’s budget does not fund this program.

Message: Support the $53 million capital budget request for the Trust Land Transfer Program.

Mercury is a potent neurotoxin which can damage the central nervous system, kidneys and liver. It is especially hazardous to pregnant women and children, causing problems such as birth defects and learning disabilities. Mercury does not break down in the environment and builds up in the food chain and in our bodies. It belongs to a dangerous class of chemicals which have left a toxic legacy across Washington and around the world known as persistent biochemical toxins (PBTs). This class of chemicals also includes dioxin and PCBs.

There are a number of significant sources of mercury pollution in Washington state. The largest sources include mercury products such as thermometers, thermostats, auto switches, compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs), various industrial releases, dental offices, and incinerators and other waste combustors.

Anticipated Legislation: The Mercury Reduction and Education Act has been introduced. If passed, the bill will phase out the sale of products that contain mercury and that have readily available and cost-effective alternatives. It will also require manufacturers of some mercury products to bear primary financial responsibility for the creation and maintenance of safe and effective collection, recycling and disposal systems.

The bill will also establish state government as a leader by requiring that it purchase non-mercury products where feasible. This bill faces tough opposition from polluting industries and businesses.

Messages: Support the Mercury Reduction and Education Act–HB 1002 in the House of Representatives and SB 5124 in the Senate. Washington must join with a growing list of states, including Oregon, California and many New England states and implement practical solutions to address the problem of mercury.

The debate over how to manage our water resources revolves around how much there is, who gets it, what is its most valued use, and how much does that leave in the source ( i.e., lakes, rivers, streams, and in the ground). Most of Washington state’s water development occurred through the mid-20th century in order to accomplish limited goals with little or no regard for broader environmental consequences.

Although several laws have passed that recognize the importance of minimum instream flows necessary for water quality, fish habitat, recreation, and other natural functions, early water law has dictated that “senior rights” supercede all later uses (“junior rights”).

In recent years growing uncertainty for water users, court decisions that constrain water use, the impact of endangered species listings, a dramatic surge in demand from rapid growth, and outdated and inadequate water systems have prompted much needed legislative attention. In 2001 Governor Locke introduced a multi-year Water Action Strategy with the stated purpose of advancing the water needs of people and fish (i.e. protection of natural systems) together in increments over time.

2001 saw Locke’s legislative effort decidedly favoring water users, with actions to speed permitting and give more control over to users. In 2002, strong opposition from agricultural and select business interests foiled the governor’s attempts to move forward the needs of all water users contingent upon environmental progress.

Anticipated Legislation: Cities and utilities are seeking more certainty and flexibility in how they manage water, citing the need to serve a growing populace. Such authority and measures may be appropriate provided instream flow protections and conservation practices are put in place first. Absent such safeguards, the reforms should be opposed.

The Senate is expected to pass bills exempting certain categories of water use from permits and expanding the rights of all water users. Developers, agricultural interests, and other water users will pursue changes that expand the use of water without adequate permit safeguards.

Changes also will be sought to weaken or eliminate “relinquishment” law. Such changes would provide water users with nearly absolute private control over the public’s water and likely result in the hoarding and speculation of a precious public resource. There will also be debate about how to institutionalize watershed planning and better coordinate with salmon recovery.

What is likely to be missing from the 2003 legislative debate is the commitment to achieve adequate flows in streams. Two-thirds of the state’s watersheds do not have stream flows protected by law and only one instream flow has been set in 16 years. These bleak facts underscore the state’s failure to adequately protect rivers and streams. Consequently, it is critical that any additional benefits to water users be contingent upon the instream needs of fish, water quality and other values.

Messages: Ensure enough water in streams (establish minimum instream flows) for fish and water quality before water users are allowed more authority to move water around or put it to a new use. Enforce water laws to ensure efficient and wise use of our limited public water resources. Maintain water permit safeguards to protect other water users and the environment. Require better integration and consistency between land use and water planning.

