title: RCW 90.58.170

text:
A shorelines hearings board sitting as a quasi-judicial body is hereby established within the environmental and land use hearings office under *RCW 43.21B.005. The shorelines hearings board shall be made up of six members: Three members shall be members of the pollution control hearings board; two members, one appointed by the association of Washington cities and one appointed by the association of county commissioners, both to serve at the pleasure of the associations; and the commissioner of public lands or his or her designee. The chair of the pollution control hearings board shall be the chair of the shorelines hearings board. Except as provided in RCW 90.58.185, a decision must be agreed to by at least four members of the board to be final. The members of the shorelines hearings board shall receive the compensation, travel, and subsistence expenses as provided in RCW 43.03.050 and 43.03.060.
[ 2013 c 23 s 614; 1994 c 253 s 1; 1988 c 128 s 76; 1979 ex.s. c 47 s 6; 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 17.]
Notes:
*Reviser's note: RCW 43.21B.005 was amended by 2010 c 210 s 4, changing the "environmental hearings office" to the "environmental and land use hearings office", effective July 1, 2011.
Intent—1979 ex.s. c 47: See note following RCW 43.21B.005.

catchline: Shorelines hearings board—Established—Members—Chair—Quorum for decision—Expenses of members.


doc_type: statute

jurisdiction: wa

title: RCW 90.58.175

text:
The shorelines hearings board may adopt rules and regulations governing the administrative practice and procedure in and before the board.
[ 1973 1st ex.s. c 203 s 3.]

license: public-domain-government-work

rule_set: Revised Code of Washington

catchline: Rules and regulations.

code: rcw

unit: section

court: Washington State Legislature


title: RCW 90.58.180

text:
(1)(a) Any person aggrieved by the granting, denying, or rescinding of a permit on shorelines of the state pursuant to RCW 90.58.140 may seek review from the shorelines hearings board by filing a petition for review within 21 days of the date of filing of the decision as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6).
(b) Within seven days of the filing of any petition for review with the board as provided in this section pertaining to a final decision of a local government, the petitioner shall serve copies of the petition on the department, the office of the attorney general, and the local government. The department and the attorney general may intervene to protect the public interest and ensure that the provisions of this chapter are complied with at any time within 15 days from the date of the receipt by the department or the attorney general of a copy of the petition for review filed pursuant to this section. The shorelines hearings board shall schedule review proceedings on the petition for review without regard as to whether the period for the department or the attorney general to intervene has or has not expired.
(2) The department or the attorney general may obtain review of any final decision granting a permit, or granting or denying an application for a permit issued by a local government by filing a written petition with the shorelines hearings board and the appropriate local government within 21 days from the date the final decision was filed as provided in RCW 90.58.140(6).
(3) The review proceedings authorized in subsections (1) and (2) of this section are subject to the provisions of chapter 34.05 RCW pertaining to procedures in adjudicative proceedings. Judicial review of such proceedings of the shorelines hearings board is governed by chapter 34.05 RCW. The board shall issue its decision on the appeal authorized under subsections (1) and (2) of this section within 180 days after the date the petition is filed with the board or a petition to intervene is filed by the department or the attorney general, whichever is later. The time period may be extended by the board for a period of 30 days upon a showing of good cause or may be waived by the parties.
(4) Any person may appeal any rules, regulations, or guidelines adopted or approved by the department within 30 days of the date of the adoption or approval. The board shall make a final decision within 60 days following the hearing held thereon.
(5) The board shall find the rule, regulation, or guideline to be valid and enter a final decision to that effect unless it determines that the rule, regulation, or guideline:
(a) Is clearly erroneous in light of the policy of this chapter; or
(b) Constitutes an implementation of this chapter in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; or
(c) Is arbitrary and capricious; or
(d) Was developed without fully considering and evaluating all material submitted to the department during public review and comment; or
(e) Was not adopted in accordance with required procedures.
(6) If the board makes a determination under subsection (5)(a) through (e) of this section, it shall enter a final decision declaring the rule, regulation, or guideline invalid, remanding the rule, regulation, or guideline to the department with a statement of the reasons in support of the determination, and directing the department to adopt, after a thorough consultation with the affected local government and any other interested party, a new rule, regulation, or guideline consistent with the board's decision.
(7) A decision of the board on the validity of a rule, regulation, or guideline shall be subject to review in superior court, if authorized pursuant to chapter 34.05 RCW. A petition for review of the decision of the shorelines hearings board on a rule, regulation, or guideline shall be filed within 30 days after the date of final decision by the shorelines hearings board.
(8) Where multiple permits for the same underlying clean energy project, as defined in RCW 43.158.010, have been appealed to one or more of the environmental boards, as identified in RCW 43.21B.005, the presiding officer shall consolidate the appeals, including appeals to the shorelines hearings board, pursuant to RCW 43.21B.340.
[ 2024 c 347 s 4; 2011 c 277 s 4; 2010 c 210 s 37; 2003 c 393 s 22; 1997 c 199 s 1; 1995 c 347 s 310; 1994 c 253 s 3; 1989 c 175 s 183; 1986 c 292 s 2; 1975-'76 2nd ex.s. c 51 s 2; 1975 1st ex.s. c 182 s 4; 1973 1st ex.s. c 203 s 2; 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 18.]
Notes:
Intent—Effective dates—Application—Pending cases and rules—2010 c 210: See notes following RCW 43.21B.001.
Finding—Severability—Part headings and table of contents not law—1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.
Effective date—1989 c 175: See note following RCW 34.05.010.
Severability—1986 c 292: See note following RCW 90.58.030.
Appeal under this chapter also subject of appeal under state environmental policy act: RCW 43.21C.075.

catchline: Review of granting, denying, or rescinding permits by shorelines hearings board—Board to act—Local government appeals to board—Grounds for declaring rule, regulation, or guideline invalid—Appeals to court—Consolidated appeals.


title: RCW 90.58.185

text:
(1) In the case of an appeal involving a single-family residence or appurtenance to a single-family residence, including a dock or pier designed to serve a single-family residence, appeals involving a penalty of fifteen thousand dollars or less, or other cases designated by the chair of the hearings board, the request for review may be heard by a panel of three board members, at least one and not more than two of whom shall be members of the pollution control hearings board. Two members of the three must agree to issue a final decision of the board. In designating appeals for review by panels of three hearings board members, the chair shall consider factors such as the complexity and precedential nature of the case and the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of using a short board versus a full board.
(2) The board shall define by rule alternative processes to expedite appeals, including those involving a single-family residence or appurtenance to a single-family residence, including a dock or pier designed to serve a single-family residence, or involving a penalty of fifteen thousand dollars or less. These alternatives may include: Mediation, upon agreement of all parties; submission of testimony by affidavit; or other forms that may lead to less formal and faster resolution of appeals.
[ 2009 c 422 s 1; 2005 c 34 s 1; 1994 c 253 s 2.]

catchline: Appeals involving single-family residences, involving penalties of fifteen thousand dollars or less, or other designated cases—Composition of board—Rules to expedite appeals.


title: RCW 90.58.190

text:
(1) The appeal of the department's decision to adopt a master program or amendment pursuant to RCW 90.58.070(2) or 90.58.090(5) is governed by RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598.
(2)(a) The department's final decision to approve or reject a proposed master program or master program amendment by a local government planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall be appealed to the growth management hearings board by filing a petition as provided in RCW 36.70A.290.
(b) If the appeal to the growth management hearings board concerns shorelines, the growth management hearings board shall review the proposed master program or amendment solely for compliance with the requirements of this chapter, the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines, the internal consistency provisions of RCW 36.70A.070, 36.70A.040(4), 35.63.125, and 35A.63.105, and chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to the adoption of master programs and amendments under chapter 90.58 RCW.
(c) If the appeal to the growth management hearings board concerns a shoreline of statewide significance, the board shall uphold the decision by the department unless the board, by clear and convincing evidence, determines that the decision of the department is noncompliant with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 or the applicable guidelines, or chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to the adoption of master programs and amendments under this chapter.
(d) The appellant has the burden of proof in all appeals to the growth management hearings board under this subsection.
(e) Any party aggrieved by a final decision of the growth management hearings board under this subsection may appeal the decision to superior court as provided in RCW 36.70A.300.
(3)(a) The department's final decision to approve or reject a proposed master program or master program amendment by a local government not planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall be appealed to the shorelines hearings board by filing a petition within thirty days of the date that the department publishes notice of its final decision under RCW 90.58.090(8).
(b) In an appeal relating to shorelines, the shorelines hearings board shall review the proposed master program or master program amendment and, after full consideration of the presentations of the parties, shall determine the validity of the local government's master program or amendment in light of the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines, and chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to the adoption of master programs and amendments under this chapter.
(c) In an appeal relating to shorelines of statewide significance, the shorelines hearings board shall uphold the decision by the department unless the board determines, by clear and convincing evidence that the decision of the department is noncompliant with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 or the applicable guidelines, or chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to the adoption of master programs and amendments under this chapter.
(d) Review by the shorelines hearings board shall be considered an adjudicative proceeding under chapter 34.05 RCW, the administrative procedure act. The appellant shall have the burden of proof in all such reviews.
(e) Whenever possible, the review by the shorelines hearings board shall be heard within the county where the land subject to the proposed master program or master program amendment is primarily located. The department and any party aggrieved by a final decision of the hearings board may appeal the decision to superior court as provided in chapter 34.05 RCW.
(4) A master program amendment shall become effective after the approval of the department or after the decision of the growth management hearings board or shorelines hearings board to uphold the master program or master program amendment, provided that either the growth management hearings board or the shorelines hearings board may remand the master program or master program amendment to the local government or the department for modification prior to the final adoption of the master program or master program amendment.
[ 2012 c 172 s 1; 2011 c 277 s 5. Prior: 2010 c 211 s 14; 2010 c 210 s 38; 2003 c 321 s 4; 1995 c 347 s 311; 1989 c 175 s 184; 1986 c 292 s 3; 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 19.]
Notes:
Effective date—Transfer of power, duties, and functions—2010 c 211: See notes following RCW 36.70A.250.
Intent—Effective dates—Application—Pending cases and rules—2010 c 210: See notes following RCW 43.21B.001.
Finding—Intent—2003 c 321: See note following RCW 90.58.030.
Finding—Severability—Part headings and table of contents not law—1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.
Effective date—1989 c 175: See note following RCW 34.05.010.
Severability—1986 c 292: See note following RCW 90.58.030.

