SHB 2668
In CommitteeHouse
Bob Oke game farm relocation
Directing the relocation of the Bob Oke game farm.
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 orders the relocation of the Bob Oke game farm—a pheasant facility near Centralia—due to evidence that bird manure is contaminating the local aquifer that supplies drinking water to residents and municipalities. It requires state agencies to find a safer location, complete the move within three years, and clean up the current site to protect public water supplies.
- Requires the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), working with the Department of Enterprise Services, to relocate the Bob Oke game farm (a pheasant rearing facility in Lewis County) to a new site that does not pose a risk to drinking water supplies.
- Mandates a hydrogeologic assessment of candidate sites to evaluate risks to groundwater, surface water, and public water systems, and requires consultation with local governments, tribes, and water utilities.
- Sets a deadline of December 31, 2026, for the departments to submit a joint relocation report to the governor and legislature, including a preferred site, transition plan, and cost estimates.
- Requires the relocation to be completed within 36 months of the bill’s effective date (March 8, 2026), with interim actions to reduce nutrient loading at the current site during the transition.
- Requires development and implementation of a remediation plan for the current site, including groundwater/soil monitoring, prevention of further contamination, and identification of future land uses compatible with water protection.
- Authorizes the Department of Enterprise Services to acquire or lease land for the new site and allows the departments to seek grants or cooperative agreements to fund relocation and cleanup.
Who is affected
- Private well users in the Fords Prairie area — Residents and businesses in the Fords Prairie area who rely on private wells for drinking water; they face reduced risk of nitrate contamination after relocation.
- Municipal water utilities — Municipal water suppliers (e.g., City of Centralia) and their customers, who benefit from improved protection of the underlying aquifer that supplies public drinking water.
- Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife — The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), which must relocate operations, manage transition, and implement site remediation.
- Washington Department of Enterprise Services — The Washington Department of Enterprise Services, which helps identify and acquire new property for the relocated facility.
- Local governments, tribes, and conservation districts — Local governments, tribes, and conservation districts in Lewis County, which are consulted during site selection and may be affected by land-use changes.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill directly addresses a confirmed source of nitrate contamination in the Fords Prairie aquifer—protecting both private well users and municipal water supplies (e.g., Centralia) from unsafe drinking water levels, thereby preventing potential public health harms like blue baby syndrome and long-term chronic illness.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1 (Findings), Sec. 4(1), Sec. 5(1)Mandating hydrogeologic assessments that evaluate proximity to public water systems, wellhead protection areas, and critical aquifer recharge areas ensures the new site will not replicate the same contamination risks—protecting long-term groundwater sustainability.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(b), Sec. 3(2)(c)Requiring consultation with local governments, tribes, water utilities, and conservation districts ensures community input and local knowledge inform site selection—strengthening trust and reducing future conflicts over land use and water protection.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(d), Sec. 1 (Findings)The remediation plan must identify future land uses compatible with water protection—potentially enabling safer residential or agricultural reuse of the current site after cleanup, improving long-term land-value stability for nearby homeowners.
HousingPeopleRef: Sec. 5(2)(e)Allowing the departments to seek grants and cooperative agreements provides flexibility to offset costs—though not guaranteed, this opens the door to federal or nonprofit funding that could reduce the burden on state taxpayers.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 6(2)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill prohibits the use of new appropriations for site assessments and evaluations, forcing departments to rely solely on existing budgets—potentially diverting funds from other wildlife management functions and straining local agency resources during a complex, time-sensitive relocation.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(3)The 36-month relocation deadline may disrupt existing contracts with local vendors, contractors, and seasonal workers who support the game farm’s operations—particularly affecting small businesses and low-wage seasonal workers in rural Lewis County who lack alternative employment options in the immediate area.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 4(2)The bill requires cost estimates but explicitly excludes new appropriations for assessments, creating uncertainty about whether future capital and operating costs will be fully funded—risking underfunded remediation or incomplete relocation if future legislatures do not appropriate needed funds.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(e)Interim actions to reduce nutrient loading (e.g., bird population reductions, manure off-site disposal) may be logistically challenging and could temporarily increase risks if not fully effective—potentially delaying water quality improvements during the transition period.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(3)The six-month reporting requirement for remediation status provides oversight but does not mandate specific cleanup milestones or enforceable performance standards—leaving long-term site restoration vulnerable to delays or insufficient oversight.
EnvironmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 5(3)
Who Is Most Affected
Private well users in Fords Prairie face reduced risk of nitrate-related health issues (e.g., methemoglobinemia), especially vulnerable populations like infants and pregnant people. However, they may face temporary inconvenience or monitoring requirements during site transition.
Municipal water utilities (e.g., City of Centralia) benefit from reduced long-term treatment costs and improved water quality reliability, but may face short-term monitoring or reporting obligations during site transition.
WDFW must absorb significant operational and administrative costs, reassign staff, and manage complex logistics—potentially diverting resources from other wildlife programs. However, it gains regulatory credibility and avoids future liability from continued contamination.
Local contractors, equipment vendors, and seasonal laborers who currently support the game farm may lose contracts or jobs over the 36-month transition, especially in a rural county with limited alternative employment—though some may be retained for site decommissioning or new-site construction.
Lewis County and local tribes gain stronger leverage in future environmental oversight and may benefit from improved data on aquifer health, but may also face increased regulatory scrutiny or land-use restrictions on adjacent properties.