1) Stormwater: A major factor in the decline of water quality in western Washington is the impact of stormwater. Carrying large quantities of pollutants from impervious surfaces, particularly roads, stormwater is transported into nearby bodies of water. As the volume of stormwater increases it can also cause structural and biological damage to habitat and severely alter natural characteristics of the stream.

The federal Clean Water Act provides the state with the authority to regulate local government’s stormwater management through permits, but so far the Department of Ecology (DOE) has largely failed to act. DOE has developed a guidance document, the Stormwater Manual for Western Washington, which offers a range of solutions. The Puget Sound Action Plan provides additional guidance for jurisdictions in that region. Representatives from local governments have resisted these approaches and are suggesting that the state’s regulatory authority be reduced in this area.

Anticipated Legislation: Local government representatives have suggested that legislation is needed to restrict the ability of the Department of Ecology to regulate in this area. They argue that the state rules should not exceed federal “minimum standards,” which are so vague they do little to nothing to protect water quality.

Messages: Oppose legislation which would restrict the ability of the state to protect water quality. Urge the state Department of Ecology to move forward with a municipal stormwater permit program and for the state to provide financial assistance to local governments in this area.

2) Mixing Zones: When pollution is discharged into our lakes, rivers and marine waters, dilution is often used as a method to help polluters meet water quality standards. Standards are based on how effectively the pollution is diluted in a “mixing zone.” The size of the zone is determined by the capacity of the water to “safely” absorb various chemicals and other pollutants. However, persistent biochemical toxins (PBTs) such as mercury, dioxin and PCBs, ?ˆ to a safe level once they enter public waters.

The Puget Sound food web is contaminated with PBTs that are threatening the local populations of orca whales, salmon, rockfish, and other marine life. PBTs increase in concentration as they move up the food web. The top predator in the marine food web—orcas—are showing dramatic levels of toxic build-up in their tissues.

Anticipated Legislation: Positive legislation may be introduced that will require more review and monitoring of mixing zones to assure that they are designed to meet the goals of federal and state clean water laws.

Message: Support new requirements to assess the effectiveness of “mixing zones.”

Destruction of natural stream-sides and shorelines is a significant factor in the decline of water quality, fish, wildlife, recreation, and our quality of life in Washington state. Scientists have long recognized that removing vegetation and grading near waterways degrades water quality and other ecological functions of the shoreline that are essential to fish and wildlife.

Under the state Shorelines Management Act, the Department of Ecology (DOE) administers the state Shoreline Guidelines (updated in 1999), which govern how development can be conducted in the 200-foot zone upland from larger rivers, streams and lakes in the state, as well as Puget Sound (including the northern inland waters) and the Pacific Ocean.

Local governments with shorelines are required to update their local Shoreline Master Programs within two years of the adoption of these rules. The new Shoreline Guidelines were challenged in court by some local governments, development, business, and agricultural interests.

After a full year of negotiations involving interested parties, in 2002, Governor Locke announced a settlement that included important additions to the state guidelines. These included requirements that all new development in shoreline areas will have to achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions; that the cumulative impacts of new shoreline development must be identified and addressed; and that each local government will be required to develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan.

Anticipated Legislation: Governor Locke has proposed a $2 million down payment to begin the process of implementation of the new Shoreline Guidelines by local governments. As in past sessions there will continue to be bills introduced that would weaken shoreline protection. Most notably, local governments are expected to press for “unfunded mandate” language, which would negate their Shoreline Guideline’s responsibilities if full funding from the state were not forthcoming.

Messages: Fund shoreline management to improve water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and our quality of life. Support the Governor’s $2 million initial investment. The 2002 settlement agreement between state and local governments, business, development, agricultural, and environmental interests sets the stage for the legislature to move forward with updated protections for our shorelines. Maintain a strong state role in shorelines to protect statewide interests.

Washington has 2.1 million acres of state-owned forests. The state Department of Natural Resources (DNR) manages these lands for beneficiaries including K-12 schools, universities, counties and the public. In the last year, DNR tried to weaken several of its stewardship provisions, including reducing the number of trees left standing after a clearcut logging operation and eliminating provisions aimed at ensuring that watersheds are not logged too quickly.

