Wash. Rev. Code » Title 90 · Chapter 90.54
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 90.54.010 (2026)

Purpose

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) The legislature finds that:
(a) Proper utilization of the water resources of this state is necessary to the promotion of public health and the economic well-being of the state and the preservation of its natural resources and aesthetic values. Although water is a renewable resource, its supply and availability are becoming increasingly limited, particularly during summer and fall months and dry years when demand is greatest. Growth and prosperity have significantly increased the competition for this limited resource. Adequate water supplies are essential to meet the needs of the state's growing population and economy. At the same time instream resources and values must be preserved and protected so that future generations can continue to enjoy them.
(b) All citizens of Washington share an interest in the proper stewardship of our invaluable water resources. To ensure that available water supplies are managed to best meet both instream and offstream needs, a comprehensive planning process is essential. The people of the state have the unique opportunity to work together to plan and manage our water. Through a comprehensive planning process that includes the state, Indian tribes, local governments, and interested parties, it is possible to make better use of available water supplies and achieve better management of water resources. Through comprehensive planning, conflicts among water users and interests can be reduced or resolved. It is in the best interests of the state that comprehensive water resource planning be given a high priority so that water resources and associated values can be utilized and enjoyed today and protected for tomorrow.
(c) Diverse hydrologic, climatic, cultural, and socioeconomic conditions exist throughout the regions of the state. Water resource issues vary significantly across regions. Comprehensive water resource planning is best accomplished through a regional planning process sensitive to the unique characteristics and issues of each region.
(d) Comprehensive water resource planning must provide interested parties adequate opportunity to participate. Water resource issues are best addressed through cooperation and coordination among the state, Indian tribes, local governments, and interested parties.
(e) The long-term needs of the state require ongoing assessment of water availability, use, and demand. A thorough inventory of available resources is essential to water resource management. Current state water resource data and data management is inadequate to meet changing needs and respond to competing water demands. Therefore, a state water resource data program is needed to support an effective water resource management program. Efforts should be made to coordinate and consolidate into one resource data system all relevant information developed by the department of ecology and other agencies relating to the use, protection, and management of the state's water resources.
(2) It is the purpose of this chapter to set forth fundamentals of water resource policy for the state to insure that waters of the state are protected and fully utilized for the greatest benefit to the people of the state of Washington and, in relation thereto, to provide direction to the department of ecology, other state agencies and officials, and local government in carrying out water and related resources programs. It is the intent of the legislature to work closely with the executive branch, Indian tribes, local government, and interested parties to ensure that water resources of the state are wisely managed.
[ 1990 c 295 s 1; 1971 ex.s. c 225 s 1.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases, 1973–2019 · leading case: Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 381 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 381 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 5× “” RCW 90.54.010(1)(a). To balance growth and stream maintenance, the WRA directed Ecology to allocate waters in a way that maximizes the net benefits to the people of the state and to retain “base flows necessary to provide for preservation of wildlife, fish, scenic, aesthetic…”
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. Dep't of Ecology, 311 P.3d 6 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 3× “RCW 90.54.010. ¶48 And, consistent with the overall goal of preserving natural resources and aesthetic values, among the wide range of beneficial uses to which water may be put that are summarized in the Water Resources Act of 1971 are “fish and wildlife maintenance and…”
Pud No. 1 of Jefferson Cnty. v. Washington Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994). · cites it 2× “, Wash. Rev. Code § 90.54.010 (2) (1992) (goal of State's water policy is to "insure that waters of the state are protected and fully utilized for the greatest benefit to the people of the state of Washington").”
Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 368 P.3d 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “RCW 90.54.010. These measures were enacted pursuant to legislative recognition of the value of the resource and the presence of the threat.”
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 11 P.3d 726 (Wash. 2000). “RCW 90.54.010(1)(a); RCW 90.03.005 (describing policy of water use yielding maximum net benefits from both diversionary use of waters and retention of water instream to protect natural values and rights); RCW 90.”
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 142 Wash. 2d 68 (Wash. 2000). “RCW 90.54.010(l)(a); RCW 90.03.005 (describing policy of water use yielding maximum net benefits from both diversionary use of waters and retention of water instream to protect natural values and rights); RCW *83 90.”
