Stripped version of HB 1000 won’t affect Brightwater project

Companion bill still in Senate

by Jeanette Knutson
Staff Writer

On March 11, the state’s House of Representatives adopted legislation prompted by neighborhood concerns over the planned Brightwater wastewater treatment plant in Snohomish County. Unfortunately for neighbors of the project, said Rep. Toby Nixon of Kirkland (R-45th District), the measure passed was Substitute House Bill 1000 — a compromise version which would let the Brightwater project steer clear of Snohomish County’s essential public facility siting process.

The original version of House Bill 1000 would have forced Brightwater through the Snohomish County siting process. The substitute version of the bill would not.

Nixon said, “A number of people I represent in the 45th Legislative District live close enough to the project site to have legitimate concerns about air and water quality. I heard from many constituents who supported the original bill,” said Nixon, who ended up voting for the substitute version. “The bill ... won’t help them, but it would help others similarly affected in the future. I tried.”

House Bill 1000 would prohibit a metropolitan municipal corporation from exercising eminent domain for essential public facilities outside its component county boundaries without first completing the city or county siting process for an essential public facility where the proposed facility is to be located. The original version would have applied to the Brightwater project. The version adopted exempts projects like Brightwater that initiate a review under the State Environmental Policy Act before Dec. 31, 2003.

Nixon’s remarks in House chamber prior to vote

“ As a sponsor of the original bill,” said Nixon, “I rise to speak in opposition to the committee substitute.

“ While I appreciate the efforts of the Local Government Committee to reach a compromise position, I believe the substitute bill does an injustice to the people of Woodinville, Grace and other areas that will be affected by the siting of the Brightwater sewage treatment plant along Highway 9 in south Snohomish County.

“ As law currently stands, Metro King County has been able to site this sewage treatment plant without the voices of the people in the immediately surrounding area being heard. All those who are making the final decisions about the site are in King County, and all those who will be most affected by the siting are in Snohomish County. Despite the fact that Snohomish County would make use of more than half the capacity of the treatment plant, elected officials in Snohomish County are not accountable for the siting, and elected officials in King County are not accountable to those in Snohomish County who are most affected by it.

“ The original bill would give the people who are most affected by this plant - who have to live with this plant in their neighborhood for the rest of their lives - a real voice in the process, by requiring the Snohomish County siting process for essential public facilities to be followed. The substitute exempts any facilities that have already started the environmental impact review process from this requirement ... thus, the Brightwater project would not be affected by the substitute bill.

“ With all due respect to the members of the committee, I urge you to reject the committee substitute and give these people in rural Snohomish County a voice by bringing the original bill forward.”

Co-sponsor of House Bill 1000 Rep. Brian Sullivan of Edmonds (D-21st District) said, “Rep. Nixon did a good job of trying to strip the bill on the floor. I supported him, but we lost.”

How the original House bill was weakened with respect to Brightwater

According to Sullivan, it was Rep. Sandra Romero of Olympia (D-22nd District) who added the “Dec. 31, 2003” language that reduced the bill’s effectiveness against the proposed Brightwater project.

“ King County was looking for that amendment,” said Sullivan. “Rep. Romero had strong feelings about moving the bill forward and was willing to offer the compromise to do it.”

Sullivan said the Brightwater project has some serious constitutional questions. The questions have to do with the “one man, one vote” issue, he said. A government cannot make public policy decisions and collect taxes when the people affected are not voting for the policy makers.

Sullivan said House Bill 1000 (or its substitute version that passed) has long-term statewide implications.

“ Some people are saying,” said Sullivan, “that this bill was all about King County, that nobody likes King County. People from Walla Walla to Blaine see how inherently unfair (the siting of this project) is.”

Sullivan said a clean version of the bill is in the Senate. It left committee but has not been voted on yet.