[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6392817,"mediaKeyId","2109055-59d62e588f59cfa47caff831715a7f6c","parentId",2109055,"title","Bill would give Ecology greater role in landfill permits and penalties","audioSeconds",1024,"startMs",3040000,"endMs",4064000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2109055-59d62e588f59cfa47caff831715a7f6c&start=3040&end=4064","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2109055-59d62e588f59cfa47caff831715a7f6c/thumbnail_3040000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6392817/Washington/Bill-would-give-Ecology-greater-role-in-landfill-permits-and-penalties","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6392817-ffd7f0db61a8b2ec1a1dabb54142ec9d/orig.mp4?Expires=1771007075&Signature=AIyUOM4k708Rwap3M4oFRYzT~YrYg35lgQqmxShD1-HymU7PLCDs2NirGf57TqAL0rWrWhTV7uP8JoTXFVWmiiNOoe3ERwCjcDtMZH~b8rD-9E2QZtqmr-FiMlisAxUqN-D~5HPVcMxePYZ91T37uTY6iK1NAYsaLU93EK9YslZ51ODZIteOrs~X3TUChLuvCw-Hf7JeIzfMFgj-yXMixQvH6YrNoW27hxc2EAc38OnJe0QaZzVMwdv1Eq3iDw8rjx2lbco4w2xIaYDHR7RIoAaEw9Wl1rCFtzNigTPHzktJ443oFUrTJHK40lu6BSn6~m3WhOjJ5eZaw9OmTon77w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","House Environment & Energy","date","2025-01-13T00:00:00Z","article","House Bill 1154, presented by Representative Doerr to the Environment & Energy Committee, would change how permits and enforcement for landfills and other solid-waste handling facilities are coordinated between jurisdictional health departments and the Washington Department of Ecology.

Under current practice, local jurisdictional health departments (JHDs) issue permits for solid-waste facilities and Ecology may review and, in some cases, appeal permit issuance to the Pollution Control Hearings Board. HB 1154 would require Ecology to review and approve every landfill permit or renewal before the JHD could issue or renew it. The bill also would authorize Ecology to require JHDs to amend proposed landfill permits to ensure they conform to applicable laws and rules, allow Ecology to suspend a permit or facility that is operating in violation of permit or state solid-waste regulations, and permit both JHDs and Ecology to impose civil penalties of up to $10,000 per day for violations. The bill creates an appeal path to the Pollution Control Hearings Board and requires each JHD, starting Jan. 1, 2026 and every five years thereafter, to provide Ecology with a list of violations for facilities operating in their jurisdictions.

Representative Doerr said the bill grew from constituent reports of noncompliance and operational problems at several landfills; she told the committee there are landfills in Yakima that have been \"on fire\" for over a year and framed the bill as clarifying permitting authority and adding enforcement tools. “We have quite a few landfills that are out of compliance. There are a couple actually in Yakima that are on fire and have been for over a year,” Doerr said.

Local residents and community groups testified in support of the bill on grounds that stronger oversight and penalties would accelerate compliance at problem facilities. Nancy Lust, representing Friends of Rocky Top in Yakima County, described years of difficulty getting a local facility to address litter, odor and groundwater monitoring and argued that earlier Ecology oversight or penalty authority could have sped compliance. “A landfill that is following the regulations shouldn't have any fines,” Lust said.

Department of Ecology program manager Peter Lyon testified that Ecology supports the policy in principle and that the measure would provide a useful tool for supporting local health departments as they enforce facility compliance; he asked for a technical date correction submitted to the committee record. Jamie Bodden of the State Association of Local Public Health Officials said local health jurisdictions welcome strengthened oversight but asked for clarified coordination if both Ecology and JHDs are given penalty authority, expressed concern about shifting appeals away from local processes and recommended tightening language on required data submissions.

Representatives of the solid-waste collection and recycling industry said they support robust regulation but want working through details. Nick Struley of the Washington Refuse and Recycling Association said the association supports robust regulation and enforcement but that the bill’s details matter. Troy Lautenbach, a recycling-business owner, said he values the working relationship with local health departments and expressed concern about another agency issuing fines that could bypass locally established permitting relationships.

Supporters urged the committee to pass the bill so Ecology could provide regulatory backup to local health departments and give regulators the authority to require corrective actions and assess penalties; supporters and Ecology staff agreed the text contains technical items needing refinement. The hearing record closed with testimony; no committee vote or formal action on HB 1154 was recorded during the hearing.

