SSB 5804
In CommitteeSenate
Fish habitat restoration
Concerning fish habitat restoration in response to the federal court injunction and supported by changes to the state tax structure and authorization of bonds.
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 creates a new tax on light and power utilities to fund salmon and steelhead habitat restoration projects required by a federal court order addressing road culverts that block fish passage. It authorizes up to $5 billion in bonds, repaid solely from the new tax, to cover estimated restoration costs that exceed current state budgets. The tax is structured to avoid passing direct costs to consumers, and all funds are legally dedicated to fish habitat work under the *United States v. Washington* injunction.
- Imposes a new 2.011% tax on gross income of light and power utilities in Washington, with revenue dedicated exclusively to salmon and steelhead habitat restoration.
- Creates the 'federal injunction salmon habitat restoration account' to hold tax revenue and bond proceeds, and the 'federal injunction salmon habitat bond retirement account' to pay bond debt.
- Authorizes up to $5 billion in special tax obligation bonds, repaid solely from the new utility tax revenue and secured only by that revenue—not by the state’s full faith and credit.
- Establishes the 'federal injunction salmon habitat account' to fund fish passage barrier removal and habitat restoration projects identified in response to the *United States v. Washington* federal court injunction.
- Amends the public works assistance account to allow use of funds for evaluating costs of relocating utilities during fish barrier removal and for developing a data dashboard to track infrastructure investments.
- Sets a 15-year bond issuance window, with all debt required to be retired by December 31, 2075, and includes a contingent expiration clause if the state supreme court rules the bond structure unconstitutional.
Who is affected
- Light and power utilities — Light and power utilities (e.g., Puget Sound Energy, Seattle City Light) will pay a new tax of 2.011% on gross income, which is dedicated to salmon habitat restoration. The bill states this tax will not result in additional cost to ratepayers, as utilities may recover it as a cost of doing business.
- Local governments — Local governments (counties, cities, and special districts) may receive funding through the public works assistance account for infrastructure projects, including fish barrier removal and habitat restoration work.
- Wildlife and fish populations (especially salmon and steelhead) — Salmon and steelhead populations benefit indirectly through improved habitat and passage, as the bill’s funding supports projects required by a federal court order to fix road culverts and other barriers blocking fish migration.
- General public / ratepayers — Taxpayers are not directly charged the new tax, but may be indirectly affected if utilities pass on costs to customers—though the bill explicitly states the tax is structured to avoid adding direct costs to consumers.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The bill directly addresses a legally mandated obligation to restore salmon and steelhead habitat by funding barrier removal and habitat projects required under the *United States v. Washington* federal injunction. This is critical for ecological recovery, tribal treaty rights, and long-term ecosystem resilience—benefiting all Washingtonians through improved water quality, biodiversity, and climate adaptation.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1; Sec. 11(2); Sec. 3(2)The bill authorizes use of the public works assistance account to evaluate costs of relocating utilities during fish barrier removal and to develop a data dashboard for infrastructure tracking—supporting more efficient, coordinated local projects and reducing duplication or delays in public works planning.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 6 (amending RCW 43.155.050); Sec. 11(3)The bill establishes a dedicated revenue stream (the utility tax) to repay bond debt, reducing reliance on general fund appropriations and enhancing fiscal predictability for long-term habitat projects. This dedicated funding mechanism may improve project planning and execution timelines.
FinancialPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2); Sec. 7(3)-(4); Sec. 12Restoring salmon habitat improves watershed health, which supports cleaner water supplies, reduces erosion and sedimentation risks, and strengthens resilience to climate-driven droughts and floods—indirectly benefiting public health and infrastructure safety across the state.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1; Sec. 11(2)Fulfilling the state’s legal obligation under *United States v. Washington* supports tribal treaty rights and cultural survival—particularly for Coastal and Puget Sound tribes whose subsistence, ceremonial, and economic practices depend on healthy salmon runs. This addresses a decades-long federal court mandate and advances environmental justice.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 1; Sec. 14
Potential Concerns (5)
The 2.011% tax on gross income of light and power utilities could increase utility operating costs, potentially reducing capital investment and slowing grid modernization or renewable energy expansion—especially if utilities reduce non-ratepayer investments to offset the tax burden. While the bill states the tax will not be passed to consumers, utilities may reduce non-core investments or delay infrastructure upgrades, indirectly affecting long-term reliability and clean energy goals.
Business & EmploymentLean industryRef: Sec. 3(1); Sec. 8(1); Sec. 10The bond structure is non-general-obligation and secured solely by the utility tax—meaning if the tax revenue falls short (e.g., due to utility consolidation, rate reductions, or economic downturn), bondholders have no claim on state general funds. This creates fiscal risk for bondholders (mostly institutional investors) and could trigger contingent budget reallocations if the state is forced to step in to avoid default, potentially diverting funds from other public priorities.
Local GovernmentIndustryRef: Sec. 8(1); Sec. 10; Sec. 14The bill’s strict dedication of funds to salmon/steelhead habitat under the *United States v. Washington* injunction may limit flexibility in responding to emergent public safety threats (e.g., wildfire risk from degraded watersheds, drinking water contamination from degraded streams). While salmon recovery is ecologically important, rigid fund earmarking reduces the state’s ability to reallocate resources during competing emergencies.
Public SafetyIndustryRef: Sec. 3(2); Sec. 7(2); Sec. 11(2)The $5 billion in special tax obligation bonds—backed only by utility tax revenue and not the state’s full faith and credit—may increase borrowing costs for the state due to higher perceived risk, especially if credit rating agencies treat this as a quasi-off-balance-sheet liability. This could raise interest payments on future state debt and potentially impact the state’s credit rating, increasing costs for other public infrastructure projects.
FinancialIndustryRef: Sec. 8(1); Sec. 10; Sec. 14While the public works assistance account gains flexibility to fund utility relocation and data dashboards, the bill does not guarantee new funding—only repurposes existing or future capital budget appropriations. Local governments may benefit only if the legislature appropriates additional funds, which is not assured, especially given the $5 billion bond issuance may crowd out other capital investments.
Local GovernmentLean industryRef: Sec. 6 (amending RCW 43.155.050); Sec. 11(3)
Who Is Most Affected
Tribal nations with treaty-reserved fishing rights are primary beneficiaries: the bill directly addresses a federal court order enforcing the state’s duty to remove fish passage barriers. Successful habitat restoration supports cultural survival, food sovereignty, and economic opportunities tied to salmon recovery.
Light and power utilities (e.g., Puget Sound Energy, Seattle City Light) will bear the 2.011% tax on gross income. While the bill states this will not be passed to ratepayers, utilities may absorb reduced margins, delay non-ratepayer investments, or adjust capital planning—potentially affecting long-term service quality and grid modernization.
Local governments (counties, cities, special districts) may benefit from expanded eligibility for public works assistance—including funding for utility relocation and infrastructure data tracking—but only if the legislature appropriates new funds, which is not guaranteed amid a $5B bond issuance that may crowd out other capital budgets.
General ratepayers are not directly taxed, and the bill explicitly states the tax is structured to avoid passing costs to consumers. However, if utilities reduce non-ratepayer investments (e.g., grid hardening, renewable integration), long-term reliability and clean energy progress could suffer—indirectly affecting households.
Institutional bondholders (e.g., pension funds, banks) will hold non-general-obligation bonds secured only by utility tax revenue. While the bond structure offers legal protections, the lack of full faith-and-credit backing increases risk—especially if utility revenues decline due to conservation, electrification, or market shifts.