HB 2659
In CommitteeHouse
Commercial shellfish fees
Concerning commercial shellfish fees.
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 prevents the state from raising or adding fees for commercial shellfish operations—including licenses, testing, and export certificates—through June 30, 2027. It locks in current 2025 fee levels to provide stability for shellfish businesses.
- The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) must keep fees for commercial shellfish licenses and services at 2025 levels and cannot raise them.
- Fees covered include: commercial shellfish harvest license, shellstock shipper license, shucker-packer plant license, export certificate, biotoxin testing, and paralytic shellfish poisoning monitoring.
- No new licensing or use fees can be added for commercial shellfishers, shellstock shippers, or shucker-packer plants through June 30, 2027.
- The freeze applies to all fees established as of June 30, 2025.
Who is affected
- Commercial shellfish harvesters — Commercial shellfish harvesters who need a license to legally harvest shellfish for sale; they will not face higher license fees or new fees through June 30, 2027.
- Shellstock shippers — Businesses that ship shellfish (e.g., oysters, clams) from harvesting sites to processors or markets; they are protected from new or increased fees for their shipper licenses.
- Shucker-packer plants — Facilities that clean, shuck, package, and prepare shellfish for sale; they will not pay extra licensing or use fees through June 30, 2027.
- Shellfish exporters — Exporters of Washington shellfish who need certificates to ship products out of state or internationally; their export certificate fees are capped at 2025 levels.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Commercial shellfish harvesters, shippers, and shucker-packer plants—many of whom are small, family-run operations with thin margins—gain predictable operating costs through 2027, reducing financial risk and enabling better budgeting. This stability helps preserve jobs in a labor-intensive, export-dependent sector vulnerable to market volatility and environmental shocks.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)-(2)Small-scale shellfish farmers and independent harvesters (e.g., leaseholders on Puget Sound, tidal flats) benefit disproportionately from fee stability, as they lack the economies of scale to absorb sudden fee increases. This helps prevent displacement by larger operators and supports intergenerational stewardship of shellfish resources.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)-(2)By locking in current biotoxin and PSP monitoring fees, the bill helps maintain baseline public health protections against shellfish contamination—critical for consumers, especially vulnerable populations like children and the elderly. Stable funding supports consistent testing coverage across high-risk areas.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)-(2)Exporters gain predictability in compliance costs, improving Washington’s competitiveness in international markets where price stability is a key factor in buyer contracts. This supports export volume and foreign exchange earnings, benefiting the state’s agricultural export economy.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1(1)-(2)Coastal communities with shellfish-dependent economies (e.g., Grays Harbor, Pacific County, San Juan Islands) benefit from reduced regulatory uncertainty, supporting local employment and small business retention. This stability helps sustain rural economies where few alternatives exist.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 1(1)-(2)
Potential Concerns (5)
The state loses potential revenue by freezing shellfish fees through 2027, reducing funds available for shellfish program operations—including biotoxin testing, habitat monitoring, and enforcement—which could strain state and local resources over time. While the fiscal impact is modest in absolute terms, it reduces flexibility to fund critical public health and resource management activities as costs rise with inflation.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(1)-(2)Freezing biotoxin and paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) monitoring fees may limit the department’s ability to scale up testing capacity in response to emerging algal bloom threats, potentially increasing risk of contaminated shellfish reaching consumers if funding falls short of operational needs. Although current fee levels may suffice for now, inflation-driven cost growth could erode program resilience.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1(1)-(2)If reduced revenue leads to less frequent or less comprehensive monitoring of shellfish beds and harmful algal blooms, long-term ecosystem health and sustainable harvest levels could be compromised. However, the bill does not directly alter monitoring protocols or habitat protections, so this is an indirect and uncertain risk.
EnvironmentRef: Sec. 1(1)-(2)While the freeze provides short-term cost certainty for shellfish businesses, it may discourage investment in long-term infrastructure or innovation if operators anticipate future fee hikes once the freeze expires—especially if the state later seeks to recover lost revenue through steep increases. This uncertainty could dampen capital planning.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1(1)-(2)Local governments that rely on shellfish-related economic activity (e.g., ports, processing towns) may see less tax revenue growth than projected, as fee stability reduces business expansion incentives. However, the effect is likely small given the narrow scope of the freeze and the overall size of the industry.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(1)-(2)
Who Is Most Affected
Small-scale, independent shellfish harvesters and leaseholders—many working at or near subsistence levels—gain significant cost certainty, helping them avoid debt or closure during a period of high input costs and climate-related harvest disruptions.
Large commercial shellfish operations (e.g., multi-lease holders, integrated processors) benefit from fee stability, but they are better positioned than small operators to absorb future increases; the relative benefit is smaller for them, though still positive.
State and local governments lose potential revenue growth, which could constrain future investments in shellfish program staffing, monitoring, or enforcement—especially if inflation outpaces current fee levels.
Consumers benefit indirectly from stable prices and continued access to safe shellfish, as fee stability helps prevent price spikes and supports consistent food safety oversight.
Local governments in shellfish-dependent counties (e.g., Pacific, Grays Harbor) may see modest gains in sales tax revenue and job retention, but they bear some of the cost of reduced state funding for environmental monitoring.