New Fish Consumption Estimates Could Lead to Strict Environmental Standards

A Boeing-backed blowup over a fish-consumption study in the final days of this years legislative session points toward a major showdown next year over water-quality rules and also about that eternal and unfathomable question for Washington lawmakers, what does Boeing want?

Next year regulators at the Department of Ecology are poised to adopt standards so strict that some argue they cannot be met with current technology. Industry and local governments in some cases would have to make discharges cleaner than the waterways into which they go. And while regulators insist they can carve out exceptions when the costliest and most advanced cleanup technology available still isnt good enough, some companies are worried. It is really bad policy to create an environmental standard that is so strict nobody can meet it, says Chris McCabe of the Northwest Pulp and Paper Association.

Standards are based on estimates of how much fish we eath combined with the amount of toxicity that endangers human health. Washington currently estimates that we eat about 3.5 pounds of fish a month. But Oregon pioneered a new approach when it adopted new water standards in 2011. Instead of basing standards on average consumption, it based them on the dietary habits of the population that eats the most fish–the states Indian tribes. Oregon now estimates fish consumption levels at the highest in the country, nearly 12 pounds a month per person; Washington is contemplating an even higher number of 17.6 pounds.

The raw numbers dont answer basic questions about the level of regulation that might have an impact on health, or even where the fish come from — Gortons fish sticks? Boeing led the charge in the Legislature this year, asking lawmakers for a million-dollar study of fish-consumption patterns, with the idea that the water quality rules might be delayed a year until the science is in hand.

The largely Republican Senate said yes, but the administration of Gov. Jay Inslee opposed the study, saying it wasnt necessary and that the rules ought to move forward regardless. Part of the argument is that tribes might sue; members of the Senate Majority Coalition scoff and call it a payoff to an important Democratic constituency. Final-hour negotiations on a budget proviso broke down when the Senate insisted on veto-proof language and the governors office said no. At a time when Boeing is making siting decisions about new aircraft lines, they say it might behoove the state to be a bit more solicitous, and you can count on action next year. I can guarantee you the boys in South Carolina are probably pretty happy with us, says Senate Majority Leader Rodney Tom, D-Medina.