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

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.172 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) In designating and protecting critical areas under this chapter, counties and cities shall include the best available science in developing policies and development regulations to protect the functions and values of critical areas. In addition, counties and cities shall give special consideration to conservation or protection measures necessary to preserve or enhance anadromous fisheries.
(2) If it determines that advice from scientific or other experts is necessary or will be of substantial assistance in reaching its decision, the growth management hearings board may retain scientific or other expert advice to assist in reviewing a petition under RCW 36.70A.290 that involves critical areas.
[ 2010 c 211 s 3; 1995 c 347 s 105.]

Notes:

Effective date—Transfer of power, duties, and functions—2010 c 211: See notes following RCW 36.70A.250.
Finding—Severability—Part headings and table of contents not law—1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1999–2023 · leading case: Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 161 Wash. 2d 415 (Wash. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 161 Wash. 2d 415 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 12× “RCW 36.70A.172(1) (emphasis added). The GMA was amended again in 1997 to provide that growth management hearings boards should “grant deference to counties and cities in how they plan for growth, consistent with the requirements and goals of this chapter” and that “[l]ocal…”
Ferry Cnty. v. Concerned Friends, 123 P.3d 102 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 13× “FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶ 2 In an order dated July 31, 1998, the Board found that Ferry County failed to include BAS in adopting its second amended comprehensive plan and that it was, therefore, not in compliance with the GMA, specifically RCW 36.70A.172. Concerned…”
Ferry Cnty. v. Concerned Friends, 155 Wash. 2d 824 (Wash. 2005). · cites it 10× “Ferry County is not in compliance with RCW 36.70A.172 regarding protection of wildlife habitat.”
Honesty in Env't Analysis & Legislation (HEAL) v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 979 P.2d 864 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 9× “[ 4 ] (2) The trial court interlineated a finding in its order that: “(2) The interpretation of RCW 36.70A.172 requires inclusion of best available science in a substantive way and utilized to guide decision-making.”
Olympic Stewardship v. Wash. Growth Mgmt., 274 P.3d 1040 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 16× “In a compliance order, the Board stated that the County had not complied with RCW 36.70A.172 by listing only two species because it did not provide "`a scientific foundation, evidence of analysis, or a reasoned process to justify their listing, while rejecting the…”
Olympic Stewardship Found. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 166 Wash. App. 172 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 13× “In a compliance order, the board stated that the county had not complied with RCW 36.70A.172 by listing only two species because it did not provide “ ‘a scientific foundation, evidence of analysis, or a reasoned process to justify their listing, while rejecting the…”
1000 Friends of Washington v. McFarland, 149 P.3d 616 (Wash. 2006). · cites it 6× “RCW 36.70A.172; WAC 365-190-040, 365-195-900 through -925.”
Ferry Cnty. v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 339 P.3d 478 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 8× “” RCW 36.70A.172. The meaning of this statutory clause is the subject of this appeal.”
Clallam Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 130 Wash. App. 127 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 6× “” Thus, the GMA defines “development regulations” more broadly than simply future development regulations; it includes controls placed on land use activities. RCW 36.70A.030. And in protecting critical areas, counties and cities must use the best available science to promulgate…”
Swinomish Indian v. W. Washington, 166 P.3d 1198 (Wash. 2007). · cites it 13× “RCW 36.70A.172(1) (emphasis added). The GMA was amended again in 1997 to provide that growth management hearings boards should "grant deference to counties and cities in how they plan for growth, consistent with the requirements and goals of this chapter" and that "[l]ocal…”
Yakima Cnty. v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 279 P.3d 434 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “060(2) and RCW 36.70A.172 require development regulations to protect all of the functions and values of critical areas based on the best available science.”
Kitsap All. of Prop. Owners v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 255 P.3d 696 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “Laws of 2010, ch. 107, § 3. This legislation does not support the County’s argument.”
Show all 41 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.172(1) — 37 cases
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 161 Wash. 2d 415 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 36.70A.172(1) (emphasis added). The GMA was amended again in 1997 to provide that growth management hearings boards should “grant deference to counties and cities in how they plan for growth, consistent with the requirements and goals of this chapter” and that “[l]ocal…”
Olympic Stewardship v. Wash. Growth Mgmt., 274 P.3d 1040 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “In a compliance order, the Board stated that the County had not complied with RCW 36.70A.172 by listing only two species because it did not provide "`a scientific foundation, evidence of analysis, or a reasoned process to justify their listing, while rejecting the…”
Olympic Stewardship Found. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 166 Wash. App. 172 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “In a compliance order, the board stated that the county had not complied with RCW 36.70A.172 by listing only two species because it did not provide “ ‘a scientific foundation, evidence of analysis, or a reasoned process to justify their listing, while rejecting the…”
Honesty in Env't Analysis & Legislation (HEAL) v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 979 P.2d 864 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “[ 4 ] (2) The trial court interlineated a finding in its order that: “(2) The interpretation of RCW 36.70A.172 requires inclusion of best available science in a substantive way and utilized to guide decision-making.”
Ferry Cnty. v. Concerned Friends, 155 Wash. 2d 824 (Wash. 2005). “Ferry County is not in compliance with RCW 36.70A.172 regarding protection of wildlife habitat.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.172(2) — 2 cases
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 161 Wash. 2d 415 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 36.70A.172(1) (emphasis added). The GMA was amended again in 1997 to provide that growth management hearings boards should “grant deference to counties and cities in how they plan for growth, consistent with the requirements and goals of this chapter” and that “[l]ocal…”
Swinomish Indian v. W. Washington, 166 P.3d 1198 (Wash. 2007). “RCW 36.70A.172(1) (emphasis added). The GMA was amended again in 1997 to provide that growth management hearings boards should "grant deference to counties and cities in how they plan for growth, consistent with the requirements and goals of this chapter" and that "[l]ocal…”
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.