The state house adopted legislation this afternoon that would give the Washington State Department of Transportation an exemption from state law, allowing them to continue construction on the 520 bridge across Lake Washington despite an ongoing environmental appeal under the state Shoreline Management Act. Current law mandates that projects must shut down while they're under SMA appeal---a process that typically takes about six months but would delay 520 by as much as a year due to weather and fish migration schedules.

The legislation was applauded by both Democrats and Republicans, though for very different reasons.

Many Democrats initially opposed the bill because they felt (along with many environmental groups) that allowing an exemption in this case would set a dangerous precedent for future exemptions from the shoreline act. Those concerns were largely assuaged by an amendment from Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon (D-34) stipulating that the legislature only intends to exempt projects from the shoreline act for bridges that have sunk or are sinking.

"This action we're taking today --- we are taking just a little tiny sliver of an exception to the environmental laws that pertain to this project, and I would not want to take this action out of context," Rep. Deb Eddy (R-48) said.

Democrats also supported the bill because they said it would preserve jobs and allow the state to avoid late fees on the project (as we reported earlier this week, the state's contract with the lead 520 contractor, Kiewit, stipulated a maximum two-month delay for appeals before fines kicked in).

Republicans (who tried, earlier in the session, to pass far more sweeping legislation that would have exempted all projects on shoreline land from the stay requirement during appeals) had a very different interpretation of the bill. In fact, several conservative R's were downright gleeful about the legislation, for the very reason that a handful of green Democrats initially opposed it. In testimony on the house floor today, Republicans crowed that the bill set "a precedent" for dismantling the Shoreline Management Act statewide. Their only quibble: They wanted to take the exemption statewide right away.

Rep. Mike Armstrong (R-12): "I ... like the precedent that this is going to set. We have a real need to revise our whole permitting process. The Shoreline Management Act is costing millions and millions around the state and ... I'm excited to vote for this bill."

Rep. Jay Rodne (R-5): "We need to take this bill statewide. ... I can't believe that this body would not want to apply this to projects across the state. The Shoreline Management Act is broken. It costs jobs … and the only groups that benefit are the lawyers who engage in environmental lawfare and the environmental consultants who bill municipalities hundreds of thousands of dollars per project."

Rep. David Taylor (R-15): "Let's not exempt one project. Let's not exempt one agency. Let's do the right thing and do it around the state."

Contacted after the 94-4 floor vote, amendment sponsor Fitzgibbon said he believes his language "clarifies that this is not a precedent." Since the Republicans clearly disagree, I asked him, what will he do when they seek to expand the exemption in the future?

"We'll fight like hell," Fitzgibbon said. "We would stop them the way we stopped the other bill"---the one that would have vastly expanded the exemption from the stay requirement---"and just deal with that fight when it arrives."

Meanwhile, liberal environmentalists---the most vocal opponents of the exemption---were not impressed and gave credence to the GOP win. Cliff Traisman, lobbyist for Washington Conservation Voters, told PubliCola shortly after the vote, "It still clearly is a precedent.  We appreciate the amendment, but since it’s only in the intent section, it doesn’t have near the same effect" environmentalists were seeking.

Four representatives voted against the bill: Conservative Republican Taylor, conservative Republican Jason Overstreet (R-42), conservative Democrat Christopher Hurst (D-31), and liberal Democrat Sam Hunt (D-22).