|Passed by the House April 16, 2007|
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Passed by the Senate April 12, 2007
President of the Senate
I, Richard Nafziger, Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives of the State of Washington, do hereby certify that the attached is SECOND SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL 1488 as passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate on the dates hereon set forth.
|Approved May 7, 2007, 9:59 a.m.|
Governor of the State of Washington
May 8, 2007
Secretary of State
State of Washington
|State of Washington||60th Legislature||2007 Regular Session|
READ FIRST TIME 03/13/07.
AN ACT Relating to protecting all of Washington's waters by enhancing the state's oil spill program; and creating new sections.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 1 (1) The legislature finds that the state's
oil spill prevention and response programs perform essential services
in protecting the environment and natural resource economy of
Washington. Due to increased demand for services, the legislature
finds that these programs have been expanded several times in the
twenty years since the funding mechanisms for these programs were
authorized, but the funding mechanisms for these programs have remained
unchanged. Without additional funding, these programs face a
structural funding deficit beginning in the 2007-2009 biennium. The
legislature further finds that the current source of funding for these
programs is derived from only one segment of activities that present
oil spill risks in the state, and that there is a need for a
comprehensive assessment of the sources of oil spill risks and
potential funding mechanisms by which all sectors that are a source of
oil spill risks may contribute to ensuring adequate funding for
programs that prevent as well as prepare for and respond to oil spills. (2) The legislature finds that the Strait of Juan de Fuca is a
significant international avenue of waterborne commerce. Over five
thousand transits by vessels greater than three hundred gross tons
occur in the Strait each year. Reliable, safe vessel transits are
vitally important to Washington state, the United States, and Canada.
The legislature finds that comprehensive measures to prevent oil spills
must be implemented in the Strait. The legislature further finds that
stationing a response tug at the west entrance to the Strait is a
critical component of such comprehensive measures, evidenced by the
fact that the seasonal tug stationed at Neah Bay has conducted more
than thirty assists since 1999. Because of the national significance
of this waterway and the national interest in preventing oil spills
there, the federal government should undertake to ensure that a year-round response tug is stationed at the west entrance to the Strait,
either by providing sufficient federal funding for this purpose or to
require through federal regulation that the commercial shipping
interests benefiting from this service provide for a stationed tug.
The legislature therefore directs the department of ecology to request
that federal agencies with jurisdiction seek to require or fund the
stationing of a response tug at such location, and seek reimbursement
for the funding provided by the state for this purpose commencing with
the fiscal year 2008 costs to the state.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2 By September 1, 2008, the joint legislative
audit and review committee shall examine the funding mechanism for the
oil spill prevention and response programs. This study shall evaluate
the state's oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response programs
to compare the sources of oil spill risk with the funding mechanism.
The study shall include:
(1) A review of existing oil spill risk evaluations and qualitative models, including:
(a) Evaluations or models for a risk evaluation framework, considering such factors as volume of oil, time at sea, proximity to water, organizational readiness, and damage done; and
(b) Evaluations or models for risk allocation, assessing how much of the risk goes with the product and how much with where and how the product is handled and who is handling it;
(2) A review of empirical data related to actual spill numbers, spill volumes, spill locations, and other circumstances related to individual spills;
(3) Comparisons of the risk allocation to the actual funding contributed by sector; and
(4) Options to allocate the state's costs to the major risk categories, by sector.