NOTICE: Formatting and page numbering in this document may be different

from that in the original published version.

NINETY-SIXTH DAY

__________

MORNING SESSION

__________

House Chamber, Olympia, Friday, April 14, 1995

             The House was called to order at 9:00 a.m. by the Speaker (Representative Horn presiding). The Clerk called the roll and a quorum was present.

             The flag was escorted to the rostrum by a Sergeant at Arms Color Guard, Pages Tim Nelson and Eric Nelson. Prayer was offered by Pastor Dwight Nelson of the Bethany Covenant Church of Mt. Vernon.

             Reading of the Journal of the previous day was dispensed with and it was ordered to stand approved.

RESOLUTIONS

             HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 95-4658, by Representatives Mitchell, Buck, Hickel, Thompson, Pennington, Smith, Johnson, Fuhrman, Cairnes, McMahan, Pelesky, Campbell, Robertson, Chandler and Lambert

             WHEREAS, It is the policy of the Washington State Legislature to recognize excellence in all fields of endeavor; and

             WHEREAS, Matthew Case has exhibited the highest standard of excellence by his scholastic accomplishments; and

             WHEREAS, Scholastic accomplishment is kindred and akin to the values for achievement in life, inasmuch as the setting of the very highest goals and aspirations and the persistence, dedication, sacrifice, commitment, focus, effort, skill, and talent to obtain those goals and aspirations all correspond to lifetime and personal achievement; and

             WHEREAS, Matthew Case is a junior at Federal Way High School as well as an advanced-placement student at Highline Community College; and

             WHEREAS, Matthew Case recently placed first in the 1995 State AAA Tournament in Debate thereby becoming the State Champion in this field, which builds upon a foundation of success wherein he has been awarded forty-five debate trophies, thirty of which are for first place; and

             WHEREAS, Matthew Case recently placed first in the 1995 State AAA Tournament in Extemporaneous Speech, thereby becoming the State Champion in this field as well, which builds upon a foundation of success heretofore mentioned, as well as by having placed second in this same competition in 1994; and

             WHEREAS, Matthew Case recently was conferred the 1995 Best Speaker Award, bestowed upon the best speaker in the annual "Lincoln-Douglas" Class AAA debate competition, which builds upon a foundation of success heretofore mentioned, thereby becoming a triple-state champion for 1995; and

             WHEREAS, Matthew Case will represent the great state of Washington in the National Tournament in 1995 in both divisions of Debate and Extemporaneous Speech, which builds upon his inaugural and successful representation of the great state of Washington in the 1994 National Tournament;

             NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the state of Washington honors the excellence in achievement and accomplishment demonstrated by Matthew Case and for the example of inspiration he has set for others; and

             BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That copies of this Resolution be immediately transmitted by the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives to Matthew Case, his family, and to the Principal of Federal Way High School, in the city of Federal Way in the great state of Washington.

             Representative Mitchell moved adoption of the resolution.

             Representatives Mitchell and Buck spoke in favor of adoption of the resolution.

             House Resolution No. 4658 was adopted.

             HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 95-4673, by Representatives Mitchell, Hickel, Thompson, Pennington, Johnson, Fuhrman, McMahan, Pelesky, Robertson, Chandler and Lambert

             WHEREAS, It is the policy of the Washington State Legislature to recognize excellence in all fields of endeavor; and

             WHEREAS, The Federal Way High School Speech and Debate Team has exhibited the highest level of excellence by their scholastic and extracurricular program achievement; and

             WHEREAS, Scholastic achievement is kindred and akin to the values for achievement in life, inasmuch as the setting of the very highest goals and aspirations and the persistence, dedication, sacrifice, commitment, focus, effort, skill, talent, and teamwork to obtain these goals and aspirations all correspond to lifetime and personal achievement; and

             WHEREAS, Participation in and contribution to extracurricular programs demonstrates the initiative of success, the inspiration of improvement, the motivation of competition, and the surmounting of challenge; and

             WHEREAS, In the 1995 academic year, the Federal Way High School Speech and Debate Teams exhibited superior talent and skill by earning two hundred forty well-deserved trophies in demanding and challenging tournaments across this great state of Washington; and

             WHEREAS, From this highly accomplished Debate and Speech Team emerges further distinction from team members Matthew Case, Angela Chung, and Noah Down, who have each distinguished themselves by earning the special privilege and coveted responsibility of representing the great state of Washington at the 1995 National Forensic League Tournament; and

             WHEREAS, All of the aforementioned accomplishments would not have been possible without the instruction, guidance, and leadership of Speech Coach Lois Gorny, nor would these accomplishments have been possible without the unequivocal support and encouragement of the Federal Way High School student body, faculty and staff, alumni, friends, community members, and especially the families of each of the team members;

             NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives of the state of Washington honors the excellence in achievement and accomplishment demonstrated by the Federal Way High School Speech and Debate Team and for the example of inspiration set for others; and

             BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That copies of this resolution be immediately transmitted by the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives to each member of the Federal Way High School Speech and Debate Team and Speech Coach as well as to the principal of Federal Way High School.

             Representative Hickel moved adoption of the resolution.

             Representatives Hickel and Mitchell spoke in favor of adoption of the resolution.

             House Resolution No. 4673 was adopted.

             The Speaker (Representative Horn presiding) declared the House to be at ease.

             The Speaker called the House to order.

RESOLUTION

             HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 95-4631, by Representatives Carlson, Jacobsen, Foreman, Benton, D. Schmidt, Mulliken, Elliot, Padden, Talcott, Mielke, Stevens, Schoesler, Horn, Crouse, K. Schmidt, Cooke, Carrell, Johnson, Huff, Hankins, Lisk, Silver, Thompson, Blanton, Boldt, Mastin, Morris, Skinner, Brumsickle, Delvin, Sehlin, Lambert, Mason, Appelwick, Regala, Grant, Chopp, Valle, Dickerson, Dellwo, Cole, Kessler, Brown, Conway, Ogden, Thibaudeau, Chappell, Costa, R. Fisher, Cody, Hatfield, Quall, Scott, Basich, Ballard, Robertson, McMorris, L. Thomas, Chandler, Dyer, Koster and Kremen

             WHEREAS, The students selected for special recognition as Washington Scholars in 1995 have distinguished themselves as exceptional students, student leaders, and as talented and enthusiastic participants in many diverse activities including art, debate, drama, honor societies, interscholastic sports, Junior Achievement, knowledge competitions, music, and student government; and

             WHEREAS, These exemplary students have also contributed to the welfare of those less fortunate in their neighborhoods through volunteer efforts with community service organizations such as the United Way, Special Olympics, March of Dimes, Big Brothers, Big Sisters, community food drives, senior centers, scouting, and church groups; and

             WHEREAS, The State of Washington benefits greatly from the accomplishments of these caring and gifted individuals, not only in their roles as students, but also as citizens, role models for other young people, and future leaders of our communities and our state; and

             WHEREAS, Through the Washington Scholars Program, the Governor, the legislature, and the state's citizens have an opportunity to recognize and honor three outstanding seniors from each of the state's forty-nine legislative districts for the students' exceptional academic achievements, leadership abilities, and contributions to their communities;

             NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the House of Representatives honor and congratulate the Washington Scholars for their hard work, dedication, contributions, and maturity in achieving this significant accomplishment; and

             BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the families of these students be commended for the encouragement and support they have provided to the scholars; and

             BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the teachers and classmates of these highly esteemed students be recognized for the important part they played in helping the scholars to learn, contribute, lead, and excel; and

             BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That copies of this resolution be immediately transmitted by the chief clerk of the House of Representatives to each of the Washington Scholars selected in 1995.

             Representative Carlson moved adoption of the resolution.

             Representatives Carlson, Jacobsen, Kremen and Basich spoke in favor of the resolution.

             House Resolution No. 4631 was adopted.

             The Speaker declared the House to be at ease.

             The Speaker called the House to order.

             There being no objection, the House advanced to the sixth order of business.

SECOND READING

             SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5118, by Senate Committee on Ways & Means (originally sponsored by Senators Winsley, Long, Bauer, Loveland and Fraser)

Calculating excess compensation for retirement purposes.

             The bill was read the second time.

             There being no objection, the committee amendment was adopted. Committee on Appropriations recommendation: Majority, do pass as amended. (For committee amendment see Journal, 82nd Day, March 31, 1995.)

             There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

             Representative Carlson spoke in favor of passage of the bill.

             The Speaker stated the question before the House to be final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5118 as amended by the House.

ROLL CALL

             The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5118 as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 92, Nays - 0, Absent - 1, Excused - 4.

             Voting yea: Representatives Appelwick, Backlund, Ballasiotes, Basich, Benton, Blanton, Boldt, Brumsickle, Buck, Cairnes, Campbell, Carlson, Carrell, Casada, Chandler, Chappell, Chopp, Clements, Cody, Cole, Conway, Cooke, Costa, Crouse, Dellwo, Delvin, Dickerson, Dyer, Ebersole, Elliot, Fisher, G., Fisher, R., Foreman, Grant, Hankins, Hargrove, Hatfield, Hickel, Honeyford, Horn, Huff, Hymes, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kessler, Koster, Kremen, Lambert, Lisk, Mason, Mastin, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Mitchell, Morris, Mulliken, Ogden, Patterson, Pelesky, Pennington, Poulsen, Quall, Radcliff, Reams, Regala, Robertson, Romero, Rust, Schmidt, D., Schmidt, K., Scott, Sehlin, Sheahan, Sheldon, Sherstad, Silver, Skinner, Smith, Sommers, Stevens, Talcott, Thibaudeau, Thomas, B., Thomas, L., Thompson, Tokuda, Valle, Van Luven, Veloria, Wolfe and Mr. Speaker - 92.

             Absent: Representative Goldsmith - 1.

             Excused: Representatives Beeksma, Brown, Fuhrman and Schoesler - 4.

             Substitute Senate Bill No. 5118, as amended by the House, having received the constitutional majority, was declared passed.

             SENATE BILL NO. 5728, by Senators Gaspard, McDonald, Wojahn, Rinehart, Rasmussen and Winsley

Modifying the business and occupation tax on international investment management companies.

             The bill was read the second time.

             There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

             Representative B. Thomas spoke in favor of passage of the bill.

MOTION

             On motion of Representative Robertson, Representative Delvin was excused.

             The Speaker stated the question before the House to be final passage of Senate Bill No. 5728.

ROLL CALL

             The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Senate Bill No. 5728, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 87, Nays - 4, Absent - 1, Excused - 5.

             Voting yea: Representatives Appelwick, Backlund, Ballasiotes, Basich, Benton, Blanton, Boldt, Brumsickle, Buck, Cairnes, Campbell, Carlson, Carrell, Casada, Chandler, Chappell, Chopp, Clements, Cole, Conway, Cooke, Costa, Crouse, Dellwo, Dyer, Ebersole, Elliot, Fisher, G., Fisher, R., Foreman, Grant, Hankins, Hargrove, Hatfield, Hickel, Honeyford, Horn, Huff, Hymes, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kessler, Koster, Kremen, Lambert, Lisk, Mastin, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Mitchell, Morris, Mulliken, Ogden, Patterson, Pelesky, Pennington, Poulsen, Quall, Radcliff, Reams, Regala, Robertson, Romero, Rust, Schmidt, D., Schmidt, K., Scott, Sehlin, Sheahan, Sheldon, Sherstad, Silver, Skinner, Smith, Sommers, Stevens, Talcott, Thibaudeau, Thomas, B., Thomas, L., Thompson, Tokuda, Valle, Van Luven, Wolfe and Mr. Speaker - 87.

             Voting nay: Representatives Cody, Dickerson, Mason and Veloria - 4.

