Two bills sponsored by Rep. Debra Lekanoff (D–La Conner) take very different approaches to salmon recovery, with impacts to cities equally as varied.

HB 1653 is focused on ensuring that all relevant state agencies are working in a coordinated and integrated strategy to protect and restore salmon. The bill strengthens language throughout salmon recovery implementation statutes and creates a state salmon cabinet.

Of particular importance to cities, there are two areas in HB 1653 that amend the statute to reference growth and shoreline management planning:

• Sec 2(5) adds that the Legislature “must vastly increase the scope and scale of restoration, also including investments and inclusion of salmon recovery in the growth management act.”
• Sec 3(3) adds language directing the Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office to ensure “that salmon recovery plan elements are incorporated into growth management act and shoreline management act planning….”

Read together, cities support planning requirements focused on salmon recovery when it comes with state funding to accomplish this additional work.

HB 1838 is a Governor-request bill that takes a stronger, more prescriptive approach to salmon habitat recovery. The impacts of this approach for cities is a bit murky, especially related to a constitutional takings liability. Please send us your feedback.

The impacts of this approach for cities is a bit murky, especially related to a constitutional takings liability. Please send us your feedback.

The bill is focused on restoring “riparian management zones" as defined in Riparian Ecosystems Volume 2 published December 2020 by the Department of Ecology (Ecology).

In summary, the bill requires that:

• Starting June 30, 2023, Ecology must map riparian management zones for salmon and steelhead bearing rivers and streams for each watershed. Unfortunately, maps will be provided to planning jurisdictions only one year prior to the periodic update deadline, which does not give jurisdictions adequate time to address the new requirements (see the third bullet). Further, planning to meet the deadline is well-underway at that point.
• Public and private landowners owning property adjacent to a water body identified and mapped on a riparian management zone map must establish, maintain, and protect a riparian management zone to achieve the goals of this new chapter. It is unclear what the extent of these actions would entail.
  • Land is exempt if it is:
    • Covered by a road, trail, building, or other structure that exists at the time of the effective date of this bill, or is
    • A small parcel in which the riparian management zone would cover more than 50 percent. Owners can’t subdivide to create this exemption.
  • The state must offer a cost-share to the landowner of at least 70-90% of costs to establish and maintain the zone. We appreciate the cost sharing; but again, it’s unclear what actions are required to comply.
• Fully planning counties and cities must include restoration and protection of riparian management zones as part of their next scheduled periodic update including, but not limited to, comprehensive plans, capital facilities plans, development regulations, critical areas protection, and shoreline master programs. While we are still trying to understand these implications, it appears that if the “actions” were incorporated into development regulations they could put a city at risk of an exaction takings challenge. We’re concerned that the cost-share is not enough to mitigate a takings when it’s focused on costs to create and maintain the zone versus addressing loss of use to the landowner or the direct impact of a development (nexus).
• State grant funding will be provided only in watersheds in which riparian management zone maps are complete.

Dates to remember

HB 1838 will be heard in the House Rural Development, Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday, January 19 at 10 am.

HB 1653 will be heard in the House State Government & Tribal Relations Committee on Thursday, January 20 at 10 am.