Wash. Rev. Code » Title 36 · Chapter 36.70A
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.010 (2026)

Legislative findings

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The legislature finds that uncoordinated and unplanned growth, together with a lack of common goals expressing the public's interest in the conservation and the wise use of our lands, pose a threat to the environment, sustainable economic development, and the health, safety, and high quality of life enjoyed by residents of this state. It is in the public interest that citizens, communities, local governments, and the private sector cooperate and coordinate with one another in comprehensive land use planning. Further, the legislature finds that it is in the public interest that economic development programs be shared with communities experiencing insufficient economic growth.
[ 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 69 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Kittitas Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 256 P.3d 1193 (Wash. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Kittitas Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 256 P.3d 1193 (Wash. 2011). · cites it 4× “" RCW 36.70A.010. The GMA provides counties with the discretion to designate an area as rural or to designate it differently to allow for increased growth and development.”
Quadrant Corp. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 154 Wash. 2d 224 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “One of the central requirements of the GMA, and the one at issue here, is that counties and cities which plan under it must designate UGAs “within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature.” RCW 36.70A.110(1).…”
Quadrant Corp. v. State, Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 110 P.3d 1132 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “One of the central requirements of the GMA, and the one at issue here, is that counties and cities which plan under it must designate UGAs "within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature.”
Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 381 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 2× “” RCW 36.70A.010. ¶36 Importantly, the GMA concentrates future growth into urban growth areas.”
King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 2× “17, § 1 (codified at RCW 36.70A.010). One key element of the GMA is the designation of what are called "urban growth areas".”
Whatcom Cnty. v. Brisbane, 884 P.2d 1326 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 4× “[8] RCW 36.70A.010. [9] WAC 365-190-020. [10] RCW 36.”
Town of Woodway v. Snohomish Cnty., 322 P.3d 1219 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 2× “” RCW 36.70A.010. Under the GMA., communities must create comprehensive plans to express general land use policies in the community and development regulations to implement those plans.”
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 161 Wash. 2d 415 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 2× “020(10) (providing that local governments will “[p]rotect the environment”); RCW 36.70A.010 (describing the legislature’s intent in adopting the GMA to provide for “comprehensive land use planning”).”
Thurston Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 164 Wash. 2d 329 (Wash. 2008). “” RCW 36.70A.010. The GMA provides a “framework” of goals and requirements to guide local governments who have “the ultimate burden and responsibility for planning.”
Thurston Cnty. v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt., 190 P.3d 38 (Wash. 2008). “" RCW 36.70A.010. The GMA provides a "framework" of goals and requirements to guide local governments who have "the ultimate burden and responsibility for planning.”
Woods v. Kittitas Cnty., 162 Wash. 2d 597 (Wash. 2007). “” RCW 36.70A.010. The GMA requires counties to develop a “ ‘comprehensive plan,’ ” which sets out the “generalized coordinated land use policy statement” of the county’s governing body.”
Woods v. Kittitas Cnty., 174 P.3d 25 (Wash. 2007). “" RCW 36.70A.010. The GMA requires counties to develop a *31 "`comprehensive plan,'" which sets out the "generalized coordinated land use policy statement" of the county's governing body.”
Show all 69 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.010(1) — 1 case
Ccnrc v. Cccu, 972 P.2d 941 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.