SB6279 - Senate Hearing Summary

Senate Bill 6279's hearing today focused primarily on the "cap and trade" aspect of the bill in which an undefined Nitrogen credit for a shellfish would be sold, which in turn could be used to meet a Nitrogen output requirement of a waste water treatment plant.  The idea did not stand up well to questioning.

The complexity of implementing the idea quickly became apparent when information on what programs and information existed. A new program in Sweden has just begun but clarity on how it would apply here in Puget Sound was lacking (e.g, cost assumptions; Lysekil being located on a coast line, not in an estuary like Puget Sound; Nitrogen loading amounts etc. are most likely not applicable in the Puget Sound basin).  Another in Quatermaster Harbor is still gathering data.  More difficulties arose when Senators asked why the shellfish industry should be paid for something they are already doing anyway - growing shellfish.  Additional clarity from Ecology was asked, who simply responded "more record keeping would be needed." Lack  of clarity was fogged more so when the example of wetland mitigation banks was brought up.  Why allow credits to be created in one area (e.g., Hammersley Inlet) to mitigate waste water outflows in an area far away (e.g., Samish Bay).  It wasn't clear whether the "bag of clams in an aquarium" demonstration helped.

There was some humor when the question of mussel "poop" was brought up and what it should be called.  While glazed over, it is a very real problem under mussel farms which concentrate 25,000 pounds of shellfish under a 30'X34' raft.  In Spain (ironically brought up by a shellfish farmer testifying) large dead zone exists under concentrated mussel rafts (Dead Zone in Spain).  The same has been seen in Totten Inlet. More humor arose when a geoduck farmer began to speak about how three years ago he was going to sue Washington State to make a point about shellfish removing Nitrogen.  After hiring a Seattle Public Relations firm and meeting with an attorney he was apparently convinced the shellfish industry didn't need to file another lawsuit just to make a point.

Perhaps of most interest in all this are these numbers:  south Puget Sound has an estimated 6.2 million pounds of Nitrogen introduced annually.   2 million pounds from waste water treatment plants and 4 million from the surrounding water shed (see Ecology report here).  According to a shellfish farmer testifying today 20 million pounds of shellfish are harvested annually from south Puget Sound.  Mussels and oysters have been calculated to have ~1.4% Nitrogen.  That's 280,000 pounds of a 6.2 million pound total.  Does that justify streamlining permitting to expand shellfish farming?

In the end, everyone agreed clean water was important to Puget Sound.  Apparent from emails received there wasn't agreement that industrial commercial aquaculture and associated structures were the best way to achieve that goal, or for that matter even had a meaningful impact.