HOUSE BILL REPORT

SSB 6024

As Amended by the House

BYSenate Committee on Agriculture (originally sponsored by Senators Halsan, Barr, Benitz and Hansen)

Prohibiting restriction or denial of certain agriculturally related hydraulic project permits.

House Committe on Agriculture & Rural Development

Majority Report:  Do pass.  (13)

      Signed by Representatives Rayburn, Chair; Kremen, Vice Chair; Baugher, Bristow, Brooks, Chandler, Doty, Grant, Holm, McLean, Moyer, Nealey and Rasmussen.

Minority Report:  Do not pass.  (1)

      Signed by Representative R. King.

House Staff:Kenneth Hirst (786-7105)

AS PASSED HOUSE MARCH 4, 1988

BACKGROUND:

The state's Hydraulic Code requires any person who desires to construct a project or do certain other work in the fresh or salt waters of the state to secure a hydraulic permit from the Department of Fisheries or Department of Wildlife.  The purpose of the permit is to provide protection for fish life.

In 1986, the Code was amended to provide special procedures and conditions for permits for construction or other work concerning the diversion of water for irrigation or stockwatering purposes. Appeals concerning permits issued or denied for such projects are subject to review by a three member Hydraulic Appeals Board within the Environmental Hearings Office.  The Board consists of one representative of each of the following: the Department of Ecology, the Department of Agriculture, and the department (Fisheries or Wildlife) which issued or denied the permit.  These special provisions also allow the issuance of on-going "perpetual" permits, without the need for periodic renewal, for irrigation or stockwatering diversion projects involving seasonal construction or other work.

SUMMARY:

Projects or other work in the salt or freshwaters of the state associated with streambank stabilization to protect farm and agricultural land are governed by special procedures and conditions of the Hydraulic Code.  The procedures and conditions are those established in 1986 for projects concerning the diversion of water for irrigation or stockwatering purposes.  Permits for such projects are subject to review by the Hydraulic Appeals Board.  "Perpetual" permits may be issued without the need for periodic review, if the problem causing the need for the streambank stabilization occurs on an annual or more frequent basis.

For this purpose, streambank stabilization includes log and debris removal, bank protections, gravel removal, and erosion control.

The Departments of Ecology and Natural Resources must study means of encouraging sand and gravel companies to remove excess materials in rivers and streams in agricultural areas.  The results of the study must be reported to the Legislature by December 1, 1989.

Fiscal Note:      Requested February 19, 1988.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Senator Halsan; Senator Barr, Representative Amondson; Bob Jones, Washington State Farm Bureau; Robert van Weerdhuizen; Hamlet Hilpert, Lewis County Conservation District; Gerald Howard; Randy Turner; Douglas Zahn; Chris Cheney; Leo Pope; and Marlyta Deck, Washington Cattlemen's Association.

House Committee - Testified Against:      Gene Deschamps, Chehalis Indian Tribe; Ed Manary, Department of Fisheries; and David Mudd, Department of Wildlife.

House Committee - Testimony For:    (1) By removing the in-house administrative review of these permits, the bill creates a fairer system for farmers.  (2) The issue addressed by the bill has arisen because of the dictatorial attitude of the state agencies.  (3) There are times and areas in which riprapping a streambank is a reasonable alternative to losing irreplaceable agricultural soil to erosion.  (4) The policies of the departments of fisheries and wildlife are in conflict with federal conservation practices.  (5) The Departments can kill a project with just an oral comment; they have too much power.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      (1) The "seasonal" activity for which a perpetual permit may be issued should be an activity that must be conducted annually or more frequently.  (2) The bill is too permissive.  (3) Projects should be regulated with regard to the time of year that they are conducted.  (4) Perpetual permits could lead to the unnecessary removal of streambed gravel, destroying habitat and fish eggs.