catchline: Appeal of department's decision to adopt or amend a master program.


title: RCW 90.58.195

text:
(1) The department of ecology, in cooperation with other state agencies and coastal local governments, shall prepare and adopt ocean use guidelines and policies to be used in reviewing, and where appropriate, amending, shoreline master programs of local governments with coastal waters or coastal shorelines within their boundaries. These guidelines shall be finalized by April 1, 1990.
(2) After the department of ecology has adopted the guidelines required in subsection (1) of this section, counties, cities, and towns with coastal waters or coastal shorelines shall review their shoreline master programs to ensure that the programs conform with RCW 43.143.010 and 43.143.030 and with the department of ecology's ocean use guidelines. Amended master programs shall be submitted to the department of ecology for its approval under RCW 90.58.090 by June 30, 1991.
[ 1989 1st ex.s. c 2 s 13.]

catchline: Shoreline master plan review—Local governments with coastal waters or coastal shorelines.


title: RCW 90.58.200

text:
The department and local governments are authorized to adopt such rules as are necessary and appropriate to carry out the provisions of this chapter.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 20.]


title: RCW 90.58.210

text:
(1) Except as provided in RCW 43.05.060 through 43.05.080 and 43.05.150, the attorney general or the attorney for the local government shall bring such injunctive, declaratory, or other actions as are necessary to ensure that no uses are made of the shorelines of the state in conflict with the provisions and programs of this chapter, and to otherwise enforce the provisions of this chapter.
(2) Any person who shall fail to conform to the terms of a permit issued under this chapter or who shall undertake development on the shorelines of the state without first obtaining any permit required under this chapter shall also be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars for each violation. Each permit violation or each day of continued development without a required permit shall constitute a separate violation.
(3) The penalty provided for in this section shall be imposed by a notice in writing, either by certified mail with return receipt requested or by personal service, to the person incurring the same from the department or local government, describing the violation with reasonable particularity and ordering the act or acts constituting the violation or violations to cease and desist or, in appropriate cases, requiring necessary corrective action to be taken within a specific and reasonable time.
(4) The person incurring the penalty may appeal within thirty days from the date of receipt of the penalty. The term "date of receipt" has the same meaning as provided in RCW 43.21B.001. Any penalty imposed pursuant to this section by the department shall be subject to review by the shorelines hearings board. Any penalty imposed pursuant to this section by local government shall be subject to review by the local government legislative authority. Any penalty jointly imposed by the department and local government shall be appealed to the shorelines hearings board.
[ 2010 c 210 s 39; 1995 c 403 s 637; 1986 c 292 s 4; 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 21.]
Notes:
Intent—Effective dates—Application—Pending cases and rules—2010 c 210: See notes following RCW 43.21B.001.
Findings—Short title—Intent—1995 c 403: See note following RCW 34.05.328.
Severability—1986 c 292: See note following RCW 90.58.030.

catchline: Court actions to ensure against conflicting uses and to enforce—Civil penalty—Review.


title: RCW 90.58.220

text:
In addition to incurring civil liability under RCW 90.58.210, any person found to have wilfully engaged in activities on the shorelines of the state in violation of the provisions of this chapter or any of the master programs, rules, or regulations adopted pursuant thereto shall be guilty of a gross misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five nor more than one thousand dollars or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than ninety days, or by both such fine and imprisonment: PROVIDED, That the fine for the third and all subsequent violations in any five-year period shall be not less than five hundred nor more than ten thousand dollars: PROVIDED FURTHER, That fines for violations of RCW 90.58.550, or any rule adopted thereunder, shall be determined under RCW 90.58.560.
[ 1983 c 138 s 3; 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 22.]

catchline: General penalty.


title: RCW 90.58.230

text:
Any person subject to the regulatory program of this chapter who violates any provision of this chapter or permit issued pursuant thereto shall be liable for all damage to public or private property arising from such violation, including the cost of restoring the affected area to its condition prior to violation. The attorney general or local government attorney shall bring suit for damages under this section on behalf of the state or local governments. Private persons shall have the right to bring suit for damages under this section on their own behalf and on the behalf of all persons similarly situated. If liability has been established for the cost of restoring an area affected by a violation the court shall make provision to assure that restoration will be accomplished within a reasonable time at the expense of the violator. In addition to such relief, including money damages, the court in its discretion may award attorney's fees and costs of the suit to the prevailing party.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 23.]

catchline: Violators liable for damages resulting from violation—Attorney's fees and costs.


title: RCW 90.58.240

text:
In addition to any other powers granted hereunder, the department and local governments may:
(1) Acquire lands and easements within shorelines of the state by purchase, lease, or gift, either alone or in concert with other governmental entities, when necessary to achieve implementation of master programs adopted hereunder;
(2) Accept grants, contributions, and appropriations from any agency, public or private, or individual for the purposes of this chapter;
(3) Appoint advisory committees to assist in carrying out the purposes of this chapter;
(4) Contract for professional or technical services required by it which cannot be performed by its employees.
[ 1972 ex.s. c 53 s 1; 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 24.]

catchline: Additional authority granted department and local governments.


title: RCW 90.58.250

text:
(1) The legislature intends to eliminate the limits on state funding of shoreline master program development and amendment costs. The legislature further intends that the state will provide funding to local governments that is reasonable and adequate to accomplish the costs of developing and amending shoreline master programs consistent with the schedule established by RCW 90.58.080. Except as specifically described herein, nothing in chapter 262, Laws of 2003 is intended to alter the existing obligation, duties, and benefits provided by chapter 262, Laws of 2003 to local governments and the department.
(2) The department is directed to cooperate fully with local governments in discharging their responsibilities under this chapter. Funds shall be available for distribution to local governments on the basis of applications for preparation of master programs and the provisions of RCW 90.58.080(7). Such applications shall be submitted in accordance with regulations developed by the department. The department is authorized to make and administer grants within appropriations authorized by the legislature to any local government within the state for the purpose of developing a master shorelines program.
[ 2003 c 262 s 3; 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 25.]

catchline: Intent—Department to cooperate with local governments—Grants for development of master programs.


title: RCW 90.58.260

text:
The state, through the department of ecology and the attorney general, shall represent its interest before water resource regulation management, development, and use agencies of the United States, including among others, the federal power commission, environmental protection agency, corps of engineers, department of the interior, department of agriculture and the atomic energy commission, before interstate agencies and the courts with regard to activities or uses of shorelines of the state and the program of this chapter. Where federal or interstate agency plans, activities, or procedures conflict with state policies, all reasonable steps available shall be taken by the state to preserve the integrity of its policies.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 26.]

catchline: State to represent its interest before federal agencies, interstate agencies and courts.


