Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Recreation Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill to revise state rules for water recreation facilities, removes 'residential' provisions
Summary
A Local Government committee reported substitute House Bill 1684 out with a due-pass recommendation after adopting an amendment that deletes provisions referencing "residential aquatic facility." The bill would update state regulatory authority over water recreation facilities; some members said more work is needed before final passage.
House Bill 1684, which would make multiple changes to state laws governing water recreation facilities, was reported out of the Local Government committee with a due-pass recommendation after members adopted an amendment that eliminates references to “residential aquatic facility.”
The amendment, RUSM162, was described by staff member Michelle Resk as removing the term “residential aquatic facility and all corresponding regulations of residential aquatic facilities in the bill.” Resk summarized the bill and the single amendment published in the committee’s amendment packet before members debated the measure.
The bill’s supporters said the underlying intent is to update statutory language so the Department of Health can revise its implementing regulations. “This is an ask from the Department of Health, in order for them to be able to update their regulations,” the committee chair said when asking for a yes vote on the substitute.
Some members continued to express concern that the bill, even with the residential language removed, left too much rule-making authority to agencies. Representative Griffey said he opposed the bill because he was “apprehensive giving rule making authority to state agencies, building a new program, assessing fees,” and wanted clearer legislative direction to constrain agency implementation.
Representative Seabee, who said they had worked in aquatic facilities, supported removing the residential provision but said the bill remained “too vague and too ambiguous” and needed tightening so it addresses concrete problems without creating enforcement difficulties.
After roll call, staff announced four ayes and three nays; by that vote the committee reported substitute House Bill 1684 out of committee with a due-pass recommendation.
The vote tally announced by staff was: four ayes and three nays. The committee adopted RUSM162 and incorporated it into the substitute before reporting the bill out.
The measure will next proceed according to chamber rules; sponsors indicated they intend to continue working on language refinements before floor consideration.
