Bills of interest to Washington State

January 18, 2007

Commentary by Norm McLeod

HB 1355 appears to my first glance to be something that doesn’t fit too well with my concept of what should be expected of American citizens.  I can’t for the life of me come up with a reason to support a piece of legislation that compels the individual citizen to “contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment.”  We already have a pretty clear idea of how easy it is for state agencies to go well beyond legislative intent when it comes time to interpret a statute into the WAC.  How far do you think some of them will go when the statute tells them that we are required to participate in “preserving” and “enhancing” the environment?  Whose vision of “preserving” and “enhancing” would we be forced to live under?

Is this something that should be placed under a committee rock and never allowed to darken a House floor session?

 

Then there’s the one where the legislature would not only be out and out endorsing The Wildlands Project, but also directing its agencies to take an active role in carrying out the dreams that Dave Foreman and Reed Noss have been pushing for decades.  Do we want to turn over a vast portion of the state of Washington to a philosophy that demands subservience of human needs to those of wildlife species?

 

Just my take . . . others’ mileage may vary.

 

---

House Bill 1355 (Incorporating human health analysis into environmental review under chapter 43.21C RCW.):

Introduced by Rep. Maralyn Chase on January 17, 2007, to allow for ‘human health analysis’ to factor into environmental reviews when scientific analysis is not certain. "Human health" includes the consideration of physical, mental, economic, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

 

Details and Comments: http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=49265

 

(Contains the following gem . . .

The legislature reaffirms that each person has a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment. Therefore, the legislature declares that where threats of serious or irreversible damage to people or nature exist, lack of full scientific certainty about cause and effect may not be viewed as sufficient reason for the state to postpone measures to prevent the degradation of the environment or protect the health of its residents.

. . . which would appear to indicate that each citizen will have the obligation to help “preserve” and enhance the environment.  We won’t need to concern ourselves about whether or not this condition on our conduct is scientifically justified or not.

 

And this one . . .

For purposes of this chapter, "human health" includes the consideration of physical, mental, economic, and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.

. . . and I think we have something we should not support.)

 

Senate Bill 5318 (Participating in the management of Washington's portion of the Yukon to Yellowstone Rocky mountain ecosystem.):

Introduced by Sen. Erik Poulsen on January 17, 2007, to require the Department of Fish and Wildlife to participate in the cooperative programs of the Yukon and Yellowstone Conservation Initiative. Within the Rocky Mountains ecoregional area there are landowners, communities, wildlife management agencies, and wildlife conservation organizations beginning to work together in a coordinated manner to consider this region as a whole. These groups seek to combine science and stewardship to ensure that the world-renowned wilderness, wildlife, native plants, and natural processes of the region continue to function as an interconnected web of life, capable of supporting all of the natural and human communities that reside within it, for now and for future generations. This effort is commonly referred to as the Yukon to Yellowstone conservation initiative.

 

Details and Comments: http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=49297

 

(Actually it would be more accurate to refer to this effort as the Yukon to Yellowstone component of The Wildlands Project, as detailed at http://www.twp.org/cms/page1117.cfm, which begs the question of just why we, the taxpayers of Washington, would ever want to fund a pet project put together by Dave Foreman, his conservation biologist buddy Reed Noss, and their pals?  Whenever someone starts talking “ecoregions” you can understand that what they are really after is removing yet more authority from the state, county, and local levels of government.  Do you believe that’s a Good Thing?)

 

House Bill 1318 (Licensing soil scientists.):

Introduced by Rep. Sam Hunt on January 17, 2007, to require the State to license soil scientists. The bill also defines the practice of soil science and sets minimum standards for ethical conduct and professional responsibility. The bill also contains an emergency clause, which causes it to take effect July 1, 2007.

 

Details and Comments: http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=49228

 

(One might wonder why the need for the licensing of soil scientists is considered an emergency . . . one might . . .)

 

House Bill 1330 (Modifying the requirements of small business economic impact statements by state agencies.):

Introduced by Rep. Gary Alexander on January 17, 2007, to require state agencies to consider the number of jobs created or lost, as a result of compliance with a proposed rule. This new condition would apply to the Small Business Economic Impact Statements state agencies are required to report.

