Senate panel hears bill to establish felony tiers for environmental crimes

Senator Yasmeen Trudeau, prime sponsor of Senate Bill 5360, told the Senate Environment, Energy & Technology Committee that the bill would “hold those who poison our water and air adequately responsible.” The bill would create first-, second- and third-degree criminal violations in Washington’s Water Pollution Control Act, Clean Air Act and Hazardous Waste Management Act, with penalties that range from gross misdemeanor for negligent conduct up to class B felonies for knowing conduct that places people or natural resources in imminent danger.

The bill’s substitute language, introduced by staff, mirrors the mental-state structure used elsewhere in criminal law and adds explicit entity liability: an entity may be guilty if an agent commits the offense within the scope of duties on behalf of the entity, and each day of ongoing conduct can be treated as a separate violation. The Attorney General’s Office called the measure “sensible” and said it would align state law more closely with federal enforcement tools and other states’ approaches.

Brad Roberts, section chief in the Attorney General’s environmental protection division, described the bill as creating a “sensible, consistent, and stair-stepped system” that would make first-degree violations class B felonies, second-degree violations class C felonies and third-degree violations gross misdemeanors. Roberts said the bill would help keep Washington’s delegated Clean Water Act program compliant with federal standards and give prosecutors clearer options for the most serious cases.

Community advocates from Tacoma said stronger criminal penalties are necessary. Melissa Milot of Communities for Healthy Bay and Stephanie Stockwell, staff attorney for the same organization, cited examples including industrial fires and the 2020 release of shredded plastic and rubber into the Puyallup River as evidence that civil penalties and fines can be insufficient to deter repeat or severe harm.

Business groups and private attorneys urged caution. Peter Godlowski of the Association of Washington Business said the bill risks shifting regulatory enforcement away from an educative, corrective process into criminal prosecutions and could undermine the current compliance-driven approach. Duncan Green, a partner at Van Ness Feldman, warned the committee the bill could expose innocent landowners and operators to criminal penalties where Ecology’s regulatory definitions (for example, what counts as a wetland) are unclear; he urged clarifying the agency’s scope before expanding criminal penalties.

Committee members pressed for examples and limits. Senators asked whether towns, cities or ranchers without permits could be charged; the Attorney General’s Office repeatedly answered that prosecution discretion and proof beyond a reasonable doubt are required and that the bill does not criminalize accidents. Staff noted existing criminal liability principles for entities in the Washington criminal code, including when high managerial agents act within the scope of duties.

The bill’s fiscal note was requested but not yet available at the hearing. Testimony both for and against emphasized public-health and environmental-justice rationales as well as concerns about overcriminalization and ambiguous agency authority. The committee did not take a vote at the hearing.

The hearing included public comment from community members and environmental groups supporting tougher penalties, and from trade and manufacturing groups and stove/landowner advocates urging modifications to limit unintended consequences. The committee closed the record after staff reported 92 people chose not to testify, 12 registered pro, 76 con and 4 other.