House committee hears sharp debate over bill letting DNR sell ecosystem services on trust lands

The House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee heard hours of testimony on Jan. 28 on House Bill 2,170, which would authorize the Department of Natural Resources to enter carbon and other ecosystem-services markets on public trust lands.

"We are asking for the authority to diversify revenue streams through ecosystem services to provide another tool," Kate Dean, policy director at DNR, told the committee, stressing the department sees market participation as an option, not a mandate. DNR staff said projects could include carbon sequestration, water and air filtration, and that Board of Natural Resources oversight would be required for contracts and minimum payments.

Supporters told lawmakers that existing carbon markets and registry models provide examples to study. "Only a handful of projects have been implemented, and demand is growing," Rachel Baker of Washington Conservation Action said, noting the state has untapped potential for forest carbon projects. Proponents also argued that well‑designed projects can be additive — producing conservation and revenue without displacing timber where additionality is demonstrated.

Opponents cautioned the bill is broad and carries real economic risks for rural communities and school districts that receive trust revenues. "This bill authorizes ecosystem service contracts for up to 125 years," said Anne Rivers of Hampton Lumber, adding that long encumbrances could lock in land‑use decisions across generations and reduce mill supply and timber revenue. Amy Kruger, Pierce County council member, warned the measure could convert working trust lands into long‑term carbon contracts "without an analysis of revenue impacts, consultation with beneficiaries, and without a local impact analysis."

Committee members pressed DNR on operational details: whether carbon contracts could reduce allowable harvest or timber jobs, how revenues would be forecast, and how wildfire fuel‑reduction obligations would be preserved. DNR replied markets are immature and volatile, that some contracts could delay harvests while others could be structured to allow forest health thinning, and that the agency favors piloting narrower authority (for example a forest‑carbon pilot) if the committee prefers limits.

Testimony came from a wide range of stakeholders. Timber companies and logging contractors said local economies depend on predictable log supplies and feared displacement; county and school officials said fiscal notes do not show the potential long‑term revenue losses to beneficiaries. Conservation groups, labor representatives and some county leaders argued that with appropriate safeguards HB 2,170 could help the state meet climate goals while diversifying revenue.

Chair Christine Reeves told the committee there are two related vehicles in play — a negotiated bill from 2023 and HB 2,170 as the department’s proposal — and encouraged members to consider amendments. The committee concluded the public hearing without taking action; lawmakers and staff signaled further negotiations and possible amendments would follow.

Next steps: the committee did not vote on HB 2,170 during this hearing and invited parties to submit amendment language and additional information to staff for the committee’s consideration.