             Absent: Representative Goldsmith - 1.

             Excused: Representatives Beeksma, Brown, Delvin, Fuhrman and Schoesler - 5.

             Senate Bill No. 5728, having received the constitutional majority, was declared passed.

             ENGROSSED SENATE BILL NO. 6037, by Senators Sheldon, Hale, Rinehart, Haugen, Drew, Oke, Kohl, Fairley, Franklin, Snyder, Quigley, Bauer, McAuliffe, Fraser, Sutherland and Gaspard

Creating the Washington Independent Regulatory Affairs Commission.

             The bill was read the second time.

             There being no objection, the committee amendment was moved. Committee on Government Operation recommendation: Majority, do pass as amended. (For committee amendment see Journal, 82nd Day, March 31, 1995.)

             Representative Reams moved adoption of the following amendment to the committee amendment by Representative Reams:

             On page 1, line 21 of the amendment, after "obtained." insert "The committees may examine the possible functions of an independent commission, including its role in the systematic review of existing agency rules for compliance with the determinations contained in section 201, chapter. . ., Laws of 1995 (section 201 of Engrossed Substitute House Bill No. 1010)."

             Representative Reams spoke in favor of the adoption of the amendment to the committee amendment.

             The amendment to the committee amendment was adopted.

             The committee amendment as amended was adopted.

             There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

             Representative Reams spoke in favor of passage of the bill.

             The Speaker stated the question before the House to be final passage of Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6037 as amended by the House.

ROLL CALL

             The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6037 as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 91, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 6.

             Voting yea: Representatives Appelwick, Backlund, Ballasiotes, Basich, Benton, Blanton, Boldt, Brumsickle, Buck, Cairnes, Campbell, Carlson, Carrell, Casada, Chandler, Chappell, Chopp, Clements, Cody, Cole, Conway, Cooke, Costa, Crouse, Dellwo, Dickerson, Dyer, Ebersole, Elliot, Fisher, G., Fisher, R., Foreman, Grant, Hankins, Hargrove, Hatfield, Hickel, Honeyford, Horn, Huff, Hymes, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kessler, Koster, Kremen, Lambert, Lisk, Mason, Mastin, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Mitchell, Morris, Mulliken, Ogden, Patterson, Pelesky, Pennington, Poulsen, Quall, Radcliff, Reams, Regala, Robertson, Romero, Rust, Schmidt, D., Schmidt, K., Scott, Sehlin, Sheahan, Sheldon, Sherstad, Silver, Skinner, Smith, Sommers, Stevens, Talcott, Thibaudeau, Thomas, B., Thomas, L., Thompson, Tokuda, Valle, Van Luven, Veloria, Wolfe and Mr. Speaker - 91.

             Excused: Representatives Beeksma, Brown, Delvin, Fuhrman, Goldsmith and Schoesler - 6.

             Engrossed Senate Bill No. 6037, as amended by the House, having received the constitutional majority, was declared passed.

             There being no objection, the House resumed consideration of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5606.

             With the consent of the House, amendment number 835 to Substitute Senate Bill No. 5606 was withdrawn.

             Representative Mastin moved adoption of the following amendment by Representative Mastin:

             On page 2, line 6, after "of" strike everything down to and including "This" on page 6, line 14 and insert "salvaged water by local communities and individuals for domestic, agricultural, industrial, recreational, and fish and wildlife habitat creation and enhancement purposes, including wetland enhancement, will contribute to the peace, health, safety, and welfare of the people of the state of Washington. To the extent salvaged water is appropriate and available for beneficial uses, it should be used where feasible to supplement existing water supplies without threatening existing resources or public health in order to preserve potable water for drinking purposes and encourage water conservation practices.

             The legislature further finds and declares that the use of salvaged water is not inconsistent with the policy of antidegradation of state waters announced in other state statutes, including the water pollution control act, chapter 90.48 RCW and the water resources act, chapter 90.54 RCW, nor is it inconsistent with the state's relinquishment statutes, chapter 90.48 RCW.

             It is the intent of the legislature that the department of ecology and the department of health undertake the necessary steps to encourage the development of water reclamation facilities so that reclaimed water may be made available to help meet the growing water requirements of the state. It is also the intent of the legislature that the relationship between reclaimed water and other salvaged water be clarified to allow for the maximum use of current water conservation technologies and promote efficient administration of this limited resource.

             The legislature further finds and declares that reclaimed water facilities are water pollution control facilities as defined in chapter 70.146 RCW and are eligible for financial assistance as provided in chapter 70.146 RCW.

             Sec. 2. RCW 90.46.010 and 1992 c 204 s 2 are each amended to read as follows:

             Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.

             (1) "Greywater" means ((sewage)) wastewater having the consistency and strength of residential domestic type wastewater. Greywater includes wastewater from sinks, showers, and laundry fixtures, but does not include toilet or urinal waters.

             (2) "Land application" means application of treated effluent for purposes of irrigation or landscape enhancement for residential, business, and governmental purposes.

             (3) "Person" means any state, individual, public or private corporation, political subdivision, governmental subdivision, governmental agency, municipality, copartnership, association, firm, trust estate, or any other legal entity whatever.

             (4) "Reclaimed water" means effluent derived in any part from sewage from a wastewater treatment system that has been adequately and reliably treated, so that as a result of that treatment, it is suitable for a ((direct)) beneficial use or a controlled use that would not otherwise occur.

             (5) "Sewage" means water-carried human wastes ((, including kitchen, bath, and laundry waste)) from residences, buildings, industrial and commercial establishments, or other places, together with such ground water infiltration, surface waters, or industrial wastewater as may be present.

             (6) "User" means any person who uses reclaimed water.

             (7) "Wastewater" means water and wastes discharged from homes, businesses, and industry to the sewer system.

             (8) "Beneficial use", as used in this chapter, means the use of reclaimed water, that has been transported from the point of production to the point of use without an intervening discharge to the waters of the state, for a beneficial purpose.

             (9) "Direct recharge" means the controlled subsurface addition of water directly to the ground water basin that results in the replenishment of ground water.

             (10) "Ground water recharge criteria" means the contaminant criteria found in the drinking water quality standards adopted by the state board of health pursuant to chapter 43.20 RCW and the department of health pursuant to chapter 70.119A RCW.

             (11) "Planned ground water recharge project" means any reclaimed water project designed for the purpose of recharging ground water, via direct recharge or surface percolation.

             (12) "Reclamation criteria" means the criteria set forth in the water reclamation and reuse interim standards and subsequent revisions adopted by the department of ecology and the department of health.

             (13) "Salvaged water" means water reclaimed under this chapter and water made surplus through efficiencies in use and related activities.

             (14) "Streamflow augmentation" means the discharge of reclaimed water to rivers and streams of the state or other surface water bodies, but not wetlands.

             (15) "Surface percolation" means the controlled application of water to the ground surface for the purpose of recharging ground water.

             (16) "Wetland or wetlands" means areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. No agency shall use a delineation process for what constitutes a wetland that is more stringent than that adopted by the United States army corps of engineers.

             (17) "Man-made wetlands" means a wetland intentionally created from a nonwetland site to produce or replace natural habitat.

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. A new section is added to chapter 90.46 RCW to read as follows:

             (1) Reclaimed water may be beneficially used for surface percolation provided the reclaimed water meets the ground water recharge criteria as measured in ground water beneath or down gradient of the recharge project site, and has been incorporated into a sewer or water comprehensive plan, as applicable, adopted by the applicable local government and approved by the department of health or department of ecology as applicable.

             (2) If the state ground water recharge criteria as defined in RCW 90.46.010 do not contain a standard for a constituent or contaminant, the department of ecology shall establish a discharge limit consistent with the goals of this chapter.

             (3) Reclaimed water that does not meet the ground water recharge criteria may be beneficially used for surface percolation where the department of ecology has specifically authorized such use at such lower standard.

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. A new section is added to chapter 90.46 RCW to read as follows:

             (1) Reclaimed water may be beneficially used for discharge into man-made wetlands provided the reclaimed water meets the class A or B reclaimed water standards as defined in the reclamation criteria, and the discharge is incorporated into a sewer or water comprehensive plan, as applicable, adopted by the applicable local government and approved by the department of health or department of ecology as applicable.

             (2) Reclaimed water that does not meet the class A or B reclaimed water standards may be beneficially used for discharge into man-made wetlands where the department of ecology has specifically authorized such use at lower standards.

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. A new section is added to chapter 90.46 RCW to read as follows:

             Reclaimed water intended for beneficial reuse may be discharged for streamflow augmentation provided the reclaimed water meets the requirements of the federal water pollution control act, chapter 90.48 RCW, and is incorporated into a sewer or water comprehensive plan, as applicable, adopted by the applicable local government and approved by the department of health or department of ecology as applicable.

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. A new section is added to chapter 90.46 RCW to read as follows:

             The department of ecology shall, in consultation with the department of health, adopt a single set of standards, procedures, and guidelines, on or before December 31, 1996, for direct recharge using reclaimed water. The standards shall address both water quality considerations and avoidance of property damage from excessive recharge.

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. A new section is added to chapter 90.46 RCW to read as follows:

             The department of ecology shall, in consultation with the department of health, adopt a single set of standards, procedures, and guidelines, on or before June 30, 1996, for discharge of reclaimed water to wetlands.

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. A new section is added to chapter 90.46 RCW to read as follows:

             On or before December 31, 1995, the department of ecology and department of health shall, in consultation with local governments and local interested parties, jointly review and, if required, propose amendments to chapter 372-32 WAC to resolve conflicts between the development of reclaimed water projects in the Puget Sound region and chapter 372-32 WAC.

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. The department of ecology and the department of health shall report on the progress of the implementation of this act to the members of the agriculture and ecology committee of the house of representatives and the members of the ecology and parks committee of the senate by December 15, 1995.

             Sec. 10. RCW 90.46.050 and 1992 c 204 s 6 are each amended to read as follows:

             (1) The department of health shall, before ((May 1, 1992)) July 1, 1995, form an advisory committee, in coordination with the department of ecology and the department of agriculture, which will provide technical assistance in the development of standards, procedures, and guidelines required by this chapter. Such committee shall be composed of individuals from public water and wastewater utilities, landscaping enhancement industry, commercial and industrial application community, and any other persons deemed technically helpful by the department of health.

             (2) ((The department of health shall report to the joint select committee on water resource policy by December 1, 1992, on the fee structure which has been recommended under RCW 90.46.030(3) and review fees authorized under RCW 90.46.40(3).)) The advisory committee shall: review and make recommendations regarding the relationship between the right to use reclaimed water and the abandonment and relinquishment statutes, chapter 90.48 RCW; examine the anomaly in water allocation law posed by statutes calling for the issuance of permits under the water pollution control laws, chapter 90.48 RCW, rather than permits issued under the state's water allocation laws which govern other salvaged water; analyze whether the administration of use permits for reclaimed water should be transferred to the water allocation laws; and identify administrative barriers to the use of practices or technologies that will result in water being made surplus because of greater efficiencies.

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 11. Sections 1 through 10 of this"

Correct internal references accordingly and correct the title.

             Representative Mastin spoke in favor of the adoption of the amendment.

             The amendment was adopted.

             There being no objection, the House deferred further consideration of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5606 and the bill held it's place on the second reading calendar.

             SENATE BILL NO. 5087, by Senator Fraser; by request of Environmental Hearings Office

Revising appeals involving environmental and land use boards.

             The bill was read the second time.

             There being no objection, the committee amendment was not adopted. Committee on Agriculture & Ecology recommendation: Majority, do pass as amended. (For committee amendment see Journal, 82nd Day, March 31, 1995.)

             With the consent of the House, amendment numbers 871 and 873 to Senate Bill No. 5087 were withdrawn.

