SB 5996
In CommitteeSenate
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 Washington Department of Agriculture from raising current fees for commercial shellfish licenses and services, and bars new fees through June 30, 2027. It applies to harvesters, shippers, processing plants, and exporters.
- Freezes current fees for commercial shellfish harvest licenses, shellstock shipper licenses, shucker-packer plant licenses, export certificates, biotoxin testing, and paralytic shellfish poisoning monitoring at levels in place on June 30, 2025.
- Prohibits the Department of Agriculture from adding any new licensing or use fees for commercial shellfishers, shellstock shippers, and shucker-packer plants through June 30, 2027.
- Applies to all commercial shellfish operations regulated under chapter 69.30 RCW.
Who is affected
- Commercial shellfish harvesters — Commercial shellfish harvesters who must pay a license fee to legally harvest shellfish for sale; this bill prevents any increase in that fee through June 30, 2027.
- Shellstock shippers — Businesses that ship shellfish (like oysters or clams) in bulk; this bill freezes their license fee and blocks new fees through June 30, 2027.
- Shucker-packer plant operators — Facilities that clean, shuck, pack, and prepare shellfish for sale; this bill prevents fee increases and new licensing or use fees for them through June 30, 2027.
- Shellfish exporters — Exporters of Washington shellfish who need an export certificate and biotoxin testing; this bill locks current fees for those services through June 30, 2027.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
The fee freeze directly reduces operating costs for commercial shellfish harvesters, shippers, and processors—many of whom are small, family-run operations with thin margins—improving short-term cash flow and price stability in a volatile export market.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 1(2)By maintaining current biotoxin and PSP monitoring fees, the bill preserves baseline funding for critical food safety programs that protect consumers from deadly shellfish poisoning, especially important as climate change increases algal bloom frequency in Puget Sound.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(e)-(f)The freeze helps small-to-mid-sized shellfish businesses plan budgets more reliably over the 2025–2027 window, reducing regulatory uncertainty and supporting investment in equipment, labor, and sustainability upgrades (e.g., habitat restoration, hatchery partnerships).
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a)-(d)Exporters and shippers benefit from stable certification and testing costs, improving predictability for international contracts and reducing price volatility in export markets (e.g., China, Southeast Asia), which rely heavily on Washington shellfish.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(d)-(f)Stable funding for biotoxin and PSP monitoring helps maintain compliance with federal (FDA) and international food safety standards, supporting market access and incentivizing industry adherence to sustainable harvesting practices enforced by the Department.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 1(1)(a)-(f)
Potential Concerns (5)
The bill reduces state revenue by preventing fee increases for shellfish-related services through June 30, 2027, potentially constraining the Department of Agriculture’s ability to fund shellfish program operations—including biotoxin monitoring, habitat assessments, and enforcement—without alternative funding sources.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(1), Sec. 1(2)By prohibiting *new* licensing or use fees through 2027, the bill limits the Department’s flexibility to respond to rising operational costs (e.g., increased labor, equipment, or lab expenses) or emerging threats (e.g., new pathogens, climate-driven biotoxin shifts), potentially degrading program effectiveness over time.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(2)Freezing biotoxin and paralytic shellfish poisoning (PSP) monitoring fees may constrain the Department’s capacity to expand or modernize monitoring infrastructure, potentially increasing risk of delayed or incomplete toxin detection during harmful algal bloom events, which threaten public health.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 1(1)(e)-(f)While the freeze benefits existing licensed operators, it may disincentivize new entrants or small-scale startups if the Department reduces service levels (e.g., fewer inspections, slower permitting) due to budget constraints, indirectly limiting market access and job creation.
Business & EmploymentRef: Sec. 1(1)(a)-(f)The 2027 sunset creates uncertainty for long-term planning; if no further action is taken, the Department may face a sudden revenue gap and be forced to raise fees sharply in 2028, potentially causing a disruptive spike for operators.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 1(2)
Who Is Most Affected
Small, family-run shellfish harvesters and processors—often operating with annual revenues under $500,000—gain direct cost savings and planning certainty, improving short-term viability in a competitive export market.
Large shellfish exporters and integrated aquaculture firms benefit proportionally more from fee stability due to higher volume, but their margins are thicker; net benefit is modestly positive but less impactful per dollar than for small operators.
The Department of Agriculture loses projected revenue, constraining program expansion or modernization; staff may face increased workloads without corresponding compensation, potentially degrading service delivery over time.
Consumers face no direct cost change, but long-term underfunding could erode monitoring capacity, increasing rare but severe public health risks during harmful algal blooms.
Local governments (e.g., county health departments, port authorities) that partner with WSDA on shellfish safety and habitat programs may face indirect strain if state-level monitoring weakens, requiring local补位 resources.