ESHB 1293
SignedHouse
Litter
Concerning litter.
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 strengthens penalties for littering in Washington, including civil fines, criminal charges, and mandatory cleanup restitution based on litter volume. It also creates a littering solutions task force to develop recommendations for reducing litter and ensuring cleanup matches or exceeds new litter.
- Increases penalties for littering based on amount: up to one cubic foot = class 2 civil infraction; more than one cubic foot but less than 10 cubic yards = misdemeanor (or natural resource infraction); more than 10 cubic yards = gross misdemeanor.
- Requires litter cleanup restitution payments—2x actual cleanup cost for gross misdemeanors, 4x for misdemeanors/natural resource infractions—with courts ordering payment to landowners and law enforcement.
- Allows courts to order offenders to personally clean up litter (with landowner/agency permission) or to reduce/modify restitution for first-time offenders who clean up.
- Creates a littering solutions task force led by the Department of Ecology, with members from state agencies, local governments, and industry groups (e.g., beverage, tobacco, retail, tourism), to develop policy recommendations to reduce litter.
- Task force must submit a status update by January 15, 2026, and a final report with recommendations by November 15, 2026, focusing on high-impact sites (e.g., roads, parks), common litter types (e.g., cigarette butts, construction debris), and cost-effective cleanup strategies.
Who is affected
- Individual litterers — Individuals who litter (e.g., by throwing trash on roads, parks, or waterways) face new or increased civil, criminal, and restitution penalties depending on the amount and type of litter.
- Retail, hospitality, beverage, and tobacco industries — Businesses that generate or sell products commonly found as litter (e.g., tobacco, beverages, groceries) will be consulted as part of a task force to develop solutions to reduce litter.
- State and local government agencies — Local governments and state agencies (e.g., parks, transportation, natural resources) will participate in a task force to develop litter-reduction strategies and may incur new costs or responsibilities for enforcement and cleanup.
- Landowners and property managers — Landowners (including public agencies) where litter occurs may receive restitution payments to cover cleanup costs and may be asked to grant access for court-ordered community service cleanup.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Mandatory cleanup restitution and court-ordered personal cleanup ensure litter is physically removed from public spaces, directly improving community aesthetics, wildlife habitats, and water quality—especially along highways and parks where litter accumulates.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(d)(i), 1(2)(d)(ii)Stricter penalties for large-volume littering (e.g., construction debris, abandoned vehicles) reduce hazards like blocked roadways, fire risks, and wildlife collisions, enhancing public safety—particularly for drivers and outdoor recreationists.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)-(c)The task force’s mandate to reduce cost-per-mile of cleanup and identify high-impact sites may yield cost-effective, data-driven strategies that lower long-term public spending on litter management—especially for cash-strapped counties and DOT.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1), 2(3)(d)Mandatory 24-hour community restitution for state park violations directly benefits public park users by ensuring active restoration of damaged natural areas and deterring future vandalism or dumping in high-traffic recreational zones.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(4)Including beverage and tobacco producers in the task force creates a pathway for future product-based litter reduction policies (e.g., deposit schemes, packaging standards) that could significantly reduce the most common litter items—cigarette butts and plastic bottles.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(h)(vi)-(vii)
Potential Concerns (5)
Mandatory restitution payments at 2x–4x cleanup costs disproportionately burden low-income individuals who litter in small amounts (e.g., cigarette butts, snack wrappers), as they lack resources to pay or arrange cleanup—even for minor infractions—potentially leading to wage garnishment, license suspension, or jail time for nonpayment.
FinancialIndustryRef: Sec. 1(2)(a)-(c), 1(2)(d)(i)Court-ordered personal cleanup and restitution modification for first-time offenders creates a two-tiered system where those with time, transportation, and landowner access (often wealthier or more socially connected individuals) avoid financial penalties, while low-income or unhoused individuals face fines they cannot pay.
Rights & LibertiesIndustryRef: Sec. 1(2)(d)(ii)-(iii)Industry participants in the task force (e.g., beverage, tobacco, retail) gain influence over regulatory solutions without bearing direct financial responsibility for litter cleanup, shifting costs to taxpayers and individuals while avoiding extended producer responsibility models.
Business & EmploymentIndustryRef: Sec. 2(2)(h)(i)-(viii)While restitution payments are distributed to landowners and law enforcement, many local governments (especially rural counties) lack resources to enforce new gross misdemeanor provisions or coordinate cleanup logistics, creating unfunded mandates and inconsistent enforcement across jurisdictions.
Local GovernmentLean industryRef: Sec. 1(2)(d)(i)Restitution payments are contingent on successful prosecution and court order, and are not guaranteed—many littering incidents go unreported or unprosecuted, meaning cleanup costs often fall to public agencies (e.g., DOT, parks) rather than offenders, reducing the bill’s fiscal benefit to local governments.
FinancialLean industryRef: Sec. 1(2)(d)(i)
Who Is Most Affected
Low- and moderate-income individuals who litter (e.g., by discarding food wrappers, cigarette butts) face steep fines and potential incarceration for nonpayment, especially if they cannot arrange timely cleanup; this disproportionately harms those without cars, jobs, or property access.
Large beverage, tobacco, and retail corporations gain a seat at the table in shaping litter-reduction policy but face no direct financial liability—potentially avoiding future extended producer responsibility laws while appearing to “collaborate” on solutions.
State and local agencies (DOT, parks, counties) benefit from restitution-funded cleanup and task force input but may face new enforcement and coordination costs; rural counties with limited staff are especially strained.
Landowners (including public agencies) may receive restitution for cleanup but must grant access for court-ordered cleanup and may still bear unclaimed costs if offenders cannot pay or are untraceable.
People experiencing homelessness or housing instability are more likely to be cited for littering (e.g., carrying belongings in public spaces) and less able to pay fines or perform cleanup—risking increased criminalization and jail time.