             Representative Chandler moved adoption of the following amendment by Representative Chandler:

             Strike everything after the enacting clause and insert the following:

             "NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature recognizes that judicial review of certain environmental and land use appeals can be expedited to benefit the people of the state. Allowing direct appeals to superior court or the court of appeals can reduce backlogs, conserve resources, and provide quicker guidance to individuals and communities concerning important matters impacting their area. The legislature therefore finds that it is in the public interest to reduce delays in obtaining a final resolution over certain environmental and land use matters by streamlining the judicial appeals process.

             Sec. 2. RCW 34.05.514 and 1994 c 257 s 23 are each amended to read as follows:

             (1) Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section ((and RCW 36.70A.300(3))), proceedings for review under this chapter shall be instituted by filing a petition in the superior court, at the petitioner's option, for (a) Thurston county, (b) the county of the petitioner's residence or principal place of business, or (c) in any county where the property owned by the petitioner and affected by the contested decision is located.

             (2) For proceedings involving institutions of higher education, the petition shall be filed either in the county in which the principal office of the institution involved is located or in the county of a branch campus if the action involves such branch.

             (3) For proceedings involving water quantity decisions made by the department of ecology, as defined in section 14 of this act, the petition shall be filed in the superior court in the county that will be directly and immediately affected by the decision.

             Sec. 3. RCW 43.21B.110 and 1993 c 387 s 22 are each amended to read as follows:

             (1) The pollution control hearings board shall only have jurisdiction to hear and decide appeals from the following decisions of the department, the director, the administrator of the office of marine safety, and the air pollution control boards or authorities as established pursuant to chapter 70.94 RCW, or local health departments:

             (a) Civil penalties imposed pursuant to RCW 18.104.155, 70.94.431, 70.105.080, 70.107.050, 88.46.090, 90.03.600, 90.48.144, 90.56.310, and 90.56.330.

             (b) Orders issued pursuant to RCW 18.104.043, 18.104.060, 43.27A.190, 70.94.211, 70.94.332, 70.105.095, 86.16.020, 88.46.070, ((90.14.130,)) and 90.48.120.

             (c) The issuance, modification, or termination of any permit, certificate, or license by the department or any air authority in the exercise of its jurisdiction, including the issuance or termination of a waste disposal permit, the denial of an application for a waste disposal permit, or the modification of the conditions or the terms of a waste disposal permit.

             (d) Decisions of local health departments regarding the grant or denial of solid waste permits pursuant to chapter 70.95 RCW.

             (e) Decisions of local health departments regarding the issuance and enforcement of permits to use or dispose of biosolids under RCW 70.95J.080.

             (f) Any other decision by the department, the administrator of the office of marine safety, or an air authority which pursuant to law must be decided as an adjudicative proceeding under chapter 34.05 RCW.

             (2) The jurisdiction of the pollution control hearings board is further limited as follows:

             (a) The hearings board shall have no jurisdiction whatsoever to review water quantity decisions of the department of ecology as defined in section 14 of this act, which are appealed directly to a superior court, to review orders pertaining to the relinquishment of a water right under RCW 90.14.130, or to review proceedings regarding general adjudications of water rights conducted pursuant to chapter 90.03 or 90.44 RCW.

             (b) The following hearings shall not be conducted by the hearings board:

             (((a))) (i) Hearings required by law to be conducted by the shorelines hearings board pursuant to chapter 90.58 RCW.

             (((b))) (ii) Hearings conducted by the department pursuant to RCW 70.94.332, 70.94.390, 70.94.395, 70.94.400, 70.94.405, 70.94.410, and 90.44.180.

             (((c) Proceedings by the department relating to general adjudications of water rights pursuant to chapter 90.03 or 90.44 RCW.

             (d))) (iii) Hearings conducted by the department to adopt, modify, or repeal rules.

             (3) Review of rules and regulations adopted by the hearings board shall be subject to review in accordance with the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW.

             Sec. 4. RCW 43.21B.130 and 1990 c 65 s 3 are each amended to read as follows:

             The administrative procedure act, chapter 34.05 RCW, shall apply to the appeal of rules and regulations adopted by the board to the same extent as it applied to the review of rules and regulations adopted by the directors and/or boards or commissions of the various departments whose powers, duties and functions were transferred by section 6, chapter 62, Laws of 1970 ex. sess. to the department. Except with regard to water quantity decisions by the department, as defined in section 14 of this act, which are appealed directly to a superior court and orders pertaining to the relinquishment of a water right under RCW 90.14.130, all other decisions and orders of the director and all decisions of air pollution control boards or authorities established pursuant to chapter 70.94 RCW shall be subject to review by the hearings board as provided in this chapter.

             Sec. 5. RCW 43.21B.140 and 1987 c 109 s 30 are each amended to read as follows:

             In all appeals over which the hearings board has jurisdiction, a party taking an appeal may elect either a formal or an informal hearing, such election to be made according to rules of practice and procedure to be promulgated by the hearings board: PROVIDED, That nothing herein shall be construed to modify the provisions of RCW 43.21B.190 ((and 43.21B.200)). In the event that appeals are taken from the same decision, order, or determination, as the case may be, by different parties and only one of such parties elects ((a formal)) an informal hearing, ((a formal)) an informal hearing shall be granted.

             Sec. 6. RCW 43.21B.240 and 1989 c 175 s 105 are each amended to read as follows:

             The department and air authorities shall not have authority to hold adjudicative proceedings pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 RCW. ((Such)) All other hearings, except for water quantity decisions as defined in section 14 of this act, that are appealed directly to a superior court, and appeals of orders pertaining to the relinquishment of a water right under RCW 90.14.130, shall be held by the pollution control hearings board.

             Sec. 7. RCW 43.21B.310 and 1992 c 73 s 3 are each amended to read as follows:

             (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, any order issued by the department, the administrator of the office of marine safety, or authority pursuant to RCW 70.94.211, 70.94.332, 70.105.095, 43.27A.190, 86.16.020, 88.46.070, or 90.48.120(2) or any provision enacted after July 26, 1987, or any permit, certificate, or license issued by the department may be appealed to the pollution control hearings board if the appeal is filed with the board and served on the department or authority within thirty days after receipt of the order. Except as provided under chapter 70.105D RCW, ((this is)) these are the exclusive means of appeal of such an order.

             (((2))) (a) The department, the administrator, or the authority in its discretion may stay the effectiveness of an order during the pendency of such an appeal.

             (((3))) (b) At any time during the pendency of an appeal of such an order to the board, the appellant may apply pursuant to RCW 43.21B.320 to the hearings board for a stay of the order or for the removal thereof.

             (((4))) (c) Any appeal before the hearings board must contain the following in accordance with the rules of the hearings board:

             (((a))) (i) The appellant's name and address;

             (((b))) (ii) The date and docket number of the order, permit, or license appealed;

             (((c))) (iii) A description of the substance of the order, permit, or license that is the subject of the appeal;

             (((d))) (iv) A clear, separate, and concise statement of every error alleged to have been committed;

             (((e))) (v) A clear and concise statement of facts upon which the requester relies to sustain his or her statements of error; and

             (((f))) (vi) A statement setting forth the relief sought.

             (((5))) (d) Upon failure to comply with any final order of the department or the administrator, the attorney general, on request of the department or the administrator, may bring an action in the superior court of the county where the violation occurred or the potential violation is about to occur to obtain such relief as necessary, including injunctive relief, to insure compliance with the order. The air authorities may bring similar actions to enforce their orders.

             (((6))) (e) An appealable decision or order shall be identified as such and shall contain a conspicuous notice to the recipient that it may be appealed only by filing an appeal with the hearings board and serving it on the department within thirty days of receipt.

             (2) Water quantity decisions of the department, as defined in section 14 of this act may be appealed either to the pollution control hearings board or directly to a superior court as provided in section 14 of this act. Appeals of orders pertaining to the relinquishment of a water right shall be filed in superior court as provided by RCW 90.14.130.

             Sec. 8. RCW 43.27A.190 and 1987 c 109 s 11 are each amended to read as follows:

             Notwithstanding and in addition to any other powers granted to the department of ecology, whenever it appears to the department that a person is violating or is about to violate any of the provisions of the following:

             (1) Chapter 90.03 RCW; or

             (2) Chapter 90.44 RCW; or

             (3) Chapter 86.16 RCW; or

             (4) Chapter 43.37 RCW; or

             (5) Chapter 43.27A RCW; or

             (6) Any other law relating to water resources administered by the department; or

             (7) A rule or regulation adopted, or a directive or order issued by the department relating to subsections (1) through (6) of this section; the department may cause a written regulatory order to be served upon ((said)) the person either personally, or by registered or certified mail delivered to addressee only with return receipt requested and acknowledged by him or her. The order shall specify the provision of the statute, rule, regulation, directive or order alleged to be or about to be violated, and the facts upon which the conclusion of violating or potential violation is based, and shall order the act constituting the violation or the potential violation to cease and desist or, in appropriate cases, shall order necessary corrective action to be taken with regard to such acts within a specific and reasonable time. The regulation of a headgate or controlling works as provided in RCW 90.03.070, by a watermaster, stream patrolman, or other person so authorized by the department shall constitute a regulatory order within the meaning of this section. A regulatory order issued hereunder shall become effective immediately upon receipt by the person to whom the order is directed, except for regulations under RCW 90.03.070 which shall become effective when a written notice is attached as provided therein. Any person aggrieved by such order may appeal the order pursuant to RCW 43.21B.310 unless the order is a water quantity decision of the department,as defined in section 14 of this act, in which case it may be appealed either to the pollution control hearings board or directly to a superior court as provided in section 14 of this act.

             Sec. 9. RCW 90.03.383 and 1991 c 350 s 1 are each amended to read as follows:

             (1) The legislature recognizes the value of interties for improving the reliability of public water systems, enhancing their management, and more efficiently utilizing the increasingly limited resource. Given the continued growth in the most populous areas of the state, the increased complexity of public water supply management, and the trend toward regional planning and regional solutions to resource issues, interconnections of public water systems through interties provide a valuable tool to ensure reliable public water supplies for the citizens of the state. Public water systems have been encouraged in the past to utilize interties to achieve public health and resource management objectives. The legislature finds that it is in the public interest to recognize interties existing and in use as of January 1, 1991, and to have associated water rights modified by the department of ecology to reflect current use of water through those interties, pursuant to subsection (3) of this section. The legislature further finds it in the public interest to develop a coordinated process to review proposals for interties commencing use after January 1, 1991.

             (2) For the purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

             (a) "Interties" are interconnections between public water systems permitting exchange or delivery of water between those systems for other than emergency supply purposes, where such exchange or delivery is within established instantaneous and annual withdrawal rates specified in the systems' existing water right permits or certificates, or contained in claims filed pursuant to chapter 90.14 RCW, and which results in better management of public water supply consistent with existing rights and obligations. Interties include interconnections between public water systems permitting exchange or delivery of water to serve as primary or secondary sources of supply, but do not include development of new sources of supply to meet future demand.

             (b) "Service area" is the area designated in a water system plan or a coordinated water system plan pursuant to chapter 43.20 or 70.116 RCW respectively. When a public water system does not have a designated service area subject to the approval process of those chapters, the service area shall be the designated place of use contained in the water right permit or certificate, or contained in the claim filed pursuant to chapter 90.14 RCW.

