Wash. Rev. Code » Title 90 · Chapter 90.48
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 90.48.010 (2026)

Policy enunciated

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
It is declared to be the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and protection of wild life, birds, game, fish and other aquatic life, and the industrial development of the state, and to that end require the use of all known available and reasonable methods by industries and others to prevent and control the pollution of the waters of the state of Washington. Consistent with this policy, the state of Washington will exercise its powers, as fully and as effectively as possible, to retain and secure high quality for all waters of the state. The state of Washington in recognition of the federal government's interest in the quality of the navigable waters of the United States, of which certain portions thereof are within the jurisdictional limits of this state, proclaims a public policy of working cooperatively with the federal government in a joint effort to extinguish the sources of water quality degradation, while at the same time preserving and vigorously exercising state powers to insure that present and future standards of water quality within the state shall be determined by the citizenry, through and by the efforts of state government, of the state of Washington.
[ 1973 c 155 s 1; 1945 c 216 s 1; Rem. Supp. 1945 s 10964a.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1959–2024 · leading case: Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 368 P.3d 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 368 P.3d 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 17× “Sixth, Ecology argues that applying the vested rights doctrine here would conflict with the legislature’s intent, expressed in RCW 90.48.010, to “maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state.”
Miotke v. City of Spokane, 678 P.2d 803 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 4× “This policy is declared in RCW 90.48.010: It is declared to be the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health and public enjoyment thereof, the propagation and…”
Pub. Util. DIST. v. State, Dept. of Ecology, 51 P.3d 744 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “RCW 90.48.010. Ecology asserts the definition of water "pollution" is at least as broad as the definition in the federal CWA as interpreted by Elkhorn II , thereby implying authority to set instream flow conditions as pollution regulation.”
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Dep't of Ecology, 146 Wash. 2d 778 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “RCW 90.48.010. Ecology asserts the definition of water “pollution” is at least as broad as the definition in the federal CWA as interpreted by Elkhorn II, thereby implying authority to set instream flow conditions as pollution regulation.”
Tiegs v. Watts, 135 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 3× “[ 41 ] Instruction 13 quoted the relevant portion of RCW 90.48.010 which declared the policy of the Water Pollution Control Act: It is declared to be the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the…”
Tiegs v. Watts, 954 P.2d 877 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 3× “[ [41] ] Instruction 13 quoted the relevant portion of RCW 90.48.010 which declared the policy of the Water Pollution Control Act: It is declared to be the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of…”
Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 90 P.3d 659 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 90.48.010. Consistent with this overarching policy, Ecology has promulgated specific water quality standards.”
Tiegs v. Boise Cascade Corp., 922 P.2d 115 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “” Finally, jury instruction 13 set forth the policy of the state, as found at RCW 90.48.010: It is declared to be the public policy of the state of Washington to maintain the highest possible standards to insure the purity of all waters of the state consistent with public health…”
Puget Soundkeeper All. v. Dep't of Ecology, 424 P.3d 1173 (Wash. 2018). “RCW 90.48.010. ¶ 47 Washington regulation explains that a testing method must meet one of three requirements for use in NPDES permits: be in accord with 40 C.”
SOUNDKEEPER v. State, Dept. of Ecology, 9 P.3d 892 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “[15] RCW 90.48.010. [16] RCW 90.48.010. [17] RCW 90.”
Kettle Range Conservation Grp. v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 85 P.3d 894 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 90.48.010. We reject Kettle Range’s argument that RCW 90.”
Nw. Ecosystem All. v. Forest Practices Bd., 66 P.3d 614 (Wash. 2003). “570(2), [3] that certain existing forest practices regulations should be declared invalid on the basis that these regulations either do not meet statutory requirements or violate the Forest Practices Act of 1974, the Washington water pollution control act, RCW 90.48.010, and…”
Show all 33 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.