Committee hears bill to allow limited family subdivisions on rural land

House Local Government Committee members heard testimony on House Bill 18-54 on a proposal to allow counties to authorize subdivisions of rural land for transfer or sale to family members under narrowly defined conditions.

Kellen Wright, staff to the committee, introduced the bill: “The bill before you is House Bill 18 54, an act relating to authorizing subdivision of land in rural areas for families,” and summarized its main provisions, including a five‑year ownership requirement, a one‑lot‑per‑family‑member limit, and a requirement that resulting lots be large enough for residents and associated infrastructure such as a well or septic system.

Representative Andrew Engel, sponsor and member for the Seventh District, said the measure is optional for counties and aimed at giving families flexibility to live near each other: “Counties would have the option to utilize it. It's, not a mandate, but it would allow families to, live near each other on smaller parcels, non conforming lots.” Engel said he removed an original draft provision that would have limited resale because staff advised it could create constitutional issues.

Supporters focused on family care and affordability. Pend Oreille County Commissioner John Gentle said the bill “is a very narrow exemption” that can help relatives keep elderly family members at home and provide caregiving support. Former Stevens County Commissioner Wes McCart said the change would let families maintain farms and forestry operations by keeping younger generations nearby.

State agencies and land‑use advocates warned of potential consequences for resource lands and water supplies. Erica Odom, Deputy Director of Governmental Affairs at the Department of Natural Resources, testified that “HB 18 54 puts no limitations on lands outside of an urban growth area that could be subdivided for additional residential housing, including on resource lands,” and said the bill “is overly broad” relative to the Growth Management Act goal to conserve productive forest and agricultural lands. FutureWise also testified in opposition, citing water availability and environmental impacts, and urged alternate approaches.

Committee members pressed witnesses about practical limits in rural settings. Staff noted the bill requires only that lots be large enough for on‑site sewage systems; it does not include an explicit statutory test for water capacity. A committee member referenced local constraints such as a county limit on houses per well and was told the bill does not itself change those legal limits.

The hearing record contains a mix of local officials urging the county option for narrow family transfers and state and advocacy witnesses urging caution about unintended conversion of resource lands and pressures on water and infrastructure. No formal action on the bill occurred in the committee during the hearing.