OLYMPIA — A House bill to require publicly funded projects to benefit salmon did not have enough support Monday to pass the Senate Ways and Means Committee, blocking the legislation, which was opposed by farm groups.

House Bill 1117 was scheduled for a vote by the Senate committee, but was skipped over. Committee Chairwoman Christine Rolfes, D-Bainbridge Island, said in an email that the bill did not have the votes to pass.

Although the bill is no longer under consideration in the Senate, the House has set aside more than $14 million in its budget proposal to develop rules for achieving “net ecological gain” through publicly owned or financed projects.

If Senate budget negotiators come around to the House’s position, HB 1117 could be voted on by the Senate before the Legislature adjourns March 10.

The public will have no more chances to comment on the legislation or watch it take its final shape. “The whole discussion goes underground,” Washington Farm Bureau director of government relations Tom Davis said.

HB 1117 would make salmon recovery a goal for cities and counties. All publicly owned or financed projects would have to have “net ecological gain,” even if the project was not near fish-bearing waters.

The bill would give the Department of Fish and Wildlife a free hand to determine what qualifies as net ecological gain.

Rep. Debra Lekanoff, a Skagit County Democrat who introduced the bill in the House, said the legislation was a vehicle for establishing riparian buffers.

Farm groups agree and compare HB 1117 to Gov. Jay Inslee’s failed proposal to mandate riparian buffers on farmland.

Washington State Dairy Federation executive director Dan Wood said Monday that budget writers should increase funding for voluntary conservation programs, rather than imposing “extreme regulations.”

“Doing that would actually harm salmon recovery because it would make it impossible for farmers to participate in conservation programs,” he said. “There is no soundness to that approach at all.”

Fish and Wildlife and environmental groups have testified in support of the bill, saying it’s necessary for salmon survival. Some tribal officials have criticized leaving salmon recovery up to an undefined “net ecological gain.”

Prior to Monday’s Ways and Means Committee meeting, Rolfes sponsored a striking amendment — a rewrite of the bill that would have kept salmon recovery as a goal for local governments but dropped most references to net ecological gain.

Rolfes said her proposal did not have enough support to pass and is no longer being considered.