Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.030 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The legislature authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extent possible: (1) The policies, regulations, and laws of the state of Washington shall be interpreted and administered in accordance with the policies set forth in this chapter, and (2) all branches of government of this state, including state agencies, municipal and public corporations, and counties shall:

(a) Utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure the integrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmental design arts in planning and in decision making which may have an impact on the environment;

(b) Identify and develop methods and procedures, in consultation with the department of ecology and the ecological commission, which will insure that presently unquantified environmental amenities and values will be given appropriate consideration in decision making along with economic and technical considerations;

(c) Include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on:

(i) the environmental impact of the proposed action;

(ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented;

(iii) alternatives to the proposed action;

(iv) the relationship between local short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and

(v) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented;

(d) Prior to making any detailed statement, the responsible official shall consult with and obtain the comments of any public agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved. Copies of such statement and the comments and views of the appropriate federal, province, state, and local agencies, which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standards, shall be made available to the governor, the department of ecology, the ecological commission, and the public, and shall accompany the proposal through the existing agency review processes;

(e) Study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources;

(f) Recognize the worldwide and long-range character of environmental problems and, where consistent with state policy, lend appropriate support to initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize international cooperation in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of the world environment;

(g) Make available to the federal government, other states, provinces of Canada, municipalities, institutions, and individuals, advice and information useful in restoring, maintaining, and enhancing the quality of the environment;

(h) Initiate and utilize ecological information in the planning and development of natural resource-oriented projects.

[ 2010 c 8 s 7002; 1971 ex.s. c 109 s 3.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 153 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1973–2026 · leading case: Asarco Inc. v. Air Quality Coalition, 601 P.2d 501 (Wash. 1979).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Asarco Inc. v. Air Quality Coalition, 601 P.2d 501 (Wash. 1979). · cites it 18× “The trial court also concluded that PSAPCA had complied with SEPA, "to the fullest extent possible" and that the variance did not constitute a "major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment" under RCW 43.21C.030. Further, the court held PSAPCA's action in…”

Eastlake Cmty. Council v. Roanoke Assocs., Inc., 513 P.2d 36 (Wash. 1973). · cites it 21× “RCW 43.21C.030. In this case, the necessity of an environmental impact statement is mandated by an analysis of SEPA and a review of Stempel v.”

Leschi Improvement Council v. Washington State High. Comm'n, 525 P.2d 774 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 18× “" RCW 43.21C.030. SEPA further directs that "The policies and goals set forth *277 in this chapter are supplementary to those set forth in existing authorizations of all branches of government of this state, including state agencies .”

King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 6× “Appellants contend the DNS was proper because consideration of the environmental effects of future development of the annexation properties would be premature and speculative.”

Norway Hill Pres. & Prot. Ass'n v. King Cnty. Council, 552 P.2d 674 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 6× “Briefly stated, the procedural provisions of SEPA constitute an environmental full disclosure law. The act’s procedures promote the policy of fully informed decision making by government bodies when undertaking “major actions significantly affecting the quality of the…”

Barrie v. Kitsap Cnty., 613 P.2d 1148 (Wash. 1980). · cites it 4× “The first issue is: Are the county and city environmental impact statements inadequate as a matter of law because they do not discuss alternative shopping center sites? The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA) (RCW 43.21C) applies to the actions of both the County and…”

Stempel v. Dep't of Water Resources, 508 P.2d 166 (Wash. 1973). · cites it 6× “RCW 43.21C.030 (2) (c) (i). The environmental impact reports require a detailed statement by the responsible official on: (i) the environmental impact of the proposed action; (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; (iii)…”

Ellensburg Cement Prods., Inc. v. Kittitas Cnty., 317 P.3d 1037 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 3× “SEPA charges the Department of Ecology with creating “[r]ules for criteria and procedures applicable to the determination of when an act of a branch of government is a major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment for which a detailed statement is required…”

Chuckanut Conservancy v. WASH. STATE DNR, 232 P.3d 1154 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “2d 166 (quoting RCW 43.21C.030(2)(b)). [13] RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c).”

Chuckanut Conservancy v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 156 Wash. App. 274 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “at 118 (quoting RCW 43.21C.030(2)(b)). RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c).”

Dioxin/Organochlorine Ctr. v. POLLUTION CONTROL, 932 P.2d 158 (Wash. 1997). · cites it 3× “However, "[a]ctions categorically exempt under RCW 43.21C.110(1)(a) do not require environmental review or the preparation of an environmental impact statement under this chapter.”

Adams v. Thurston Cnty., 855 P.2d 284 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 5× “SEPA overlays and supplements all other state laws, RCW 43.21C.030, .060; Victoria Tower Partnership v.”

Show all 153 citing cases →

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.030(1) — 12 cases

Pleas v. City of Seattle, 774 P.2d 1158 (Wash. 1989).

Leschi Improvement Council v. Washington State High. Comm'n, 525 P.2d 774 (Wash. 1974). “" RCW 43.21C.030. SEPA further directs that "The policies and goals set forth *277 in this chapter are supplementary to those set forth in existing authorizations of all branches of government of this state, including state agencies .”

Eastlake Cmty. Council v. Roanoke Assocs., Inc., 513 P.2d 36 (Wash. 1973). “RCW 43.21C.030. In this case, the necessity of an environmental impact statement is mandated by an analysis of SEPA and a review of Stempel v.”

