Wash. Rev. Code » Title 90 · Chapter 90.14
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 90.14.190 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Any person feeling aggrieved by any decision of the department of ecology may have the same reviewed pursuant to RCW 43.21B.310. In any such review, the findings of fact as set forth in the report of the department of ecology shall be prima facie evidence of the fact of any waiver or relinquishment of a water right or portion thereof. If the hearings board affirms the decision of the department, a party seeks review in superior court of that hearings board decision pursuant to chapter 34.05 RCW, and the court determines that the party was injured by an arbitrary, capricious, or erroneous order of the department, the court may award reasonable attorneys' fees.
[ 1987 c 109 s 14; 1967 c 233 s 19.]

Notes:

Purpose—Short title—Construction—Rules—Severability—Captions—1987 c 109: See notes following RCW 43.21B.001.
Application to Yakima river basin trust water rights: RCW 90.38.040.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1986–2015 · leading case: Rettkowski v. Dep't of Ecology, 910 P.2d 462 (Wash. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rettkowski v. Dep't of Ecology, 910 P.2d 462 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 60× “We accepted both petitions for review and find (1) RCW 90.14.190 does allow for an award of attorneys' fees in this case, and (2) the Irrigators were injured by the Department, supporting an award of damages under RCW 90.”
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 11 P.3d 726 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 3× “Postema wants the court to rule that if he ultimately prevails in his claim for declaratory relief on the constitutional issues, he should receive attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.”
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 142 Wash. 2d 68 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 3× “Postema wants the court to rule that if he ultimately prevails in his claim for declaratory relief on the constitutional issues, he should receive attorney fees pursuant to 42 U.”
Est. of Burns, 928 P.2d 1094 (Wash. 1997). “already in existence on the effective date of [the] act" must refer to the liability for repayment of preamendment benefits because the statute refers to no Uability other than the "debt" for reimbursement created in subsection (1).”
Okanogan Wilderness League, Inc. v. Town of Twisp, 947 P.2d 732 (Wash. 1997). “OWL seeks an award of attorney fees on this appeal under RCW 90.14.190, which authorizes the superior court to award fees to the appellant if it finds that the appellant was injured by an arbitrary, capricious, or erroneous order of the Department of Ecology.”
Constr. Indus. Training Council v. Washington State Apprenticeship & Training Council, 977 P.2d 655 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “2d 462 (1996) (RCW 90.14.190); Progressive Animal Welfare Soc’y v.”
Pac. Land Partners, LLC v. Dept. of Ecology, 208 P.3d 586 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “Bernsen seeks attorney fees under RCW 90.14.190. The statute allows attorney fees when Ecology arbitrarily, capriciously, or erroneously injures a party.”
Pac. Land Partners, LLC v. Dep't of Ecology, 150 Wash. App. 740 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 3× “Accordingly, the “determined future development” exception to relinquishment for nonuse does not apply.”
Sheep Mountain Cattle Co. v. Dep't of Ecology, 726 P.2d 55 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). “RCW 90.14.190. Reversed and remanded for a determination of reasonable attorney fees and for a hearing before the Department of Ecology.”
Rettkowski v. Dep't of Ecology, 885 P.2d 852 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 7× “The trial court awarded fees pursuant to RCW 90.14.190. In the alternative, fees were awarded pursuant to Cecil v.”
Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs. v. Olver, 131 Wash. 2d 104 (Wash. 1997). “already in existence on the effective date of [the] act,” must refer to the liability for repayment of preamendment benefits because the statute refers to no liability other than the "debt” for reimbursement created in subsection (1).”
Monica Hunt v. State of Washington, Dept. of Ecology (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “350 or RCW 90.14.190. Neither is applicable to this case.”
Show all 13 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.