 

Details and Comments: http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=49240

 

(The instream flow rule will require a full SBEIS.  This addition would be useful in that regard.)

 

House Bill 1332 (Addressing affordable housing development.):

Introduced by Rep. Eric Pettigrew on January 17, 2007, to allow state agencies to identify surplus, state-owned land that could be sold to housing organizations. The purpose would be to provide more affordable housing. The bill defines the criteria from which surplus land could be sold for lower than market rates .

 

Details and Comments: http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=49242

 

(When we’re working with CAO updates, which tends to result in more stringent land use requirements, one side effect is making less land available to human use . . . creating an artificial shortage of usable properties that forces prices higher.  This has an unfortunate knock-on effect of forcing more families into needing subsidized housing.  What direction do we want the state to move in?  Allowing easier access to land use, or making more families dependent upon the state for housing assistance?)

 

House Bill 1374 (Creating the Puget Sound partnership.):

Introduced by Rep. Dave Upthegrove on January 17, 2007, to create the Puget Sound Partnership as an independent state agency.  The partnership would be lead by a 7 member commission and Executive Directed appointed by the Governor.  The Commission would be responsible for setting goals for cleaning up Puget Sound by 2020. See companion SB 5372.

 

Details and Comments: http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=49284

 

(Here we go with the empire building . . . and the companion legislation is right after this comment.  The intent here is to set up yet another state agency . . . likely to cause some turf wars here and there . . . providing yet another layer of land use regulation for those of us living between the Cascade Crest and the Olympic Crest.  I suppose the vision is that the agency would not be needed after completing its goal of cleaning up the Sound by 2020 . . . but do you really think that any state agency would declare its mission won and go quietly into the good night?)

 

Senate Bill 5372 (Creating the Puget Sound partnership.):

Introduced by Sen. Phil Rockefeller on January 17, 2007, to create the Puget Sound Partnership as an independent state agency.  The partnership would be lead by a 7 member commission and Executive Directed appointed by the Governor.  The Commission would be responsible for setting goals for cleaning up Puget Sound by 2020.

 

Details and Comments: http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=49353

 

House Joint Memorial 4002 (Requesting that Congress fund the Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative.):

Introduced by Rep. Brian Sullivan on January 17, 2007, to declare support for and request from Congress to continue funding the Northwest Straits Marine Conservation Initiative .

 

Details and Comments: http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=49286

 

Senate Bill 5315 (Authorizing residents to access their property during a forest fire.):

Introduced by Sen. Mark Schoesler on January 17, 2007, to allow residents access to their property during a forest fire to conduct fire prevention or suppression activities, or to protect or retrieve their property.

 

Details and Comments: http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=49294

 

Senate Bill 5354 (Concerning the scope of agency actions under the administrative procedure act.):

Introduced by Sen. Adam Kline on January 17, 2007, to amend certain provision relating to agency actions under the Administrative Procedure Act.  This bill would ensure that in all future planning decisions the requirements of the administrative procedure act will be applicable.

 

Details and Comments: http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=49335

 

Senate Bill 5355 (Specifying actions required for vesting of rights in land use actions.):

Introduced by Sen. Adam Kline on January 17, 2007, to modify provisions relating to vesting of rights in land use actions.  A valid and fully complete project permit application for a use or structure that is allowed under the zoning or other land use control ordinances in effect on the date of the application shall be considered under the construction, zoning, and other land use control ordinances in effect upon the date of the final local government decision on the application.  The requirements for a fully completed application shall be defined by local ordinance.

Details and Comments: http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=49336

 

Senate Bill 5362 (Preserving farm and agricultural land through conservation futures levies.):

Introduced by Sen. Ken Jacobsen on January 17, 2007, to provide that a county may levy an amount no more than 12.5 cents per $1,000 of assessed value against all taxable property within the county.  Some of the increased proceeds would be required to used for acqu

iring conservation easements or development rights on farm and agricultural land.

Details and Comments: http://www.washingtonvotes.org/Legislation.aspx?ID=49343