Conservation-district election reform divides stakeholders over transparency and cost

Representative Mia Gregersen and Representative Jerry Paulette outlined a proposed substitute to House Bill 2499 that would allow conservation districts to opt into Title 29A election procedures, remove some land-ownership requirements for supervisors, and lengthen supervisor terms to four years. Gregersen described the changes as "good government" and aimed at modernizing statutes governing special-purpose conservation districts.

The hearing drew extensive testimony from district officials, association leaders, advocacy groups and county stakeholders. Supporters — including King Conservation District leaders and nonpartisan groups such as Sightline Institute and the League of Women Voters — said moving elections to the general ballot and modernizing eligibility rules could improve turnout and accountability. "Turnout for these low-profile contests is frankly abysmal," said Shannon Grimes (Sightline).

Opponents — including many conservation-district directors and the Washington Association of Conservation Districts — said the substitute's F-1 financial-disclosure requirement would deter volunteers and could financially burden small districts forced onto the general ballot; several testifiers estimated costs for some districts could be as high as about $350,000 annually or otherwise threaten district viability. Multiple witnesses asked for an opt-in structure, removal or narrowing of the F-1 requirement, and guardrails so districts can return to the prior RCW framework if desired.

Committee members asked clarifying questions about the consequences of opting into Title 29A (for example, whether opting in would prohibit online voting systems currently used by some districts) and the fiscal consequences; staff and witnesses clarified that Title 29A districts over 2,000 registered voters would trigger PDC F-1 requirements, and that some districts’ online voting portals would be precluded under 29A.