Lawmakers discuss salmon recovery

OLYMPIA — Legislators in the Washington Senate considered a solution to recovering the state's declining salmon population during a public hearing on Monday.

House Bill 1117 aims to promote salmon recovery through changes to the state’s comprehensive planning framework. The legislative effort would cost cities and counties millions of dollars over the next few years.

The House moved the legislation to final passage and onto the Senate after a polarized 57-40 vote on the chamber floor in January. Democrats praise the bill, but Republicans think the bill is the wrong approach to handling salmon populations.

The Senate Housing & Local Government Committee held a public hearing on Wednesday, beginning the process to advance HB1117 through the second half of the legislature.

Rep. Debra Lekanoff, D-Bow, said the bill is an effective solution to one of Washington’s most pressing issues, the loss of its native salmon population. She said this issue is not confined to the west side; the impact is statewide.

“Every one of our river systems runs on a hatchery,” Lekanoff said. “A hundred years ago, they did not.”

HB 1117 would add salmon recovery as a goal under the Growth Management Act, a comprehensive land-use planning framework for Washington’s counties and cities.

Under the existing framework, GMA establishes land use designations and creates environmental protection requirements. HB 1117 requires land use designations to include a strategy to push for salmon recovery through habitat rebirth.

She said this is an excellent opportunity for local governments to participate in salmon recovery. This legislation implements the funding to prioritize this rebirth in one of the state’s natural resources.

“Imagine this: No river gets left behind,” Lekanoff said.

The fiscal note states that around $4.6 million is needed this biennium from the state’s general fund and $8 million from the Department of Commerce and Department of Fish and Wildlife to do their part in implementing the bill’s provisions. Another $15 million is needed from counties and $42 million from cities over a four-year implementation period.

Under the bill, cities and counties would develop strategies only after providing notice and an opportunity for each federally recognized Native American tribe affected by the planning jurisdiction. Lekanoff said the inclusion of tribes in this solution is critical to addressing a history of inequity.

The goal is for salmon habitats to reach a net ecological gain. This builds upon prior goals to achieve no net loss, but as the state’s population has grown over the years, the effects on salmon habitats are undeniable.

To help reach net ecological gain, House Bill 1117 also requires capital facilities and transportation elements of the comprehensive plans under the GMA to schedule the removal of all fish passage barriers identified by the state. It was unclear what specific barriers would be included, though bridges in small towns were discussed during the hearings.

“If we invest in the salmon habitats now,” she said, “generations from now, we may see Washington state flourishing with the population of salmon in conjunction with growth, agriculture and infrastructure.”

Dan Wood, of the Washington State Dairy Federation, testified against House Bill 1117. He said the legislation could ruin voluntary grant programs.

Voluntary programs could be an efficient solution but lack the proper direction, Wood said. He added that the state should foster more cooperation between farmers and state conservation programs to exercise the fullest potential.

“The bill is too broad,” Wood said, “too threatening to conservation programs and participation and gives too much unrestrained power to fill in the blanks on public policy.”

Paul Jewell, Washington State Association of Counties, said that while working with Lekanoff to create HB 1117, the voluntary stewardship program and others were not intended to be affected. Further changes would be made moving forward to help ensure this.

The recovery effort would span four levels of government, incorporating the entire state into the recovery effort. Its effect would be greater than just salmon populations, Lekanoff said. This legislation creates jobs and prioritizes a staple to Native American culture.

“When we have salmon, we have jobs,” Lekanoff said.

Tom McBride of the Department of Fish and Wildlife said Washington state has made great efforts in protecting salmon, but populations are still at risk and not recovering on their own. The state needs to move forward with these efforts as the state’s residential population rises and heat islands expand.

Timing is key as the state’s largest counties are expected to expand exponentially in the next few years, he said. The recovery will cost the state but is necessary to ensure the longevity of the native salmon population, he added.