Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.020 (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) The legislature, recognizing that a human being depends on biological and physical surroundings for food, shelter, and other needs, and for cultural enrichment as well; and recognizing further the profound impact of a human being's activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment, particularly the profound influences of population growth, high-density urbanization, industrial expansion, resource utilization and exploitation, and new and expanding technological advances and recognizing further the critical importance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overall welfare and development of human beings, declares that it is the continuing policy of the state of Washington, in cooperation with federal and local governments, and other concerned public and private organizations, to use all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to: (a) Foster and promote the general welfare; (b) create and maintain conditions under which human beings and nature can exist in productive harmony; and (c) fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Washington citizens.

(2) In order to carry out the policy set forth in this chapter, it is the continuing responsibility of the state of Washington and all agencies of the state to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of state policy, to improve and coordinate plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that the state and its citizens may:

(a) Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations;

(b) Assure for all people of Washington safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings;

(c) Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences;

(d) Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage;

(e) Maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice;

(f) Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and

(g) Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.

(3) The legislature recognizes that each person has a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contribute to the preservation and enhancement of the environment.

[ 2009 c 549 s 5096; 1971 ex.s. c 109 s 2.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 40 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Leschi Improvement Council v. Washington State High. Comm'n, 525 P.2d 774 (Wash. 1974).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Leschi Improvement Council v. Washington State High. Comm'n, 525 P.2d 774 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 8× “" RCW 43.21C.020 (3). Petitioners seeking a writ of certiorari in superior court who make an adequate showing that they will be adversely affected by proposed administrative agency action and who allege that an administrative agency made factual findings and entered conclusions…”

Kucera v. State, Dept. of Transp., 995 P.2d 63 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 5× “The majority further states that respondents must demonstrate their lack of a remedy at law in order for an injunction to issue under SEPA.”

Eastlake Cmty. Council v. Roanoke Assocs., Inc., 513 P.2d 36 (Wash. 1973). · cites it 4× “*494 There are three alternate dates possible for application of SEPA to this project: the effective date of SEPA, August 9, 1971; the month prior to renewal on October 19, 1971; or, the actual date of renewal on October 19, 1971. On none of these dates had the project…”

Olympic Stewardship Found. v. Env't & Land Use Hearings Off. Ex Rel. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 199 Wash. App. 668 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “¶159 In addition, SEPA requires that the laws of the State, including the SMA, be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies of SEPA.”

Brinnon Grp. v. Jefferson Cnty., 159 Wash. App. 446 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Nothing in the plain language requires a governmental entity to cite a specific SEPA policy for each mitigating condition that it imposes on a project.”

State v. City of Seattle, 615 P.2d 461 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 3× “010 and RCW 43.21C.020, .030, .040 and.060, it is apparent that the claimed legislative grant to the Board of Regents of absolute power is illusory.”

Puget Soundkeeper All. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 356 P.3d 753 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Among those policies is the recognition of “the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations,” RCW 43.21C.020(2)(a), and the recognition that “each person has a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment and that…”

Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. Dep't of Ecology, 837 P.2d 1007 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 2× “Subsection (2) states: "In order to carry out the policy set forth in this chapter, it is the continuing responsibility of the state of Washington and all agencies of the state to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of state policy, to…”

Kucera v. Dep't of Transp., 140 Wash. 2d 200 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 5× “The majority farther states that respondents must demonstrate their lack of a remedy at law in order for an injunction to issue under SEPA.”

Nisqually Delta Ass'n v. City of DuPont, 627 P.2d 956 (Wash. 1981). · cites it 2× “This lends further support for a liberal reading of the term "area affected". Furthermore, in Bellevue v. King County Boundary Review Bd.”

Save a Valuable Env't v. City of Bothell, 576 P.2d 401 (Wash. 1978). “The City maintains it has fulfilled its duty by the execution of a concomitant zoning agreement by the City and the property owners.”

Polygon Corp. v. City of Seattle, 578 P.2d 1309 (Wash. 1978). “RCW 43.21C.020. The visual or aesthetic element is recognized as part of the environment that is to be maintained and enhanced.”

Show all 40 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.020(1) — 2 cases

Eastlake Cmty. Council v. Roanoke Assocs., Inc., 513 P.2d 36 (Wash. 1973). “*494 There are three alternate dates possible for application of SEPA to this project: the effective date of SEPA, August 9, 1971; the month prior to renewal on October 19, 1971; or, the actual date of renewal on October 19, 1971. On none of these dates had the project…”

Terry Miller v. City of Richland (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.020(2) — 8 cases

Leschi Improvement Council v. Washington State High. Comm'n, 525 P.2d 774 (Wash. 1974). “" RCW 43.21C.020 (3). Petitioners seeking a writ of certiorari in superior court who make an adequate showing that they will be adversely affected by proposed administrative agency action and who allege that an administrative agency made factual findings and entered conclusions…”

Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. Dep't of Ecology, 837 P.2d 1007 (Wash. 1992). “Subsection (2) states: "In order to carry out the policy set forth in this chapter, it is the continuing responsibility of the state of Washington and all agencies of the state to use all practicable means, consistent with other essential considerations of state policy, to…”

Lands Council v. Washington State Parks & Rec. Comm'n, 309 P.3d 734 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

Davidson Serles & Assocs. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 159 Wash. App. 148 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.020(2)(a) — 6 cases

Kucera v. State, Dept. of Transp., 995 P.2d 63 (Wash. 2000). “The majority further states that respondents must demonstrate their lack of a remedy at law in order for an injunction to issue under SEPA.”

Puget Soundkeeper All. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 356 P.3d 753 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “Among those policies is the recognition of “the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations,” RCW 43.21C.020(2)(a), and the recognition that “each person has a fundamental and inalienable right to a healthful environment and that…”

Olympic Stewardship Found. v. Env't & Land Use Hearings Off. Ex Rel. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 199 Wash. App. 668 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “¶159 In addition, SEPA requires that the laws of the State, including the SMA, be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies of SEPA.”

Kucera v. Dep't of Transp., 140 Wash. 2d 200 (Wash. 2000). “The majority farther states that respondents must demonstrate their lack of a remedy at law in order for an injunction to issue under SEPA.”

John Roskelley v. State Parks & Rec. Comm'n (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.020(2)(b) — 2 cases

Dep't of Ecology v. Pacesetter Constr. Co., 571 P.2d 196 (Wash. 1977).

Terry Miller v. City of Richland (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.020(2)(c) — 1 case

Wa State Dairy Fed'n, V Wa State Pollution Control Hearings (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.020(2)(d) — 1 case

State v. City of Seattle, 615 P.2d 461 (Wash. 1980). “010 and RCW 43.21C.020, .030, .040 and.060, it is apparent that the claimed legislative grant to the Board of Regents of absolute power is illusory.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.020(2)(e) — 2 cases

Ctr. For Sustainable Econ., Resps V. Wa State Dept Of Nat. Resources, Apps (Wash. Ct. App. 2026).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.020(3) — 17 cases

Nisqually Delta Ass'n v. City of DuPont, 627 P.2d 956 (Wash. 1981). “This lends further support for a liberal reading of the term "area affected". Furthermore, in Bellevue v. King County Boundary Review Bd.”

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.