Wash. Rev. Code » Title 43 · Chapter 43.21B
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21B.230 (2026)

Appeals of agency actions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Unless otherwise provided by law, any person with standing may commence an appeal to the pollution control hearings board by filing a notice of appeal with the board within thirty days from the date of receipt of the decision being appealed.
(2) The appeal is timely if it is filed with the board and served upon the state or local agency whose action is being appealed within the same thirty-day period. Proof of service must be filed with the clerk of the hearings board to perfect the appeal.
(3) The appeal must contain the following in accordance with the rules of the hearings board:
(a) The appellant's name and address;
(b) The date and docket number of the order, permit, license, or decision appealed;
(c) A copy of the order, permit, license, or decision that is the subject of the appeal;
(d) A clear, separate, and concise statement of every error alleged to have been committed;
(e) A clear and concise statement of facts upon which the requester relies to sustain his or her statements of error; and
(f) A statement setting forth the relief sought.
[ 2010 c 210 s 11; 2004 c 204 s 3; 1997 c 125 s 2; 1994 c 253 s 8; 1990 c 65 s 6; 1970 ex.s. c 62 s 53.]

Notes:

Intent—Effective dates—Application—Pending cases and rules—2010 c 210: See notes following RCW 43.21B.001.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1974–2021 · leading case: Den Beste v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 914 P.2d 144 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Den Beste v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 914 P.2d 144 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 12× “The PCHB determined that RCW 43.21B.230 established a 30-day appeal period which commenced on the date the Yakima Indian Nation received copies of the Department’s orders.”
Clark Cnty. v. Rosemere Neighborhood Ass'n, 290 P.3d 142 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “23 Former RCW 43.21B.230 (2004) (allows the Board to hear cases where a party “appeal [s] to the hearings board, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the .”
Klineburger v. King Cnty., 356 P.3d 223 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 43.21B.230. RCW 43.21B.180. RCW 36.70C.”
State Ex Rel. Martin Marietta Aluminum, Inc. v. Woodward, 525 P.2d 247 (Wash. 1974). “RCW 43.21B.230. Martin Marietta argues that only section .”
Crown Resources, Corp. v. Dep't of Ecology (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “While RCW 43.21B.230(3)(c) speaks of an "order, permit, license, or decision" being appealed, that reference alone does not justify treating the four terms as mutually exclusive.”
Simon's Way Dev., Inc v. Clark Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “110, “[u]nless declared invalid on appeal, a final order of [DNR] .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21B.230(1) — 1 case
Clark Cnty. v. Rosemere Neighborhood Ass'n, 290 P.3d 142 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “23 Former RCW 43.21B.230 (2004) (allows the Board to hear cases where a party “appeal [s] to the hearings board, within thirty days from the date of receipt of the .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21B.230(2) — 1 case
Simon's Way Dev., Inc v. Clark Cnty. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021). “110, “[u]nless declared invalid on appeal, a final order of [DNR] .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21B.230(3)(c) — 1 case
Crown Resources, Corp. v. Dep't of Ecology (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “While RCW 43.21B.230(3)(c) speaks of an "order, permit, license, or decision" being appealed, that reference alone does not justify treating the four terms as mutually exclusive.”
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.