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

Wash. Rev. Code § 90.48.144 (2025)

Violations—Civil penalty—Procedure

✓ laws through the 2025 session: 2026 session laws are not yet included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Except as provided in RCW 43.05.060 through 43.05.080 and 43.05.150, every person who:
(1) Violates the terms or conditions of a waste discharge permit issued pursuant to RCW 90.48.180 or 90.48.260 through 90.48.262, or
(2) Conducts a commercial or industrial operation or other point source discharge operation without a waste discharge permit as required by RCW 90.48.160 or 90.48.260 through 90.48.262, or
(3) Violates the provisions of RCW 90.48.080, or other sections of this chapter or chapter 90.56 RCW or rules or orders adopted or issued pursuant to either of those chapters, shall incur, in addition to any other penalty as provided by law, a penalty in an amount of up to ten thousand dollars a day for every such violation. Each and every such violation shall be a separate and distinct offense, and in case of a continuing violation, every day's continuance shall be and be deemed to be a separate and distinct violation. Every act of commission or omission which procures, aids or abets in the violation shall be considered a violation under the provisions of this section and subject to the penalty herein provided for. The penalty amount shall be set in consideration of the previous history of the violator and the severity of the violation's impact on public health and/or the environment in addition to other relevant factors. The penalty herein provided for shall be imposed pursuant to the procedures set forth in RCW 43.21B.300.
[ 1995 c 403 s 636; 1992 c 73 s 27; 1987 c 109 s 17; 1985 c 316 s 2; 1973 c 155 s 9; 1970 ex.s. c 88 s 13; 1967 ex.s. c 139 s 14.]

Notes:

Findings—Short title—Intent—1995 c 403: See note following RCW 34.05.328.
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.
Severability—1967 ex.s. c 139: See RCW 82.34.900.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1980–2025 · leading case: U. S. Oil & Refining Co. v. Dep't of Ecology, 633 P.2d 1329 (Wash. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
U. S. Oil & Refining Co. v. Dep't of Ecology, 633 P.2d 1329 (Wash. 1981). · cites it 4× “Oil, pursuant to RCW 90.48.144. The basis for these penalties was that on 18 separate days U.”
Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 90 P.3d 659 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 90.48.144(3). Moreover, ACC and CASE offer no credible argument to support a conclusion that future NPDES permits will fail to meet water quality standards.”
State v. Lundgren, 971 P.2d 948 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “080 and RCW 90.48.144. Gulf Park, 972 F.Supp. at 1063 .”
Dep't of Ecology v. Lundgren, 94 Wash. App. 236 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 4× “080 and RCW 90.48.144. Gulf Park, 972 F. Supp. at 1063 .”
Dep't of Ecology v. Douma, 147 Wash. App. 143 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 5× “48 RCW, including civil penalties levied under RCW 90.48.144. 12 Ecology ar *154 gues, however, that RCW 90.”
Hickle v. Whitney Farms, Inc., 64 P.3d 1244 (Wash. 2003). “RCW 90.48.144. In 1985, the Benton-Franklin-Walla Walla Counties Air Pollution Control Authority informed Seneca that "illegally dumped material still belongs to the originator or source until accepted by an approved landfill or disposal site" and advised Seneca that if Whitney…”
Leson v. State, 864 P.2d 384 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6× “330 and $10,000 pursuant to RCW 90.48.144). 1 The Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB) affirmed Ecology's penalty assessment.”
Pac. Topsoils, Inc. v. Dep't of Ecology, 157 Wash. App. 629 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “Penalty 4096 provided that the DOE issued it under RCW 90.48.144(3), and it read in pertinent part: Prior to January 24, 2006, fill was placed in approximately 12 acres of wetlands at [PTI]’s Smith Island facility without a permit in violation of RCW 90.”
Pac. Topsoils v. State Dept. of Ecology, 238 P.3d 1201 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 3× “Penalty 4096 provided that the DOE issued it under RCW 90.48.144(3), and it read in pertinent part: Prior to January 24, 2006, fill was placed in approximately 12 acres of wetlands at [PTI]'s Smith Island facility without a permit in violation of RCW 90.”
State, Dept. of Ecology v. Douma, 193 P.3d 1102 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 7× “Pursuant to RCW 90.48.144, the Department of Ecology (Ecology) assessed a $53,000 penalty against the Doumas for discharging pollutants into Washington State waters.”
Port of Seattle v. PCHB, 90 P.3d 659 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 90.48.144(3). Moreover, ACC and CASE offer no credible argument to support a conclusion that future NPDES permits will fail to meet water quality standards.”
U. S. Oil & Refining Co. v. Dep't of Ecology, 615 P.2d 1340 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 3× “RCW 90.48.144 authorizes that penalty for violation of a waste discharge permit.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
Wash. Rev. Code § 90.48.144(3): 10 cases
Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 90 P.3d 659 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 90.48.144(3). Moreover, ACC and CASE offer no credible argument to support a conclusion that future NPDES permits will fail to meet water quality standards.”
U. S. Oil & Refining Co. v. Dep't of Ecology, 633 P.2d 1329 (Wash. 1981). “Oil, pursuant to RCW 90.48.144. The basis for these penalties was that on 18 separate days U.”
State v. Lundgren, 971 P.2d 948 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “080 and RCW 90.48.144. Gulf Park, 972 F.Supp. at 1063 .”
Dep't of Ecology v. Lundgren, 94 Wash. App. 236 (Wash. Ct. App. 1999). “080 and RCW 90.48.144. Gulf Park, 972 F. Supp. at 1063 .”
Pac. Topsoils, Inc. v. Dep't of Ecology, 157 Wash. App. 629 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Penalty 4096 provided that the DOE issued it under RCW 90.48.144(3), and it read in pertinent part: Prior to January 24, 2006, fill was placed in approximately 12 acres of wetlands at [PTI]’s Smith Island facility without a permit in violation of 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.