Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Lumber Priority topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel weighs bill to prioritize Washington-made lumber for state-funded projects
Summary
House Bill 1726 would require state-funded public works projects over $500,000 to prioritize lumber sourced from Washington, then Oregon, then elsewhere in the United States, subject to waiver provisions; supporters argued the measure would sustain local mills and jobs while opponents warned of higher costs and potential delays.
Ingrid Lewis, committee staff, briefed the Capital Budget Committee on House Bill 1726, explaining the bill would require public works projects that receive more than $500,000 from the state capital budget to use lumber procured from Washington state mills first, then from Oregon, and then from the United States more broadly, unless an exemption or waiver applies.
Representative Kevin Waters, the bill’s prime sponsor and a fourth-generation resident of Skamania County, told the committee he introduced the measure to support sawmills and timber jobs in his district and elsewhere across the state. Waters said local mills employ ‘‘over 400 people’’ in his district and warned that recent reductions in harvest acreage have tightened local log supply.
Supporters including the Washington Forest Protection Association, the American Forest Resource Council, port districts and the Washington Public Ports Association testified in favor. Tom Davis of the Washington Forest Protection Association and Heath Heikala of AFRC said prioritizing Washington wood would help sustain mill capacity, create markets that could support forest health work and assist rural economies.
Opponents and cautious stakeholders — including the Associated General Contractors and several port representatives — urged the committee to consider project cost and schedule impacts. Jerry Vanderwood of AGC said the bill’s waiver threshold (a 10% increase in cost) was better than thresholds in prior ‘‘Buy American’’-style measures but warned that a 30-day waiver notice and related processes could delay projects and increase total costs. Committee staff’s fiscal note and higher-education estimates suggested capital cost increases in some cases of 15%–20%; staff described capital budget impacts beginning in the 2027–29 biennium as ‘‘nonzero but indeterminate.’’
The hearing record shows broad stakeholder engagement and an open willingness by the sponsor to consider amendments on availability and timing. No committee vote was taken during the hearing.
