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

Wash. Rev. Code § 90.48.080 (2026)

Discharge of polluting matter in waters prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
It shall be unlawful for any person to throw, drain, run, or otherwise discharge into any of the waters of this state, or to cause, permit or suffer to be thrown, run, drained, allowed to seep or otherwise discharged into such waters any organic or inorganic matter that shall cause or tend to cause pollution of such waters according to the determination of the department, as provided for in this chapter.
[ 1987 c 109 s 126; 1967 c 13 s 8; 1945 c 216 s 14; Rem. Supp. 1945 s 10964n.]

Notes:

Purpose—Short title—Construction—Rules—Severability—Captions—1987 c 109: See notes following RCW 43.21B.001.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: Tiegs v. Watts, 135 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Tiegs v. Watts, 135 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 15× “[ 40 ] Instruction 16, quoting a portion of the Water Pollution Control Act, RCW 90.48.080, advised the jury a violation of the statute prohibiting discharge of polluting matters in water constitutes a nuisance: It shall be unlawful for any person to throw, drain, run, or…”
Tiegs v. Watts, 954 P.2d 877 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 15× “[ [40] ] Instruction 16, quoting a portion of the Water Pollution Control Act, RCW 90.48.080, advised the jury a violation of the statute prohibiting discharge of polluting matters in water constitutes a nuisance: It shall be unlawful for any person to throw, drain, run, or…”
Lemire v. Dep't of Ecology, 309 P.3d 395 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 10× “Activities that violate or have the substantial potential to violate the WPCA are discussed in RCW 90.48.080: It shall be unlawful for any person to throw, drain, run, or otherwise discharge into any of the waters of this state, or to cause, permit or suffer to be thrown, run,…”
State v. Lundgren, 971 P.2d 948 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “This discharge was in violation of RCW 90.48.080, .144(2) and (3). This violation commenced with the effective date of the termination of the NPDES permit, on June 23, 1990.”
Sea Farms, Inc. v. Foster & Marshall Realty, Inc., 711 P.2d 1049 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 3× “" Second, Sea Farms asserts that Foster & Marshall cannot delegate the duty imposed by RCW 90.48.080 not to pollute state waters.”
All. v. Cruise Terminals of Am., LLC, 216 F. Supp. 3d 1198 (W.D. Wash. 2015). · cites it 2× “Wash. Rev. Code §§ 90.48.080 , 90.48.160.”
Dep't of Ecology v. Lundgren, 94 Wash. App. 236 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “This discharge was in violation of RCW 90.48.080, .144(2) and (3). This violation commenced with the effective date of the termination of *246 the NPDES permit, on June 23, 1990.”
Dep't of Ecology v. Douma, 147 Wash. App. 143 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 7× “RCW 90.48.080. This case involves the application of this public policy of preventing water pollution to the actions of the Doumas as dairy farmers.”
Tiegs v. Boise Cascade Corp., 922 P.2d 115 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “) Instruction 16 recited the provisions of RCW 90.48.080 of the water pollution control act: It shall be unlawful for any person to throw, drain, run, or otherwise discharge into any of the waters of this state, or to cause, permit or suffer to be thrown, run, drained, allowed…”
Puget Soundkeeper All. v. Dep't of Ecology, 424 P.3d 1173 (Wash. 2018). “" RCW 90.48.080. As a concession, perhaps, to the perceived necessities of the time, pollution may be permitted, subject to stringent controls, under discharge permits issued by the Department of Ecology.”
Pac. Topsoils, Inc. v. Dep't of Ecology, 157 Wash. App. 629 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “PTI argues (1) the DOE lacks statutory authorization to regulate wetlands under RCW 90.48.080; (2) chapter 90.48 RCW and WAC 173-201A-300 are unconstitutionally vague as to filling wetlands; (3) the DOE’s order 4095 and penalty 4096 violated due process by failing to provide PTI…”
Pac. Topsoils v. State Dept. of Ecology, 238 P.3d 1201 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “PTI argues: (1) the DOE lacks statutory authorization to regulate wetlands under RCW 90.48.080; (2) chapter 90.48 RCW and WAC 173-201A-300 are unconstitutionally vague as to filling wetlands; (3) the DOE's Order 4095 and Penalty 4096 violated due process by failing to provide…”
Show all 24 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.