A creative plan in the Washington Legislature to raise billions of dollars to pay for the court-ordered removal of fish passage barriers appears to be a pipe dream, for this year at least.

With just over a week until the scheduled end of the legislative session, the state Senate’s bipartisan proposal to borrow up to $5 billion to eliminate culverts faces, well, barriers on several fronts.

Cities and counties fear missing out on state dollars for water, sewer and other projects that would be diverted to repay the culvert-removal bonds.

And the governor’s office says the plan is coming at a bad time, given broad economic uncertainty.

The measure looked to help fulfill the state’s obligations under a 2013 federal injunction that the U.S. Supreme Court later upheld.

A judge found the state violated tribes’ treaty fishing rights by installing poorly designed and maintained culverts, typically pipes under roads or other infrastructure meant to allow water to flow. The judge’s order forced the state to pay to correct these barriers that impede salmon and steelhead migration in western Washington.

The target has been to open up 90% of the habitat that culverts have long blocked by 2030.

The state’s transportation department has estimated needing to address another 300 barriers to hit the benchmark. The most expensive remaining culvert projects range from $80 million to $240 million.

So last year, state officials returned to court to acknowledge they couldn’t meet the goal, as project costs have skyrocketed, and new barriers have been found.

The state and the 21 tribes that brought the original lawsuit are now going to mediation to potentially figure out a new path, recognizing Washington’s financial reality.

Lawmakers hoped the cash infusion would show a good-faith effort to comply with the order as mediation begins. But opposition to the bond proposal appears insurmountable.

“The state obviously has an obligation to meet,” said Rep. Steve Tharinger, D-Port Townsend, the House’s capital budget lead. “The question is how.”

The maneuver

The state’s transportation budget has traditionally paid for culvert projects.

But like the state’s operating budget, transportation faces a major shortfall over the next few years. And the capital budget for construction projects is healthier, so senators moved the culvert funding over.

This allowed the Senate transportation budget writers to cut in half their projected $8 billion shortfall over the next six years.

The transportation budget proposal from House Democrats does not include such a funding flip, instead earmarking more than $5 billion over the current budget and the next three budget cycles to pay for barrier elimination. The two chambers are currently negotiating over transportation funding.

The $5 billion in new bonds included in Senate Bill 5804, unveiled late last month, wouldn’t have to go toward state culvert removals specifically. The money could be used for both local and state projects identified as necessary through mediation.

Even after the state removes its culverts, other downstream and upstream barriers continue to block fish passage and thwart Washington’s progress.

Lawmakers looked to repay the bonds with revenue from an existing tax on electrical utilities that usually goes toward grants and loans for local public works departments.

Enter the first concern: Local governments worry the redirection would threaten ongoing state money specifically set aside for their public works projects.

The proposal’s supporters take issue with that critique.

Sen. Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville, said “some people are screaming wolf,” noting the capital budget proposal he helped write backfills the hole in public works money with $150 million in other bonds, for a total earmark of $250 million.

But Gov. Bob Ferguson has also snubbed the scheme.

A letter from his budget director tells lawmakers that “given market uncertainty and volatile interest rates, this is not the time to explore a novel form of bonding outside of the state’s constitutional debt limit.”

The bonds the bill authorizes are separate from the “general obligation” bonds the state otherwise commonly uses. The usual bonds have low interest rates because they’re backed by the “full faith, credit, and taxing power of the state,” under the state Constitution. The proposed bonds are not, so they would carry higher borrowing costs.

The input disappointed Sen. Yasmin Trudeau, D-Tacoma.

“My hope would’ve been that the governor would’ve been more enthused about this path forward,” she said, noting Ferguson was attorney general when the court case was decided.

Estimates from the state treasurer’s office also raised doubts that the utility tax could even generate the revenue necessary to service $5 billion in new debt.

Schoesler said he’s waiting for his colleagues to offer an alternative solution to what he described as “one of the biggest financial challenges” facing the state.

“Show me a better idea,” he said.