HB 1678
In CommitteeHouse
Sewage discharge fee
Providing funding for enhanced wastewater treatment infrastructure for salmon recovery.
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 creates a fee of 10 cents per gallon on untreated sewage discharged by municipalities into Puget Sound, with the goal of funding upgrades to remove nutrient pollution that harms salmon and marine ecosystems. The revenue will be deposited into a dedicated account and used for grants to help municipalities install nutrient-removal technology.
- Imposes a $0.10 per gallon fee on discharges of untreated sewage from municipal wastewater treatment plants and combined sewer overflow systems into Puget Sound or connected waters.
- Requires the Department of Ecology to adopt rules for reporting and calculating discharge volumes, including standardized methods for estimating untreated sewage in combined sewer overflows.
- Creates the Enhanced Wastewater Treatment Infrastructure for Salmon Recovery Account in the state treasury to hold fee revenue, with funds available only after appropriation.
- Requires all revenue from the fee to be used exclusively for grants to municipalities for infrastructure projects that remove excess nutrients (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus) from wastewater before discharge into Puget Sound.
- Reenacts and amends RCW 43.84.092 to include the new account in the list of state accounts that receive a proportionate share of investment earnings from the state treasury.
Who is affected
- Municipal wastewater utilities — Municipalities with wastewater treatment plants or combined sewer overflow systems discharging into Puget Sound will be required to pay a fee based on the volume of untreated sewage discharged, and may receive grants to fund nutrient-removal infrastructure upgrades.
- Puget Sound wildlife and ecosystems — Puget Sound ecosystems and species like salmon, orcas, and shellfish benefit from reduced nutrient pollution, supporting healthier habitats and food sources.
- Tribal communities — Tribal nations with treaty-protected fishing rights may benefit from improved water quality and healthier salmon populations, supporting cultural and economic practices.
- Aquaculture and marine industry businesses — Shellfish growers and other marine-dependent businesses may benefit from reduced eutrophication and improved water quality, supporting sustainable aquaculture.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The fee directly targets nutrient pollution — a known driver of eutrophication and hypoxia in Puget Sound — which harms salmon, orcas, and shellfish. By funding infrastructure upgrades (e.g., nitrogen removal), the bill supports ecosystem recovery and aligns with state salmon recovery goals, benefiting biodiversity and food webs.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(d); Sec. 3Reducing nutrient pollution helps prevent harmful algal blooms and low-oxygen zones that threaten aquatic life and water quality. Cleaner water supports safer recreational activities (e.g., swimming, fishing) and protects drinking water sources, enhancing public health and safety.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(c); Sec. 3Tribal treaty-reserved fishing rights are explicitly recognized as at risk from pollution. By funding infrastructure to protect salmon populations, the bill helps uphold federal treaty obligations and supports tribal cultural and subsistence practices that depend on healthy fisheries.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(d); Sec. 3Aquaculture businesses (e.g., oyster, mussel growers) face mortality from low pH and low oxygen caused by nutrient pollution. Improved water quality from nutrient-removal infrastructure could stabilize or grow this $200M+ industry, supporting coastal jobs — though benefits are indirect and delayed.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3; Sec. 2(2)The dedicated account and grant mechanism provide a new funding stream for wastewater infrastructure upgrades, helping municipalities meet long-overdue environmental standards and avoid potential future enforcement actions or consent decrees (e.g., EPA penalties for violations).
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 3; Sec. 2(4)(a)
Potential Concerns (5)
Municipal wastewater utilities will face a new per-gallon fee ($0.10/gallon) on untreated sewage discharged into Puget Sound, which could cost tens of millions of dollars annually for larger systems (e.g., Seattle’s outfall discharges ~100M gallons/day → $10M/year). While grants are available for infrastructure upgrades, the fee applies *before* upgrades are installed, creating a cash-flow burden and potential rate hikes for ratepayers — especially smaller or financially strained municipalities.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1); Sec. 3Municipalities must comply with new reporting and calculation rules (e.g., standardized methods for estimating untreated sewage in combined sewer overflows), increasing administrative burden on local staff and requiring new technical capacity — particularly burdensome for small or resource-constrained utilities without dedicated environmental compliance teams.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(1); Sec. 3The fee may reduce nutrient pollution over time, but its effectiveness depends on grant uptake and project timelines. The bill does not set enforceable pollution reduction targets or deadlines, so environmental benefits are uncertain and could take years to materialize — especially for vulnerable species like salmon and shellfish.
EnvironmentRef: Sec. 2(4)(a)The fee and account expire in 2028 unless extended, creating long-term uncertainty for municipal infrastructure planning. Without a permanent funding mechanism, municipalities may hesitate to invest in multi-million-dollar nutrient-removal projects if future funding is not guaranteed.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 6 (sunset 7/1/2028); Sec. 3While the bill aims to benefit aquaculture and marine industries, it does not include direct support for those sectors — only indirect benefit via improved water quality. Shellfish growers and other marine-dependent businesses may see long-term gains, but short-term costs (e.g., higher water/sewage rates passed through from municipalities) could outweigh those benefits for small operators.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2(1)(b); Sec. 3
Who Is Most Affected
Municipal utilities will pay the fee but may receive grants to offset costs. Larger systems (e.g., Seattle, Tacoma) will pay more in absolute terms but have greater capacity to absorb the impact; smaller systems may face disproportionate strain relative to budget size.
Ecosystem health improvements — especially for salmon, orcas, and shellfish — directly support ecological resilience and recovery. However, benefits are long-term and not guaranteed without enforceable standards or monitoring.
Tribal nations with treaty fishing rights stand to benefit significantly from improved salmon populations and water quality, supporting cultural practices, food sovereignty, and economic activities like commercial and ceremonial fishing.
Shellfish growers and marine aquaculture businesses may benefit from reduced eutrophication and hypoxia, but they bear no direct cost of the fee and may face higher water/sewage rates passed through from municipalities.