Bill to allow family burial grounds moves through committee hearing with agency concerns
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Substitute House Bill 2,239 would permit landowners to establish family burial grounds with setbacks, recording requirements with county auditors and DAHP within 30 days, and local authority to regulate; sponsors and several rural and tribal witnesses supported the bill while WSDOT and Ecology requested technical clarifications including larger setbacks.
Substitute House Bill 2,239 drew substantial public testimony Feb. 19 as the Law and Justice Committee considered allowing private landowners to designate areas of their property as family burial grounds.
Staff counsel Ryan Giannini told the committee the bill "allows a natural person to designate an area of land that the person owns as a family burial ground" and establishes setback requirements, recording and reporting duties to the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) and county auditors, and an option for cities and counties to regulate or prohibit the establishment of family burial grounds. The staff briefing also noted that family burial grounds would be grandfathered even if they do not comply with the new statutory requirements.
Representative Hunter Abell, the prime sponsor, said the legislation responds to requests from rural residents and faith traditions and includes protections requested by state agencies and realtors, including disclosure requirements when property is sold. "For a long period of time, there has been expressed a desire for individuals to be able to establish family burial grounds," Abell said, adding the bill accommodates mausoleums and columbariums and contains guardrails developed with several state agencies.
Agency testimony included Heather Lindstrom, acquisition program manager at the Washington State Department of Transportation, who raised a technical concern about a 50‑foot setback in section 2(4)(b). Lindstrom said 50 feet "feels insufficient to accommodate potential highway expansions" and urged the committee to consider a 150‑foot setback consistent with other critical areas in the bill. Committee members queried whether WSDOT should have jurisdiction over private land use; Lindstrom explained that WSDOT acquires privately owned property for highway projects and that burial sites could complicate future acquisitions and impose emotional trauma on families.
Public testimony included farmers and tribal descendants who said family burial grounds are important cultural and personal practices; several witnesses said the bill balances those wishes with safeguards. The committee temporarily closed public testimony, later reopened to accept remote testimony from Tacey Lam who described multi‑generational family connections to rural land and urged passage, and then concluded the hearing.
Key questions for further drafting include the specific interaction with tribal burial grounds (the bill does not exclude them explicitly), exact setbacks near wells (staff pointed to bill language creating 100‑ and 200‑foot provisions for certain well sources), and technical revisions to reflect agency and stakeholder input. The committee did not take a final vote on HB 2,239 on Feb. 19; staff said a fiscal note had been requested for the substitute.