This Washington
Stormwater Cleanup Bill Faces Strong Opposition
It's a tough year for environmentalists in Olympia. Legislators are not prioritizing environmental bills when they've got a $5 billion budget shortfall and a recession to deal with. (The voter-approved dedicated toxic cleanup fund, for example, was already raided this year to the tune of $17 million to help the general fund.)
Wisely, Sen. Sharon Nelson (D-34, Vashon Island), who's sponsoring one of the environmental community's key priorities—a bill to implement a new, dedicated, hazardous substance fee—is framing it as a jobs bill.
Nelson’s bill would charge a one percent fee on hazardous substances coming into the state and dedicate those funds to storm water cleanup. (Btw: "Fees" are not taxes because the revenue doesn't go to the general fund, it is earmarked for programs directly linked to the fee. This means fees don't need the Eyman two-thirds rule.)
Last last week, Nelson's bill got a hearing in the senate ways and means committee. Groups like the Washington State Labor Council and others testified in favor of the bill, highlighting the job benefits. Sen. Nelson herself told the committee that “Cities and counties are ready to go with these [storm water cleanup] projects,” and that this bill will “create jobs on the ground, cleaning up our waterways.”
Greg Hanon of the Western States Petroleum Association testified against Nelson’s bill, citing fund transfers (like this year's $17 million) out of toxics account over the last two years. “$250 million—that’s the amount of money since 2009 that was shifted out of the account and into the general fund,” adding “we believe that money should be used for storm water.”
“It’s time to prioritize the [toxics] account,” Hanon told legislators. Scott Dahlman of the Washington Farm Bureu echoed Hanon’s point when he said “this bill wants to refill that pot of money by adding a new tax.”
Their angle comes as no surprise: The $17 million dollars that's being take from the state’s toxic cleanup fund makes the case. And really—you don't hear environmentalists complaining publicly about money going to help save kids health care and higher ed.
Clifford Traisman, lobbyist for Washington Conservation Voters did have a rejoinder for the fund transfer argument, though arguing that oil companies currently pay no fee for storm water cleanup around the state—a problem that he said oil companies are largely and directly responsible for. "Oil is a major problem dealing with storm water runoff - no one would dispute that," he said and added that "we see this as a fairness issue."
We have a call into Sen. Nelson's office. The bill only has nine co-sponsors; all liberal Democrats.
Wisely, Sen. Sharon Nelson (D-34, Vashon Island), who's sponsoring one of the environmental community's key priorities—a bill to implement a new, dedicated, hazardous substance fee—is framing it as a jobs bill.
Nelson’s bill would charge a one percent fee on hazardous substances coming into the state and dedicate those funds to storm water cleanup. (Btw: "Fees" are not taxes because the revenue doesn't go to the general fund, it is earmarked for programs directly linked to the fee. This means fees don't need the Eyman two-thirds rule.)
Last last week, Nelson's bill got a hearing in the senate ways and means committee. Groups like the Washington State Labor Council and others testified in favor of the bill, highlighting the job benefits. Sen. Nelson herself told the committee that “Cities and counties are ready to go with these [storm water cleanup] projects,” and that this bill will “create jobs on the ground, cleaning up our waterways.”
Greg Hanon of the Western States Petroleum Association testified against Nelson’s bill, citing fund transfers (like this year's $17 million) out of toxics account over the last two years. “$250 million—that’s the amount of money since 2009 that was shifted out of the account and into the general fund,” adding “we believe that money should be used for storm water.”
“It’s time to prioritize the [toxics] account,” Hanon told legislators. Scott Dahlman of the Washington Farm Bureu echoed Hanon’s point when he said “this bill wants to refill that pot of money by adding a new tax.”
Their angle comes as no surprise: The $17 million dollars that's being take from the state’s toxic cleanup fund makes the case. And really—you don't hear environmentalists complaining publicly about money going to help save kids health care and higher ed.
Clifford Traisman, lobbyist for Washington Conservation Voters did have a rejoinder for the fund transfer argument, though arguing that oil companies currently pay no fee for storm water cleanup around the state—a problem that he said oil companies are largely and directly responsible for. "Oil is a major problem dealing with storm water runoff - no one would dispute that," he said and added that "we see this as a fairness issue."
We have a call into Sen. Nelson's office. The bill only has nine co-sponsors; all liberal Democrats.
