HB 2170
In CommitteeHouse
Ecosystem services
Expanding revenue generation and economic opportunities from natural climate solutions and ecosystem services.
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 authorizes the Washington Department of Natural Resources to sell ecosystem service credits—including carbon credits—on state-owned lands and waters to generate new revenue for public trust beneficiaries and conservation programs. It establishes a legal framework for carbon offset and other ecosystem service projects, aligning state authority with existing private-sector practices, and updates revenue distribution rules to include these new income sources.
- Creates a new chapter (Chapter 79.--- RCW) authorizing the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to generate revenue by selling ecosystem service credits—including carbon credits—on state-owned lands and waters.
- Expands DNR’s authority to enter into long-term contracts (up to 125 years) with third-party developers or brokers to design, market, and sell ecosystem service credits in compliance or voluntary markets.
- Requires Board of Natural Resources approval of minimum payment levels for ecosystem service credits before sale, while allowing DNR to set final sale prices based on current market conditions.
- Amends existing revenue distribution laws to include proceeds from ecosystem service sales: for forestlands, revenues follow existing school trust and county distribution rules; for aquatic lands, revenues go to the aquatic lands enhancement account for salmon habitat and water quality projects.
- Clarifies that ecosystem services (e.g., carbon sequestration, water filtration, storm mitigation) are a new type of 'valuable material' that can be sold or leased on state forestlands, alongside traditional timber and mineral resources.
Who is affected
- Trust beneficiaries (e.g., public schools, universities) — The state's school trust and other public trust beneficiaries (e.g., universities, agricultural colleges) benefit from new revenue streams generated by ecosystem services projects on state-owned lands and waters, which supplement traditional resource extraction revenues.
- State and local governments — State and local governments gain new funding opportunities through carbon and ecosystem service credits, with revenues supporting county budgets and state programs like the aquatic lands enhancement account.
- Private ecosystem service project developers and brokers — Private ecosystem service project developers and brokers gain new business opportunities to partner with the state to design, market, and sell ecosystem service credits on compliance or voluntary markets.
- Private landowners — Private landowners gain a competitive advantage in carbon markets, as the state gains equivalent authority to participate—potentially leveling the playing field and increasing overall market activity in Washington.
- Aquatic ecosystems and salmon populations — Aquatic ecosystems and salmon habitat benefit indirectly through increased funding to the aquatic lands enhancement account, which supports habitat restoration, shellfish programs, and ocean acidification research.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill creates a new, dedicated revenue stream from ecosystem service sales that directly supplements school trust and county distributions — with no upfront taxpayer cost — and explicitly ties aquatic land revenues to salmon habitat and climate resilience projects that benefit all Washingtonians.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 6(a)(ii), (b)(ii); Sec. 7; Sec. 8By authorizing kelp and eelgrass restoration on aquatic lands and directing proceeds to the aquatic lands enhancement account, the bill enables scalable, nature-based climate mitigation and adaptation (e.g., carbon sequestration, storm buffering, water quality improvement) with measurable public benefit.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1); Sec. 8Formally recognizing ecosystem services (e.g., stormwater management, fire mitigation, temperature regulation) as a tradable resource encourages land management practices that reduce wildfire risk, flood damage, and heat-related health hazards — especially in fire-prone or floodplain communities.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(7); Sec. 3(1); Sec. 5(16)(c)The bill creates new opportunities for Washington-based ecosystem service project developers and brokers — particularly small-to-mid-sized firms with local ecological expertise — to enter compliance and voluntary carbon markets, potentially generating green-collar jobs in rural and urban areas alike.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(3)(a); Sec. 4(2)By granting DNR authority equivalent to private landowners, the bill levels the playing field for Washington-based carbon project developers — potentially increasing domestic project volume and reducing carbon leakage to out-of-state or foreign lands.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(4); Sec. 2(6)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill authorizes long-term (up to 125-year) contracts with private ecosystem service project developers and brokers, potentially locking in state land use decisions for generations and giving private firms significant control over public land management without proportional accountability or revenue-sharing beyond transaction fees.
Business & EmploymentIndustryRef: Sec. 3(1); Sec. 4(2)The requirement that the Board of Natural Resources approve only a *minimum* payment (not a fixed or maximum price) for credits — while allowing DNR to set final sale prices based on volatile market conditions — exposes public trust assets to speculative market fluctuations and concentrated private profit-taking during high-demand periods, with minimal price safeguards for the state.
Business & EmploymentIndustryRef: Sec. 3(3)(b); Sec. 4(1)The bill’s broad definition of “ecosystem services” and lack of explicit environmental safeguards (e.g., no requirement for additionality, permanence, or leakage mitigation beyond federal carbon market standards) could incentivize low-integrity projects that overstate climate benefits or displace existing land uses without net environmental gain.
EnvironmentIndustryRef: Sec. 3(1); Sec. 9 (new Chapter 79.--- RCW)While counties receive revenue from forestland ecosystem service sales, the bill does not guarantee that local governments will have input into project siting or design — potentially leading to conflicts when ecosystem service projects (e.g., restricted access for recreation or timber) reduce local economic activity or tax base in rural counties.
Local GovernmentLean industryRef: Sec. 3(3)(b); Sec. 4(1)By prioritizing ecosystem service revenue alongside timber, the bill may increase pressure to maintain or expand forested state lands in areas where housing or infrastructure development could otherwise occur — indirectly limiting land availability for affordable housing or community expansion in high-demand regions.
HousingLean industryRef: Sec. 6(b)(ii); Sec. 7
Who Is Most Affected
Public schools and universities benefit from new, dedicated revenue streams tied to state trust lands, strengthening long-term funding stability without raising taxes.
Private ecosystem service project developers — especially those with existing carbon market expertise — gain a new public-sector client, but the 125-year contract terms and lack of price caps may disproportionately benefit larger, well-capitalized firms over small local operators.
Rural counties with large state forest holdings (e.g., Pacific Northwest, Eastern WA) may see increased revenue, but those with limited capacity to engage in carbon project development or monitoring may fall behind, exacerbating regional inequities.
Aquatic ecosystems benefit from increased funding for salmon habitat and ocean acidification research, but the bill does not require measurable ecological outcomes — only project initiation — raising concerns about long-term ecological integrity.
Private landowners gain parity with the state in carbon market participation, potentially increasing overall market activity — but the bill does not include provisions to ensure equitable access for small or underserved landowners.