title: RCW 90.58.270

text:
(1) Nothing in this section shall constitute authority for requiring or ordering the removal of any structures, improvements, docks, fills, or developments placed in navigable waters prior to December 4, 1969, and the consent and authorization of the state of Washington to the impairment of public rights of navigation, and corollary rights incidental thereto, caused by the retention and maintenance of said structures, improvements, docks, fills or developments are hereby granted: PROVIDED, That the consent herein given shall not relate to any structures, improvements, docks, fills, or developments placed on tidelands, shorelands, or beds underlying said waters which are in trespass or in violation of state statutes.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as altering or abridging any private right of action, other than a private right which is based upon the impairment of public rights consented to in subsection (1) of this section.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as altering or abridging the authority of the state or local governments to suppress or abate nuisances or to abate pollution.
(4) Subsection (1) of this section shall apply to any case pending in the courts of this state on June 1, 1971 relating to the removal of structures, improvements, docks, fills, or developments based on the impairment of public navigational rights.
(5)(a) A floating home permitted or legally established prior to January 1, 2011, must be classified as a conforming preferred use.
(b) For the purposes of this subsection:
(i) "Conforming preferred use" means that applicable development and shoreline master program regulations may only impose reasonable conditions and mitigation that will not effectively preclude maintenance, repair, replacement, and remodeling of existing floating homes and floating home moorages by rendering these actions impracticable.
(ii) "Floating home" means a single-family dwelling unit constructed on a float, that is moored, anchored, or otherwise secured in waters, and is not a vessel, even though it may be capable of being towed.
(6)(a) A floating on-water residence legally established prior to July 1, 2014, must be considered a conforming use and accommodated through reasonable shoreline master program regulations, permit conditions, or mitigation that will not effectively preclude maintenance, repair, replacement, and remodeling of existing floating on-water residences and their moorages by rendering these actions impracticable. A substantial development permit is not required when replacing or remodeling a floating on-water residence if the size of the existing residence is not materially exceeded. A substantial development permit is required if the replacement or remodel of a floating on-water residence materially exceeds the size of the existing residence. All replacements and remodels which add one hundred twenty square feet or more to the living space must require on-board graywater containment or a wastewater connection that disposes of the graywater to a wastewater disposal system.
(b) For the purpose of this subsection, "floating on-water residence" means a vessel or any other floating structure other than a floating home, as defined under subsection (5) of this section: (i) That is designed or used primarily as a residence on the water and has detachable utilities; and (ii) whose owner or primary occupant has held an ownership interest in space in a marina, or has held a lease or sublease to use space in a marina, since a date prior to July 1, 2014.
[ 2021 c 148 s 1; 2014 c 56 s 2; 2011 c 212 s 2; 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 27.]
Notes:
Finding—Intent—2014 c 56: "(1) The legislature recognizes that all Washington residents benefit from the unique aesthetic, recreational, and economic opportunities that are derived from the state's aquatic resources, including its navigable waters and shoreline areas. The legislature also recognizes that, as affirmed in chapter 212, Laws of 2011, existing floating homes are an important cultural amenity and an element of the state's maritime history and economy. The 2011 legislation, which clarified the legal status of floating homes, was intended to ensure the vitality and long-term survival of existing floating single-family home communities.
(2) The legislature finds that further clarification of the status of other residential uses on water that meet specific requirements and share important cultural, historical, and economic commonalities with floating homes, is necessary.
(3) The legislature, therefore, intends to: Preserve the existence and vitality of current, floating on-water residential uses; establish greater clarity and regulatory uniformity for these uses; and respect the well-established authority of local governments to determine compliance with regulatory requirements applicable to their jurisdiction." [ 2014 c 56 s 1.]
Finding—2011 c 212: "The legislature recognizes that existing floating homes, as part of our state's existing houseboat communities, are an important cultural amenity and element of our maritime history. These surviving floating home communities are a linkage to the past, when our waterways were the focus of commerce, transport, and development. In order to ensure the vitality and long-term survival of these existing floating home communities, consistent with the legislature's goal of allowing their continued use, improvement, and replacement without undue burden, the legislature finds that it is necessary to clarify their legal status." [ 2011 c 212 s 1.]

catchline: Nonapplication to certain structures, docks, developments, etc., placed in navigable waters—Nonapplication to certain rights of action, authority—Floating homes and floating on-water residences must be classified as a conforming preferred use.


title: RCW 90.58.280

text:
The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable to all agencies of state government, counties, and public and municipal corporations and to all shorelines of the state owned or administered by them.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 28.]

catchline: Application to all state agencies, counties, public and municipal corporations.


title: RCW 90.58.290

text:
The restrictions imposed by this chapter shall be considered by the county assessor in establishing the fair market value of the property.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 29.]

catchline: Restrictions as affecting fair market value of property.


title: RCW 90.58.300

text:
The department of ecology is designated the state agency responsible for the program of regulation of the shorelines of the state, including coastal shorelines and the shorelines of the inner tidal waters of the state, and is authorized to cooperate with the federal government and sister states and to receive benefits of any statutes of the United States whenever enacted which relate to the programs of this chapter.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 30.]

catchline: Department as regulating state agency—Special authority.


title: RCW 90.58.310

text:
Additional shorelines of the state shall be designated shorelines of statewide significance only by affirmative action of the legislature.
The director of the department may, however, from time to time, recommend to the legislature areas of the shorelines of the state which have statewide significance relating to special economic, ecological, educational, developmental, recreational, or aesthetic values to be designated as shorelines of statewide significance.
Prior to making any such recommendation the director shall hold a public hearing in the county or counties where the shoreline under consideration is located. It shall be the duty of the county commissioners of each county where such a hearing is conducted to submit their views with regard to a proposed designation to the director at such date as the director determines but in no event shall the date be later than sixty days after the public hearing in the county.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 31.]

catchline: Designation of shorelines of statewide significance by legislature—Recommendation by director, procedure.


title: RCW 90.58.320

text:
No permit shall be issued pursuant to this chapter for any new or expanded building or structure of more than thirty-five feet above average grade level on shorelines of the state that will obstruct the view of a substantial number of residences on areas adjoining such shorelines except where a master program does not prohibit the same and then only when overriding considerations of the public interest will be served.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 32.]

catchline: Height limitation respecting permits.


title: RCW 90.58.340

text:
All state agencies, counties, and public and municipal corporations shall review administrative and management policies, regulations, plans, and ordinances relative to lands under their respective jurisdictions adjacent to the shorelines of the state so as the [to] achieve a use policy on said land consistent with the policy of this chapter, the guidelines, and the master programs for the shorelines of the state. The department may develop recommendations for land use control for such lands. Local governments shall, in developing use regulations for such areas, take into consideration any recommendations developed by the department as well as any other state agencies or units of local government.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 34.]

catchline: Use policies for land adjacent to shorelines, development of.


title: RCW 90.58.350

text:
Nothing in this chapter shall affect any rights established by treaty to which the United States is a party.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 35.]

catchline: Nonapplication to treaty rights.


title: RCW 90.58.355

text:
Requirements to obtain a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other review conducted by a local government to implement this chapter do not apply to:
(1) Any person conducting a remedial action at a facility pursuant to a consent decree, order, or agreed order issued pursuant to chapter 70A.305 RCW, or to the department of ecology when it conducts a remedial action under chapter 70A.305 RCW. The department must ensure compliance with the substantive requirements of this chapter through the consent decree, order, or agreed order issued pursuant to chapter 70A.305 RCW, or during the department-conducted remedial action, through the procedures developed by the department pursuant to RCW 70A.305.090;
(2) Any person installing site improvements for stormwater treatment in an existing boatyard facility to meet requirements of a national pollutant discharge elimination system stormwater general permit. The department must ensure compliance with the substantive requirements of this chapter through the review of engineering reports, site plans, and other documents related to the installation of boatyard stormwater treatment facilities;
(3) The department of transportation projects and activities that meet the conditions of RCW 90.58.356;
(4) Projects and activities undertaken by the department of fish and wildlife, a federally recognized Indian tribe, a public utility district, or a municipal utility that meet the conditions of RCW 90.58.357; or
(5) Actions taken on the Columbia river by the United States army corps of engineers, under the authority of United States Code Titles 33 and 42 and 33 C.F.R. Sec. 335, to maintain and improve federal navigation channels in accordance with federally mandated dredged material management and improvement project plans, provided the project: (a) Has undergone environmental review under both the national environmental policy act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4321-4370h and the state environmental policy act, chapter 43.21C RCW; and (b) has applied for federal clean water act section 401 water quality certifications issued by the department.
[ 2023 c 305 s 2; 2021 c 299 s 1; 2020 c 20 s 1506; 2015 3rd sp.s. c 15 s 9; 2012 c 169 s 1; 1994 c 257 s 20.]
Notes:
Finding—2023 c 305: "The legislature finds that fish hatchery programs require routine maintenance in order to keep them operational." [ 2023 c 305 s 1.]
Finding—Intent—2015 3rd sp.s. c 15: See note following RCW 90.58.356.
Severability—1994 c 257: See note following RCW 36.70A.270.

catchline: Persons, projects, and activities not required to obtain certain permits, variances, letters of exemption, or other local review.


title: RCW 90.58.356

text:
(1) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:
(a) "Maintenance" means the preservation of the transportation facility or transit facility, including surface, shoulders, roadsides, structures including, but not limited to, bridges and buried structures, ditches and all stormwater treatment and conveyance features, environmental mitigation sites, utilities appurtenant to transportation system operations, and such traffic control devices as are necessary for safe and efficient utilization of the highway in a manner that substantially conforms to the preexisting design, function, and location as the original except to meet current engineering standards or environmental permit requirements.
(b) "Repair" means to restore a structure or development to a state comparable to its original condition including, but not limited to, restoring the development's size, shape, configuration, location, and external appearance, within a reasonable period after decay or partial destruction. Repair of a structure or development may not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or the shoreline environment. Replacement of a structure or development may be considered a repair if: Replacement is the common method of repair for the type of structure or development; the replacement structure or development is comparable to the original structure or development including, but not limited to, the size, shape, configuration, location, and external appearance of the original structure or development; and the replacement does not cause substantial adverse effects to shoreline resources or the shoreline environment.
(c) "Replacement" of any existing transportation facility, or transit facility, including surface, shoulders, roadsides, structures including, but not limited to, bridges and buried structures, ditches and all stormwater treatment and conveyance features, utilities appurtenant to transportation system operations, environmental mitigation sites, and traffic control devices, means to replace in a manner that substantially conforms to the preexisting design, function, and location as the original except to meet current engineering standards or environmental permit requirements. Maintenance or replacement activities do not involve expansion of automobile lanes, and do not result in significant negative shoreline impact.
(2) The following department of transportation projects and activities do not require a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other review conducted by a local government:
(a) Maintenance, repair, or replacement that occurs within the roadway prism of a state highway as defined in RCW 46.04.560, the lease or ownership area of a state ferry terminal, or the lease or ownership area of a transit facility, including ancillary transportation facilities such as pedestrian paths, bicycle paths, or both, and bike lanes;
(b) Construction or installation of safety structures and equipment, including pavement marking, freeway surveillance and control systems, railroad protective devices not including grade separated crossings, grooving, glare screen, safety barriers, energy attenuators, and hazardous or dangerous tree removal;
(c) Maintenance occurring within the right-of-way; or
(d) Construction undertaken in response to unforeseen, extraordinary circumstances that is necessary to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation of service from a lawfully established transportation facility.
(3) Construction, maintenance, repair, or replacement work on transit facilities, when the work is conducted within a department of transportation right-of-way, does not require a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other review conducted by a local government.
[ 2025 c 417 s 601; 2015 3rd sp.s. c 15 s 10.]
Notes:
Findings—Intent—2025 c 417: See note following RCW 82.38.030.
Finding—2015 3rd sp.s. c 15: "To ensure that vital maintenance and minor safety upgrades to state transportation facilities are efficiently achieved while still protecting the shoreline environment, the legislature finds that it is in the public interest to exclude state highway maintenance and minor safety upgrade activities from local review and approval processes under the shoreline management act, as provided in RCW 90.58.355 and 90.58.356." [ 2015 3rd sp.s. c 15 s 8.]
Effective date—Findings—Intent—2015 3rd sp.s. c 15: See notes following RCW 47.01.485.