             (3) Public water systems with interties existing and in use as of January 1, 1991, or that have received written approval from the department of health prior to that date, shall file written notice of those interties with the department of health and the department of ecology. The notice may be incorporated into the public water system's five-year update of its water system plan, but shall be filed no later than June 30, 1996. The notice shall identify the location of the intertie; the dates of its first use; the purpose, capacity, and current use; the intertie agreement of the parties and the service areas assigned; and other information reasonably necessary to modify the water right permit. Notwithstanding the provisions of RCW 90.03.380 and 90.44.100, for public water systems with interties existing and in use as of January 1, 1991, the department of ecology, upon receipt of notice meeting the requirements of this subsection, shall, as soon as practicable, modify the place of use descriptions in the water right permits, certificates, or claims to reflect the actual use through such interties, provided that the place of use is within service area designations established in a water system plan approved pursuant to chapter 43.20 RCW, or a coordinated water system plan approved pursuant to chapter 70.116 RCW, and further provided that the water used is within the instantaneous and annual withdrawal rates specified in the water right permit and that no outstanding complaints of impairment to existing water rights have been filed with the department of ecology prior to September 1, 1991. Where such complaints of impairment have been received, the department of ecology shall make all reasonable efforts to resolve them in a timely manner through agreement of the parties or through available administrative remedies.

             (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of RCW 90.03.380 and 90.44.100, exchange or delivery of water through interties commencing use after January 1, 1991, shall be permitted when the intertie improves overall system reliability, enhances the manageability of the systems, provides opportunities for conjunctive use, or delays or avoids the need to develop new water sources, and otherwise meets the requirements of this section, provided that each public water system's water use shall not exceed the instantaneous or annual withdrawal rate specified in its water right authorization, shall not adversely affect existing water rights, and shall not be inconsistent with state-approved plans such as water system plans or other plans which include specific proposals for construction of interties. Interties commencing use after January 1, 1991, shall not be inconsistent with regional water resource plans developed pursuant to chapter 90.54 RCW.

             (5) For public water systems subject to the approval process of chapter 43.20 RCW or chapter 70.116 RCW, proposals for interties commencing use after January 1, 1991, shall be incorporated into water system plans pursuant to chapter 43.20 RCW or coordinated water system plans pursuant to chapter 70.116 RCW and submitted to the department of health and the department of ecology for review and approval as provided for in subsections (5) through (9) of this section. The plan shall state how the proposed intertie will improve overall system reliability, enhance the manageability of the systems, provide opportunities for conjunctive use, or delay or avoid the need to develop new water sources.

             (6) The department of health shall be responsible for review and approval of proposals for new interties. In its review the department of health shall determine whether the intertie satisfies the criteria of subsection (4) of this section, with the exception of water rights considerations, which are the responsibility of the department of ecology, and shall determine whether the intertie is necessary to address emergent public health or safety concerns associated with public water supply.

             (7) If the intertie is determined by the department of health to be necessary to address emergent public health or safety concerns associated with public water supply, the public water system shall amend its water system plan as required and shall file an application with the department of ecology to change its existing water right to reflect the proposed use of the water as described in the approved water system plan. The department of ecology shall process the application for change pursuant to RCW 90.03.380 or 90.44.100 as appropriate, except that, notwithstanding the requirements of those sections regarding notice and protest periods, applicants shall be required to publish notice one time, and the comment period shall be fifteen days from the date of publication of the notice. Within sixty days of receiving the application, the department of ecology shall issue findings and advise the department of health if existing water rights are determined to be adversely affected. If no determination is provided by the department of ecology within the sixty-day period, the department of health shall proceed as if existing rights are not adversely affected by the proposed intertie. The department of ecology may obtain an extension of the sixty-day period by submitting written notice to the department of health and to the applicant indicating a definite date by which its determination will be made. No additional extensions shall be granted, and in no event shall the total review period for the department of ecology exceed one hundred eighty days.

             (8) If the department of health determines the proposed intertie appears to meet the requirements of subsection (4) of this section but is not necessary to address emergent public health or safety concerns associated with public water supply, the department of health shall instruct the applicant to submit to the department of ecology an application for change to the underlying water right or claim as necessary to reflect the new place of use. The department of ecology shall consider the applications pursuant to the provisions of RCW 90.03.380 and 90.44.100 as appropriate. If in its review of proposed interties and associated water rights the department of ecology determines that additional information is required to act on the application, the department may request applicants to provide information necessary for its decision, consistent with agency rules and written guidelines. Parties disagreeing with the decision of the department of ecology ((on)) to approve or deny the application for change in place of use may appeal the decision to the pollution control hearings board or directly to a superior court as provided in section 14 of this act.

             (9) The department of health may approve plans containing intertie proposals prior to the department of ecology's decision on the water right application for change in place of use. However, notwithstanding such approval, construction work on the intertie shall not begin until the department of ecology issues the appropriate water right document to the applicant consistent with the approved plan.

             Sec. 10. RCW 90.14.130 and 1987 c 109 s 13 are each amended to read as follows:

             When it appears to the department of ecology that a person entitled to the use of water has not beneficially used his or her water right or some portion thereof, and it appears that ((said)) the right has or may have reverted to the state because of such nonuse, as provided by RCW 90.14.160, 90.14.170, or 90.14.180, the department of ecology shall notify such person by order: PROVIDED, That where a company, association, district, or the United States has filed a blanket claim under the provisions of RCW 90.14.060 for the total benefits of those served by it, the notice shall be served on such company, association, district or the United States and not upon any of its individual water users who may not have used the water or some portion thereof which they were entitled to use. The order shall contain: (1) A description of the water right, including the approximate location of the point of diversion, the general description of the lands or places where such waters were used, the water source, the amount involved, the purpose of use, and the apparent authority upon which the right is based; (2) a statement that unless sufficient cause be shown on appeal the water right will be declared relinquished; and (3) a statement that such order may be appealed to ((the pollution control hearings board)) superior court. Any person aggrieved by such an order may appeal it to ((the pollution control hearings board pursuant to RCW 43.21B.310)) the superior court in the county where the land is located upon which the water was used. Any such appeal to superior court shall be de novo. The order shall be served by registered or certified mail to the last known address of the person and be posted at the point of division or withdrawal. The order by itself shall not alter the recipient's right to use water, if any.

             Sec. 11. RCW 90.14.190 and 1987 c 109 s 14 are each amended to read as follows:

             Any person feeling aggrieved by any decision of the department of ecology may have the same reviewed by the pollution control hearings board or directly to a superior court pursuant to ((RCW 43.21B.310)) section 14 of this act. In any such review, the findings of fact as set forth in the report of the department of ecology shall be prima facie evidence of the fact of any waiver or relinquishment of a water right or portion thereof. If the hearings board affirms the decision of the department, a party seeks review in superior court of that hearings board decision pursuant to chapter 34.05 RCW, and the court determines that the party was injured by an arbitrary, capricious, or erroneous order of the department, the court may award reasonable attorneys' fees. Any order regarding the relinquishment of a water right shall be appealed pursuant to RCW 90.14.130.

             Sec. 12. RCW 90.14.200 and 1989 c 175 s 180 are each amended to read as follows:

             (1) All matters relating to the implementation and enforcement of this chapter by the department of ecology shall be carried out in accordance with chapter 34.05 RCW, the Administrative Procedure Act, except where the provisions of this chapter expressly conflict with chapter 34.05 RCW. Proceedings held pursuant to RCW 90.14.130 are ((adjudicative proceedings within the meaning of chapter 34.05 RCW. Final decisions of the department of ecology in these proceedings)) appealable to superior court as provided in that section. Other final decisions of the department of ecology under this chapter are subject to review by the pollution control hearings board or a superior court in accordance with ((chapter 43.21B RCW)) section 14 of this act.

             (2) RCW 90.14.130 provides nonexclusive procedures for determining a relinquishment of water rights under RCW 90.14.160, 90.14.170, and 90.14.180. RCW 90.14.160, 90.14.170, and 90.14.180 may be applied in, among other proceedings, general adjudication proceedings initiated under RCW 90.03.110 or 90.44.220: PROVIDED, That nothing herein shall apply to litigation involving determinations of the department of ecology under RCW 90.03.290 relating to the impairment of existing rights.

             Sec. 13. RCW 90.66.080 and 1979 c 3 s 8 are each amended to read as follows:

             The department is hereby empowered to promulgate such rules as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter. Decisions of the department, other than rule making, shall be subject to review by the pollution control hearings board or a superior court in accordance with ((chapter 43.21B RCW)) section 14 of this act.

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 14. A new section is added to chapter 43.21B RCW to read as follows:

             (1) A person who is aggrieved or adversely affected by a water quantity decision may appeal the decision either to the pollution control hearings board pursuant to RCW 43.21B.310 or directly to a superior court. Any direct appeal to a superior court as authorized by this section shall be de novo and must be filed in the superior court in the county that will be directly and immediately affected by the decision.

             (2) For purposes of this section, a "water quantity decision" includes the following:

             (a) A decision to grant or deny a permit or certificate for a right to the beneficial use of water or to amend, change, or transfer such a right;

             (b) A decision to enforce the conditions of a permit for, or right to, the beneficial use of water or to require any person to discontinue the use of water; and

             (c) A decision to establish a minimum flow or level for water under chapter 90.03, 90.22, or 90.54 RCW, or to reserve water for such a minimum flow or level

             Sec. 15. RCW 90.58.180 and 1994 c 253 s 3 are each amended to read as follows:

             (1) Any person aggrieved by the granting, denying, or rescinding of a permit on shorelines of the state pursuant to RCW 90.58.140 may seek review from the shorelines hearings board by filing a request for the same within thirty days of the date of filing as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6).

             ((Concurrently with)) Within seven days of the filing of any request for review with the board as provided in this section pertaining to a final order of a local government, the requestor shall ((file a copy)) serve copies of his or her request ((with)) on the department and the attorney general. ((If it appears to the department or the attorney general that the requestor has valid reasons to seek review, either the department or the attorney general may certify the request within thirty days after its receipt to the shorelines hearings board following which the board shall then, but not otherwise, review the matter covered by the requestor. The failure to obtain such certification shall not preclude the requestor from obtaining a review in the superior court under any right to review otherwise available to the requestor.)) The department and the attorney general may intervene to protect the public interest and insure that the provisions of this chapter are complied with at any time within fifteen days from the date of the receipt by the department or the attorney general of a copy of the request for review filed pursuant to this section. ((The shorelines hearings board shall initially schedule review proceedings on such requests for review without regard as to whether such requests have or have not been certified or as to whether the period for the department or the attorney general to intervene has or has not expired, unless such review is to begin within thirty days of such scheduling. If at the end of the thirty day period for certification neither the department nor the attorney general has certified a request for review, the hearings board shall remove the request from its review schedule.))

             (2) The department or the attorney general may obtain review of any final order granting a permit, or granting or denying an application for a permit issued by a local government by filing a written request with the shorelines hearings board and the appropriate local government within thirty days from the date the final order was filed as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6).

             (3) The review proceedings authorized in subsections (1) and (2) of this section are subject to the provisions of chapter 34.05 RCW pertaining to procedures in adjudicative proceedings. Judicial review of such proceedings of the shorelines hearings board is governed by chapter 34.05 RCW.

             (4) A local government may appeal to the shorelines hearings board any rules, regulations, or guidelines adopted or approved by the department within thirty days of the date of the adoption or approval. The board shall make a final decision within sixty days following the hearing held thereon.

             If the board determines that the rule, regulation, or guideline:

             (a) Is clearly erroneous in light of the policy of this chapter; or

             (b) Constitutes an implementation of this chapter in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; or

             (c) Is arbitrary and capricious; or

             (d) Was developed without fully considering and evaluating all material submitted to the department by the local government; or

             (e) Was not adopted in accordance with required procedures;

the board shall enter a final decision declaring the rule, regulation, or guideline invalid, remanding the rule, regulation, or guideline to the department with a statement of the reasons in support of the determination, and directing the department to adopt, after a thorough consultation with the affected local government, a new rule, regulation, or guideline. Unless the board makes one or more of the determinations as hereinbefore provided, the board shall find the rule, regulation, or guideline to be valid and enter a final decision to that effect.

