By Cindy Alia 1/27/26
In yet another attempt, the majority party in Olympia and the Department of Natural Resources seek to commoditize and sell the "Natural Processes" of our lands they are tasked with managing.
Not just taxing the air you breathe, but selling it as well!
HB 2170 AN ACT Relating to expanding revenue generation and economic opportunities from natural climate solutions and ecosystem services; amending RCW 79.02.010, 79.64.110, and 79.105.150; reenacting and amending RCW 79.22.050; and adding a new chapter to Title 79 RCW. (links on the page allow for testimony or comment)
(Companion bill: SB 5999 in the Senate)
Concerns Regarding Washington State's HB 2170:
Risks of Commoditizing Ecosystem Services on Public Lands
Purpose: This document summarizes key details of HB 2170, with a focus on potential negative aspects, objections, and risks. It incorporates historical examples of oversight failures and fraud in Washington state's environmental and carbon programs to highlight concerns about commoditization plans.
Overview of HB 2170, a bill requested by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR). It grants DNR authority to generate revenue from ecosystem services and natural climate solutions on approximately 6 million acres of state-managed lands and waters.
This includes selling tradable carbon credits (1 metric ton of CO₂ equivalent sequestered or avoided) and ecosystem service credits for benefits like habitat creation, water filtration, and disaster mitigation.
Key provisions: Authorizes long-term contracts (up to 125 years) for ecosystem service projects.
Allows direct sales, public auctions, or partnerships with third-party brokers/developers for verification, marketing, and sales.
The bill enables DNR to participate in carbon and ecosystem markets similarly to private landowners, through compliance (CLIMATE Commitment Act) and voluntary channels.
Requires Board of Natural Resources (BNR) approval for minimum payments and contract terms, with 90-day public notice for negotiated deals.
Distributes proceeds to accounts benefiting schools, counties, public institutions, salmon habitat restoration, and forest health.
Builds on the Climate Commitment Act (CCA) cap-and-invest program and a 2018 trust land performance assessment recommending revenue diversification beyond timber and minerals.
Current Status (as of January 27, 2026)In the House Committee on Agriculture & Natural Resources (HAg&Nr). Testimony January 28, 8:00 am
Public hearing scheduled for January 28, 2026, at 8:00 AM (remote testimony available).
Support from environmental groups (e.g., League of Women Voters of Washington, RE Sources) for potential conservation funding.
Objections and Risks Associated with HB 2170
Objections have come from timber industry groups and rural economic advocates, who argue that prioritizing carbon offsets and ecosystem projects on state lands would reduce timber harvesting. Private propety advocates object as well, including Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights. We believe these kind of bills and programs undermine private property by creating markets that undermine property ownership and mangement by creating markets unreachable by most property owners while manipulating property values.
Healthy Forests Healthy Communities has urged opposition, claiming the bill could remove trust lands from active management, leading to lower revenue for schools, public safety, and beneficiaries, plus job losses in logging-dependent rural communities.
A similar 2022 DNR proposal to set aside 10,000 acres for offsets drew criticism from 22 legislators and failed.Identified risks include:
Revenue Shortfalls: Carbon credits yield less per acre than timber sales, potentially reducing funds for trust beneficiaries if offsets displace logging.
Project Ineffectiveness: Offsets may fail to deliver carbon reductions due to wildfires, droughts, heat, or invasives, which are rising and could release stored carbon. CCA critiques note overstated emission reductions (e.g., initial 8.6 million tons corrected to ~308,000 tons due to errors).
Overcrediting and Market Issues: Weak rules can result in overcrediting, where credits exceed actual benefits, undermining emission goals (95% reduction by 2050). Environmental reports highlight greenwashing risks and prioritization of short-term credits over ecosystem health.
Economic and Social Impacts: Long contracts (up to 125 years) lock lands, limiting future adaptations and worsening rural disparities. The bill has failed in prior sessions even after rewrites, signaling unresolved issues.
History of Oversight Failures and Fraud in Washington State Programs
Washington has seen instances of oversight lapses and fraud in environmental and carbon initiatives, fueling concerns about HB 2170's commoditization of ecosystem services.
Examples include:
Carbon Market Fraud Cases: In 2025, the Department of Ecology fined Climate Care Innovations (CCI) $425,000 and banned it from the Cap-and-Invest program for providing inaccurate information, misrepresenting transactions, and falsely claiming ownership of 3.3 million pollution allowances (~$200 million value). This was the first such ban, highlighting scrutiny over trading fraud.
Overstated Climate Benefits: A January 2026 report critique revealed 86% of claimed CCA benefits were overstated, with initial 8.6 million tons of reductions corrected to ~308,000 tons due to data errors by the Departments of Commerce and Ecology. This undermines program integrity.
Data Disclosure Failures: In November 2025, a lawsuit was filed against the Department of Ecology for failing to provide CO₂ emissions data, with claims that the CCA wastes tax dollars without environmental gains.
DNR Disclosure Issues: A 2022 report accused DNR of failing to disclose environmental and social impacts of a carbon scheme, amid investigations into questionable offsets and fraud in forest carbon programs.
Cap-and-Trade Critiques: A Front and Centered report detailed how the CCA allows polluters free passes via allowances and offsets, potentially increasing emissions and delaying low-carbon transitions.
These cases illustrate patterns of inaccurate reporting, fraud, and inadequate transparency in state-managed programs.
Oversight and Accountability in HB 2170
While the bill includes mechanisms like Board of Natural Resources approval, public notices, fiduciary duties, audits, and third-party verifications, critics question their sufficiency given past failures. DNR remains subject to state audits and public records laws, but long contracts and market ties raise enforcement concerns.
Washington state agencies are not in a position to foster trust in yet another convoluted marketing scheme without a tract record of trust, accountability, and reprecussions for poor management or "errors" we urge legislators to educate themselves prior to the passage of this bill.
January 27, 2026