SB 6322
In CommitteeSenate
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 due to confirmed nitrate contamination of groundwater threatening drinking water supplies in the Fords Prairie area. It requires state agencies to identify a safer site, assess environmental risks, develop a relocation and remediation plan, and complete the move within 36 months.
- Requires the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (in coordination with the Department of Enterprise Services) to relocate the Bob Oke game farm from its current site in Lewis County near Centralia due to nitrate contamination risks to drinking water supplies.
- Mandates a hydrogeologic and land-use assessment of candidate sites to ensure the new location does not pose a material risk to public water systems or residential wells.
- Requires the departments to submit a joint relocation report to the governor and legislature by December 31, 2026, including a preferred site, transition plan, and cost estimates.
- Sets a deadline of 36 months after effective date (May 2, 2026) to complete relocation—unless extended by law—and requires immediate mitigation steps (e.g., reducing bird populations, expanding manure collection) during the transition.
- Requires development and implementation of a remediation plan for the current site, including groundwater monitoring, soil treatment, infrastructure decommissioning, and identification of future compatible uses.
- Authorizes the Department of Enterprise Services to acquire or lease land for the new site and allows the department to seek grants or cooperative agreements to fund relocation and cleanup.
Who is affected
- Private well users in Fords Prairie area — Residents and businesses in the Fords Prairie area who rely on private wells for drinking water, as the farm's current location risks contaminating their water with nitrates.
- Municipal water utilities — Municipal water suppliers (e.g., City of Centralia) that draw from the same aquifer and must ensure safe drinking water for their customers.
- Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife — The department must relocate operations, manage site remediation, and coordinate with other agencies—requiring planning, staffing, and budget adjustments.
- Washington Department of Enterprise Services — The department must support site identification, acquisition, and leasing for the new facility, and help coordinate environmental assessments.
- Local governments, tribes, and conservation districts — Local governments, tribes, and conservation districts that are consulted during site selection and may be affected by land use changes or infrastructure needs.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (4)
The bill directly protects drinking water quality for thousands of residents in the Fords Prairie area who rely on private wells and municipal supplies, reducing the risk of nitrate contamination that can cause serious health issues—including blue baby syndrome in infants—and long-term public health costs.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 1 (findings), Sec. 2(3), Sec. 4(3)The remediation plan and site transition will reduce ongoing nitrate loading to a sensitive aquifer, protecting long-term groundwater health and supporting ecosystem resilience—benefiting agricultural and natural systems downstream that depend on clean water.
EnvironmentPeopleRef: Sec. 5(2)(e), Sec. 1 (findings)The requirement to consult with local governments, tribes, and conservation districts ensures community input in site selection and remediation planning, strengthening local agency capacity and trust in state decision-making.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 3(2)(d), Sec. 1 (findings)The authorization to seek grants and cooperative agreements opens opportunities for federal or nonprofit funding that could offset state costs and potentially support local contractors, environmental consultants, or restoration firms during remediation and relocation phases.
Business & EmploymentPeopleRef: Sec. 6(2)
Potential Concerns (3)
The bill mandates that site assessments and evaluations be funded only from existing department budgets, potentially diverting resources from other wildlife management or conservation priorities without providing new funding, which could strain agency operations and delay other critical work.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 3(3)The 36-month relocation deadline may create short-term operational instability, including reduced staffing, uncertainty for seasonal workers employed at the farm, and potential service disruptions in wildlife management and public pheasant hunting programs—though the bill allows limited continuity, the transition period may reduce employment stability for local seasonal workers.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 4(2)The bill requires capital budget requests to be submitted to specific legislators representing the farm’s district, which could create inequitable budget prioritization if other regions with greater public water risks are deprioritized due to political considerations rather than objective need.
Local GovernmentRef: Sec. 6(3)
Who Is Most Affected
Private well users in Fords Prairie face immediate health risks from nitrate contamination; this bill directly reduces those risks by removing the source and initiating remediation—positive impact.
Municipal water utilities (e.g., City of Centralia) benefit from reduced contamination risk and lower future treatment costs, but may face temporary monitoring or reporting burdens during transition—net positive impact.
WDFW faces significant operational disruption, staffing adjustments, and budget uncertainty, but gains long-term environmental compliance and reputational credibility—mixed impact.
DES gains new responsibilities in site acquisition and leasing but avoids long-term liability for contamination; may expand its real estate portfolio—net positive for agency capacity, though constrained by existing budget rules.
Local governments and tribes gain formal consultation rights and influence over land-use decisions, but may face costs for local infrastructure or emergency response planning—net positive if engaged early.