[tod701]

[NacMacFeegle]

[Ancient Ambler]

This HB looks like total BS and is so broadly written that it appears to apply to all public lands less than 1/4 square mile in size that front on ANY "body of public water". This HB does not just restrict access to rivers, but presumably also affects public access to lakes, Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the waters around the San Juan Islands and possibly the Pacific coastal waters as well. In many places, public access to Puget Sound waters is only available over small pieces of public land, including undeveloped or developed public road ends or other small pieces of public land that do not have parking spaces, such as a highway bridge right of way over bodies of water, not just over rivers or streams. This HB would adversely affect not only public kayak/canoe access to waters, but presumably could shut down public access to swimming and fishing on public waters. Because waterfront land is so valuable, I'd bet that there are not a whole lot of public waterfront lands that exceed 1/4 square mile in size, so this draconian HB would presumably apply to the vast majority of public waterfront lands in the state. Sounds to me like these folks need to go back to the drawing board to come up with better legislation to address the perceived problem.

[treeswarper]

Think of all the pullouts folks use to fish off the banks of rivers. Those would be off limits and then there's the added expense of all the signs.

[jackchinook]

[Randito]

The silliest thing about this bill is that the problematic area is contained within the city of West Richland and the West Richland city council has already taken action to address some of the issues and the effected residents are happy with the city's action. Why the state needed to get involved at all isn't clear -- Perhaps Larry Haler just felt like he needed to prove that he wasn't asleep in Olympia.

[NacMacFeegle]

I think the place where this bill really goes most wrong is in mandating that all small parcels of land adjacent to water be closed to the public unless they meet the requirements of the legislation. A more reasonable and practical solution would be to give the government the ability to temporarily close these areas on a case-by-case basis if and when problems cropped up. The ability to enact and enforce such land closures could potentially go a long ways towards helping communities deal with the problems that so often occur at popular areas along rivers and streams.

[treeswarper]

Here's one reply: I am not sure what the reason is for this bill, but it seems way too broad and likely to affect way too many people, cutting off access to too much land/water. If this bill moves, I will work with the sponsor of the bill to narrow the focus to whatever specific location or situation has led him to bring the bill -- but I do not believe it is acceptable in its current form. Ed

[tod701]

HB1056 is currently before the House State Government Committee. If you oppose it you might want to let the committee members know ASAP. Their email addys: Sam.Hunt@leg.wa.gov Steve.Bergquist@leg.wa.gov Jeff.Holy@leg.wa.gov Luanne.VanWerven@leg.wa.gov Sherry.Appleton@leg.wa.gov Carol.Gregory@leg.wa.gov Brad.Hawkins@leg.wa.gov