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

Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.735 (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) Within eighteen months after one of the events in subsection (2) of this section, a county must:
(a) Develop, adopt, and implement a watershed work plan approved by the department that protects critical areas in areas used for agricultural activities while maintaining the viability of agriculture in the watershed. The department shall consult with the departments of agriculture, ecology, and fish and wildlife and the commission, and other relevant state agencies before approving or disapproving the proposed work plan. The appeal of the department's decision under this subsection is subject to appeal under RCW 36.70A.280;
(b) Adopt development regulations previously adopted under this chapter by another local government for the purpose of protecting critical areas in areas used for agricultural activities. Regulations adopted under this subsection (1)(b) must be from a region with similar agricultural activities, geography, and geology and must: (i) Be from Clallam, Clark, King, or Whatcom counties; or (ii) have been upheld by a growth management hearings board or court after July 1, 2011, where the board or court determined that the provisions adequately protected critical areas functions and values in areas used for agricultural activities;
(c) Adopt development regulations certified by the department as protective of critical areas in areas used for agricultural activities as required by this chapter. The county may submit existing or amended regulations for certification. The department must make its decision on whether to certify the development regulations within ninety days after the county submits its request. If the department denies the certification, the county shall take an action under (a), (b), or (d) of this subsection. The department must consult with the departments of agriculture, ecology, and fish and wildlife and the commission before making a certification under this section. The appeal of the department's decision under this subsection (1)(c) is subject to appeal under RCW 36.70A.280; or
(d) Review and, if necessary, revise development regulations adopted under this chapter to protect critical areas as they relate to agricultural activities.
(2) A participating watershed is subject to this section if:
(a) The work plan is not approved by the director as provided in RCW 36.70A.725;
(b) The work plan's goals and benchmarks for protection have not been met as provided in RCW 36.70A.720;
(c) The commission has determined under RCW 36.70A.740 that the county, department, commission, or departments of agriculture, ecology, or fish and wildlife have not received adequate funding to implement a program in the watershed; or
(d) The commission has determined under RCW 36.70A.740 that the watershed has not received adequate funding to implement the program.
(3) The department shall adopt rules to implement subsection (1)(a) and (c) of this section.
[ 2011 c 360 s 9.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2015–2015 · leading case: Protect the Peninsula's Future v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 344 P.3d 705 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Protect the Peninsula's Future v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 344 P.3d 705 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 33× “The plain meaning of RCW 36.70A.735, interpreted in light of the VSP’s statutory scheme, provides that a county not electing to participate in the VSP - including Clallam itself - cannot comply with the GMA by adopting Clallam’s critical areas regulations.”
Protect The Peninsula's Future, V Growth Mngmt Hrgs Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 7× “Therefore, we hold that RCW 36.70A.735( 1)( b) does not reflect a legislative determination that Clallam' s regulations unconditionally comply with the GMA' s critical areas protection requirements.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.735(1) — 1 case
Protect the Peninsula's Future v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 344 P.3d 705 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “The plain meaning of RCW 36.70A.735, interpreted in light of the VSP’s statutory scheme, provides that a county not electing to participate in the VSP - including Clallam itself - cannot comply with the GMA by adopting Clallam’s critical areas regulations.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.735(2) — 1 case
Protect the Peninsula's Future v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 344 P.3d 705 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “The plain meaning of RCW 36.70A.735, interpreted in light of the VSP’s statutory scheme, provides that a county not electing to participate in the VSP - including Clallam itself - cannot comply with the GMA by adopting Clallam’s critical areas regulations.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.735(l) — 1 case
Protect the Peninsula's Future v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 344 P.3d 705 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “The plain meaning of RCW 36.70A.735, interpreted in light of the VSP’s statutory scheme, provides that a county not electing to participate in the VSP - including Clallam itself - cannot comply with the GMA by adopting Clallam’s critical areas regulations.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 36.70A.735(l)(b) — 1 case
Protect the Peninsula's Future v. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 344 P.3d 705 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “The plain meaning of RCW 36.70A.735, interpreted in light of the VSP’s statutory scheme, provides that a county not electing to participate in the VSP - including Clallam itself - cannot comply with the GMA by adopting Clallam’s critical areas regulations.”
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.