Sue Lani Madsen: The rest of the riparian story

When a bill affecting salmon, water, tribal sovereignty, private property rights and agriculture makes it out of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on a unanimous vote, it’s not a miracle. It’s the result of a year of hard work involving all stakeholders parking their egos, working collaboratively and building trust.

We need more legislative leadership like this, because we’re not getting it out of the executive branch.

HB 1720 established a carefully crafted, fully voluntary, regionally focused riparian grant program to protect, improve and restore the ecological functions of critical riparian management zones.

According to a news release from the House Republicans, “This bill is truly a citizen driven and written piece of legislation, led by legislators who represent the values and culture of salmon as well as the agricultural industry. These two industries are intertwined through habitat, water, and resources, and they each face the impacts of population growth, extreme environmental cycles, and the Growth Management Act,” said Rep. Debra Lekanoff, D-Anacortes, co-sponsor of the bill.

And from Rep. Mike Chapman, D-Port Angeles, prime sponsor of the legislation: “The bill has garnered strong support and has gained numerous co-sponsors, but it began with the good faith and genuine trust of two Democrats and two Republicans. It doesn’t get more bipartisan than this and that was my goal for this important legislation.”

When the House Republican Caucus is releasing statements highlighting the work of two Democrats, you know it’s a bipartisan bill.

It replaces last year’s HB 1838, requested by Gov. Jay Inslee and allowed to die a well-deserved death. Inslee hadn’t even consulted his own Department of Agriculture to check the impact on Washington farms and food production (see “Ag interests left out in formulating riparian bill,” published Jan. 27, 2022).

But the desire, the drive and the need to manage and protect wetland areas was still there. It took four legislators doing their jobs, working with all stakeholders to craft a realistic solution balancing competing interests. It’s how state governance should work.

HB 1720 laid out a regionally controlled consensus decision-making process with land owners, tribes and conservation district leaders who know what is needed to protect habitat and agriculture in their watersheds.

“Protecting private property rights and restoring riparian habitat for the benefit of salmon do not have to be mutually exclusive,” said co-sponsor Rep. Joel Kretz, R-Wauconda. “As a result of bipartisan work and trust, we have arrived at a proposal that is voluntary rather than regulatory. This is a win for salmon recovery and restoration, and it’s a win for farmers, ranchers, and private property owners who want to see riparian improvements on their land.”

The fourth co-sponsor is Rep. Tom Dent, R-Moses Lake, lead Republican on the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.

Testimony at the hearing before the committee on Feb. 7 was overwhelmingly in support of passing HB 1720.

“This bill made it out of committee on an 11-0 vote,” said Chapman, chair of AGNR committee, at that hearing, “When you negotiate something you never really know how it’s going to turn out, but it’s notable that 218 signed in pro, four against, nine other.”

Testifying in person and virtually were 19 in favor of HB 1720, five testifying as “other,” and one testifying in opposition.

The Grinch at the party? Ruth Musgrave, senior policy adviser representing Inslee. After politely thanking everyone for their hard work and making the claim that much of the language came from “their” bill, referring to last year’s clunker, she pivoted to two objections from the governor’s office. First, there was no stated minimum standard and second, “our agencies are only permitted to serve in a technical advisory role and not in the consensus decision-making of the task force. Our agencies are the ones doing most of the work on these projects and the ones most familiar with what is needed.”

Mike Faulk, spokesman for the governor’s office, confirmed by email that “minimum standard” means a single statewide minimum setback standard, one of the major flaws of last year’s failed bill. In response to asking what “doing most of the work” referred to, he said it “relates to administering the programs.” With all due respect to administrative responsibilities, agency staff have nothing at risk. The tribes, farmers and communities have it all at risk. Pulling agency staff in as equal decision-makers kills trust in their ability to provide the unbiased technical assistance necessary for success.

But let’s get down to what Inslee really objects to. It’s not his bill. It would put a policy in place giving communities responsibility and control instead of a statewide approach he controls. This isn’t a contest between Democrats and Republicans, this is a showdown between the executive and the legislative branches.

Unfortunately, as of 5 minutes to column deadline, HB 1720 was pulled from the docket for the House Capital Budget Committee. It dies there unless a miracle occurs. All of Chapman, Lekanoff, Kretz and Dent’s hard work to build trust among often warring factions has been submarined by one man’s ego.

Contact Sue Lani Madsen at rulingpen@gmail.com.