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

Wash. Rev. Code § 43.21C.090 (2025)

Decision of governmental agency to be accorded substantial weight

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In any action involving an attack on a determination by a governmental agency relative to the requirement or the absence of the requirement, or the adequacy of a "detailed statement", the decision of the governmental agency shall be accorded substantial weight.
[ 1973 1st ex.s. c 179 s 3.]

Notes:

Effective date—1973 1st ex.s. c 179: See note following RCW 43.21C.080.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 60 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1974–2026 · leading case: Preserve Our Islands v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 137 P.3d 31 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Preserve Our Islands v. Shorelines Hearings Bd., 137 P.3d 31 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 3× “8, King County Shoreline Environments Map (Vashon and Maury Islands); ch.”
Brinnon Grp. v. Jefferson Cnty., 159 Wash. App. 446 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “See RCW 43.21C.090; 9 accord King County, 138 Wn.”
Swift v. Island Cnty., 552 P.2d 175 (Wash. 1976). · cites it 2× “Plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, from whence it was transferred to this court.”
Weyerhaeuser v. Pierce Cnty., 873 P.2d 498 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 2× “030 requires that an EIS contain a detailed discussion of alternatives to the proposed action.”
Moss v. City of Bellingham, 109 Wash. App. 6 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “25 The court felt that the “clearly erroneous” standard was appropriate for review of threshold determinations because it allows the court to give substantial weight to the agency determination as required by RCW 43.21C.090 while also examining the entire record in light of…”
Moss v. City of Bellingham, 31 P.3d 703 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “[25] The court felt that the "clearly erroneous" standard was appropriate for review of threshold determinations because it allows the court to give substantial weight to the agency determination as required by RCW 43.21C.090 while also examining the entire record in light of…”
Leschi Improvement Council v. Washington State High. Comm'n, 525 P.2d 774 (Wash. 1974). · cites it 2× “Indeed, RCW 43.21C.090 provides that "[i]n any action involving an attack on a determination by a governmental agency relative to the requirement or the absence of the requirement, or the adequacy of a `detailed statement' [RCW 43.”
Cornelius v. Dep't of Ecology, 344 P.3d 199 (Wash. 2015). “Even if the agency issues a DNS, though, it must create a supplemental EIS or prepare a new “determination” if “[n]ew information” indicates the proposed action may significantly affect environmental quality. WAC 197-11-600(3)(b)(ii).”
Norway Hill Pres. & Prot. Ass'n v. King Cnty. Council, 552 P.2d 674 (Wash. 1976). “” As stated above, the public policy contained in SEPA is consideration of environmental values.”
PT Air Watchers v. Dep't of Ecology, 319 P.3d 23 (Wash. 2014). · cites it 2× “WAC 197-11-315, -330 (“An EIS is required for proposals for legislation and other major actions significantly affecting the quality of the environment.”). If the checklist reveals that a project will not have significant impacts, Ecology issues a DNS and the environmental review…”
Klickitat Cnty. Citizens Against Imported Waste v. Klickitat Cnty., 866 P.2d 1256 (Wash. 1993). “RCW 43.21C.090; Citizens for Clean Air, 114 Wn.”
Org. to Preserve Agric. Lands v. Adams Cnty., 913 P.2d 793 (Wash. 1996). “” RCW 43.21C.090. EIS adequacy involves the legal sufficiency of the data in the EIS.”
Show all 60 citing cases →
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.