This bill creates a new chapter in Title 15 RCW called the "food economics, availability, and security over time act," declares a state policy favoring a stable food supply and nonadverse regulatory treatment of Washington farmers, and directs that state policies, regulations, and laws be interpreted consistently with those policies. It requires specified natural-resource-related agencies (including DNR, WDFW, Ecology, the Forest Practices Board, Commerce, and others referenced) to use systematic, interdisciplinary approaches that integrate natural and social sciences in planning and decision making affecting agriculture, to identify methods (in consultation with "the department" and the State Conservation Commission) to consider agricultural viability, to include an agricultural impact statement in recommendations or reports on proposals that significantly affect agriculture, to consult an agricultural economist before finalizing impact statements, and to study and describe alternatives for unresolved resource-use conflicts. The bill changes fiscal and procedural review processes. It directs the Director of Financial Management (OFM) to establish a mechanism for determining fiscal impacts of proposed legislation that would change regulatory costs for entities engaged in agriculture. OFM must prepare fiscal notes when requested by a legislator, consulting an agricultural economist, showing year-by-year impacts for the first two years and a cumulative six-year forecast. Fiscal notes must be completed within one week unless extended by the requesting legislator, and the director must provide daily progress reports if not completed in one week. The bill also adds procedural requirements for cities, towns, charter and noncharter code cities, and counties to complete agricultural impact statements within specified timeframes for annexations and for zoning amendments that remove agricultural designation. The bill imposes a mitigation sequence when DNR, WDFW, Ecology, the Forest Practices Board, or Commerce propose actions that deprive beneficial use of real property used in agriculture or other natural resource–based commercial activities and cause loss of financial benefit: (1) avoid impacts through technical assistance or amendment, (2) if avoidance is not reasonably attainable, minimize impacts by providing permanent access to replacement acreage (including from state lands), and (3) if neither avoidance nor minimization is reasonably attainable, compensate with in-kind mitigation or financial compensation from the habitat conservation account. It amends RCW 79A.15.040 to specify distribution priorities for the habitat conservation account (including minimum percentages for natural areas, riparian habitat, urban wildlife habitat, and a $3,000,000 cap for restoration on state lands with excess directed to riparian habitat), clarifies eligibility and evaluation criteria for grant applicants, and authorizes the board discretion in allocations. The bill also adds growth management planning amendments and reenacts and amends RCW 36.70A.130 and amends RCW 36.70A.110 to revise urban growth area designation, revision, review cycles, consultation with federally recognized tribes, limits on floodplain expansions in certain rivers, and deadlines for comprehensive plan and development regulation reviews; it requires mitigation for loss of agricultural land when zoning changes occur, with a three-to-one acreage conservation or restoration requirement if adjacent farmland is unavailable. The provided text is incomplete in several places. Key provisions referenced are cut off or cross-refer to section 2(3)(a), section 4(3), and other sections whose texts are not included here; the identity of "the department" is not always specified; and not all amendments or additions listed in the bill header (for example, specific new sections added to multiple municipal and county chapters) are fully shown in the extracted facts.

If enacted, state natural-resource agencies, the Office of Financial Management, and the board that manages the habitat conservation account would face new, routine obligations to analyze and address impacts on farming before approving rules, legislation recommendations, land-use changes, or projects. Agencies will need to prepare agricultural impact statements, consult agricultural economists, and study alternatives and mitigation, and certain agencies proposing actions that take away the beneficial use of farmland will be required to first try to avoid impacts, then provide permanent replacement acreage from state lands, and only then pay in-kind or financial compensation using habitat account funds. OFM must produce detailed fiscal notes on request showing near-term and six-year forecasts of impacts to the agricultural economy within one week (or report daily progress), which will add tight timelines and extra analytic work and could change how legislators evaluate regulatory proposals. Cities, towns, and counties will face more upfront planning duties and potential costs: annexations and zoning changes that remove land from agriculture will trigger quick agricultural impact statements and mandatory mitigation that usually requires conserving comparable adjacent farmland or, if none is available, conserving or restoring three acres for every one acre lost. Counties must follow stricter urban growth area review rules, consult tribes, and meet staggered deadlines for plan reviews; meeting those deadlines or showing substantial progress will affect eligibility for certain state grants and loans. These changes are likely to add administrative work, delay some approvals, and increase mitigation costs for jurisdictions and developers, while giving farmers stronger options for replacement land or compensation. Some important details are unclear in the extracted text (for example exact contents of the agricultural impact statement, definitions of “the department,” and habitat account allocations after 2016), so the precise fiscal and operational impacts cannot be fully determined from the provided material.