catchline: Projects and activities not required to obtain certain permits, variances, letters of exemption, or other local review.


title: RCW 90.58.357

text:
(1) The following maintenance activities undertaken by the department of fish and wildlife, a federally recognized Indian tribe, a public utility district, or a municipal utility, necessary to maintain the operation of fish hatcheries, including water intakes and discharges, fish ladders, water and power conveyances, weirs, and racks and traps used for fish collection, do not require a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other review conducted by a local government:
(a) Maintenance, repair, or replacement of equipment and components that support the larger hatchery facility and occur within the existing footprint of fish hatchery facilities;
(b) Construction or installation of safety structures and equipment;
(c) Maintenance occurring within existing water intake and outflow sites during times when fish presence is minimized; or
(d) Construction undertaken in response to unforeseen, extraordinary circumstances that is necessary to prevent a decline, lapse, or cessation of operation of a fish hatchery facility.
(2) The proponent of a project undertaken pursuant to this section must ensure compliance with the substantive requirements of this chapter for projects under this section. Projects undertaken under this section must not adversely affect public access or shoreline ecological functions.
(3) Prior to beginning a maintenance or repair project, the proponent of the project must provide written notification of projects authorized under this section to the local government with jurisdiction and to the department.
[ 2023 c 305 s 3.]
Notes:
Finding—2023 c 305: See note following RCW 90.58.355.

catchline: Maintenance activities performed by certain entities that do not require a substantial development permit, conditional use permit, variance, letter of exemption, or other review conducted by a local government—Notification.


title: RCW 90.58.360

text:
Nothing in this chapter shall obviate any requirement to obtain any permit, certificate, license, or approval from any state agency or local government.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 36.]

catchline: Existing requirements for permits, certificates, etc., not obviated.


title: RCW 90.58.370

text:
All state and local agencies with authority under this chapter to issue permits or other authorizations in connection with emergency water withdrawals and facilities authorized under RCW 43.83B.410 shall expedite the processing of such permits or authorizations in keeping with the emergency nature of such requests and shall provide a decision to the applicant within fifteen calendar days of the date of application.
[ 1989 c 171 s 11; 1987 c 343 s 5.]
Notes:
Severability—1989 c 171: See note following RCW 43.83B.400.

catchline: Processing of permits or authorizations for emergency water withdrawal and facilities to be expedited.


title: RCW 90.58.380

text:
The department by rule shall adopt a manual for the delineation of wetlands under this chapter that implements and is consistent with the 1987 manual in use on January 1, 1995, by the United States army corps of engineers and the United States environmental protection agency. If the corps of engineers and the environmental protection agency adopt changes to or a different manual, the department shall consider those changes and may adopt rules implementing those changes.
[ 1995 c 382 s 11.]

catchline: Adoption of wetland manual.


title: RCW 90.58.515

text:
Watershed restoration projects as defined in RCW 89.08.460 are exempt from the requirement to obtain a substantial development permit. Local government shall review the projects for consistency with the locally adopted shoreline master program in an expeditious manner and shall issue its decision along with any conditions within forty-five days of receiving a complete consolidated application form from the applicant. No fee may be charged for accepting and processing applications for watershed restoration projects as used in this section.
[ 1995 c 378 s 16.]


title: RCW 90.58.550

text:
(1) Within this section the following definitions apply:
(a) "Exploration activity" means reconnaissance or survey work related to gathering information about geologic features and formations underlying or adjacent to marine waters;
(b) "Marine waters" include the waters of Puget Sound north to the Canadian border, the waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the waters between the western boundary of the state and the ordinary high water mark, and related bays and estuaries;
(c) "Vessel" includes ships, boats, barges, or any other floating craft.
(2) A person desiring to perform oil or natural gas exploration activities by vessel located on or within marine waters of the state shall first obtain a permit from the department of ecology. The department may approve an application for a permit only if it determines that the proposed activity will not:
(a) Interfere materially with the normal public uses of the marine waters of the state;
(b) Interfere with activities authorized by a permit issued under RCW 90.58.140(2);
(c) Injure the marine biota, beds, or tidelands of the waters;
(d) Violate water quality standards established by the department; or
(e) Create a public nuisance.
(3) Decisions on an application under subsection (2) of this section are subject to review only by the pollution control hearings board under chapter 43.21B RCW.
(4) This section does not apply to activities conducted by an agency of the United States or the state of Washington.
(5) This section does not lessen, reduce, or modify RCW 90.58.160.
(6) The department may adopt rules necessary to implement this section.
(7) The attorney general shall enforce this section.
[ 1983 c 138 s 1.]
Notes:
Ocean resources management act: Chapter 43.143 RCW.
Transport of petroleum products or hazardous substances: Chapter 88.40 RCW.

catchline: Oil or natural gas exploration in marine waters—Definitions—Application for permit—Requirements—Review—Enforcement.


title: RCW 90.58.560

text:
(1) Except as provided in RCW 43.05.060 through 43.05.080 and 43.05.150, a person who violates RCW 90.58.550, or any rule adopted thereunder, is subject to a penalty in an amount of up to five thousand dollars a day for every such violation. Each and every such violation shall be a separate and distinct offense, and in case of a continuing violation, every day's continuance shall be and be deemed to be a separate and distinct violation. Every act of commission or omission which procures, aids or abets in the violation shall be considered a violation under the provisions of this section and subject to the penalty provided for in this section.
(2) The penalty shall be imposed by a notice in writing, either by certified mail with return receipt requested or by personal service, to the person incurring the penalty from the director or the director's representative describing such violation with reasonable particularity.
(3) Any person incurring any penalty under this section may appeal the penalty to the hearings board as provided for in chapter 43.21B RCW. Such appeals shall be filed within thirty days from the date of receipt of the penalty. Any penalty imposed under this section shall become due and payable thirty days after receipt of a notice imposing the same unless an appeal is filed. Whenever an appeal of any penalty incurred under this section is filed, the penalty shall become due and payable only upon completion of all review proceedings and the issuance of a final order confirming the penalty in whole or in part.
(4) If the amount of any penalty is not paid to the department within thirty days after it becomes due and payable, the attorney general, upon the request of the director, shall bring an action in the name of the state of Washington in the superior court of Thurston county or of any county in which such violator may do business, to recover such penalty. In all such actions the procedure and rules of evidence shall be the same as an ordinary civil action except as otherwise provided in this chapter. All penalties recovered under this section shall be paid into the state treasury and credited to the general fund.
[ 2010 c 210 s 40; 1995 c 403 s 638; 1983 c 138 s 2.]
Notes:
Intent—Effective dates—Application—Pending cases and rules—2010 c 210: See notes following RCW 43.21B.001.
Findings—Short title—Intent—1995 c 403: See note following RCW 34.05.328.

catchline: Oil or natural gas exploration—Violations of RCW 90.58.550—Penalty—Appeal.


title: RCW 90.58.570

text:
The department of ecology shall consult with affected state agencies, local governments, Indian tribes, and the public prior to responding to federal coastal zone management consistency certifications for uses and activities occurring on the federal outer continental shelf.
[ 1989 1st ex.s. c 2 s 15.]

catchline: Consultation before responding to federal coastal zone management certificates.


