After more than two decades of stagnation in Puget Sound salmon populations, the windfall of tax revenue in Olympia offers an opportunity to accelerate habitat restoration that can finally help increase salmon returns.

Reading the competing budgets released by House and Senate Democrats, there is a sharp contrast in the approach to funding salmon recovery. The House takes a very narrow approach, adding funding for habitat along streams, with little else in addition. The Senate is more flexible, providing funding for science-based competitive grants.

With billions in additional revenue, both budgets supplement salmon recovery with additional funding. This is something we’ve been calling for in each of the past several budgets. Setting aside the funding levels, it is worth considering how each budget spends the additional funds.

The House’s proposal adds $50 million in funding for “a statewide, competitive riparian [streamside] habitat conservation grant program to protect and restore habitat with a focus on acquiring and restoring riparian habitat to fully functioning healthy conditions.”

By way of comparison, the Senate’s proposed budget offers three big funding increases. It offers $50 million to restore the Duckabush estuary on the Olympic Peninsula. It adds another $50 million for “grants for projects valued at greater than $5,000,000 each that will benefit salmon recovery.” The final large appropriation is an additional $35 million for “grants for watershed projects typically valued at less than $5,000,000 each that will benefit salmon recovery.” Aside from distinguishing funding for projects that are more or less than $5 million, the Senate budget allows all salmon recovery projects to compete for grants, putting money where it is needed most rather than preemptively focusing on one aspect of salmon habitat.

In the most recent funding round for salmon habitat projects, there was a wide range of projects funded by salmon recovery grants. This included small projects along streams, like $328,772 for “Flaming Geyser State Park Riparian Revegetation.” There was also funding for shoreline restoration, like the $155,058 for “Hoypus Point Shoreline Restoration Construction” in Island County. Larger projects include $5.9 million for floodplain restoration in Fall City and $10.5 million for fish passage in the Nooksack River. These projects are chosen based on a set of science-based criteria.

Why would the House limit funding narrowly to riparian projects? There has been a push by some to focus on streams, highlighting the impact stream temperatures have on some salmon runs. This emphasis manifested itself most notably in the extremely contentious and costly HB 1838, which would have forced farmers and other landowners (except those in urban areas) to set aside large areas of land and maintain vegetation. With the quick failure of that legislation due to significant opposition, the House budget appears to offer funding to achieve part of what the legislation won’t. This is certainly far better than the punitive and regulatory approach of HB 1838.

It is true that improving streamside habitat is important to salmon recovery. Both budgets offer funding for cooperative riparian restoration projects through the State Conservation Commission. Focusing all additional funding on those areas, as the House budget does, seems to be more about politics than science.

While the final amount of funding will be settled in negotiations between the House and Senate, the Senate’s approach of allowing a science-based process to guide funding is more likely to result in increases in salmon populations that have been so elusive.