             (5) Rules, regulations, and guidelines shall be subject to review in superior court, if authorized pursuant to RCW 34.05.570(2). No review shall be granted by a superior court on petition from a local government unless the local government shall first have obtained review under subsection (4) of this section and the petition for court review is filed within three months after the date of final decision by the shorelines hearings board.

             Sec. 16. RCW 34.05.518 and 1988 c 288 s 503 are each amended to read as follows:

             (1) The final decision of an administrative agency in an adjudicative proceeding under this chapter may be directly reviewed by the court of appeals either (a) upon certification by the superior court pursuant to this section or (b) if the final decision is from an environmental board as defined in subsection (3) of this section, upon acceptance by the court of appeals after a certificate of appealability has been filed by the environmental board that rendered the final decision.

             (2) For direct review upon certification by the superior court, an application for direct review must be filed with the superior court within thirty days of the filing of the petition for review in superior court. The superior court may certify a case for direct review only if the judicial review is limited to the record of the agency proceeding and the court finds that:

             (((1))) (a) Fundamental and urgent issues affecting the future administrative process or the public interest are involved which require a prompt determination;

             (((2))) (b) Delay in obtaining a final and prompt determination of such issues would be detrimental to any party or the public interest;

             (((3))) (c) An appeal to the court of appeals would be likely regardless of the determination in superior court; and

             (((4))) (d) The appellate court's determination in the proceeding would have significant precedential value.

             Procedures for certification shall be established by court rule.

             (3)(a) For the purposes of direct review of final decisions of environmental boards, environmental boards include those boards identified in RCW 43.21B.005 and growth management hearings boards as identified in RCW 36.70A.250.

             (b) An environmental board may issue a certificate of appealability if it finds that delay in obtaining a final and prompt determination of the issues would be detrimental to any party or the public interest and either:

             (i) Fundamental and urgent state-wide or regional issues are raised; or

             (ii) The proceeding is likely to have significant precedential value.

             (4) The environmental board shall state in the certificate of appealability which criteria it applied, explain how that criteria was met, and file with the certificate a copy of the final decision.

             (5) For an appellate court to accept direct review of a final decision of an environmental board, it shall consider the same criteria outlined in subsection (3) of this section.

             (6) The procedures for direct review of final decisions of environmental boards include:

             (a) Within thirty days after filing the petition for review with the superior court, a party may file an application for direct review with the superior court and serve the appropriate environmental board and all parties of record. The application shall request the environmental board to file a certificate of appealability.

             (b) If an issue on review is the jurisdiction of the environmental board, the board may file an application for direct review on that issue.

             (c) The environmental board shall have thirty days to grant or deny the request for a certificate of appealability and its decision shall be filed with the superior court and served on all parties of record.

             (d) If a certificate of appealability is issued, the parties shall have fifteen days from the date of service to file a notice of discretionary review in the superior court, and the notice shall include a copy of the certificate of appealability and a copy of the final decision.

             (e) If the appellate court accepts review, the certificate of appealability shall be transmitted to the court of appeals as part of the certified record.

             (f) If a certificate of appealability is denied, review shall be by the superior court. The superior court's decision may be appealed to the court of appeals.

             Sec. 17. RCW 34.05.522 and 1988 c 288 s 504 are each amended to read as follows:

             The court of appeals may refuse to accept direct review of a case ((certified)) pursuant to RCW 34.05.518 if it finds that the case does not meet the applicable standard in RCW 34.05.518(2) or (5). Rules of Appellate Procedure 2.3 do not apply in this instance. The refusal to accept such review is not subject to further appellate review, notwithstanding anything in Rule 13.3 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure to the contrary.

             Sec. 18. RCW 34.05.542 and 1988 c 288 s 509 are each amended to read as follows:

             Subject to other requirements of this chapter or of another statute:

             (1) A petition for judicial review of a rule may be filed at any time, except as limited by RCW 34.05.375.

             (2) A petition for judicial review of an order shall be filed with the court and served on the agency, the hearings board if one is involved, the office of the attorney general, and all parties of record within thirty days after service of the final order.

             (3) A petition for judicial review of agency action other than the adoption of a rule or the entry of an order is not timely unless filed with the court and served on the agency, the office of the attorney general, and all other parties of record within thirty days after the agency action, but the time is extended during any period that the petitioner did not know and was under no duty to discover or could not reasonably have discovered that the agency had taken the action or that the agency action had a sufficient effect to confer standing upon the petitioner to obtain judicial review under this chapter.

             (4) Service of the petition on the agency shall be by delivery of a copy of the petition to the office of the director, or other chief administrative officer or chairperson of the agency, at the principal office of the agency. Service of a copy by mail upon the other parties of record, the hearings board if one is involved, and the office of the attorney general shall be deemed complete upon deposit in the United States mail, as evidenced by the postmark.

             (5) Failure to timely serve a petition on the office of the attorney general or the hearings board if one is involved, is not grounds for dismissal of the petition unless the service that is provided impairs the orderly conduct of judicial process. The service so provided as to the hearings board only applies to judicial proceedings pending on the effective date of this act.

             (6) For the purposes of this section, "hearings board" means and independent, quasi-judicial, multiperson entity whose sole responsibility is to determine on review in a contested matter the validity or invalidity of an order issued by another governmental entity.

             Sec. 19. RCW 34.05.566 and 1989 c 175 s 26 are each amended to read as follows:

             (1) Within thirty days after service of the petition for judicial review, or within further time allowed by the court or by other provision of law, the agency shall transmit to the court the original or a certified copy of the agency record for judicial review of the agency action. The record shall consist of any agency documents expressing the agency action, other documents identified by the agency as having been considered by it before its action and used as a basis for its action, and any other material described in this chapter as the agency record for the type of agency action at issue, subject to the provisions of this section.

             (2) If part of the record has been preserved without a transcript, the agency shall prepare a transcript for inclusion in the record transmitted to the court, except for portions that the parties stipulate to omit in accordance with subsection (4) of this section.

             (3) The agency may charge a nonindigent petitioner with the reasonable costs of preparing any necessary copies and transcripts for transmittal to the court. A failure by the petitioner to pay any of this cost to the agency relieves the agency from the responsibility for preparation of the record and transmittal to the court.

             (4) The record may be shortened, summarized, or organized temporarily or, by stipulation of all parties, permanently.

             (5) The court may tax the cost of preparing transcripts and copies of the record:

             (a) Against a party who unreasonably refuses to stipulate to shorten, summarize, or organize the record; or

             (b) In accordance with any provision of law.

             (6) Additions to the record pursuant to RCW 34.05.562 must be made as ordered by the court.

             (7) The court may require or permit subsequent corrections or additions to the record.

             (8) For the purposes of this section, agency includes hearings board as defined in RCW 34.05.542(6).

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 20. It is the intent of the legislature through the enactment of section 18 of this act to clarify the filing procedures in RCW 34.05.542. Section 18 of this act is remedial in nature and applies to all judicial proceedings pending on the effective date of this act.

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 21. A new section is added to chapter 43.21B RCW to read as follows:

             The hearings board shall ensure that a hearing pertaining to a water quantity decision, as defined in section 14 of this act, shall be conducted in the general area where the petitioner resides, or provide for the hearing to be conducted by telephone. A single member of the board may conduct such hearings.

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 22. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 23. This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately."

             On page 1, line 2 of the title, after "boards;" strike the remainder of the title and insert "amending RCW 34.05.514, 43.21B.110, 43.21B.130, 43.21B.240, 43.21B.310, 43.27A.190, 90.03.383, 90.14.130, 90.14.190, 90.14.200, 90.66.080, 90.58.180, 34.05.542, 34.05.518, 34.05.522, 34.05.542, and 34.05.566; adding new sections to chapter 43.21B RCW; creating new sections; and declaring an emergency."

POINT OF ORDER

             Representative Rust: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would request a ruling on the scope and object of the amendment.

SPEAKER'S RULING

             Representative Rust, the Speaker is prepared to Rule on your Point of Order which challenges amendment 876 to Senate Bill No. 5087.

             "The Title of Senate Bill No. 5087 is AN ACT Relating to appeals involving environmental and land use appeals boards. The underlying Senate bill and the striking amendment both deal with environmental and land use appeals.

             Both the underlying bill and the amendment provide for expedited judicial review for limited cases. In both cases the expedited review is that the option of the appellant. The language in the committee striker that would have subjected these types of cases to review under the APA before an ALJ is removed.

             The purpose of both measures is to reduce back logs in the system and to save people time and money and provide quicker guidance to the community on whether certain actions should be allowed.

             The Speaker finds that the amendment is not beyond the scope and object of the bill.

             Representative Rust, Your Point of Order is not well taken.

             Representative Reams moved adoption of the following amendment to the amendment by Representative Reams:

             On page 1, after line 15 of the amendment, insert the following:

             "The legislature also finds that petitions to growth management hearings boards have resulted in costly reviews that have not accorded adequate deference to planning decisions of counties and cities. Sections 22 through 25 of this act are intended to reaffirm the presumption of validity accorded to local decisions and clarify the role of the state and the boards in the review and appeal of local plans."

             On page 19, after line 2 of the amendment, insert the following:

             "Sec. 22. RCW 36.70A.310 and 1994 c 249 s 32 are each amended to read as follows:

             (1) A request for review by the state to a growth management hearings board may be made only by the governor, or with the governor's consent the head of an agency, or by the commissioner of public lands as relating to state trust lands, for the review of whether: (((1))) (a) A county or city that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 has failed to adopt a comprehensive plan or development regulations, or county-wide planning policies within the time limits established by this chapter; or (((2))) (b) a county or city that is required or chooses to plan under this chapter has adopted a comprehensive plan, development regulations, or county-wide planning policies, that are not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter.

             (2) Except as provided in subsection (1) of this section with regard to state trust lands, a state agency may be authorized to seek review by a growth management hearings board only if the governor finds:

             (a) The agency has participated substantially in the local process and has consistently raised the issues to be addressed in the petition; or

             (b) Review by a board is the best means to accomplish the state goals.

             Sec. 23. RCW 36.70A.320 and 1991 sp.s. c 32 s 13 are each amended to read as follows:

             (1)(a) Comprehensive plans and development regulations, and amendments thereto, adopted under this chapter are presumed valid upon adoption. In any petition under this chapter, the board, after full consideration of the petition, shall determine whether there is compliance with the requirements of this chapter. In making its determination, the board shall consider the criteria adopted by the department under RCW 36.70A.190(4).

             (b) The board shall find compliance unless it finds that the petitioner has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the state agency, county, or city erroneously interpreted or applied this chapter. The presumption of validity accorded to the decisions of the local legislative body places the burden upon the petitioner to demonstrate noncompliance. The failure of a county or city to develop a record that supports the action that is the basis of the petition does not by itself constitute a basis for a finding of noncompliance.

             (2) In making its determination, the board shall take into consideration the extent of urbanization of the area in question, the planning history and capabilities of the county or city, and the relative amount of financial assistance made available to the county or city by the state for purposes of meeting the requirements of this chapter.

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 24. A new section is added to chapter 36.70A RCW to read as follows:

             The office of the attorney general shall, at the request of a county or city that has been found in compliance with the provisions of this chapter by a growth management hearings board, defend or provide assistance in the county or city's defense of an appeal of the board finding in superior court.