Unable to implement these changes without an extensive environmental review as required by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), DNR backed down from seeking these changes in policy.

Anticipated Legislation: It appears that some legislators may seek to exempt the Department of Natural Resources from the environmental review requirements of SEPA. The exemption sought by legislators would allow DNR to move ahead with these rollbacks, avoiding the public’s right to know about the impacts of governmental decisions.

Message: Protect land, water and wildlife in our forests. Proposals to roll back wildlife protections must go through environmental review. Oppose a SEPA exemption for DNR forestry procedures.

In 2001, Governor Locke formed the Washington State Competitiveness Council to develop recommendations on how our state can create an atmosphere more conducive to economic growth. The council, composed almost exclusively of business leaders, has made a number of recommendations on how to change environmental regulatory programs for the benefit of the business community. Much of this effort has focused on how environmental programs and permits can be streamlined to become more efficient.

Unfortunately, most of the recommendations do not seek a balance between efficiency and environmental protection. Instead, they claim, without providing evidence, that environmental regulations are a principle cause of economic decline in Washington The council also claims, without evidence, that their recommendations would not lead to environmental harm.

Each session, the council advocates proposals that appear to be back door attempts to undermine key environmental programs. Many of these ideas have been consistently rejected by past legislatures. Additionally, the council has consistently failed to examine many areas that might promote sustainable and conservation-minded economic development such as providing incentives for green businesses and developing alternative energy sources.

Anticipated Legislation: 1) Efforts to eliminate duplicative requirements for multiple environmental permits, most notably in the area of hydraulic permits (issued by the state Department of Fish and Wildlife) that protect salmon and other fish habitat. While this may appear reasonable, it has typically been used by business to circumvent stronger environmental laws in favor of permitting requirements that are often far less protective of the environment. 2) Efforts to require permits to be issued within a certain time frame regardless of whether the agency has adequate resources to complete environmental review. 3) Efforts to restrict natural resource agencies ability to issue and implement essential environmental protections and limit public participation in environmental decision making.

Messages: Oppose efforts to weaken our environmental protection laws being made under the guise of making Washington more business friendly. People and business benefit from environmental laws that protect our water, air, and land from pollution and damage. Focus effective measures that will promote environmental protection and business interests, such as promoting green business and increasing user fees as a source of revenue to expedite the permitting process.

Between 1990 and 2000 Washington grew by one million people, the fastest decade of growth in our state’s history. Washington is now ranked as the seventh fastest-growing state in the nation. In 1990, the landmark Growth Management Act (GMA) provided much-needed guidance and requirements to prevent urban sprawl, protect the environment and promote fiscal responsibility.

The law created Urban Growth Areas and provided for local protection of streams, aquifers, wetlands and other natural resources. Every legislative session since, some local governments, and various powerful businesses, development and agricultural interests have attempted to weaken its effectiveness. GMA has been consistently mis-identified by opponents as a major cause of our state’s economic problems.

Messages: Washington state cannot afford the economic end environmental costs of poorly planned growth. The Growth Management Act has provided useful guidance and a well-

accepted structure for both counties and cities to plan for growth. Legislators must support the principles of growth management and defend GMA against legislative attempts to undermine its objectives. Economic and infrastructure development, and other spending should support GMA and reinforce existing communities. §

Sources: This information was compiled from the 2003 Legislative Agenda, published by the Washington Environmental Council. For more information, the council can be contacted at (206) 622-8103 or http://www.wecprotects.org. Other sources for additional information: Audubon Washington, (360) 786- 8020 or http://www. audubon.org/chapter/wa/wa; Center for Environmental Law, (206) 223-8454 or info@celp.org; Northwest Ecosystem Alliance, (360) 671-9950 or http://www. eco-system.org; People for Puget Sound, (360) 336-1931 or http://www.pugetsound. org.