HB 2737
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 sets maximum fees for commercial shellfish operations—including harvesting, shipping, and processing—and for biotoxin testing, to cover regulatory costs. It also clarifies that shellfish licensing fees are exempt from a general rule requiring license programs to be fully self-funded by licensees. The changes apply retroactively to fees assessed on or after February 1, 2026, and take effect immediately upon passage.
- Sets maximum annual license fees for commercial shellfish operations—including harvesters, shellstock shippers, shucker-packers, and wholesalers—based on operation size and type.
- Establishes maximum biotoxin testing fees for companies harvesting intertidal shellfish (excluding geoduck), varying by number of harvest sites and operation type.
- Caps the fee for an export certificate at $75.
- Exempts fees established under chapter 69.30 RCW (shellfish licensing) from the state policy requiring licensing programs to be fully funded by licensees.
- Makes the new fee schedule retroactive to fees assessed on or after February 1, 2026.
- Includes an emergency clause making the law effective immediately upon passage.
Who is affected
- Commercial shellfish harvesters — Commercial shellfish harvesters (e.g., oyster, clam, mussel, geoduck collectors) will pay new or adjusted annual license and biotoxin testing fees, with caps based on harvest site count and operation size.
- Shellstock shippers and wholesalers — Shellstock shippers and wholesalers who transport and sell shellfish (but do not shuck or process) will face updated license fees based on acreage and harvest site count.
- Shucker-packer facilities — Shucker-packer facilities (those that process shellfish by shucking and packing) will pay higher license and biotoxin testing fees, scaled by facility size and number of harvest sites.
- Shellfish exporters — Exporters shipping shellfish out of state will pay a capped fee for required export certificates.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill establishes clear, statutory fee caps that prevent arbitrary or unpredictable fee hikes — providing budget certainty for small harvesters and processors, many of whom operate on thin margins. This predictability helps with long-term planning and reduces risk of sudden fee spikes that could force closures.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a)-(g) and Sec. 2(2)(a)-(k)Capping the export certificate fee at $75 prevents runaway pricing for a regulatory service that is essential for market access; without this cap, exporters could face fees in the hundreds of dollars per certificate, which would reduce competitiveness for Washington shellfish in international markets — especially for small operators who cannot absorb high per-unit compliance costs.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(3)Exempting shellfish licensing fees from the self-funding mandate ensures that biotoxin testing and regulatory oversight remain fully funded regardless of industry revenue cycles — critical for protecting public health, since shellfish toxins (e.g., PSP) can be fatal and require consistent, high-quality monitoring regardless of economic conditions.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(b)Fee caps are tiered by operation size and complexity (e.g., harvester vs. shucker-packer, small vs. large facility), meaning small-scale operators (e.g., a harvester with one site) pay far less than large, capital-intensive operations — a structure that better aligns fees with actual regulatory burden and helps preserve small-scale, family-run operations.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a)-(g)Biotoxin testing fees are tied to operational risk (e.g., number of harvest sites), encouraging safer practices while ensuring that operations with higher risk profiles (more sites = higher contamination risk) contribute proportionally — protecting consumers while not overburdening low-risk, small-scale harvesters.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)-(k)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill caps annual license fees for commercial shellfish operations, but these caps still represent significant increases for many small-scale harvesters and processors compared to current practice — for example, shucker-packer fees could rise from $0–$500 to up to $1,912, and biotoxin testing fees could exceed $3,300 for large operations. These fees are not income-tested or tiered by profitability, placing disproportionate burden on low-revenue operations.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)(a)-(g)Biotoxin testing fees are mandatory for shellfish harvesters and shippers, and the structure penalizes operations with more harvest sites — a common feature for small-to-mid-sized operations trying to diversify or expand sustainably. This may discourage site diversification and increase compliance costs for smaller players who cannot absorb the incremental cost jumps.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(2)(a)-(k)The $75 export certificate cap may seem modest, but for small exporters shipping low-value shellfish (e.g., mussels, clams), this fee can represent 5–10% of per-unit revenue, disproportionately affecting small-volume or marginally profitable exporters.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(3)By exempting shellfish licensing fees from the requirement that licensing programs be fully self-funded, the bill implicitly shifts some regulatory cost burden to the state general fund — meaning all taxpayers (especially lower- and middle-income residents who rely on public health services) may indirectly subsidize shellfish operations, even as those operations pay higher fees.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(b)Retroactive application to fees assessed on or after February 1, 2026 creates administrative complexity for small operators who must reconcile prior-year fees with new caps, potentially requiring accounting adjustments and compliance costs without offsetting benefit.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 4
Who Is Most Affected
Small-scale, family-run harvesters (e.g., single-site oyster or clam collectors) benefit most from the fee caps and risk-based biotoxin fees, as they avoid the highest fee tiers and gain regulatory predictability. However, they still face new or increased costs relative to current practice, especially if they operate multiple sites.
Larger shucker-packer facilities face the highest absolute fee increases (up to $3,304 for biotoxin testing), but gain certainty and may benefit from more stable regulatory enforcement. However, these operations are more likely to be corporate-owned or part of regional cooperatives, meaning net economic benefits may accrue to owners rather than frontline workers.
Exporters benefit from the $75 cap on export certificates, which prevents unpredictable price spikes and supports market access — especially important for small exporters who cannot absorb high per-unit fees. However, they still face new or increased licensing and testing costs depending on operation size.
The state Department of Health gains statutory authority to set fees that cover regulatory costs, improving program sustainability. However, the exemption from full self-funding means general fund support may be needed during low-revenue years — a fiscal risk for the state but a stability benefit for consumers.
Consumers benefit indirectly from more reliable biotoxin monitoring and reduced risk of PSP outbreaks, but may face slightly higher shellfish prices if operators pass on costs — though the caps limit this risk. Overall, public health protection outweighs minor price effects.