House Bill 1346 amends state cannabis licensing law by changing who may invest in and own licensed cannabis businesses, modifying which owners must qualify for and be named on licenses, authorizing additional fees and rulemaking, and providing for suspension of inactive cannabis producer licenses. The bill amends RCW 69.50.325 and RCW 69.50.331 and creates at least one new section; one provision states the act takes effect January 1, 2026. The bill defines and treats producer, processor, and retailer licenses, sets an application fee of $250 plus any additional required fee and an annual issuance/renewal fee of $1,381, requires a separate license for each location, and limits retail ownership to no more than five retail licenses per individual or aggregate ownership. It changes ownership disclosure and qualification rules (any natural person with more than 10% must qualify and be named; persons with >1%–10% must be identified; if no one holds >10% the largest natural person owner must qualify and be named), requires licensees to be at least 21, authorizes the board to consider criminal history and require fingerprinting (text on fingerprinting is incomplete), and allows the board to impose additional fees for investigating nonresidents. The bill requires the board to adopt forfeiture rules for retailers not operational (no forfeiture within nine months, mandatory forfeiture by 24 months unless extended for circumstances outside the licensee’s control, and exceptions where local bans or moratoria prevent opening), directs immediate suspension of licenses for DSHS-certified support-order noncompliance, suspends producer licenses with “no activity” reported to the Department of Revenue between July 1, 2023 and December 31, 2024 (to be reissued only if federal law or a Department of Justice opinion permits interstate transfer), and adds procedural authorities (delegation to staff, appointment of administrative law judges, witness fees, contempt enforcement by superior courts, license posting and return on suspension). The bill also bars locating or operating a producer or processor within Indian country without the consent of the federally recognized tribe; allows local governments to prohibit producers/processors in certain residential or rural zones; permits cities/counties to reduce certain distance requirements to not less than 100 feet for some facility types; requires the board to give substantial weight to local objections based on “chronic illegal activity” and prohibits issuing a new retail license if a timely local density-based objection from an incorporated city or county is received and is based on a preexisting ordinance; and encourages (but does not require) submission of social equity plans, reimbursing one renewal fee per entity once within 30 days if the board confirms submission. The bill text in the provided extracts is incomplete in places: the identity of “the board” is not specified in these extracts, there is conflicting or unclear language about whether entities must be formed under Washington law, the FBI/fingerprint language is cut off, some referenced subsections are missing, and the new section text and some implementation details are not included.

If enacted, this bill tightens who must be identified and qualify on cannabis licenses, creates clear per-location licensing and ownership limits for retailers (no more than five retail licenses per person or group), and sets up upfront and recurring costs (a $250 application fee plus any extra fees and a $1,381 annual renewal fee). Retail applicants face a new timeline risk: the board must adopt forfeiture rules that prevent forfeiture for the first nine months but require forfeiture by 24 months if a retail outlet is not open, unless local government actions prevented opening; producers and processors face new local zoning and tribal consent limits that can block locations, and producers with no reported activity between July 1, 2023 and December 31, 2024 will be suspended until federal policy changes allow interstate transfers or DOJ issues favorable guidance. Applicants and owners will have to disclose more ownership information (owners over 1% identified, over 10% named and qualifying), may pay extra investigative fees for nonresidents, and will be subject to fingerprinting and criminal-history screening (text about fingerprinting is incomplete), increasing compliance costs and regulatory risk; local governments, tribes, and the board gain stronger tools to object to or deny licenses for chronic illegal activity, and DSHS child-support certification can trigger immediate suspension. Some important details are unclear in the extracted text: the identity of the licensing board is not specified here, language about whether business entities must be formed under Washington law appears contradictory, the fingerprinting/criminal-history requirement is cut off, and some implementation mechanics for suspending and reissuing inactive producer licenses are only partly described. The act’s effective date is stated as January 1, 2026.