Ending: HB 1154 would expand Ecology’s pre-issuance role and enforcement authority for landfill permits and set a civil-penalty cap of $10,000 per day; supporters said the changes are needed to address chronic noncompliance at some facilities, while local health jurisdictions and industry asked for clarified coordination and appeal procedures before implementation.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","House Environment & Energy - 1/13/2025 1:30 PM","oneSentenceSummary","Representative Doerr presented House Bill 1154 to require Department of Ecology review and approval of landfill permits before local jurisdictional health departments issue or renew them and to expand Ecology’s enforcement authority, including suspension of permits and civil penalties up to $10,000 per day.","taxTitle","Environment & Energy, House of Representatives, Legislative Sessions, Washington","taxId",20260,"location","Washington","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6392828,"Bill would require apparel makers to report chemicals, environmental impacts to Ecology",1932,534000,2466000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2109055-59d62e588f59cfa47caff831715a7f6c&start=534&end=2466","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2109055-59d62e588f59cfa47caff831715a7f6c/thumbnail_534000.jpg","/articles/6392828/Washington/Bill-would-require-apparel-makers-to-report-chemicals-environmental-impacts-to-Ecology","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6392828-5fabf1cb56c2a63ebe081aedf2a7c174/orig.mp4?Expires=1771007075&Signature=SKY0EYWUMHflDQ2L3sGLCThnry7EfT6I42A98IUfvwWzpWB1EssUfkZ4HzCICtROkvgL4-6xuEdqhDv5LjBRpyCK8mhH6NWieZSz16POVDd8OCktyQafLx99shFAjs3lzUUCStmG3HygZMYGkdeU8IAky7ZUIFvOjkDiJSdTSwKj8i1VwrtTo~3SjVbGSFATRbIZBYk47y7GFTC1cfJhGtepPzbx4RlKGMmeicc3cLlSWW7te3NnYJR6bQSHE2rDOrfJJksRMFwNfHhDbn~AM48WXDxwrl99WESMnaE66q211hAb35odRLuOaguAIM-K~Rze8wHlMTXgowOQ4AX6Gg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 1107, introduced to the Environment & Energy Committee by Representative Charlotte Mena, would require producers of apparel and footwear to begin annual reporting to the Washington State Department of Ecology beginning in 2027, including disclosures about regulated toxic chemicals, environmental claims used in marketing, how excess products are handled and firms’ current environmental activities and targets.

The bill targets four disclosure categories for most producers and adds further reporting for larger producers with $100,000,000 or more in annual worldwide gross income, including due-diligence outcomes, greenhouse gas data and recycled content. The bill also directs Ecology to carry out a two-part assessment — a preliminary 2026 review to consider extended producer responsibility and a public-facing platform, followed by a 2028 report on product-labeling recommendations — and authorizes Ecology rulemaking and limited exemptions for de minimis producers. Penalties for noncompliance would fund environmental-benefit projects in communities identified as overburdened by pollution.

Jacob Lipsen, nonpartisan committee staff, summarized the bill’s structure and timelines and said Ecology would be authorized to adopt rules that could exclude smaller producers. “Producers of fashion products must begin annually reporting information to the Department of Ecology beginning in 2027,” Lipsen said during the staff briefing.

Representative Charlotte Mena, the bill’s prime sponsor, framed the measure as a consumer-transparency and pollution-reduction step. “Fashion is a huge part of culture,” Mena said, noting the industry’s global resource use and waste. She cited United Nations and EPA figures on water use, carbon emissions and textile waste to argue the state lacks data to address harms and that the bill would “require companies to be honest about the chemicals that our bodies are exposed to when we wear their clothes.”

Supporters at the hearing urged passage as a first step toward accountability. Sherry Peel, market and government policy director for Toxic-Free Future, told the committee the bill would expand the reach of the Children’s Safe Product Act database beyond children’s apparel and help the public identify hazardous chemicals in clothing. “Many toxic chemicals are used in the fashion industry, but we do not currently have a way to understand which of these chemicals are present in the vast majority of the clothing that we wear,” Peel said. Catherine Horvath of the Washington Public Interest Research Group and Heather Trim of 0 Waste Washington also testified in favor, highlighting waste, greenhouse-gas and disposal concerns and urging the committee to adopt transparency measures similar to recently enacted policies in other states.

Several industry trade groups and retailers testified in opposition or with reservations. Crystal Leatherman, director of local and state government affairs for the Washington Retail Association, said the association’s members support sustainability but oppose HB 1107 as drafted because it would assign a state agency substantial responsibility for global supply-chain oversight and impose requirements on retail brands that may not control upstream manufacturers. “We must oppose HB 1107 as it presents significant challenges that could negatively impact Washington businesses and consumers,” Leatherman said. Peter Galewski of the Association of Washington Business and Brandon Huskeper of the Northwest Grocery Retail Association raised similar concerns about timelines for an extended producer responsibility (EPR) workstream, the bill’s interaction with the Safer Products for Washington program, and the potential for compliance costs to be passed to consumers.

Andrew Pappas of the American Apparel and Footwear Association urged the committee to consider models used in California, including SB 707 (textile EPR) and climate reporting work, and recommended a coordinated federal- or multi-state approach rather than a patchwork of state rules. Kimberly Getz, speaking for the Department of Ecology, said Ecology had signed in as \"other\" because the bill carries fiscal impacts not in the governor’s budget and because Ecology lacks specific expertise on multinational supply chains and some referenced standards; she recommended adjustments to the assessment timetable and involvement from the Department of Health for public-health analysis. “Ecology has little to no expertise in this particular area especially about the standards referenced in the bill,” Getz said.

