SB 5999
In CommitteeSenate
Ecosystem services
Expanding revenue generation and economic opportunities from natural climate solutions and ecosystem services.
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 authorizes the Washington Department of Natural Resources to generate revenue by selling ecosystem services—such as carbon sequestration, water filtration, and habitat creation—on state-owned lands and waters, including through carbon offset projects. It establishes a legal framework for these transactions, updates revenue distribution rules, and aims to benefit trust beneficiaries and aquatic conservation efforts.
- Creates a new chapter (Chapter 79.--- RCW) authorizing the Department of Natural Resources to enter contracts for ecosystem service projects—including carbon offset projects—on state-owned lands and waters.
- Defines key terms such as 'carbon credit,' 'ecosystem service credit,' 'ecosystem service project developer,' and 'payment for ecosystem service project' to support market-based ecosystem services.
- Allows the Department to sell ecosystem service credits directly or through third-party developers or brokers, with contracts up to 125 years in length, and requires board approval of minimum payment levels.
- Amends existing revenue distribution laws to include proceeds from ecosystem service sales in the funds distributed to counties and the state general fund (for forestlands) and to the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (for aquatic lands).
- Expands the definition of 'valuable materials' to explicitly include ecosystem services, enabling their sale alongside traditional resources like timber.
Who is affected
- Trust beneficiaries (e.g., public schools, universities) — The state's school, university, and other trust funds benefit from increased revenue generated by ecosystem service projects on state-managed lands and waters, which supports public education and other trust purposes.
- State and local governments — State agencies like the Department of Natural Resources gain new authority to manage and monetize ecosystem services on state lands and waters, while county governments receive increased revenue distributions from ecosystem service sales on state forestlands.
- Ecosystem service project developers and brokers — Private companies and organizations that develop, broker, or purchase ecosystem service credits (e.g., carbon offset developers, environmental consultancies) gain new business opportunities working with state lands.
- Aquatic and terrestrial wildlife — Native salmon and other aquatic species benefit indirectly through increased funding to the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account for habitat restoration, kelp and eelgrass projects, and related conservation efforts.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Revenue from ecosystem service sales on state lands will be distributed to counties and the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account, directly supporting local government budgets and funding habitat restoration—benefiting communities that rely on state land revenue and aquatic ecosystems.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 6(1)(a)(ii); Sec. 79.105.150Proceeds from ecosystem service sales on school-land trust properties are dedicated to public schools via the state general fund, directly increasing per-pupil funding—this benefits students and public education systems across Washington, especially in under-resourced districts.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 6(1)(b)(ii); Sec. 79.02.010(16)Funding from aquatic ecosystem service projects (e.g., kelp, eelgrass restoration) flows to the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account, supporting salmon habitat recovery, ocean acidification research, and water quality projects—benefiting fisheries-dependent communities and future generations.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 79.105.150(1); Sec. 3(1)The bill creates new market opportunities for ecosystem service project developers and brokers—including small environmental consultancies—by enabling state-led participation in carbon and ecosystem service markets, potentially generating green jobs in technical and field-based roles.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(1); Sec. 9Revenue from ecosystem service projects can support forest health treatments (e.g., thinning, prescribed fire), reducing wildfire risk to communities—especially in the WUI—though this benefit is indirect and contingent on board discretion to allocate funds.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(1); Sec. 6(1)(a)(i)
Potential Concerns (5)
Long-term contracts (up to 125 years) for ecosystem service projects may lock in land-use restrictions that reduce future flexibility for emergency response, wildfire mitigation, or infrastructure development on state lands, especially as climate risks intensify.
Public SafetyRef: Sec. 3(1); Sec. 4The requirement for board approval of minimum payment levels and contract terms creates administrative barriers that disproportionately favor large, well-resourced ecosystem service project developers and brokers over small firms and Indigenous-led enterprises that lack legal or financial capacity to navigate complex bidding processes.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(3)(b); Sec. 4While counties receive revenue from ecosystem service sales, administrative costs (up to 27% for forestlands) are deducted first, reducing net distributions—this disproportionately affects smaller, less-resourced counties with fewer alternative revenue sources.
Local GovernmentLean peopleRef: Sec. 3(1); Sec. 6(1)(a)(i)Revenue increases from ecosystem service sales are not explicitly tied to affordable housing or community development, and existing statutory distribution formulas prioritize school funding and general county expenses—meaning low-income communities may see little direct benefit despite broader public funding gains.
HousingRef: Sec. 3(1); Sec. 6(1)(a)(ii)The 125-year contract term and lack of explicit performance or termination clauses for ecological harm (e.g., monoculture planting for carbon sequestration) could incentivize short-term revenue over long-term ecosystem resilience, potentially undermining biodiversity goals.
EnvironmentRef: Sec. 3(3)(b); Sec. 9
Who Is Most Affected
Public schools and universities benefit significantly from increased trust fund revenue generated by ecosystem service sales on school- and university-owned lands, directly supporting per-pupil funding and institutional budgets.
County governments—especially smaller ones—receive direct revenue distributions, but administrative cost deductions reduce net gains; overall, counties benefit modestly, though rural counties with fewer alternative revenue sources may see meaningful improvements.
Large carbon offset developers and financial intermediaries are best positioned to navigate the board’s approval process and long-term contracting requirements; small firms and Indigenous-led enterprises face higher barriers to entry.
Aquatic species (e.g., salmon, kelp-dependent organisms) benefit from increased funding for habitat restoration and water quality projects, though outcomes depend on project design and long-term monitoring.
Low-income and rural communities may benefit indirectly through increased local government revenue and school funding, but lack direct access to new green jobs unless targeted outreach and contracting requirements are implemented.