             Sec. 25. RCW 36.70A.250 and 1994 c 249 s 29 are each amended to read as follows:

             (1) There are hereby created three growth management hearings boards for the state of Washington. Each board is a quasi-judicial body. The boards shall be established as follows:

             (a) An Eastern Washington board with jurisdictional boundaries including all counties that are required to or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 and are located east of the crest of the Cascade mountains;

             (b) A Central Puget Sound board with jurisdictional boundaries including King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Kitsap counties; and

             (c) A Western Washington board with jurisdictional boundaries including all counties that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 and are located west of the crest of the Cascade mountains and are not included in the Central Puget Sound board jurisdictional boundaries. Skamania county, should it be required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040, may elect to be included within the jurisdictional boundaries of either the Western or Eastern board.

             (2) Each board shall only hear matters pertaining to the cities and counties located within its jurisdictional boundaries."

             Renumber the remaining sections consecutively and correct the title.

POINT OF ORDER

             Representative Rust: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would request a ruling on the scope and object of the amendment.

SPEAKER'S RULING

             Representative Rust, the Speaker is prepared to Rule on your Point of Order which challenges amendment 877 to Senate Bill No. 5087 as being beyond the Scope and Object of the bill.

             "The title of Senate Bill No. 5087 is AN ACT Relating to appeals involving environmental and land use appeals boards. On page 5, lines 20-23 of the Senate Bill, RCW34.05.518 is amended to specify that "environmental boards include those boards identified in RCW 43.21B.005 and growth management hearings boards."

             The original bill aims to streamline appeals to and from environmental boards. The Reams amendment to the House striking amendment has the same intent.

             (Most importantly, the Reams amendment strengthens the provision that local plans are presumed valid and the burden is on the petitioner to overturn the local choice.)

             The Speaker finds that the amendment is not beyond the scope and object of the bill.

             Representative Rust, Your point of order is not well taken.

             Representative Reams spoke in favor of the adoption of the amendment to the amendment.

             Representative Rust spoke against the adoption of the amendment to the amendment.

             The amendment to the amendment was adopted.

             Representatives Chandler and Mastin spoke in favor of the adoption of the amendment as amended.

             Representative Rust spoke against the adoption of the amendment as amended.

             The amendment as amended was adopted.

             There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

             Representatives Chandler and Mastin spoke in favor of passage of the bill.

             Representative Rust spoke against passage of the bill.

             The Speaker stated the question before the House to be final passage of Senate Bill No. 5087 as amended by the House.

ROLL CALL

             The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Senate Bill No. 5087 as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 71, Nays - 20, Absent - 0, Excused - 6.

             Voting yea: Representatives Appelwick, Backlund, Ballasiotes, Basich, Benton, Blanton, Boldt, Brumsickle, Buck, Cairnes, Campbell, Carlson, Carrell, Casada, Chandler, Chappell, Clements, Cooke, Costa, Crouse, Dellwo, Dyer, Elliot, Fisher, G., Foreman, Grant, Hankins, Hargrove, Hatfield, Hickel, Honeyford, Horn, Huff, Hymes, Johnson, Kessler, Koster, Kremen, Lambert, Lisk, Mastin, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Mitchell, Morris, Mulliken, Patterson, Pelesky, Pennington, Quall, Radcliff, Reams, Robertson, Schmidt, D., Schmidt, K., Scott, Sehlin, Sheahan, Sheldon, Sherstad, Silver, Skinner, Smith, Stevens, Talcott, Thomas, B., Thomas, L., Thompson, Van Luven and Mr. Speaker - 71.

             Voting nay: Representatives Chopp, Cody, Cole, Conway, Dickerson, Ebersole, Fisher, R., Jacobsen, Mason, Ogden, Poulsen, Regala, Romero, Rust, Sommers, Thibaudeau, Tokuda, Valle, Veloria and Wolfe - 20.

             Excused: Representatives Beeksma, Brown, Delvin, Fuhrman, Goldsmith and Schoesler - 6.

             Senate Bill No. 5087, as amended by the House, having received the constitutional majority, was declared passed.

             There being no objection, the House deferred consideration of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5466 and Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5684 and the bills held their place on the second reading calendar.

             There being no objection, the House resumed consideration of Engrossed Substitute Senate

Bill No. 6049 on reconsideration.

             There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage on reconsideration.

             Representatives Appelwick, Reams and Van Luven spoke in favor of passage of the bill.

MOTION

             On motion of Representative Talcott, Representative Carlson was excused.

             Representatives Sheldon, Hargrove, Kremen and Ebersole spoke against passage of the bill.

             Representative K. Schmidt demanded the previous question and the demand was sustained.

RECONSIDERATION

             The Speaker stated the question before the House to be final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 6049, as amended by the House on reconsideration.

ROLL CALL

             The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 6049, as amended by the House on reconsideration, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 50, Nays - 40, Absent - 0, Excused - 7.

             Voting yea: Representatives Appelwick, Backlund, Ballasiotes, Basich, Benton, Blanton, Boldt, Brumsickle, Chopp, Cody, Cooke, Costa, Dickerson, Dyer, Ebersole, Elliot, Fisher, G., Fisher, R., Foreman, Grant, Hankins, Hatfield, Horn, Huff, Jacobsen, Kessler, Mastin, Mielke, Ogden, Poulsen, Quall, Radcliff, Reams, Regala, Rust, Schmidt, D., Scott, Sheahan, Sommers, Talcott, Thibaudeau, Thomas, B., Thomas, L., Thompson, Tokuda, Valle, Van Luven, Veloria, Wolfe and Mr. Speaker - 50.

             Voting nay: Representatives Buck, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Casada, Chandler, Chappell, Clements, Cole, Conway, Crouse, Dellwo, Hargrove, Hickel, Honeyford, Hymes, Johnson, Koster, Kremen, Lambert, Lisk, Mason, McMahan, McMorris, Mitchell, Morris, Mulliken, Patterson, Pelesky, Pennington, Robertson, Romero, Schmidt, K., Sehlin, Sheldon, Sherstad, Silver, Skinner, Smith and Stevens - 40.

             Excused: Representatives Beeksma, Brown, Carlson, Delvin, Fuhrman, Goldsmith and Schoesler - 7.

             Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 6049, as amended by the House, on reconsideration having received the constitutional majority, was declared passed.

             There being no objection, the House resumed consideration of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5606.

             Representative Chandler moved adoption of the following amendment by Representative Chandler:

             On page 6, after line 18, insert the following:

             "Sec. 12. RCW 90.03.380 and 1991 c 347 s 15 are each amended to read as follows:

             (1) The right to the use of water which has been applied to a beneficial use in the state shall be and remain appurtenant to the land or place upon which the same is used: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That ((said)) the right may be transferred to another or to others and become appurtenant to any other land or place of use without loss of priority of right theretofore established if such change can be made without detriment or injury to existing rights. The point of diversion of water for beneficial use or the purpose of use may be changed, if such change can be made without detriment or injury to existing rights. Before any transfer of such right to use water or change of the point of diversion of water or change of purpose of use can be made, any person having an interest in the transfer or change, shall file a written application therefor with the department, and ((said)) the application shall not be granted until notice of ((said)) the application ((shall be)) is published as provided in RCW 90.03.280. If it shall appear that such transfer or such change may be made without injury or detriment to existing rights, the department shall issue to the applicant a certificate in duplicate granting the right for such transfer or for such change of point of diversion or of use. The certificate so issued shall be filed and be made a record with the department and the duplicate certificate issued to the applicant may be filed with the county auditor in like manner and with the same effect as provided in the original certificate or permit to divert water.

             (2) If an application for change proposes to transfer water rights from one irrigation district to another, the department shall, before publication of notice, receive concurrence from each of the irrigation districts that such transfer or change will not adversely affect the ability to deliver water to other landowners or impair the financial integrity of either of the districts.

             (3) A change in place of use by an individual water user or users of water provided by an irrigation district need only receive approval for the change from the board of directors of the district if the use of water continues within the irrigation district.

             (4) Sections (1), (2), and (3) of this section do not apply to a change regarding a portion of the water governed by a water right that is made surplus to the beneficial uses exercised under the right through the implementation of practices or technologies, including but not limited to conveyance practices or technologies, which are more efficient or more water use efficient than those under which the right was perfected or through a change in crops grown under the water right. The use within an irrigation district of water supplied by the district and made surplus as provided in this subsection shall be regulated solely as provided by the board of directors of the irrigation district except as follows: Such a use requires the approval of the board of directors of the irrigation district or must otherwise be authorized by the board; the board may approve or authorize such a use only if the use does not impair the financial or operational integrity of the district; and water made surplus through a change in the crops grown with district-supplied water is not available for use as a matter of right by the individual water user making the change, but may be used by the board for the benefit of the district generally. The district's board of directors may approve or otherwise authorize under this subsection uses of such surplus water that result in the total irrigated acreage within the district exceeding the irrigated acreage recorded with the department for the district's water right if the board notifies the department of the change in the irrigated acreage within the district. Such a notification provides a change in the district's water right and, upon receiving the notification, the department shall revise its records for the district's right to reflect the change. A change or use authorized by or under this subsection shall be made without loss of priority of the right. The use of water other than irrigation district-supplied water that is made surplus as provided in this subsection is governed by section 13 of this act.

             (5) This section shall not apply to trust water rights acquired by the state through the funding of water conservation projects under chapter 90.38 RCW or RCW 90.42.010 through 90.42.070.

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 13. A new section is added to chapter 90.03 RCW to read as follows:

             If a portion of the water governed by a water right is made surplus to the beneficial uses exercised under the right through the implementation of practices or technologies, including but not limited to conveyance practices or technologies, which are more efficient or more water use efficient than those under which the right was perfected or through a change in the crops grown under the water right, the right to use the surplus water may be changed to use on other lands owned by the holder of the water right that are contiguous to the lands upon which the use of the water was authorized by the right before such a change. Such a change shall be made without loss of priority of the right. The holder of the water right shall notify the department of such a change. The notification provides a change in the holder's water right and, upon receiving the notification, the department shall revise its records for the water right to reflect the change.

             This section does not apply to water supplied by an irrigation district.

             Sec. 14. RCW 90.44.100 and 1987 c 109 s 113 are each amended to read as follows:

             (1) After an application to, and upon the issuance by the department of an amendment to the appropriate permit or certificate of ground water right, the holder of a valid right to withdraw public ground waters may, without losing his priority of right, construct wells or other means of withdrawal at a new location in substitution for or in addition to those at the original location, or he may change the manner or the place of use of the water ((: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That such)). An amendment shall be issued only after publication of notice of the application and findings as prescribed in the case of an original application. Such amendment shall be issued by the department only on the conditions that: (((1))) (a) The additional or substitute well or wells shall tap the same body of public ground water as the original well or wells; (((2))) (b) use of the original well or wells shall be discontinued upon construction of the substitute well or wells; (((3))) (c) the construction of an additional well or wells shall not enlarge the right conveyed by the original permit or certificate; and (((4))) (d) other existing rights shall not be impaired. The department may specify an approved manner of construction and shall require a showing of compliance with the terms of the amendment, as provided in RCW 90.44.080 in the case of an original permit.

             (2) This section does not apply to a change in use of a portion of the water governed by a ground water right that is made surplus to the beneficial uses exercised under the right through the implementation of practices or technologies, including but not limited to conveyance technologies, which are more efficient or more water use efficient than those under which the right was perfected or through a change in the crops grown under the water right. RCW 90.03.380(4) and section 13 of this act apply to water made surplus as provided in this subsection.

