Must be something in the water

Yesterday’s House Capital Budget Committee meeting attracted so many attendees, overflow space was required.

What brought so many people to this one meeting that House Security was called in for crowd control? Why, it was the public hearing on HB 3181, also known as the Clean Water Act.

The Clean Water Act, sponsored by Rep. Timm Ormsby, would raise the state’s Hazardous Substances Tax, which hasn’t changed since the voters approved it over 20 years ago. Raising it from 0.7 percent to 2 percent would bring in an additional $225 million, with most of the additional funds going initially to help shore up the state’s general fund, and the rest going to address stormwater cleanup. Over the next few years, the portion going to the general fund would decrease while the portion going to stormwater cleanup would increase. The environmental community has made the bill a top priority for the 2010 session.

The tax is levied on thousands of hazardous substances in the state at the point of first possession, so those who market and sell the substances are the ones who pay it. The biggest industry that would be affected are the oil refineries. Petroleum products are also the biggest contributor to stormwater pollution.

Supporters of the bill say it is badly needed to pay for federally-mandated stormwater cleanup projects that cost local governments millions of dollars they can’t afford. The only way for local governments to begin to meet the cost is to either raise property taxes or stormwater utility rates, which hurts families and businesses. They argue that polluters should help shoulder the cleanup costs when it is their products that are the primary cause of stormwater pollution. The necessary stormwater infrastructure projects would also employ thousands of construction workers, creating good-paying jobs while cleaning up Puget Sound and other waterways.

Those who spoke against the measure said it would hurt oil refineries in the state and threaten family-wage jobs at those refineries, as well as the investments those companies make in the communities in which they are located. Concerns were also expressed from the agricultural sector, as well as the trucking industry.

The hearing lasted nearly three hours, alternating between those who were in favor of the bill and those who were against. The full hearing is available here.