A small number of members of the public opposed the bill on broader trade and shipping grounds. John Worthington of Sequim argued the measures would not address international shipping emissions and that Washington would not be able to cure worldwide supply-chain environmental harms by state law.

The committee limited public testimony to keep the hearing on schedule; staff noted they would accept amendment requests and proposed substitutes on a set timetable during the executive-session process. Testimony on HB 1107 closed and the committee moved on to the next bill; no formal vote or committee action on HB 1107 was recorded during the hearing.

Ending: HB 1107 drew a mix of support from environmental and waste-reduction advocates and concerns from retail and industry groups about feasibility, timelines and costs. Committee staff and Ecology recommended revisions to the bill language and timetable; sponsors said they will work with stakeholders on technical fixes and exemptions.","House Bill 1107, introduced to the Environment & Energy Committee by Representative Charlotte Mena, would require producers of apparel and footwear to begin annual reporting to the Washington State Department of Ecology beginning in 2027, including disclosures about regulated toxic chemicals, environmental claims used in marketing, how excess products are handled and firms’ current environmental activities and targets.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6392822,"Bill would align St. Edward lease limit with other parks to attract investment",539,2483000,3022000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2109055-59d62e588f59cfa47caff831715a7f6c&start=2483&end=3022","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2109055-59d62e588f59cfa47caff831715a7f6c/thumbnail_2483000.jpg","/articles/6392822/Washington/Bill-would-align-St-Edward-lease-limit-with-other-parks-to-attract-investment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6392822-9a9461064c8beb4e3d01c6d6fd9ed60f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771007075&Signature=cD1r1txbS3RljMLweXTrS7LJYozEEHAup4yOXWcKRCIxtqJMgnU0eM4Lce6dru1CJavs7joDMfHsH2vH-ZYpED3mtmyhukuie-JguyDgyV8sAyK5V8lbAwdO-oTkNchTH59viRyJxzH4GCKOl6AWJWcjSS3c03oXBy6CPX-j~9CyaJaEcqdFW0rSs8TJ9v8ilqyjObphy-Ve6gEtH~j-R982ZG2h0uD8EPErA3xUV-OG1DpEOv79fCP-JNPgm6kYORwb~pD9nRtgj8Flanfo4b7Ydwz3DhZqe9pq-ZjlJytaspb~39v2FAjETyFNwMhKl7as3ABF5y5ZgBhJOiJThg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Shelly Kloba presented House Bill 1024 to the Environment & Energy Committee to correct a statutory inconsistency and allow the State Parks and Recreation Commission to consider 80-year leases at St. Edward State Park, the same maximum lease period now available for other state parks.

Srinandan Ramachandran, nonpartisan staff, told the committee that St. Edward’s statutory exception dates to 2016 when the commission was authorized to enter a 62-year lease to enable rehabilitation and financing of the seminary buildings at the park. The broader increase from 50 to 80 years for other parks was enacted in 2020, but the 62-year exception for St. Edward remained. HB 1024 would raise St. Edward’s cap to 80 years to match other park properties and remove the anomaly.

Owen Rowe, legislative director for Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, described the original financing need that prompted the 2016 exception. He said the lodge project that followed produced an “over $60,000,000 investment” to rehabilitate the historic seminary buildings and create the Lodge at St. Edward, and that the 62-year limit is now an outlier compared with current law. Extending the authorized lease length, Rowe testified, would level the playing field and permit the commission to negotiate lease terms that support continued investment and the lodge’s financial viability.

James Daniels, speaking on behalf of his parents Kevin and Mary Daniels (owners and operators of the lodge), said an extension to 80 years could enable additional private investment — he cited a potential $30 million to $40 million net investment scenario and said a longer lease would help secure financing for projects such as a proposed Nordic spa and could create up to about 50 permanent positions. “The commission can agree to 80-year leases for all state parks except us,” Daniels said, urging a correction to the statute so lenders and partners will have the term lengths they expect.

Representative Kloba characterized the bill as a simple technical fix that does not cost the state money; she said it would open options for private investment to improve park facilities while preserving public access.

There was no recorded opposition during the hearing. The committee heard proponents and closed testimony on HB 1024 before moving on to the next agenda item; no vote was taken during the hearing.

Ending: The bill was presented as a technical correction to remove an unintended statutory limitation at St. Edward State Park and supporters said it would permit further private investment in the lodge and park amenities without direct state capital outlay.","House Bill 1024 would raise the maximum lease length for St. Edward State Park from 62 years to 80 years so the State Parks and Recreation Commission can offer the same long-term leases it can elsewhere, supporters said this would help attract private investment in park buildings without state capital spending.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Bill would give Ecology greater role in landfill permits and penalties

Bill would require apparel makers to report chemicals, environmental impacts to Ecology

Bill would align St. Edward lease limit with other parks to attract investment