Wash. Rev. Code » Title 74 · Chapter 74.46
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 74.46.840 (2026)

Conflict with federal requirements

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
If any part of this chapter or RCW 18.51.145 or 74.09.120 is found by an agency of the federal government to be in conflict with federal requirements that are a prescribed condition to the receipts of federal funds to the state, the conflicting part of this chapter or RCW 18.51.145 or 74.09.120 is declared inoperative solely to the extent of the conflict and with respect to the agencies directly affected, and such finding or determination shall not affect the operation of the remainder of this chapter or RCW 18.51.145 or 74.09.120 in its application to the agencies concerned. In the event that any portion of this chapter or RCW 18.51.145 or 74.09.120 is found to be in conflict with federal requirements that are a prescribed condition to the receipt of federal funds, the secretary, to the extent that the secretary finds it to be consistent with the general policies and intent of chapters 18.51, 74.09, and 74.46 RCW, may adopt such rules as to resolve a specific conflict and that do meet minimum federal requirements. In addition, the secretary shall submit to the next regular session of the legislature a summary of the specific rule changes made and recommendations for statutory resolution of the conflict.
[ 1998 c 322 s 44; 1983 1st ex.s. c 67 s 42; 1980 c 177 s 92.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1989–2020 · leading case: Diversified Inv. P'ship v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 775 P.2d 947 (Wash. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Diversified Inv. P'ship v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 775 P.2d 947 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 14× “DEFRA had the potential to affect the state property reimbursement rate due to RCW 74.46.840 which provided that any provision of the state act found to be in conflict with federal law such that federal funding was jeopardized would be inoperative to the extent of the conflict.”
Caritas Servs., Inc. v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 869 P.2d 28 (Wash. 1994). · cites it 5× “RCW 74.46.840. 8 Caritas contends the language of each clause incorporates prospective amendments only, and not retroactive changes.”
State v. Batson, 478 P.3d 75 (Wash. 2020). “at 24 (quoting RCW 74.46.840). This review process and future specified event distinguishes Diversified from 8 State v.”
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.