SHB 1806
In CommitteeHouse
Commercial fishing revenue
Ensuring that commercial fishing revenue benefits communities most dependent on the industry.
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 redirects a significant portion of the commercial fishing landing tax (also called the enhanced food fish excise tax) from the state general fund to the cities where fish are landed, especially to support rural and coastal communities in southwest Washington that rely heavily on the industry. It ensures local governments receive funding for public safety and infrastructure tied to the fishery activity happening in their jurisdiction.
- Requires 50% of all commercial fishing landing tax revenue to be distributed to the city where fish are landed.
- Modifies existing tax distribution rules for anadromous game fish (e.g., salmon, steelhead) — half of that tax still goes to the city where landed, while the rest goes to the Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Account.
- Adjusts the split for taxes on chinook, coho, and chum salmon caught in ocean waters, the Columbia River, Willapa Bay, and Grays Harbor: 2.65% to the state general fund, 1% to the Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Account, and 2.625% to the city where landed.
- Directs the Department of Revenue to implement the new distribution scheme starting July 28, 2025.
Who is affected
- Coastal and rural cities/towns in southwest Washington — Municipalities that serve as landing sites for commercial fishing operations will receive direct funding to support public safety and transportation infrastructure.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Cities where fish are landed — particularly small, rural, and coastal communities in southwest Washington — will receive direct, predictable funding (up to 50% of landing tax revenue) to support public safety and transportation infrastructure, strengthening local capacity to manage impacts of commercial fishing activity.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1), (2), (3)(c)By ensuring local governments directly benefit from the landing tax, the bill helps sustain the economic base of communities whose livelihoods depend on commercial fishing, supporting jobs and business continuity in an industry facing environmental and regulatory pressures.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(c)Municipalities can now fund local public safety services (e.g., harbor patrols, emergency response, law enforcement) directly tied to commercial fishing activity, improving response capacity and reducing strain on county or state resources.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)Local governments gain dedicated revenue to maintain and improve port infrastructure, roads, and docks used by commercial fishers — critical assets that support the industry and are often underfunded in rural areas.
TransportationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(c)While not direct, stronger local government finances may allow municipalities to contribute more to shared services like schools or workforce training programs aligned with fisheries — though this is speculative and not guaranteed.
EducationLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(2)
Potential Concerns (4)
Municipalities outside the designated southwest Washington coastal cities will receive no direct benefit, potentially exacerbating regional inequities in infrastructure and public safety funding across the state.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1), (2), (3)(c)Reducing the portion of anadromous game fish tax going to the Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Account (from ~50% to ~25%) may limit funding for salmon habitat restoration and fisheries management, potentially undermining long-term sustainability of the fishery the communities depend on.
EnvironmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(2)The state general fund loses up to ~50% of landing tax revenue, which could reduce state-level investments in broader public services (e.g., education, healthcare, transportation) that benefit all Washingtonians — though the impact is offset by increased local revenues, the net effect is a reallocation, not a net gain.
FinancialLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(3)(a)While the bill frames benefits for
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 2(3)(c)
Who Is Most Affected
Rural and coastal cities in southwest Washington (e.g., Ilwaco, Nahcotta, Aberdeen, Westport) will see significant increases in local revenue, enabling improved infrastructure and public safety — a direct and positive impact.
Commercial fishers and related businesses benefit indirectly through improved local infrastructure and services, but do not receive direct tax revenue — net positive but modest.
State agencies (e.g., Department of Transportation, Department of Fish and Wildlife) may see reduced state-level funding for broader programs, and local governments outside the target region may not benefit — mixed but neutral overall.
Environmental and conservation groups may be negatively affected due to reduced funding to the Fish, Wildlife, and Conservation Account, potentially limiting salmon habitat and fishery management programs.
Property owners and residents in non-targeted cities may see less state investment in regional services, while those in landing cities benefit from improved local services — net mixed, but positive for targeted communities.