State v. City of Seattle, 615 P.2d 461 (Wash. 1980).

English Bay Enter., Ltd. v. Island Cnty., 568 P.2d 783 (Wash. 1977).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.030(2) — 8 cases

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. The act’s procedures promote the policy of fully informed decision making by government bodies when undertaking “major actions significantly affecting the quality of the…”

Alpine Lakes Prot. Soc'y v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 979 P.2d 929 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999).

Merkel v. Port of Brownsville, 509 P.2d 390 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973).

Stempel v. Dep't of Water Resources, 508 P.2d 166 (Wash. 1973). “RCW 43.21C.030 (2) (c) (i). The environmental impact reports require a detailed statement by the responsible official on: (i) the environmental impact of the proposed action; (ii) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented; (iii)…”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.030(2)(a) — 4 cases

Klickitat Cnty. Citizens Against Imported Waste v. Klickitat Cnty., 866 P.2d 1256 (Wash. 1993).

Wells v. Whatcom Cnty. Water Dist. No. 10, 19 P.3d 453 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

Wells v. Whatcom Cnty. Water Dist. No. 10, 105 Wash. App. 143 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001).

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

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.030(2)(b) — 15 cases

South Tacoma Way, LLC v. State, 233 P.3d 871 (Wash. 2010).

Asarco Inc. v. Air Quality Coalition, 601 P.2d 501 (Wash. 1979). “The trial court also concluded that PSAPCA had complied with SEPA, "to the fullest extent possible" and that the variance did not constitute a "major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment" under RCW 43.21C.030. Further, the court held PSAPCA's action in…”

South Tacoma Way, LLC v. State, 169 Wash. 2d 118 (Wash. 2010).

Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 11 P.3d 726 (Wash. 2000).

Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 142 Wash. 2d 68 (Wash. 2000).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.030(2)(c) — 63 cases

Chuckanut Conservancy v. WASH. STATE DNR, 232 P.3d 1154 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “2d 166 (quoting RCW 43.21C.030(2)(b)). [13] RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c).”

Chuckanut Conservancy v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 156 Wash. App. 274 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “at 118 (quoting RCW 43.21C.030(2)(b)). RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c).”

King Cnty. v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd., 860 P.2d 1024 (Wash. 1993). “Appellants contend the DNS was proper because consideration of the environmental effects of future development of the annexation properties would be premature and speculative.”

Adams v. Thurston Cnty., 855 P.2d 284 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993). “SEPA overlays and supplements all other state laws, RCW 43.21C.030, .060; Victoria Tower Partnership v.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.030(2)(c)(i) — 4 cases

Barrie v. Kitsap Cnty., 613 P.2d 1148 (Wash. 1980). “The first issue is: Are the county and city environmental impact statements inadequate as a matter of law because they do not discuss alternative shopping center sites? The State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 (SEPA) (RCW 43.21C) applies to the actions of both the County and…”

PT Air Watchers v. Dep't of Ecology, 319 P.3d 23 (Wash. 2014).

Gebbers v. Okanogan Cty. Pub. Util. Dist., 183 P.3d 324 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).

PT Air Watchers v. Dep't of Ecology (Wash. 2014).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.030(2)(c)(ii) — 1 case

Solid Waste Alt. Proponents v. Okanogan Cnty., 832 P.2d 503 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.030(2)(c)(iii) — 9 cases

King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth, 979 P.2d 374 (Wash. 1999).

King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 138 Wash. 2d 161 (Wash. 1999).

King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 951 P.2d 1151 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).

Solid Waste Alt. Proponents v. Okanogan Cnty., 832 P.2d 503 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.030(2)(d) — 3 cases

Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Island, 223 P.3d 1172 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).

West Main Assocs. v. City of Bellevue, 742 P.2d 1266 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.030(2)(e) — 8 cases

Feil v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings, 259 P.3d 227 (Wash. 2011).

Feil v. E. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 172 Wash. 2d 367 (Wash. 2011).

Kettle Range Conservation Grp. v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 85 P.3d 894 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).

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

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.030(2)(h) — 1 case

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

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.030(a) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.030(b) — 2 cases

Sound Action, V. Wa State Shorelines Hearing Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.030(c) — 19 cases

Residents Opposed Turbines v. State Efsec, 197 P.3d 1153 (Wash. 2008).

Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, 165 Wash. 2d 275 (Wash. 2008).

Ellensburg Cement Prods., Inc. v. Kittitas Cnty., 317 P.3d 1037 (Wash. 2014). “SEPA charges the Department of Ecology with creating “[r]ules for criteria and procedures applicable to the determination of when an act of a branch of government is a major action significantly affecting the quality of the environment for which a detailed statement is required…”

Juanita Bay Valley Cmty. Ass'n v. City of Kirkland, 510 P.2d 1140 (Wash. Ct. App. 1973).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.030(c)(iii) — 6 cases

Brinnon Grp. v. Jefferson Cnty., 159 Wash. App. 446 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

King Cnty. v. Cent. Puget Sound Growth, 979 P.2d 374 (Wash. 1999).

Town of Woodway v. Snohomish Cnty., 291 P.3d 278 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).

BRINNON Grp. v. Jefferson Cnty., 245 P.3d 789 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

Brinnon Grp. v. Jefferson Cnty., 245 P.3d 789 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011).

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.030(d) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.030(e) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.030(f) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.030(g) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.030(h) — 1 case

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.