title: RCW 90.58.580

text:
(1) The local government may grant relief from shoreline master program development standards and use regulations within urban growth areas when the following apply:
(a) A shoreline restoration project causes or would cause a landward shift in the ordinary high water mark, resulting in the following:
(i)(A) Land that had not been regulated under this chapter prior to construction of the restoration project is brought under shoreline jurisdiction; or
(B) Additional regulatory requirements apply due to a landward shift in required shoreline buffers or other regulations of the applicable shoreline master program; and
(ii) Application of shoreline master program regulations would preclude or interfere with use of the property permitted by local development regulations, thus presenting a hardship to the project proponent;
(b) The proposed relief meets the following criteria:
(i) The proposed relief is the minimum necessary to relieve the hardship;
(ii) After granting the proposed relief, there is net environmental benefit from the restoration project;
(iii) Granting the proposed relief is consistent with the objectives of the shoreline restoration project and consistent with the shoreline master program; and
(iv) Where a shoreline restoration project is created as mitigation to obtain a development permit, the project proponent required to perform the mitigation is not eligible for relief under this section; and
(c) The application for relief must be submitted to the department for written approval or disapproval. This review must occur during the department's normal review of a shoreline substantial development permit, conditional use permit, or variance. If no such permit is required, then the department shall conduct its review when the local government provides a copy of a complete application and all supporting information necessary to conduct the review.
(i) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (2) of this section, the department shall provide at least twenty-days notice to parties that have indicated interest to the department in reviewing applications for relief under this section, and post the notice on their website.
(ii) The department shall act within thirty calendar days of close of the public notice period, or within thirty days of receipt of the proposal from the local government if additional public notice is not required.
(2) The public notice requirements of subsection (1)(c) of this section do not apply if the relevant shoreline restoration project was included in a shoreline master program or shoreline restoration plan as defined in WAC 173-26-201, as follows:
(a) The restoration plan has been approved by the department under applicable shoreline master program guidelines;
(b) The shoreline restoration project is specifically identified in the shoreline master program or restoration plan or is located along a shoreline reach identified in the shoreline master program or restoration plan as appropriate for granting relief from shoreline regulations; and
(c) The shoreline master program or restoration plan includes policies addressing the nature of the relief and why, when, and how it would be applied.
(3) A substantial development permit is not required on land within urban growth areas as defined in RCW 36.70A.030 that is brought under shoreline jurisdiction due to a shoreline restoration project creating a landward shift in the ordinary high water mark.
(4) The definitions in this subsection apply throughout this section unless the context clearly requires otherwise.
(a) "Shoreline restoration project" means a project designed to restore impaired ecological function of a shoreline.
(b) "Urban growth areas" has the same meaning as defined in RCW 36.70A.030.
[ 2009 c 405 s 2.]
Notes:
Finding—Intent—2009 c 405: "The legislature finds that restoration of degraded shoreline conditions is important to the ecological function of our waters. However, restoration projects that shift the location of the shoreline can inadvertently create hardships for property owners, particularly in urban areas. Hardship may occur when a shoreline restoration project shifts shoreline management act regulations into areas that had not previously been regulated under the act or shifts the location of required shoreline buffers. The legislature intends to provide relief to property owners in such cases, while protecting the viability of shoreline restoration projects." [ 2009 c 405 s 1.]

catchline: Shoreline restoration projects—Relief from shoreline master program development standards and use regulations.


title: RCW 90.58.590

text:
(1) Local governments may adopt moratoria or other interim official controls as necessary and appropriate to implement this chapter.
(2)(a) A local government adopting a moratorium or control under this section must:
(i) Hold a public hearing on the moratorium or control;
(ii) Adopt detailed findings of fact that include, but are not limited to justifications for the proposed or adopted actions and explanations of the desired and likely outcomes;
(iii) Notify the department of the moratorium or control immediately after its adoption. The notification must specify the time, place, and date of any public hearing required by this subsection;
(iv) Provide that all lawfully existing uses, structures, or other development shall continue to be deemed lawful conforming uses and may continue to be maintained, repaired, and redeveloped, so long as the use is not expanded, under the terms of the land use and shoreline rules and regulations in place at the time of the moratorium.
(b) The public hearing required by this section must be held within sixty days of the adoption of the moratorium or control.
(3) A moratorium or control adopted under this section may be effective for up to six months if a detailed work plan for remedying the issues and circumstances necessitating the moratorium or control is developed and made available for public review. A moratorium or control may be renewed for two six-month periods if the local government complies with subsection (2)(a) of this section before each renewal. If a moratorium or control is in effect on the date a proposed master program or amendment is submitted to the department, the moratorium or control must remain in effect until the department's final action under RCW 90.58.090; however, the moratorium expires six months after the date of submittal if the department has not taken final action.
(4) Nothing in this section may be construed to modify county and city moratoria powers conferred outside this chapter.
[ 2009 c 444 s 2.]
Notes:
Intent—2009 c 444: "The legislature recognizes that cities and counties have moratoria authority granted through constitutional and statutory provisions and that this authority, when properly exercised, is an important aspect of complying with environmental stewardship and protection requirements.
Recognizing the fundamental role and value of properly exercised moratoria, the legislature intends to establish new moratoria procedures and to affirm moratoria authority that local governments have and may exercise when implementing the shoreline management act, while recognizing the legitimate interests of existing shoreline-related developments during the period of interim moratoria." [ 2009 c 444 s 1.]

catchline: Local governments authorized to adopt moratoria—Requirements—Public hearing.


title: RCW 90.58.600

text:
With respect to the National Scenic Area, as defined in the Columbia [River] Gorge National Scenic Area Act, P.L. 99-663, the exercise of any power or authority by a local government or the department of ecology pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to and in conformity with the requirements of chapter 43.97 RCW, including the management plan regulations and ordinances adopted by the Columbia River Gorge commission pursuant to the Compact.
[ 1987 c 499 s 10.]

catchline: Conformance with chapter 43.97 RCW required.


title: RCW 90.58.610

text:
RCW 36.70A.480 governs the relationship between shoreline master programs and development regulations to protect critical areas that are adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW.
[ 2010 c 107 s 4.]
Notes:
Intent—Retroactive application—Effective date—2010 c 107: See notes following RCW 36.70A.480.

catchline: Relationship between shoreline master programs and development regulations under growth management act governed by RCW 36.70A.480.


title: RCW 90.58.620

text:
(1) New or amended master programs approved by the department on or after September 1, 2011, may include provisions authorizing:
(a) Residential structures and appurtenant structures that were legally established and are used for a conforming use, but that do not meet standards for the following to be considered a conforming structure: Setbacks, buffers, or yards; area; bulk; height; or density; and
(b) Redevelopment, expansion, change with the class of occupancy, or replacement of the residential structure if it is consistent with the master program, including requirements for no net loss of shoreline ecological functions.
(2) For purposes of this section, "appurtenant structures" means garages, sheds, and other legally established structures. "Appurtenant structures" does not include bulkheads and other shoreline modifications or overwater structures.
(3) Nothing in this section: (a) Restricts the ability of a master program to limit redevelopment, expansion, or replacement of overwater structures located in hazardous areas, such as floodplains and geologically hazardous areas; or (b) affects the application of other federal, state, or local government requirements to residential structures.
[ 2011 c 323 s 2.]
Notes:
Findings—2011 c 323: "(1) The legislature recognizes that there is concern from property owners regarding legal status of existing legally developed shoreline structures under updated shoreline master programs. Significant concern has been expressed by residential property owners during shoreline master program updates regarding the legal status of existing shoreline structures that may not meet current standards for new development.
(2) Engrossed House Bill No. 1653, enacted as chapter 107, Laws of 2010 clarified the status of existing structures in the shoreline area under the growth management act prior to the update of shoreline regulations. It is in the public interest to clarify the legal status of these structures that will apply after shoreline regulations are updated.
(3) Updated shoreline master programs must include provisions to ensure that expansion, redevelopment, and replacement of existing structures will result in no net loss of the ecological function of the shoreline. Classifying existing structures as legally conforming will not create a risk of degrading shoreline natural resources." [ 2011 c 323 s 1.]

catchline: New or amended master programs—Authorized provisions.


title: RCW 90.58.630

text:
The department shall update its shoreline master program guidelines to require shoreline master programs to address the impact of sea level rise and increased storm severity on people, property, and shoreline natural resources and the environment.
[ 2023 c 228 s 11.]

catchline: Shoreline master programs—Impact of sea level rise and storm severity.


title: RCW 90.58.900

text:
This chapter is exempted from the rule of strict construction, and it shall be liberally construed to give full effect to the objectives and purposes for which it was enacted.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 37.]

catchline: Liberal construction—1971 ex.s. c 286.


title: RCW 90.58.920

text:
This chapter is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, the support of the state government, and its existing institutions. This 1971 act shall take effect on June 1, 1971. The director of ecology is authorized to immediately take such steps as are necessary to insure that this 1971 act is implemented on its effective date.
[ 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 41.]

catchline: Effective date—1971 ex.s. c 286.


title: RCW 90.64.005

text:
The legislature finds that there is a need to establish a clear and understandable process that provides for the proper and effective management of dairy nutrients that affect the quality of surface or ground waters in the state of Washington. The legislature finds that there is a need for a program that will provide a stable and predictable business climate upon which dairy farms may base future investment decisions.
The legislature finds that federal regulations require a permit program for dairies with over seven hundred head of mature cows and, other specified dairy farms that directly discharge into waters or are otherwise significant contributors of pollution. The legislature finds that significant work has been ongoing over a period of time and that the intent of this chapter is to take the consensus that has been developed and place it into statutory form.
It is also the intent of this chapter to establish an inspection and technical assistance program for dairy farms to address the discharge of pollution to surface and ground waters of the state that will lead to water quality compliance by the industry. A further purpose is to create a balanced program involving technical assistance, regulation, and enforcement with coordination and oversight of the program by a *committee composed of industry, agency, and other representatives. Furthermore, it is the objective of this chapter to maintain the administration of the water quality program as it relates to dairy operations at the state level.
It is also the intent of this chapter to recognize the existing working relationships between conservation districts, the conservation commission, and the department of ecology in protecting water quality of the state. A further purpose of this chapter is to provide statutory recognition of the coordination of the functions of conservation districts, the conservation commission, and the department of ecology pertaining to development of dairy waste management plans for the protection of water quality.
[ 1998 c 262 s 1; 1993 c 221 s 1.]
Notes:
*Reviser's note: The dairy nutrient management program advisory and oversight committee was created in section 8, chapter 262, Laws of 1998, which was vetoed.

