The following op-ed was originally published in the Stevens County Times, March 2025 edition.
By Sen. Shelly Short, Rep. Hunter Abell and Rep. Andrew Engell
Legislation to regulate wood-burning stoves in our state appears to be dead in Olympia, at least for this year. For our region, this is probably the best news so far out of this year’s legislative session.
Senate Bill 5174, pushed by the state Department of Ecology, would have duplicated a regulatory program already enforced by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Many stoves likely would have been withdrawn from the Washington market because of the cost of complying with new testing procedures. This reliable and inexpensive source of home heating, so important to us in rural areas, would have become much more expensive.
Sponsors claimed EPA can’t be trusted to enforce its own regulations. But can we trust state government? Thinking of the axiom “Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile,” this effort to regulate woodstoves could be the first step toward an outright ban.
Ecology told lawmakers last week this year’s budget troubles make this a poor time to launch a new program. While dead for the year, we have no doubt this idea will be back in some form or another in future sessions.
Wolves
Addressing wolves is one of our top priorities. This session, we embarked on a “divide and conquer” strategy where each of us would attack the issue from a different side.
Sen. Short and Rep. Abell sponsored SB 5354 and HB 1442 giving local governments more options when managing wolf-livestock-human interactions. Local elected officials and law enforcement need more options to protect the citizens they serve. Unfortunately, the majority party in the House and Senate killed these proposals.
Rep. Engell’s House Bill 1311 would have downlisted wolves from “threatened” to “sensitive,” in line with federal decisions to end an endangered species listing in the eastern portion of the state. This would give state officials more flexibility in managing wolves, and it appeared to be on the way to passing committee. But Andrew allowed his bill to die when a “quid-pro-quo” demanded he vote in favor of legislation that could lead to the state’s reintroduction of grizzlies. We give kudos to Andrew for standing his ground, knowing his constituents would not want him to vote in support of that proposal.
Sen. Short’s Senate Bill 5171 would allow indirect claims for damage to livestock due to wolf predation, including higher than normal livestock losses, reduced weight gains or reduced pregnancy weights. The state already provides compensation for direct damages, and this bill recognizes not all adverse livestock-wolf interactions result in maiming or death. As of this writing, her bill has passed the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee and is in the Senate Ways and Means Committee.
Meanwhile, another Short bill has passed the Senate and is now in the House Appropriations Committee. Senate Bill 5343 provides funding through the NE Washington wolf-livestock management account for a local wildlife specialist to aid counties in our region in non-lethal wolf management.
We will continue working together on the wolf issue in Northeast and North-Central Washington, where most of our state’s wolves live and where the majority of wolf-livestock encounters occur.
Taxing every mile you drive
We are gearing up for a major debate this year on what Democrats are calling the Road Usage Charge (RUC), a tax of 2.6 cents per mile driven. Eventually the idea is that this would replace the gas tax to pay for road maintenance and construction. But it is especially problematic for rural areas like ours, where we drive long distances for work, health care, school, school activities, shopping and more – while urban motorists travel shorter distances on roads that cost far more than ours.
There are many unsettled questions about how this tax would be implemented and collected. Double taxation is a disturbing prospect. Our state gas tax, 49.4 cents a gallon, third highest in the nation, would have to remain for some time as we pay off bonds. Promises are one thing, but when was the last time a major state revenue source like this one was reduced or eliminated?
At a House hearing, nearly 20,000 people signed in against the bill while only 270 were in support. Unfortunately, we are likely to see some sort of starter RUC tax in transportation budget proposals before the session is over. So stay tuned and stay vigilant, folks! The fight isn’t over yet.