             Sec. 15. RCW 90.03.290 and 1994 c 264 s 84 are each amended to read as follows:

             When an application complying with the provisions of this chapter and with the rules and regulations of the department has been filed, the same shall be placed on record with the department, and it shall be its duty to investigate the application, and determine what water, if any, is available for appropriation, and find and determine to what beneficial use or uses it can be applied. If it is proposed to appropriate water for irrigation purposes, the department shall investigate, determine and find what lands are capable of irrigation by means of water found available for appropriation. If it is proposed to appropriate water for the purpose of power development, the department shall investigate, determine and find whether the proposed development is likely to prove detrimental to the public interest, having in mind the highest feasible use of the waters belonging to the public. If the application does not contain, and the applicant does not promptly furnish sufficient information on which to base such findings, the department may issue a preliminary permit, for a period of not to exceed three years, requiring the applicant to make such surveys, investigations, studies, and progress reports, as in the opinion of the department may be necessary. If the applicant fails to comply with the conditions of the preliminary permit, it and the application or applications on which it is based shall be automatically canceled and the applicant so notified. If the holder of a preliminary permit shall, before its expiration, file with the department a verified report of expenditures made and work done under the preliminary permit, which, in the opinion of the department, establishes the good faith, intent and ability of the applicant to carry on the proposed development, the preliminary permit may, with the approval of the governor, be extended, but not to exceed a maximum period of five years from the date of the issuance of the preliminary permit. The department shall make and file as part of the record in the matter, written findings of fact concerning all things investigated, and if it shall find that there is water available for appropriation for a beneficial use, and the appropriation thereof as proposed in the application will not impair existing rights or be detrimental to the public welfare, it shall issue a permit stating the amount of water to which the applicant shall be entitled and the beneficial use or uses to which it may be applied: PROVIDED, That where the water applied for is to be used for irrigation purposes, it shall become appurtenant only to such land as may be reclaimed thereby to the full extent of the soil for agricultural purposes. But where there is no unappropriated water in the proposed source of supply, or where the proposed use conflicts with existing rights, or threatens to prove detrimental to the public interest, having due regard to the highest feasible development of the use of the waters belonging to the public, it shall be duty of the department to reject such application and to refuse to issue the permit asked for. If the permit is refused because of conflict with existing rights and such applicant shall acquire same by purchase or condemnation under RCW 90.03.040, the department may thereupon grant such permit. Any application may be approved for a less amount of water than that applied for, if there exists substantial reason therefor, and in any event shall not be approved for more water than can be applied to beneficial use for the purposes named in the application. In determining whether or not a permit shall issue upon any application, it shall be the duty of the department to investigate all facts relevant and material to the application. After the department approves said application in whole or in part and before any permit shall be issued thereon to the applicant, such applicant shall pay the fee provided in RCW 90.03.470: PROVIDED FURTHER, That in the event a permit is issued by the department upon any application, it shall be its duty to notify the director of fish and wildlife of such issuance.

             This section does not apply to changes made under section 13 of this act or to changes made under RCW 90.03.380(4) or 90.44.100(2).

             Sec. 16. RCW 90.44.445 and 1993 c 99 s 1 are each amended to read as follows:

             In any acreage expansion program adopted by the department as an element of a ground water management program, the authorization for a water right certificate holder to participate in the program shall be on an annual basis for the first two years. After the two-year period, the department may authorize participation for ten-year periods. The department may authorize participation for ten-year periods for certificate holders who have already participated in an acreage expansion program for two years. The department may require annual certification that the certificate holder has complied with all requirements of the program. The department may terminate the authority of a certificate holder to participate in the program for one calendar year if the certificate holder fails to comply with the requirements of the program.

             This section applies only in an area with a ground water area or subarea management program in effect on the effective date of this section. The provisions of section 13 of this act, RCW 90.03.380, and 90.44.100 apply to transfers, changes, amendments to permits or rights for the beneficial use of ground water in any other area."

Renumber the remaining section consecutively, correct internal references accordingly, and correct the title.

POINT OF ORDER

             Representative Rust: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would request a ruling on the scope and object of the amendment.

SPEAKER'S RULING

             "Representative Rust, the Speaker is prepared to Rule on your Point of Order which challenges amendment 880 to Substitute Senate Bill No. 5606 as being beyond the Scope and Object of the bill.

             "The title of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5606 is "AN ACT Relating to water conservation and the reclamation and direct beneficial use of wastewater.

             "The title is somewhat narrow. The bill amends RCW 90.46.005, 90.46.010, and 90.46.050, adds new sections to chapter 90.46 RCW, and creates a new section.

             "The bill promotes water conservation through the reclamation and beneficial use of wastewater resulting in water made surplus through the implementation of practices or technologies that are more water use efficient.

             "The house just adopted amendment 876 which added language regarding salvaged water which includes reclaimed and surplus water, and directing the advisory committee to examine various application of the state's abandonment and relinquishment statutes to permits or rights to use such water.

             "Amendment 877 to Substitute Senate Bill No. 5087 would amend various RCW's and add a new section to chapter 90.03 RCW. The amendment would enhance the ability of state and local entities to ensure more surplus water is available and that reclaimed and salvaged water is applied for beneficial use.

             "The Speaker finds that the amendment is not beyond the scope and object of the bill.

             "Representative Rust, Your Point of Order is not well taken.

             Representatives Chandler and Mastin spoke in favor of the adoption of the amendment.

             Representative Rust spoke against the adoption of the amendment.

             The amendment was adopted.

MOTION

             On motion of Representative Talcott, Representative Brumsickle was excused.

             The Speaker stated the question before the House to be final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5606, as amended by the House.

             Representative Chandler spoke in favor of passage of the bill.

ROLL CALL

             The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Substitute Senate Bill No. 5606 as amended by the House and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 79, Nays - 9, Absent - 1, Excused - 8.

             Voting yea: Representatives Appelwick, Backlund, Ballasiotes, Basich, Blanton, Boldt, Buck, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Casada, Chandler, Chappell, Chopp, Clements, Cody, Conway, Cooke, Costa, Crouse, Dickerson, Dyer, Ebersole, Elliot, Fisher, G., Foreman, Grant, Hankins, Hargrove, Hatfield, Hickel, Honeyford, Horn, Huff, Hymes, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kessler, Koster, Kremen, Lambert, Lisk, Mason, Mastin, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Mitchell, Morris, Mulliken, Ogden, Patterson, Pelesky, Pennington, Poulsen, Quall, Radcliff, Reams, Regala, Robertson, Schmidt, D., Schmidt, K., Scott, Sehlin, Sheahan, Sheldon, Sherstad, Silver, Skinner, Smith, Stevens, Talcott, Thomas, B., Thomas, L., Thompson, Tokuda, Van Luven, Veloria and Mr. Speaker - 79.

             Voting nay: Representatives Cole, Dellwo, Fisher, R., Romero, Rust, Sommers, Thibaudeau, Valle and Wolfe - 9.

             Absent: Representative Benton - 1.

             Excused: Representatives Beeksma, Brown, Brumsickle, Carlson, Delvin, Fuhrman, Goldsmith and Schoesler - 8.

             Substitute Senate Bill No. 5606, as amended by the House having received the constitutional majority, was declared passed.

STATEMENT FOR THE JOURNAL

             I intended to vote YEA on Substitute Senate Bill No. 5606.

DON BENTON, 17th District

             There being no objection, the House considered Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5684 and Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5466.

             ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5684, by Senate Committee on Law & Justice (originally sponsored by Senators Smith, Winsley, Gaspard, Oke, Wood and Hale; by request of Public Disclosure Commission)

Consolidating and revising public disclosure laws.

             The bill was read the second time.

             Representative Foreman moved adoption of the following amendment by Representative Foreman:

             Strike everything after the enacting clause and insert the following:

             "NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The House of Representatives will continue discussions with the Senate on this legislation."

             Representatives Foreman and Appelwick spoke in favor of the adoption of the amendment.

             The amendment was adopted.

             There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

             The Speaker stated the question before the House to be final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5684 as amended by the House.

ROLL CALL

             The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5684, as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 89, Nays - 0, Absent - 0, Excused - 8.

             Voting yea: Representatives Appelwick, Backlund, Ballasiotes, Basich, Benton, Blanton, Boldt, Buck, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Casada, Chandler, Chappell, Chopp, Clements, Cody, Cole, Conway, Cooke, Costa, Crouse, Dellwo, Dickerson, Dyer, Ebersole, Elliot, Fisher, G., Fisher, R., Foreman, Grant, Hankins, Hargrove, Hatfield, Hickel, Honeyford, Horn, Huff, Hymes, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kessler, Koster, Kremen, Lambert, Lisk, Mason, Mastin, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Mitchell, Morris, Mulliken, Ogden, Patterson, Pelesky, Pennington, Poulsen, Quall, Radcliff, Reams, Regala, Robertson, Romero, Rust, Schmidt, D., Schmidt, K., Scott, Sehlin, Sheahan, Sheldon, Sherstad, Silver, Skinner, Smith, Sommers, Stevens, Talcott, Thibaudeau, Thomas, B., Thomas, L., Thompson, Tokuda, Valle, Van Luven, Veloria, Wolfe and Mr. Speaker - 89.

             Excused: Representatives Beeksma, Brown, Brumsickle, Carlson, Delvin, Fuhrman, Goldsmith and Schoesler - 8.

             Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5684, as amended by the House having received the constitutional majority, was declared passed.

             ENGROSSED SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5466, by Senate Committee on Law & Justice (originally sponsored by Senators Smith, Oke, Heavey, Winsley and Franklin)

Protecting children from sexually explicit films, publications, and devices.

             The bill was read the second time.

             There being no objection, the committee amendment was not adopted. Committee on Law & Justice recommendation: Majority, do pass as amended. (For committee amendment see Journal, 78th Day, March 27, 1995.)

             With the consent of the House, amendment numbers 789, 652, 787, 760, 761, 762, 758, 759, 763, 764, 765, 766, 767, 768, 788, 791 and 756 to Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5466 were withdrawn.

             Representative McMahan moved adoption of the following amendment by Representative McMahan:

             Strike everything after the enacting clause and insert the following:

             "NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. As used in sections 1 through 6 of this act, the following terms have the meanings indicated unless the context clearly requires otherwise.

             (1) "Minor" means any person under the age of eighteen years.

             (2) "Harmful to minors" means any matter or live performance:

             (a) That the average adult person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, when considered as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest of minors; and

             (b) That explicitly depicts or describes, by prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors, patently offensive representations or descriptions of:

             (i) Ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated; or

             (ii) Masturbation, fellatio, cunnilingus, bestiality, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals or genital area, sexually explicit conduct, sexual excitement, or sexually explicit nudity; or

             (iii) Sexual acts that are violent or destructive, including but not limited to human or animal mutilation, dismemberment, rape, or torture; and

             (c) That, when considered as a whole, and in the context in which it is used, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

             (3) "Matter" means a motion picture film, a publication, a sexual device, or any combination thereof.

             (4) "Motion picture film" means any:

             (a) Film or plate negative;

             (b) Film or plate positive;

             (c) Film designed to be projected on a screen for exhibition;

             (d) Film, glass slides, or transparencies, either in negative or positive form, designed for exhibition by projection on a screen;

             (e) Video tape; or

             (f) Any other medium used to electronically transmit or reproduce images on a screen.

             (5) "Publication" means any book, magazine, article, pamphlet, writing, printing illustration, picture, sound recording, telephonic communication, or coin-operated machine.

             (6) "Sexual device" means any artificial device primarily designed, promoted, or marketed to physically stimulate or manipulate the human genitals.

             (7) "Live performance" means any play, show, skit, dance, or other exhibition performed or presented to or before an audience of one or more, in person or by electronic transmission, or by telephonic communication, with or without consideration.

             (8) "Person" means any individual, partnership, firm, association, corporation, or other legal entity.

             (9) "Knowledge of its character" means that the person has knowledge that the matter or performance contains, depicts, or describes activity or conduct that may be found to be patently offensive under subsection (2)(b) of this section. Such knowledge may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, or both.