catchline: Findings.


title: RCW 90.64.010

text:
Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, the definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter.
(1) "*Advisory and oversight committee" means a balanced committee of agency, dairy farm, and interest group representatives convened to provide oversight and direction to the dairy nutrient management program.
(2) "Bypass" means the intentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility.
(3) "Catastrophic" means a tornado, hurricane, earthquake, flood, or other extreme condition that causes an overflow from a required waste retention structure.
(4) "Certification" means:
(a) The acknowledgment by a local conservation district that a dairy producer has constructed or otherwise put in place the elements necessary to implement his or her dairy nutrient management plan; and
(b) The acknowledgment by a dairy producer that he or she is managing dairy nutrients as specified in his or her approved dairy nutrient management plan.
(5) "Chronic" means a series of wet weather events that precludes the proper operation of a dairy nutrient management system that is designed for the current herd size.
(6) "Conservation commission" or "commission" means the conservation commission under chapter 89.08 RCW.
(7) "Conservation districts" or "district" means a subdivision of state government organized under chapter 89.08 RCW.
(8) "Concentrated dairy animal feeding operation" means a dairy animal feeding operation subject to regulation under this chapter which the director designates under RCW 90.64.020 or meets the following criteria:
(a) Has more than seven hundred mature dairy cows, whether milked or dry cows, that are confined; or
(b) Has more than two hundred head of mature dairy cattle, whether milked or dry cows, that are confined and either:
(i) From which pollutants are discharged into navigable waters through a man-made ditch, flushing system, or other similar man-made device; or
(ii) From which pollutants are discharged directly into surface or ground waters of the state that originate outside of and pass over, across, or through the facility or otherwise come into direct contact with the animals confined in the operation.
(9) "Dairy animal feeding operation" means a lot or facility where the following conditions are met:
(a) Dairy animals that have been, are, or will be stabled or confined and fed for a total of forty-five days or more in any twelve-month period; and
(b) Crops, vegetation forage growth, or postharvest residues are not sustained in the normal growing season over any portion of the lot or facility. Two or more dairy animal feeding operations under common ownership are considered, for the purposes of this chapter, to be a single dairy animal feeding operation if they adjoin each other or if they use a common area for land application of wastes.
(10) "Dairy farm" means any farm that is licensed to produce milk under chapter 15.36 RCW.
(11) "Dairy nutrient" means any organic waste produced by dairy cows or a dairy farm operation.
(12) "Dairy nutrient management plan" means a plan meeting the requirements established under RCW 90.64.026.
(13) "Dairy producer" means a person who owns or operates a dairy farm.
(14) "Department" means the department of ecology under chapter 43.21A RCW.
(15) "Director" means the director of the department of ecology, or his or her designee.
(16) "Upset" means an exceptional incident in which there is an unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the dairy. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation.
(17) "Violation" means the following acts or omissions:
(a) A discharge of pollutants into the waters of the state, except those discharges that are due to a chronic or catastrophic event, or to an upset as provided in 40 C.F.R. Sec. 122.41, or to a bypass as provided in 40 C.F.R. Sec. 122.41, and that occur when:
(i) A dairy producer has a current national pollutant discharge elimination system permit with a wastewater system designed, operated, and maintained for the current herd size and that contains all process-generated wastewater plus average annual precipitation minus evaporation plus contaminated stormwater runoff from a twenty-five year, twenty-four hour rainfall event for that specific location, and the dairy producer has complied with all permit conditions, including dairy nutrient management plan conditions for appropriate land application practices; or
(ii) A dairy producer does not have a national pollutant discharge elimination system permit, but has complied with all of the elements of a dairy nutrient management plan that: Prevents the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state, is commensurate with the dairy producer's current herd size, and is approved and certified under RCW 90.64.026;
(b) Failure to register as required under RCW 90.64.017;
(c)(i) Until July 1, 2011, failure to keep for a period of three years all records necessary to show that applications of nutrients to the land were within acceptable agronomic rates, unless otherwise required by law; and
(ii) Beginning July 1, 2011, failure to keep for a period of five years all records necessary to show that applications of nutrients to the land were within acceptable agronomic rates;
(d) The lack of an approved dairy nutrient management plan by July 1, 2002; or
(e) The lack of a certified dairy nutrient management plan for a dairy farm after December 31, 2003.
[ 2009 c 143 s 2; 1998 c 262 s 2; 1993 c 221 s 2.]
Notes:
*Reviser's note: The dairy nutrient management program advisory and oversight committee was created in section 8, chapter 262, Laws of 1998, which was vetoed.

catchline: Definitions.


title: RCW 90.64.017

text:
(1) Every dairy producer licensed under chapter 15.36 RCW shall register with the department by September 1, 1998, and shall reregister with the department by September 1st of every even-numbered year. Every dairy producer licensed after September 1, 1998, shall register with the department within sixty days of licensing. The purpose of registration is to provide and update baseline information for the dairy nutrient management program.
(2) To facilitate registration, the department shall obtain from the food safety and animal health division of the department of agriculture a current list of all licensed dairy producers in the state and mail a registration form to each licensed dairy producer no later than July 15, 1998.
(3) At a minimum, the form shall require the following information as of the date the form is completed:
(a) The name and address of the operator of the dairy farm;
(b) The name and address of the dairy farm;
(c) The telephone number of the dairy farm;
(d) The number of cows in the dairy farm;
(e) The number of young stock in the dairy farm;
(f) The number of acres owned and rented in the dairy farm;
(g) Whether the dairy producer, to the best of his or her knowledge, has a plan for managing dairy nutrient discharges that is commensurate with the size of his or her herd, and whether the plan is being fully implemented; and
(h) If the fields where dairy nutrients are being applied belong to someone other than the dairy producer whose farm operation generated the nutrients, the name, address, and telephone number of the owners of the property accepting the dairy nutrients.
(4) In the mailing to dairy producers containing the registration form, the department shall also provide clear and comprehensive information regarding the requirements of this chapter.
(5) The department shall require the registrant to provide only information that is not already available from other sources accessible to the department, such as dairy licensing information.
[ 1998 c 262 s 3.]

catchline: Registration of dairy producers—Information required—Information to producers regarding chapter.


title: RCW 90.64.020

text:
(1) The director of the department of ecology may designate any dairy animal feeding operation as a concentrated dairy animal feeding operation upon determining that it is a significant contributor of pollution to the surface or ground waters of the state. In making this designation the director shall consider the following factors:
(a) The size of the animal feeding operation and the amount of wastes reaching waters of the state;
(b) The location of the animal feeding operation relative to waters of the state;
(c) The means of conveyance of animal wastes and process waters into the waters of the state;
(d) The slope, vegetation, rainfall, and other factors affecting the likelihood or frequency of discharge of animal wastes and process wastewaters into the waters of the state; and
(e) Other relevant factors as established by the department by rule.
(2) A notice of intent to apply for a permit shall not be required from a concentrated dairy animal feeding operation designated under this section until the director has conducted an on-site inspection of the operation and determined that the operation should and could be regulated under the permit program.
[ 1993 c 221 s 3.]

catchline: Concentrated dairy animal feeding operation—Designation—Permit.


title: RCW 90.64.023

text:
(1) By October 1, 1998, the department shall initiate an inspection program of all dairy farms in the state. The purpose of the inspections is to:
(a) Survey for evidence of violations;
(b) Identify corrective actions for actual or imminent discharges that violate or could violate the state's water quality standards;
(c) Monitor the development and implementation of dairy nutrient management plans; and
(d) Identify dairy producers who would benefit from technical assistance programs.
(2) Local conservation district employees may, at their discretion, accompany department inspectors on any scheduled inspection of dairy farms except random, unannounced inspections.
(3) Follow-up inspections shall be conducted by the department to ensure that corrective and other actions as identified in the course of initial inspections are being carried out. The department shall also conduct such additional inspections as are necessary to ensure compliance with state and federal water quality requirements, provided that all licensed dairy farms shall be inspected once within two years of the start of this program. The department, in consultation with the *advisory and oversight committee established in section 8 of this act, shall develop performance-based criteria to determine the frequency of inspections.
(4) Dairy farms shall be prioritized for inspection based on the development of criteria that include, but are not limited to, the following factors:
(a) Existence or implementation of a dairy nutrient management plan;
(b) Proximity to impaired waters of the state; and
(c) Proximity to all other waters of the state. The criteria developed to implement this subsection (4) shall be reviewed by the *advisory and oversight committee.
[ 1998 c 262 s 5.]
Notes:
*Reviser's note: The dairy nutrient management program advisory and oversight committee was created in section 8, chapter 262, Laws of 1998, which was vetoed.

catchline: Inspection program.


