HB 1236
In CommitteeHouse
Littering, penalty increase
Increasing penalties for littering.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill raises penalties for littering in Washington, including higher fines, mandatory cleanup payments, and possible jail time for larger amounts. It also creates a new task force to develop long-term strategies to reduce litter and ensure cleanup matches or exceeds new litter.
- Increases penalties for littering based on amount: up to class 2 civil infraction for ≤1 cubic foot, misdemeanor for 1–10 cubic yards, and gross misdemeanor for >10 cubic yards.
- Adds mandatory litter clean-up restitution payments: 4× actual cleanup cost for misdemeanors/natural resource infractions, and 2× actual cleanup cost for gross misdemeanors.
- Requires courts to order 24 hours of community restitution in the affected state park for violations occurring in state parks (if the park opts in).
- Creates a new littering solutions task force led by the Department of Ecology, with members from state agencies and industry groups, to develop policy recommendations for reducing litter.
- Tasks the task force with reviewing the 2022 statewide litter study, identifying top litter types (e.g., cigarette butts, construction debris), and recommending ways to lower cleanup costs and prevent litter at high-impact sites like roadways and parks.
Who is affected
- Individuals who litter — People caught littering — especially those who discard more than one cubic foot of waste — face higher fines, possible jail time, and mandatory cleanup payments or community service.
- Landowners and public agencies (e.g., parks departments, counties) — May be required to perform community service in state parks where violations occur, and may face additional liability for cleanup costs.
- State agencies (e.g., Department of Ecology, Transportation, Fish and Wildlife) — Will be involved in developing and implementing policy recommendations to reduce litter, and may see changes in how they manage waste, signage, or enforcement.
- Business groups (e.g., convenience stores, grocery retailers, beverage producers, hospitality businesses) — May face new operational costs or responsibilities related to litter prevention, such as improved signage, waste collection, or participation in task force efforts.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Mandates that restitution payments fund actual cleanup costs and distribute remainder to law enforcement—ensuring that fines directly support environmental remediation rather than general revenue, which benefits public spaces and communities where litter harms health and aesthetics.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(d)(i)Allows courts to suspend restitution for first-time offenders who clean up their own litter—encouraging personal accountability and reducing reliance on punitive systems, which benefits low-income individuals and avoids unnecessary court involvement.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(d)(iii)Requires the task force to base recommendations on the 2022 statewide litter study and target high-impact sources (e.g., cigarette butts, construction debris), which could lead to evidence-based, cost-effective prevention strategies that improve public spaces and reduce long-term cleanup burdens.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(a)-(d)Permits courts to order in-person litter removal from the site of violation—ensuring offenders directly contribute to cleanup and fostering community-based restitution, which benefits local neighborhoods and parks by restoring shared spaces.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(d)(ii)Creates a task force to develop long-term litter-reduction strategies, potentially leading to standardized best practices and interagency coordination that could reduce costs and improve efficiency for counties and cities managing roadside and park cleanup.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(1)
Potential Concerns (5)
Increases criminal penalties—including jail time—for larger-scale littering, which may deter intentional or repeat offenses but could strain court and correctional resources for low-level offenses that do not pose direct threats to public safety.
Public SafetyIndustryRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)-(c)Mandates restitution payments of 2×–4× cleanup costs, which may disproportionately burden low-income individuals who litter (e.g., due to poverty, addiction, or homelessness), potentially trapping them in cycles of debt and court involvement without addressing root causes.
FinancialIndustryRef: Sec. 1(2)(d)(i)Requires state parks to opt in to hosting 24 hours of community restitution, which may impose staffing, liability, and operational burdens on parks that lack resources for oversight and supervision of offenders.
Local GovernmentIndustryRef: Sec. 1(4)Includes tobacco and beverage producers, convenience stores, and hospitality businesses in the task force, but these groups are not required to fund or implement solutions—potentially shifting compliance costs to smaller operators or local governments while large corporations influence policy without direct accountability.
Business & EmploymentIndustryRef: Sec. 2(2)(h)(vii)-(viii)Tasks the Department of Ecology with submitting reports to the legislature, but the bill lacks funding or enforcement mechanisms for recommendations—risking bureaucratic delay and unfunded mandates for counties and cities implementing litter-reduction programs.
Local GovernmentLean industryRef: Sec. 2(4)
Who Is Most Affected
Low-income individuals who litter—often due to homelessness, addiction, or lack of access to waste services—are most at risk of being penalized under the new restitution scheme, especially the 2×–4× cleanup fees, which may trap them in cycles of debt and incarceration without addressing root causes.
State and local parks may benefit from increased enforcement and restitution funding but face added operational burdens if they opt into hosting community restitution, especially if staffing or liability concerns limit participation.
Large beverage, tobacco, and convenience retailers are included in the task force but are not required to fund or implement solutions—potentially allowing them to influence policy without bearing proportional costs, while smaller operators may face unaffordable signage or waste management requirements.
Counties and cities may benefit from state-level coordination and evidence-based strategies but could face unfunded mandates if the task force recommends expanded enforcement, signage, or cleanup programs without dedicated funding.
Law enforcement agencies benefit from increased restitution payments and potential funding for cleanup investigations, but may face increased caseloads from misdemeanor and gross misdemeanor littering charges, straining limited resources.