Challenging Legislative Session for the Environment

OLYMPIA – While some progress was made, the 2009 legislative session did not see significant movement on key environmental issues ranging from climate change to restoring Puget Sound to health.

“This wasn’t an easy session for anyone,” said Joan Crooks, executive director, Washington Environmental Council. “Unfortunately, each year without significant progress on solutions to climate change and Puget Sound means we’ll have to work that much harder in the future. If we don’t, we will pass the cost of inaction along to our children.” 

Bills that would have limited our state’s climate pollution, as well as reduced traffic (and thus emissions) while increasing transportation choices, stalled early in session. Then a new version of the Governor’s climate bill (E2SSB 5735) that would have delivered real reductions in carbon pollution failed to make it past the finish line.

“We cannot build a new clean energy economy without taking significant steps forward on climate policy,” said Kurt Fritts, executive director, Washington Conservation Voters. “Governor Gregoire continues to show real leadership on climate change and we will continue to work with her and legislative leaders to make the progress necessary to move Washington forward on this critical issue.”

While some key programs were defended, overall environmental protections, essential to making Washington a healthy place for families to live, took a hard hit in the final budget.  Included in the cuts was the complete elimination of the Water Quality Account, which has in the past provided tens of millions of dollars for sewage treatment and other clean water efforts.

There was also a dramatic cut in funding to the state’s toxic cleanup program, which means that communities will have less help in dealing with abandoned hazardous wastes near schools, daycares, and homes.  Additionally, most natural resource agencies suffered unsustainable cuts in their operations, which will result in less enforcement of our core environmental laws.

Invest in Clean Water (SHB 1614) would have imposed a modest fee on oil companies in order to pay for prevention and cleaning up water pollution that is the number one threat to Puget Sound.  Without this legislation, cash-strapped local governments will have to find funding elsewhere, and less will be done to stem ongoing pollution in our streams, lakes and Sound.

“Polluted stormwater is poisoning Puget Sound and rivers and streams across the state,” said Mo McBroom, policy director, Washington Environmental Council. “We cannot restore Puget Sound to health without addressing the problem of stormwater. Invest in Clean Water offered a polluter-pays approach that cost the state nothing, and didn’t pass the burden along to local government.”

Some bills did provide bright spots.  The Efficiency First bill (SB 5854), which is waiting for Governor Gregoire’s signature, will gradually raise standards for new building construction, while improving energy efficiency in existing public buildings through insulation, better windows and improved heating and cooling systems. 

The final capital budget included $70 million for Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program, which will fund 95 parks, trails, wildlife habitat and farmland preservation projects all over the state.

An oil spill response tug at Neah Bay (SB 5344) was made permanent. The rescue tug, which is dispatched to intercept oil tankers and other vessels in distress, has proven to be one of the most effective tools at the state’s disposal to prevent a major oil spill.

The legislature also passed sales and use tax credits for renewable energy projects in Washington, which will benefit communities by creating new jobs and provide incentive for renewable projects of all sizes.  Renewing these tax credits keeps Washington in a position to attract new, green business.

Finally, the legislature made progress in preparing Washington for the damaging impacts that climate change will cause. E2SSB 5560 takes some important steps to move our state forward in planning for climate change impacts, and requires any entity receiving grants from the capital budget to have a plan in place to meet state climate emission reduction goals.