AN ACT Relating to water quality; adding new sections to chapter 43.21A RCW; and creating a new section.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature finds that there is a need to:

(1) Better coordinate federal, state, and local management and regulation of activities affecting water quality;

(2) More clearly define effective and complementary roles for the many agencies and entities which affect Puget Sound water quality;

(3) Better conserve aquatic habitat through integrated management planning;

(4) Develop a coordinated, sound-wide program of monitoring and research which will be consistent, thorough, nonduplicative, and useful for decision-making;

(5) Enhance fiscal and regulatory mechanisms which provide realistic incentives for improved performance;

(6) Insure the adequate enforcement of laws and regulations; and

(7) Identify goals and standards against which future actions affecting the Sound's water quality can be judged.

The legislature declares that local, state, and federal levels of government must place a high priority on Puget Sound water quality and must thereby provide the resources to ensure that existing management tools and enforcement procedures are utilized to their fullest extent.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. A new section is added to chapter 43.21A RCW to read as follows:

In implementing existing law, the department of ecology shall be guided by the following policy considerations:

(1) Funding and technical assistance must be provided for improved wastewater treatment throughout the Sound region.

(a) Most marine waiver determinations have been made. It has been estimated that the required conversion to secondary treatment will cost five hundred fifty million dollars. It is expected that at least three hundred million dollars will have to be raised within the state by the sale of bonds and/or sewage rate hikes. A coordinated approach to funding will provide substantial cost savings. Allocations of available funds should also proceed on a coordinated basis.

(b) Combined sewer overflows pose an unnecessary threat to Puget Sound. Solving this problem should proceed simultaneously with planning for secondary treatment and, where appropriate, should enter the planning and design process for all new or improved wastewater treatment facilities.

(c) Industrial pretreatment programs for toxic wastes are required by law, and are important for improving the effectiveness of municipal treatment. Pretreatment planning should be an integral part of the transition to secondary treatment. Enforcement of pretreatment requirements should be vigorously pursued in the short-term as well.

(d) On-site sewage treatment (such as septic tank and drainfield systems) can be a viable alternative to municipal treatment in many situations. If poorly executed, however, on-site systems can also contribute substantially to bacterial contamination. Efforts should continue to identify sensitive areas and formulate strategies to protect them. Both state and local authorities need better resources and better incentives for inspecting and regulating these systems.

(2) All available avenues for controlling nonpoint source pollution should be pursued. There is increasing agreement that nonpoint source pollution is a very significant contributor to the water quality problems of Puget Sound.

(a) The state legislature strongly encourages and our congressional delegation should strongly encourage renewed federal support for Section 208 of the Clean Water Act. Existing Section 208 plans should be examined for their usefulness in controlling nonpoint pollution.

(b) Other regulatory mechanisms, such as "best management practices", shorelines planning, and the environmental impact statement process, can serve to control many activities which affect water quality. These also should be assessed for their utility in controlling nonpoint pollution.

(c) Nonpoint source pollution is in essence a land use problem. Land use planning and decision-making are traditionally local responsibilities, but local governments may lack the expertise and the incentive to use nonpoint source pollution as a criterion for management. The state should provide assistance and incentives for local governments and special districts to integrate land use management with water quality management and to pursue effective surface water management strategies. Further consideration should be given to addressing this problem at the state level.

(3) The necessary support for implementing the department's shellfish protection strategy should be provided.

(a) Basin planning for land use practices can be an effective tool to control nonpoint sources of pollution. The basin plans which are being developed for Minter Bay and Burley Lagoon should be formalized and should be used as models for other local jurisdictions.

(b) As the program develops, it should be expanded to cover all valued shellfish resources of Puget Sound and the full range of point and nonpoint threats to shellfish.

(4) Opportunities for public involvement in the effort to protect Puget Sound should be enhanced and expanded.

(a) Public involvement is an essential component in solving Puget Sound's water quality problems. It is also essential in setting priorities for government action. Public input to the decision process not only offers a fresh perspective to problems, but it can also help to focus the attention of regulatory factors.

(b) Public involvement also has a valuable community level role. Several Puget Sound communities have banded together to protect watersheds and beaches and to encourage individual efforts to protect the Sound. These groups deserve recognition and support, and can serve as useful models for other organizations.

(c) Many of Puget Sound's pollution problems result from individual decisions, such as disposal of hazardous household materials and auto crankcase oil, fueling and disposal practices in recreational boating, and a variety of land use practices. An educated and involved public can solve these problems faster and more effectively than any regulatory program.

(5) Public education on Puget Sound and on pollution management should be enhanced and expanded.

(a) The use and disposal of household chemicals may contribute significant quantities of certain pollutants to Puget Sound. Support should be provided for improving public knowledge about and access to proper disposal alternatives.

(b) A public information campaign should dovetail with a public involvement program, so that concerned citizens are made aware of opportunities for participating in the decisions which affect Puget Sound.

(6) Adequate funding should be developed for a comprehensive research program on priority pollution issues in the Puget Sound region.

(a) The state of knowledge about natural processes and pollution effects in Puget Sound is still in its infancy. Regulatory decisions must be made, and they require a sound base of knowledge to be effective. Research should be focused on these immediate regulatory needs.

(b) The environmental protection agency/Washington state department of ecology's Puget Sound initiative, which seeks twelve million dollars over the next several years, should be funded in full. This figure is dwarfed by the five hundred fifty million dollars required for the transition to secondary treatment alone. In this perspective, it is a small but vital piece of funding.

(c) Efforts should be pursued which will assure that the results obtained by Puget Sound research are useful for making management decisions. Research activities are undertaken by a variety of agencies and contractors. It is essential that these activities be coordinated, in terms of focus, method, and the reporting of data.

(7) A sound-wide approach to dredge spoil disposal should be adopted and implemented.

(a) A sound-wide environmental impact statement for dredge spoil disposal should be prepared. This process should examine the impacts associated with alternative sites for disposal and methods of dredge spoil management. Only the environmental impact statement process can assure the citizen involvement that is needed for considering the full range of issues.

(b) Interim measures are needed to better control and monitor existing dredging activities and disposal sites, especially where toxic contamination is present.

(8) Efforts to address the problems of toxic contamination of urban embayments should be enhanced and expanded.

(a) Superfund designation should be considered for other "hot spots" in the sound.

(b) Re-evaluation of national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permits should include vigorous regulation of toxic pollutants.

(c) Regulatory mechanisms and resources should be applied more stringently to known and suspected nonpoint sources of toxics.

(d) To accomplish these tasks for this urgent problem, the efforts of regulatory agency staff should be augmented.

(9) Support and encouragement should be provided for a monitoring and data management system for Puget Sound water and sediment quality. This system should be comprehensive, nonduplicative, accessible, and useful for management decisions. Avenues may exist for providing this capability, with little increased cost, using existing sources of expertise.

(10) A concerted effort should be made to protect, preserve, and where possible, restore wetlands and wildlife habitat throughout Puget Sound.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 43.21A RCW to read as follows:

The department of ecology shall:

(1) Work with local jurisdictions and providers of wastewater treatment to expedite improved treatment capabilities;

(2) Convene, for the purpose of coordination, the agencies and institutions needed to provide an adequate water quality monitoring program and a comprehensive base of information;

(3) Work with soil conservation districts, local jurisdictions, the department of natural resources, and other agencies to improve resource management practices on lands draining into Puget Sound; and

(4) Continue developing a series of public service announcements which address the role of individuals in protecting the health of Puget Sound.