title: RCW 90.64.026

text:
(1) Except for those producers who already have a certified dairy nutrient management plan as required under the terms and conditions of an individual or general national pollutant discharge elimination system permit, all dairy producers licensed under chapter 15.36 RCW, regardless of size, shall prepare a dairy nutrient management plan. If at any time a dairy nutrient management plan fails to prevent the discharge of pollutants to waters of the state, it shall be required to be updated.
(2) By November 1, 1998, the conservation commission, in conjunction with the *advisory and oversight committee established under section 8 of this act shall develop a document clearly describing the elements that a dairy nutrient management plan must contain to gain local conservation district approval.
(3) In developing the elements that an approved dairy nutrient management plan must contain, the commission may authorize the use of other methods and technologies than those developed by the natural resources conservation service when such alternatives have been evaluated by the *advisory and oversight committee. Alternative methods and technologies shall meet the standards and specifications of:
(a) The natural resources conservation service as modified by the geographically based standards developed under **RCW 90.64.140; or
(b) A professional engineer with expertise in the area of dairy nutrient management.
(4) In evaluating alternative technologies and methods, the principal objectives of the *committee's evaluation shall be determining:
(a) Whether there is a substantial likelihood that, once implemented, the alternative technologies and methods would not violate water quality requirements;
(b) Whether more cost-effective methods can be successfully implemented in some or all categories of dairy operations; and
(c) Whether the technologies and methods approved or provided by the natural resources conservation service for use by confined animal feeding operations are necessarily required for other categories of dairy operations.
In addition, the *committee shall encourage the conservation commission and the conservation districts to apply in dairy nutrient management plans technologies and methods that are appropriate to the needs of the specific type of operation and the specific farm site and to avoid imposing requirements that are not necessary for the specific dairy producer to achieve compliance with water quality requirements.
(5) Such plans shall be submitted for approval to the local conservation district where the dairy farm is located, and shall be approved by conservation districts no later than by July 1, 2002. The conservation commission, in conjunction with conservation districts, shall develop a statewide schedule of plan development and approval to ensure adequate resources are available to have all plans approved by July 1, 2002.
(6) If a dairy producer leases land for dairy production from an owner who has prohibited the development of capital improvements, such as storage lagoons, on the leased property, the dairy producer shall indicate in his or her dairy nutrient management plan that such improvements are prohibited by the landowner and shall describe other methods, such as land application, that will be employed by the dairy producer to manage dairy nutrients.
(7) Notwithstanding the timelines in this section, any dairy farm licensed after September 1, 1998, shall have six months from the date of licensing to develop a dairy nutrient management plan and another eighteen months to fully implement that plan.
(8) If a plan contains the elements identified in subsection (2) of this section, a conservation district shall approve the plan no later than ninety days after receiving the plan. If the plan does not contain the elements identified in subsection (2) of this section, the local conservation district shall notify the dairy producer in writing of modifications needed in the plan no later than ninety days after receiving the plan. The dairy producer shall provide a revised plan that includes the needed modifications within ninety days of the date of the local conservation district notification. If the dairy producer does not agree with, or otherwise takes exception to, the modifications requested by the local conservation district, the dairy producer may initiate the appeals process described in RCW 90.64.028 within thirty days of receiving the letter of notification.
(9) An approved plan shall be certified by a conservation district and a dairy producer when the elements necessary to implement the plan have been constructed or otherwise put in place, and are being used as designed and intended. A certification form shall be developed by the conservation commission for use statewide and shall provide for a signature by both a conservation district representative and a dairy producer. Certification forms shall be signed by December 31, 2003, and a copy provided to the department for recording in the database established in RCW 90.64.130.
(10) The ability of dairy producers to comply with the planning requirements of this chapter depends, in many cases, on the availability of federal and state funding to support technical assistance provided by local conservation districts. Dairy producers shall not be held responsible for noncompliance with the planning requirements of this chapter if conservation districts are unable to perform their duties under this chapter because of insufficient funding.
[ 1998 c 262 s 6.]
Notes:
Reviser's note: *(1) The dairy nutrient management program advisory and oversight committee was created in section 8, chapter 262, Laws of 1998, which was vetoed.
**(2) RCW 90.64.140 was repealed by 2009 c 143 s 3.

catchline: Dairy nutrient management plans—Elements—Approval—Timelines—Certification.


title: RCW 90.64.028

text:
(1) Conservation district decisions pertaining to denial of approval or denial of certification of a dairy nutrient management plan; modification or amendment of a plan; conditions contained in a plan; application of any dairy nutrient management practices, standards, methods, and technologies to a particular dairy farm; and the failure to adhere to plan review and approval timelines identified in RCW 90.64.026 are appealable under this chapter. Department actions pertaining to water quality violations are appealable under chapter 90.48 RCW.
In addition, a dairy producer who is constrained from complying with the planning requirements of this chapter because of financial hardship or local permitting delays may request a hearing before the conservation commission and may request an extension of up to one year beyond the approval and certification dates prescribed in this chapter for plan approval and certification.
(2) Within thirty days of receiving a local conservation district notification regarding any of the decisions identified in subsection (1) of this section, a dairy producer who disagrees with any of these decisions may request an informal hearing before the conservation commission or may appeal directly to the pollution control hearings board. The commission shall issue a written decision no later than thirty days after the informal hearing.
(3) If the conservation commission reverses the decision of the conservation district, the conservation district may appeal this reversal to the pollution control hearings board according to the procedure in chapter 43.21B RCW within thirty days of receipt of the commission's decision.
(4) When an appeals process is initiated under this section, the length of time extending from the start of the appeals process to its conclusion shall be added onto the timelines provided in this chapter for plan development, approval, and certification only if an appeal is heard by the pollution control hearings board.
[ 1998 c 262 s 7.]

catchline: Appeals from denial of plan approval or certification—Dairy producer-requested hearings—Extension of timelines.


title: RCW 90.64.030

text:
(1) Under the inspection program established in RCW 90.64.023, the department may investigate a dairy farm to determine whether the operation is discharging pollutants or has a record of discharging pollutants into surface or ground waters of the state. Upon concluding an investigation, the department shall make a written report of its findings, including the results of any water quality measurements, photographs, or other pertinent information, and provide a copy of the report to the dairy producer within twenty days of the investigation.
(2) The department shall investigate a written complaint filed with the department within three working days and shall make a written report of its findings including the results of any water quality measurements, photographs, or other pertinent information. Within twenty days of receiving a written complaint, a copy of the findings shall be provided to the dairy producer subject to the complaint, and to the complainant if the person gave his or her name and address to the department at the time the complaint was filed.
(3) The department may consider past complaints against the same dairy farm from the same person and the results of its previous inspections, and has the discretion to decide whether to conduct an inspection if:
(a) The same or a similar complaint or complaints have been filed against the same dairy farm within the immediately preceding six-month period; and
(b) The department made a determination that the activity that was the subject of the prior complaint was not a violation.
(4) If the decision of the department is not to conduct an inspection, it shall document the decision and the reasons for the decision within twenty days. The department shall provide the decision to the complainant if the name and address were provided to the department, and to the dairy producer subject to the complaint, and the department shall place the decision in the department's administrative records.
(5) The report of findings of any inspection conducted as the result of either an oral or a written complaint shall be placed in the department's administrative records. Only findings of violations shall be entered into the database identified in RCW 90.64.130.
(6) A dairy farm that is determined to be a significant contributor of pollution based on actual water quality tests, photographs, or other pertinent information is subject to the provisions of this chapter and to the enforcement provisions of chapters 43.05 and 90.48 RCW, including civil penalties levied under RCW 90.48.144.
(7) If the department determines that an unresolved water quality problem from a dairy farm requires immediate corrective action, the department shall notify the producer and the district in which the problem is located. When corrective actions are required to address such unresolved water quality problems, the department shall provide copies of all final dairy farm inspection reports and documentation of all formal regulatory and enforcement actions taken by the department against that particular dairy farm to the local conservation district and to the appropriate dairy farm within twenty days.
(8) For a violation of water quality laws that is a first offense for a dairy producer, the penalty may be waived to allow the producer to come into compliance with water quality laws. The department shall record all legitimate violations and subsequent enforcement actions.
(9) A discharge, including a stormwater discharge, to surface waters of the state shall not be considered a violation of this chapter, chapter 90.48 RCW, or chapter 173-201A WAC, and shall therefore not be enforceable by the department of ecology or a third party, if at the time of the discharge, a violation is not occurring under RCW 90.64.010 (17). In addition, a dairy producer shall not be held liable for violations of this chapter, chapter 90.48 RCW, chapter 173-201A WAC, or the federal clean water act due to the discharge of dairy nutrients to waters of the state resulting from spreading these materials on lands other than where the nutrients were generated, when the nutrients are spread by persons other than the dairy producer or the dairy producer's agent.
(10) As provided under RCW 7.48.305, agricultural activities associated with the management of dairy nutrients are presumed to be reasonable and shall not be found to constitute a nuisance unless the activity has a substantial adverse effect on public health and safety.
(11) This section specifically acknowledges that if a holder of a general or individual national pollutant discharge elimination system permit complies with the permit and the dairy nutrient management plan conditions for appropriate land application practices, the permit provides compliance with the federal clean water act and acts as a shield against citizen or agency enforcement for any additions of pollutants to waters of the state or of the United States as authorized by the permit.
(12) A dairy producer who fails to have an approved dairy nutrient management plan by July 1, 2002, or a certified dairy nutrient management plan by December 31, 2003, and for which no appeals have been filed with the pollution control hearings board, is in violation of this chapter. Each month beyond these deadlines that a dairy producer is out of compliance with the requirement for either plan approval or plan certification shall be considered separate violations of chapter 90.64 RCW that may be subject to penalties. Such penalties may not exceed one hundred dollars per month for each violation up to a combined total of five thousand dollars. The department has discretion in imposing penalties for failure to meet deadlines for plan approval or plan certification if the failure to comply is due to lack of state funding for implementation of the program. Failure to register as required in RCW 90.64.017 shall subject a dairy producer to a maximum penalty of one hundred dollars. Penalties shall be levied by the department.
[ 2011 c 103 s 3; 2003 c 325 s 3; 2002 c 327 s 1; 1998 c 262 s 11; 1993 c 221 s 4.]
Notes:
Purpose—2011 c 103: See note following RCW 15.26.120.
Intent—Finding—2003 c 325: "A livestock nutrient management program is essential to ensuring a healthy and productive livestock industry in Washington state. The goal of the program must be to provide clear guidance to livestock farms as to their responsibilities under state and federal law to protect water quality while maintaining a healthy business climate for these farms. The program should develop reasonable financial assistance resources, educational and technical assistance to meet these responsibilities, and provide for periodic inspection and enforcement actions to ensure compliance with state and federal water quality laws. The legislature intends that by 2006, there will be a fully functioning state program for concentrated animal feeding operations in the state, and that this program will be a single program for all livestock sectors.
The legislature finds that a livestock nutrient management program is necessary to address the federal rule changes with which livestock operations must comply. Furthermore, budgetary conditions demand efficient and effective governance. In addition, many of the existing requirements and goals for dairy farms will be completed by December 2003, and revisions will be needed." [ 2003 c 325 s 1.]

