HOUSE BILL REPORT

SHB 1854

As Amended by the Senate

BYHouse Committee on Environmental Affairs (originally sponsored by Representatives Jones, Hargrove, Rust, Winsley, Basich, R. King, Belcher, Cole, Spanel, P. King and Nelson)

Modifying resource damage assessment under the state water pollution control act.

House Committe on Environmental Affairs

Majority Report:  The substitute bill be substituted therefore and the substitute bill do pass.  (11)

      Signed by Representatives Rust, Chair; Valle, Vice Chair; D. Sommers, Ranking Republican Member; G. Fisher, Fraser, Phillips, Pruitt, Schoon, Sprenkle, Van Luven and Walker.

House Staff:Bonnie Austin (786-7107)

AS PASSED HOUSE MARCH 7, 1989

BACKGROUND:

The State Water Pollution Control Act (Act) authorizes the state to collect damages for injuries to natural resources that result from illegal discharges into the waters of the state.  The measure of damages is the amount necessary to "restock such water, replenish such resources, and otherwise restore the stream, lake, or other water source to its condition prior to the injury."

A recent superior court decision interpreted this language to limit damages to the amount of money necessary to restock the water with the quantity and species of fish killed by the discharge.  Evidence regarding the economic value of the fish was excluded because the court determined that this had no bearing on restocking costs and was not a proper method of measuring damages under current law.

Damages recovered under the Act for natural resources are currently transferred to the appropriate state agency to use for food fish or shellfish management or propagation.

SUMMARY:

Any person who damages natural resources due to a violation of the Act is liable for the sum of money necessary to: (1) Restore the damaged resource to its condition prior to injury and compensate for the lost value during the period of time between injury and restoration; or (2) compensate for the lost value throughout the duration of the injury if restoration is not technically feasible.  When only partial restoration is technically feasible, compensation will be required for the remaining lost value.

Restoration is defined to include the cost to restock, replenish, or replace the resources and restore the environment to its condition prior to injury.

Lost value is defined to include consumptive, nonconsumptive, and indirect use values, as well as lost taxation, leasing, and licensing revenues.

Damages received under the Act will go into the coastal protection fund and be dedicated to the following uses: (1) environmental restoration and enhancement projects; (2) investigations of the long-term effects of oil spills; and (3) reimbursement of agencies for reconnaissance and damage assessment costs.  A steering committee consisting of the departments of ecology, fisheries, wildlife, and the parks and recreation commission will authorize the expenditure of these monies.

EFFECT OF SENATE AMENDMENTS:  Restoration and compensation money may be used to investigate the long-term effects of sewer sludge discharges on state resources.

Fiscal Note:      Requested February 13, 1989.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:    Steve Hunter, Department of Ecology; David McCraney, Department of Fisheries; Brian Hauger, Department of Wildlife; Randy Ray, Puget Sound Steamship Operators Association; and Elizabeth Tabbutt, Washington Environmental Council.

House Committee - Testified Against:      None Presented.

House Committee - Testimony For:    This clarification of the measure of damages is consistent with the intent of the original act, which is to make the state whole for damages to natural resources resulting from violations of the Water Pollution Control Act.

House Committee - Testimony Against:      None Presented.

VOTE ON FINAL PASSAGE:

      Yeas 95; Excused 3

Excused:    Representatives Basich, Locke and Vekich