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

Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.010 (2026)

Purposes

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The purposes of this chapter are: (1) To declare a state policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between humankind and the environment; (2) to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere; (3) and [to] stimulate the health and welfare of human beings; and (4) to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the state and nation.
[ 2009 c 549 s 5095; 1971 ex.s. c 109 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: Pleas v. City of Seattle, 774 P.2d 1158 (Wash. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pleas v. City of Seattle, 774 P.2d 1158 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 2× “RCW 43.21C.010. The requirement of an EIS, to the extent that the building permit is for an action significantly affecting the environment is necessary for the realization of the State's policy.”
Orion Corp. v. State, 693 P.2d 1369 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 2× “Additionally, the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971, RCW 43.21C.010 et seq., applies to any development proposal.”
Kucera v. State, Dept. of Transp., 995 P.2d 63 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 2× “William H. Rodgers, Jr., The Washington Environmental Policy Act, 60 Wash.”
Cougar Mountain Assocs. v. King Cnty., 765 P.2d 264 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 2× “RCW 43.21C.010. [2] SEPA's primary enforcement tool has been the EIS.”
Leschi Improvement Council v. Washington State High. Comm'n, 525 P.2d 774 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 2× “*296 RCW 43.21C.010 states: The purposes of this chapter are: (1) To declare a state policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; (2) to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere; (3)…”
Norway Hill Pres. & Prot. Ass'n v. King Cnty. Council, 552 P.2d 674 (Wash. 1976). “Briefly stated, the procedural provisions of SEPA constitute an environmental full disclosure law.”
Clampitt v. Thurston Cnty., 658 P.2d 641 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 2× “Acting pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (RCW 43.21C.010 et seq. ), the Thurston County Regional Planning Council (Council) concluded that an environmental impact statement would be necessary and issued a declaration of significance.”
Harris v. Pierce Cnty., 928 P.2d 1111 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “" Mary Harris states in her affidavit supporting the petition that she "reside[s], own[s] property which is subject to condemnation by Ordinance 90-6 and [is] registered to vote in Pierce County.”
Snohomish Cnty. Prop. Rights All. v. Snohomish Cnty., 882 P.2d 807 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “In addition, a review of the affidavits and declarations submitted in opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment indicates that SNOCO’s interests, are primarily economic in nature because the affidavits and declarations are concerned with matters such as property values,…”
Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. Dep't of Ecology, 837 P.2d 1007 (Wash. 1992). “9 Appellants contend that the issues in this case arise under the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (RCW 43.21C.010 et seq.) and that, accordingly, RCW 43.”
Lanzce G. Douglass, Inc. v. City of Spokane Valley, 225 P.3d 448 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “*422 Reversal of the Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance ¶29 A jurisdiction’s responsible official — in this case, the community development director within the planning division — makes a threshold determination of a proposed project’s effect on the environment.”
Eastlake Cmty. Council v. Roanoke Assocs., Inc., 513 P.2d 36 (Wash. 1973). “Pomeroy, A Treatise on Equity Jurisprudence (5th ed. S. Symons 1941). [5] Since much of the language from SEPA is taken verbatim from NEPA (signed into law January 1, 1970), we look when necessary to the federal cases construing and applying provisions of NEPA for guidance.”
Show all 37 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.010(1) — 2 cases
Kucera v. State, Dept. of Transp., 995 P.2d 63 (Wash. 2000). “William H. Rodgers, Jr., The Washington Environmental Policy Act, 60 Wash.”
Columbia Riverkeeper v. Port of Vancouver USA (Wash. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.010(2) — 2 cases
Kucera v. State, Dept. of Transp., 995 P.2d 63 (Wash. 2000). “William H. Rodgers, Jr., The Washington Environmental Policy Act, 60 Wash.”
Kucera v. Dep't of Transp., 140 Wash. 2d 200 (Wash. 2000).
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.