catchline: Investigation of dairy farms—Report of findings—Corrective action—Violations of water quality laws—Waivers—Penalties.


title: RCW 90.64.040

text:
Enforcement actions and administrative orders issued by the department of ecology may be appealed to the pollution control hearings board in accordance with the provisions of chapter 43.21B RCW.
[ 1993 c 221 s 5.]

catchline: Appeal from actions and orders of the department.


title: RCW 90.64.050

text:
(1) The department has the following duties:
(a) Identify existing or potential water quality problems resulting from dairy farms through implementation of the inspection program in RCW 90.64.023;
(b) Inspect a dairy farm upon the request of a dairy producer;
(c) Receive, process, and verify complaints concerning discharge of pollutants from all dairy farms;
(d) Determine if a dairy-related water quality problem requires immediate corrective action under the Washington state water pollution control laws, chapter 90.48 RCW, or the Washington state water quality standards adopted under chapter 90.48 RCW. The department shall maintain the lead enforcement responsibility;
(e) Administer and enforce national pollutant discharge elimination system permits for operators of concentrated dairy animal feeding operations, where required by federal regulations and state laws or upon request of a dairy producer;
(f) Participate on the *advisory and oversight committee;
(g) Encourage communication and cooperation between local department personnel and the appropriate conservation district personnel;
(h) Require the use of dairy nutrient management plans as required under this chapter for entities required to plan under this chapter; and
(i) Provide to the commission and the *advisory and oversight committee an annual report of dairy farm inspection and enforcement activities.
(2) The department may not delegate its responsibilities in enforcement.
[ 1998 c 262 s 12; 1993 c 221 s 6.]
Notes:
*Reviser's note: The dairy nutrient management program advisory and oversight committee was created in section 8, chapter 262, Laws of 1998, which was vetoed.

catchline: Duties of department—Annual report to commission.


title: RCW 90.64.070

text:
(1) The conservation district has the following duties:
(a) Provide technical assistance to the department in identifying and correcting existing water quality problems resulting from dairy farms through implementation of the inspection program in RCW 90.64.023;
(b) Immediately refer complaints received from the public regarding discharge of pollutants to the department;
(c) Encourage communication and cooperation between the conservation district personnel and local department personnel;
(d) Provide technical assistance to dairy producers in developing and implementing a dairy nutrient management plan; and
(e) Review, approve, and certify dairy nutrient management plans that meet the minimum standards developed under this chapter.
(2) The district's capability to carry out its responsibilities under this chapter is contingent upon the availability of funding and resources to implement a dairy nutrient management program.
[ 1998 c 262 s 13; 1993 c 221 s 8.]

catchline: Duties of conservation district.


title: RCW 90.64.080

text:
(1) The conservation commission has the following duties:
(a) Provide assistance as may be appropriate to the conservation districts in the discharge of their responsibilities as management agencies in dairy nutrient management program implementation;
(b) Provide coordination for conservation district programs at the state level through special arrangements with appropriate federal and state agencies, including oversight of the review, approval, and certification of dairy nutrient management plans;
(c) Inform conservation districts of activities and experiences of other conservation districts relative to agricultural water quality protection, and facilitate an interchange of advice, experience, and cooperation between the districts;
(d) Provide an informal hearing for disputes between dairy producers and local conservation districts pertaining to: (i) Denial of approval or denial of certification of dairy nutrient management plans; (ii) modification or amendment of plans; (iii) conditions contained in plans; (iv) application of any dairy nutrient management practices, standards, methods, and technologies to a particular dairy farm; and (v) the failure to adhere to the plan review and approval timelines identified in RCW 90.64.026. An informal hearing may also provide an opportunity for dairy producers who are constrained from timely compliance with the planning requirements of this chapter because of financial hardship or local permitting delays to petition for additional time to comply;
(e) Encourage communication between the conservation district personnel and local department personnel;
(f) Accept nominations and appoint members to serve on the *advisory and oversight committee with advice of the Washington association of conservation districts and the department;
(g) Provide a cochair to the *advisory and oversight committee;
(h) Report to the legislature by December 1st of each year until 2003 on the status of dairy nutrient management planning and on the technical assistance provided to dairy producers in carrying out the requirements of this chapter; and
(i) Work with the department to provide communication outreach to representatives of agricultural and environmental organizations to receive feedback on implementation of this chapter.
(2) The commission's capability to carry out its responsibilities under this chapter is contingent upon the availability of funding and resources to implement a dairy nutrient management program.
[ 1998 c 262 s 14; 1993 c 221 s 9.]
Notes:
*Reviser's note: The dairy nutrient management program advisory and oversight committee was created in section 8, chapter 262, Laws of 1998, which was vetoed.

catchline: Duties of conservation commission.


title: RCW 90.64.100

text:
A party acting under this chapter is not liable for another party's actions under this chapter.
[ 1993 c 221 s 11.]

catchline: Parties' liability.


title: RCW 90.64.102

text:
(1) Except as provided in chapter 43.05 RCW, the department of agriculture may impose a civil penalty on a dairy producer in an amount of not more than five thousand dollars for failure to comply with recordkeeping requirements in RCW 90.64.010(17)(c). The aggregate amount of the civil penalties issued under this section shall not exceed five thousand dollars in a calendar year.
(2) In determining the amount of the civil penalty to be levied, the department of agriculture shall take into consideration:
(a) The gravity and magnitude of the violation;
(b) Whether the violation was repeated or is continuous;
(c) Whether the cause of the violation was an unavoidable accident, negligence, or an intentional act;
(d) The violator's efforts to correct the violation; and
(e) The immediacy and extent to which the violation threatens the public health or safety or harms the environment.
(3) The department of agriculture may establish by rule a graduated civil penalty schedule that includes the factors listed in this section.
[ 2010 c 84 s 1.]

catchline: Recordkeeping violations—Civil penalty.


title: RCW 90.64.110

text:
The department may adopt rules as necessary to implement this chapter.
[ 1993 c 221 s 12.]

catchline: Rules.


title: RCW 90.64.120

text:
(1) Nothing in this chapter shall affect the department of ecology's authority or responsibility to administer or enforce the national pollutant discharge elimination system permits for operators of concentrated dairy animal feeding operations, where required by federal regulations or to administer the provisions of chapter 90.48 RCW.
(2) Unless the department of ecology delegates its authority under chapter 90.48 RCW to the department of agriculture pursuant to RCW 90.48.260, and until any such delegation of authority receives federal approval, the transfer specified in RCW 90.64.901 shall not preclude the department of ecology from taking action related to animal feeding operations or concentrated animal feeding operations to protect water quality pursuant to its authority in chapter 90.48 RCW. Before taking such actions, the department of ecology shall notify the department of agriculture.
[ 2003 c 325 s 4; 1993 c 221 s 13.]
Notes:
Intent—Finding—2003 c 325: See note following RCW 90.64.030.

catchline: Department's authority under federal law or chapter 90.48 RCW not affected.


title: RCW 90.64.130

text:
(1) By October 1, 1998, the department, in consultation with the *advisory and oversight committee, shall develop and maintain a database to account for the implementation of this chapter.
(2) The database shall track registrations; inspection dates and results, including findings of violations; regulatory and enforcement actions; and the status of dairy nutrient management plans. In addition, the number of dairy farm inspections by inspector shall be tallied by month. A summary of database information shall be provided quarterly to the *advisory and oversight committee.
(3) Any information entered into the database by the department about any aspect of a particular dairy operation may be reviewed by the affected dairy producer upon request. The department shall correct any information in the database upon a showing that the information is faulty or inaccurate. Complaints that have been filed with the department and determined to be unfounded, invalid, or without merit shall not be recorded in the database. Appeals of decisions related to dairy nutrient management plans to the pollution control hearings board or to any court shall be recorded, as well as the decisions of those bodies.
[ 1998 c 262 s 9.]
Notes:
*Reviser's note: The dairy nutrient management program advisory and oversight committee was created in section 8, chapter 262, Laws of 1998, which was vetoed.

catchline: Database.