             (10) "Knowledge" means knowledge as defined in RCW 9A.08.010(1)(b).

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. No person shall with knowledge of its character:

             (1) Display matter that is harmful to minors, as defined in section 1(2) of this act, in such a way that minors, as part of the invited general public, will be exposed to view such matter; however, a person shall be deemed not to have displayed matter harmful to minors if the matter is kept behind devices commonly known as blinder racks so that the lower two-thirds of the matter is not exposed to view. In the case of on-line accessibility to information stored in an electronic form, a person shall be deemed not to have displayed matter harmful to minors if:

             (a) The matter is stored in a restricted area where access is allowed only to persons who are reasonably believed to be eighteen years of age or older based on information supplied as provided for in section 3(3) of this act and who have obtained a password or other authorization necessary for access to the matter; or

             (b) Where it is not reasonably possible to restrict access in the manner described in (a) of this subsection, the matter is stored in an area labelled "adults only";

             (2) Sell, furnish, present, distribute, allow to view or hear, or otherwise disseminate to a minor, with or without consideration, any matter that is harmful to minors as defined in section 1(2) of this act; or

             (3) Present to a minor or participate in presenting to a minor, with or without consideration, any live performance that is harmful to minors as defined in section 1(2) of this act.

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 3. In any prosecution for violation of section 2 of this act, it shall be an affirmative defense that:

             (1) The matter or performance involved was displayed or otherwise disseminated to a minor by the minor's parent or legal guardian, for bona fide purposes;

             (2) The matter or performance involved was displayed or otherwise disseminated to a minor with the written permission of the minor's parent or legal guardian, for bona fide purposes; or

             (3) The person made a reasonable bona fide attempt to ascertain the true age of the minor by requiring production of a driver's license, marriage license, birth certificate, or other governmental or educational identification card or paper, or copy thereof if supplied by mail or electronic facsimile when in-person production thereof is impractical, and not relying solely on the oral allegations or apparent age of the minor.

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 4. Any person who is convicted of violating any provision of section 2 of this act is guilty of a gross misdemeanor. Each day that any violation of section 2 of this act occurs or continues shall constitute a separate offense and shall be punishable as a separate violation. Every act, thing, or transaction prohibited by section 2 of this act shall constitute a separate offense as to each item, issue, or title involved and shall be punishable as such. For the purpose of this section, multiple copies of the same identical title, monthly issue, volume, and number issue, or other such identical material shall constitute a single offense.

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. Nothing in this chapter shall apply to the official distribution of material by a recognized historical society or museum, a library of a college or university, or an archive or library under the supervision and control of the state, county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state.

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts within the boundaries of the state the entire field of regulation and sanctions for displaying, selling, furnishing, presenting, or otherwise distributing matter or performances that are harmful to minors. Counties, cities, towns, or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to matter and performances harmful to minors that are consistent with this chapter. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of this chapter shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such county, city, town, or municipality.

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. The following acts or parts of acts are each repealed:

             (1) RCW 9.68.015 and 1959 c 260 s 2;

             (2) RCW 9.68.050 and 1992 c 5 s 1 & 1969 ex.s. c 256 s 13;

             (3) RCW 9.68.060 and 1992 c 5 s 2 & 1969 ex.s. c 256 s 14;

             (4) RCW 9.68.070 and 1992 c 5 s 4 & 1969 ex.s. c 256 s 15;

             (5) RCW 9.68.080 and 1969 ex.s. c 256 s 16;

             (6) RCW 9.68.090 and 1992 c 5 s 3 & 1969 ex.s. c 256 s 17;

             (7) RCW 9.68.100 and 1969 ex.s. c 256 s 18;

             (8) RCW 9.68.110 and 1969 ex.s. c 256 s 19;

             (9) RCW 9.68.120 and 1969 ex.s. c 256 s 20;

             (10) RCW 9.68.130 and 1975 1st ex.s. c 156 s 1;

             (11) RCW 9.68A.140 and 1987 c 396 s 1;

             (12) RCW 9.68A.150 and 1987 c 396 s 2; and

             (13) RCW 9.68A.160 and 1987 c 396 s 3.

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 8. Sections 1 through 6 of this act are each added to chapter 9.68 RCW.

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.

             NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately."

             Representative Hatfield moved adoption of the following amendment to the amendment by Representative Hatfield:

             On page 2, line 12, after "picture," strike "sound recording,"

             Representatives Hatfield and Smith spoke in favor of the adoption of the amendment to the amendment.

             Representative Smith spoke against the adoption of the amendment to the amendment.

             The amendment was not adopted.

             Representative Mitchell moved adoption of the following amendment to the amendment by Representative Mitchell:

             On page 2, after line 29, insert the following:

             "(11) "Community" means the state-wide community."

             Representatives Mitchell and Cole spoke in favor of the adoption of the amendment to the amendment.

             Representative Sheahan spoke against the adoption of the amendment to the amendment.

             A division was called. The Speaker called on the House to divide. The results of the division was: 50-YEAS, 38-NAYS. The amendment was adopted.

             Representative Cole moved adoption of the following amendment to the amendment by Representative Cole:

             On page 4, beginning on line 21, after "apply" strike "to the" and insert "to:

             (1) The"

             On page 4, line 25, after "state" insert "; or

             (2) The official distribution or use of instructional or educational material by a public school as defined in 28A.150.010"

             Representative Cole spoke in favor of the adoption of the amendment to the amendment.

             Representative Sherstad spoke against the adoption of the amendment to the amendment.

             A division was called. The Speaker called on the House to divide. The results of the division was: 36-YEAS, 53-NAYS. The amendment was not adopted.

             Representative Thibaudeau moved adoption of the following amendment to the amendment by Representative Thibaudeau:

             On page 4, beginning on line 21, after "apply" strike "to the" and insert "to:

             (1) The"

             On page 4, line 25, after "state" insert ";

             (2) The official distribution or use of material by a health care provider, or health agency under the supervision and control, or funded in whole or in part by the state, county, municipality, or other political division of the state;

             (3) Devices designed for contraceptive purposes; or

             (4) The depiction of a female breast-feeding an infant"

             Representative Thibaudeau spoke in favor of the adoption of the amendment to the amendment.

             Representative Sheahan spoke against the adoption of the amendment to the amendment.

             Representative Thibaudeau again spoke in favor of the adoption of the amendment to the amendment.

             A division was called. The Speaker called on the House to divide. The results of the division was: 39-YEAS, 47-NAYS. The amendment was not adopted.

             With the consent of the House, amendment number 885 to Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5466 was withdrawn.

             Representative Radcliff moved adoption of the following striking amendment to the striking amendment by Representative Radcliff:

             Strike everything after the enacting clause and insert the following:

             "NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. There is hereby created a task force on regulation of availability of pornographic material to children.

             (1) The task force shall consist of ten members: Four members selected by the president of the senate; four members selected by the speaker of the house of representatives; and two members appointed by the governor.

             (2) The task force shall study the issue of availability of pornography to children and shall submit a report that includes legislative recommendations to the legislature by January 1, 1996."

             On page 1, line 1 of the title, after "children;" strike the remainder of the title and insert "and creating a new section."

             Representatives Radcliff, Hatfield, Costa, Thibaudeau, Blanton and Mason spoke in favor of the adoption of the striking amendment to the striking amendment.

             Representatives Sheahan and Morris spoke against the adoption of the striking amendment to the striking amendment.

             A division was called. The Speaker called on the House to divide. The results of the division was: 34-YEAS, 53-NAYS. The amendment was not adopted.

             Representative McMahan spoke in favor of the adoption of the striking amendment as amended.

             The striking amendment as amended was adopted.

             There being no objection, the rules were suspended, the second reading considered the third and the bill was placed on final passage.

             Representatives McMahan, Ebersole, Buck and Campbell spoke in favor of passage of the bill.

             The Speaker stated the question before the House to be final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5466 as amended by the House.

ROLL CALL

             The Clerk called the roll on the final passage of Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5466 as amended by the House, and the bill passed the House by the following vote: Yeas - 75, Nays - 14, Absent - 0, Excused - 8.

             Voting yea: Representatives Appelwick, Backlund, Ballasiotes, Basich, Benton, Blanton, Boldt, Buck, Cairnes, Campbell, Carrell, Casada, Chandler, Chappell, Clements, Conway, Cooke, Costa, Crouse, Dyer, Ebersole, Elliot, Fisher, G., Foreman, Grant, Hankins, Hargrove, Hickel, Honeyford, Horn, Huff, Hymes, Jacobsen, Johnson, Kessler, Koster, Kremen, Lambert, Lisk, Mastin, McMahan, McMorris, Mielke, Mitchell, Morris, Mulliken, Ogden, Patterson, Pelesky, Pennington, Poulsen, Quall, Radcliff, Reams, Robertson, Schmidt, D., Schmidt, K., Scott, Sehlin, Sheahan, Sheldon, Sherstad, Silver, Skinner, Smith, Sommers, Stevens, Talcott, Thomas, B., Thomas, L., Thompson, Valle, Van Luven, Wolfe and Mr. Speaker - 75.

             Voting nay: Representatives Chopp, Cody, Cole, Dellwo, Dickerson, Fisher, R., Hatfield, Mason, Regala, Romero, Rust, Thibaudeau, Tokuda and Veloria - 14.

             Excused: Representatives Beeksma, Brown, Brumsickle, Carlson, Delvin, Fuhrman, Goldsmith and Schoesler - 8.

             Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5466, as amended by the House, having received the constitutional majority, was declared passed.

             There being no objection the following bills were referred to the Committee on Rules: Engrossed Senate Bill No. 5204, Substitute Senate Bill No. 5211, Senate Bill No. 5310, Substitute Senate Bill No. 5591, Substitute Senate Bill No. 5747, Senate Bill No. 5830, Substitute Senate Bill No. 5556, Second Substitute Senate Bill No. 5557, Senate Bill No. 5819, Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill No. 5901, House Bill No. 1255, House Bill No. 2083, Senate Bill No. 5272, Substitute Senate Bill No. 5467, Substitute Senate Bill No. 5568 and House Bill No. 2091.

             Representative Conway moved that the remarks by Representative Morris be spread upon the Journal and the motion failed.

MESSAGES FROM THE SENATE

April 14, 1995

Mr. Speaker:

             The President has signed:

SENATE BILL NO. 5755,

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5992,

SUBSTITUTE SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 8210,

and the same are herewith transmitted.

Marty Brown, Secretary

April 14, 1995

Mr. Speaker:

             The President has signed:

SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 1178,

HOUSE BILL NO. 1189,

HOUSE BILL NO. 1190,

SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 1192,

HOUSE BILL NO. 1310,

HOUSE BILL NO. 1311,

HOUSE BILL NO. 1362,

HOUSE BILL NO. 1407,

HOUSE BILL NO. 1450,

HOUSE BILL NO. 1790.

SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 1853,

HOUSE BILL NO. 1866,

HOUSE BILL NO. 1893,

HOUSE BILL NO. 2063,

and the same are herewith transmitted.

Marty Brown, Secretary

SIGNED BY THE SPEAKER

             The Speaker announced he was signing:

SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 1241,

SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 1483,

SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 1929,

SUBSTITUTE HOUSE BILL NO. 2060,

HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 4008,

SENATE BILL NO. 5755,

SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL NO. 5992,

SUBSTITUTE SENATE JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 8210,

             There being no objection, the House advanced to the eleventh order of business.

MOTION

             On motion of Representative Foreman, the House adjourned until 1:00 p.m., Monday, April 17, 1995.

CLYDE BALLARD, Speaker

TIMOTHY A. MARTIN, Chief Clerk