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

Wash. Rev. Code § 90.48.120 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Whenever, in the opinion of the department, any person shall violate or creates a substantial potential to violate the provisions of this chapter or chapter 90.56 RCW, or fails to control the polluting content of waste discharged or to be discharged into any waters of the state, the department shall notify such person of its determination by registered mail. Such determination shall not constitute an order or directive under RCW 43.21B.310. Within thirty days from the receipt of notice of such determination, such person shall file with the department a full report stating what steps have been and are being taken to control such waste or pollution or to otherwise comply with the determination of the department. Whereupon the department shall issue such order or directive as it deems appropriate under the circumstances, and shall notify such person thereof by registered mail.
(2) Whenever the department deems immediate action is necessary to accomplish the purposes of this chapter or chapter 90.56 RCW, it may issue such order or directive, as appropriate under the circumstances, without first issuing a notice or determination pursuant to subsection (1) of this section. An order or directive issued pursuant to this subsection shall be served by registered mail or personally upon any person to whom it is directed.
[ 1992 c 73 s 25; 1987 c 109 s 131; 1985 c 316 s 3; 1973 c 155 s 2; 1967 c 13 s 11; 1945 c 216 s 18; Rem. Supp. 1945 s 10964r.]

Notes:

Effective dates—1992 c 73: See RCW 82.23B.902.
Purpose—Short title—Construction—Rules—Severability—Captions—1987 c 109: See notes following RCW 43.21B.001.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case: Lemire v. Dep't of Ecology, 309 P.3d 395 (Wash. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lemire v. Dep't of Ecology, 309 P.3d 395 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 7× “RCW 90.48.120. Activities that violate or have the substantial potential to violate the WPCA are discussed in RCW 90.”
Tiegs v. Watts, 135 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 2× “080 prohibits discharge into the waters of the state of any pollutant “according to the determination of the department, as provided for in this chapter”; whereas RCW 90.48.120 sets forth a formal procedure whereby this “determination” is made: Whenever, in the opinion of the…”
Clark Cnty. v. Rosemere Neighborhood Ass'n, 290 P.3d 142 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “RCW 90.48.120. But if the permit standards automatically became the law in the County, Ecology would then have the power to legislate for the permittees.”
Tiegs v. Watts, 954 P.2d 877 (Wash. 1998). · cites it 2× “080 prohibits discharge into the waters of the state of any pollutant "according to the determination of the department, as provided for in this chapter"; whereas RCW 90.48.120 sets forth a formal procedure whereby this "determination" is made: Whenever, in the opinion of the…”
Klineburger v. King Cnty., 356 P.3d 223 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “11-053, at 8. The Board did describe other avenues by which the appellants could seek relief.”
Pac. Topsoils v. State Dept. of Ecology, 238 P.3d 1201 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “" RCW 90.48.120, .140, .144(3). ¶ 31 Furthermore, RCW 90.”
Pac. Topsoils, Inc. v. Dep't of Ecology, 157 Wash. App. 629 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Order 4095 also stated that the DOE issued it under RCW 90.48.120(2) and specified compliance requirements for PTI.”
Lemire v. Dep't of Ecology (Wash. 2013). · cites it 8× “RCW 90.48.120(1 ). We are asked to consider the propriety of an agency order requiring Lemire to come into compliance with the WPCA.”
Waste Action Proj. v. Fruhling Sand & Topsoil, Inc. (W.D. Wash. 2020). · cites it 2× “RCW 90.48.120 authorizes Ecology to issue administrative orders requiring compliance whenever it determines that a person has violated or created a substantial potential to violate any provision of Chapter 90.”
Weyerhaeuser Nr Co. V. Wa State Dept Of Ecology & Pollution Control Hearings Bd. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “RCW 90.48.120. Here, Ecology determined the effluent limits necessary in the 2019 Weyerhaeuser permit based on a reasonable potential analysis, data provided by Weyerhaeuser, and the AKART report.”
King Co Dept Of Dev. & Environ. Ser. Bldg, App-cross Res v. Stephan & Sandra Klineburger, Res-cr App (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “07-139, at 5 (quoting RCW 90.48.120(1)). -18- NO. 71325-6-1/19 matter.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.48.120(1) — 7 cases
Lemire v. Dep't of Ecology, 309 P.3d 395 (Wash. 2013). “RCW 90.48.120. Activities that violate or have the substantial potential to violate the WPCA are discussed in RCW 90.”
Tiegs v. Watts, 135 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 1998). “080 prohibits discharge into the waters of the state of any pollutant “according to the determination of the department, as provided for in this chapter”; whereas RCW 90.48.120 sets forth a formal procedure whereby this “determination” is made: Whenever, in the opinion of the…”
Tiegs v. Watts, 954 P.2d 877 (Wash. 1998). “080 prohibits discharge into the waters of the state of any pollutant "according to the determination of the department, as provided for in this chapter"; whereas RCW 90.48.120 sets forth a formal procedure whereby this "determination" is made: Whenever, in the opinion of the…”
Clark Cnty. v. Rosemere Neighborhood Ass'n, 290 P.3d 142 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 90.48.120. But if the permit standards automatically became the law in the County, Ecology would then have the power to legislate for the permittees.”
Klineburger v. King Cnty., 356 P.3d 223 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “11-053, at 8. The Board did describe other avenues by which the appellants could seek relief.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.48.120(2) — 2 cases
Pac. Topsoils, Inc. v. Dep't of Ecology, 157 Wash. App. 629 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Order 4095 also stated that the DOE issued it under RCW 90.48.120(2) and specified compliance requirements for PTI.”
Pac. Topsoils v. State Dept. of Ecology, 238 P.3d 1201 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “" RCW 90.48.120, .140, .144(3). ¶ 31 Furthermore, RCW 90.”
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.