Richard A. Fox & Marnie B. Fox, Apps. v. Skagit Cnty., Res., 372 P.3d 784 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Relying on RCW 90.54.010(1) and RCW 90.54.020(5), they argue that water must be preserved for domestic use and no instream flow rule can limit *275 permit-exempt domestic wells.”
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. Skagit Cnty., 158 P.3d 1179 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “RCW 90.54.010. 28 RCW 90.54.010(l)(b) (emphasis added).”
Stempel v. Dep't of Water Resources, 508 P.2d 166 (Wash. 1973). “RCW 90.54.010. RCW 90.54.020(3) requires that the quality of the natural environment “shall be protected” and, where possible, enhanced as follows: (a) .”
Ctr. For Env't Law & Policy v. State Of Washington, 444 P.3d 622 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 11× “RCW 90.54.010. Water is an increasingly scarce resource and putting it to one beneficial use necessarily limits its availability for a competing use.”
Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd. (Wash. 2016). · cites it 4× “RCW 90.54.010(1)(b) (emphasis added); RCW 36.”
Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd. (Wash. 2016). · cites it 4× “RCW 90.54.010(1)(b) (emphasis added); RCW 36.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.54.010(1) — 1 case
Richard A. Fox & Marnie B. Fox, Apps. v. Skagit Cnty., Res., 372 P.3d 784 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Relying on RCW 90.54.010(1) and RCW 90.54.020(5), they argue that water must be preserved for domestic use and no instream flow rule can limit *275 permit-exempt domestic wells.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.54.010(1)(a) — 4 cases
Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 381 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2016). “” RCW 90.54.010(1)(a). To balance growth and stream maintenance, the WRA directed Ecology to allocate waters in a way that maximizes the net benefits to the people of the state and to retain “base flows necessary to provide for preservation of wildlife, fish, scenic, aesthetic…”
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 11 P.3d 726 (Wash. 2000). “RCW 90.54.010(1)(a); RCW 90.03.005 (describing policy of water use yielding maximum net benefits from both diversionary use of waters and retention of water instream to protect natural values and rights); RCW 90.”
Ctr. For Env't Law & Policy v. State Of Washington, 444 P.3d 622 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 90.54.010. Water is an increasingly scarce resource and putting it to one beneficial use necessarily limits its availability for a competing use.”
Swinomish Indian Tribal Comm'y v. Dep't of Ecology (Wash. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.54.010(1)(b) — 5 cases
Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 381 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2016). “” RCW 90.54.010(1)(a). To balance growth and stream maintenance, the WRA directed Ecology to allocate waters in a way that maximizes the net benefits to the people of the state and to retain “base flows necessary to provide for preservation of wildlife, fish, scenic, aesthetic…”
Ctr. For Env't Law & Policy v. State Of Washington, 444 P.3d 622 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 90.54.010. Water is an increasingly scarce resource and putting it to one beneficial use necessarily limits its availability for a competing use.”
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. SKAGIT CTY., 158 P.3d 1179 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007).
Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd. (Wash. 2016). “RCW 90.54.010(1)(b) (emphasis added); RCW 36.”
Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd. (Wash. 2016). “RCW 90.54.010(1)(b) (emphasis added); RCW 36.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.54.010(1)(c) — 3 cases
Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 381 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2016). “” RCW 90.54.010(1)(a). To balance growth and stream maintenance, the WRA directed Ecology to allocate waters in a way that maximizes the net benefits to the people of the state and to retain “base flows necessary to provide for preservation of wildlife, fish, scenic, aesthetic…”
Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd. (Wash. 2016). “RCW 90.54.010(1)(b) (emphasis added); RCW 36.”
Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd. (Wash. 2016). “RCW 90.54.010(1)(b) (emphasis added); RCW 36.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.54.010(2) — 1 case
Ctr. For Env't Law & Policy v. State Of Washington, 444 P.3d 622 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “RCW 90.54.010. Water is an increasingly scarce resource and putting it to one beneficial use necessarily limits its availability for a competing use.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.54.010(b) — 2 cases
Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd. (Wash. 2016). “RCW 90.54.010(1)(b) (emphasis added); RCW 36.”
Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd. (Wash. 2016). “RCW 90.54.010(1)(b) (emphasis added); RCW 36.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.54.010(l)(a) — 2 cases
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. Dep't of Ecology, 311 P.3d 6 (Wash. 2013). “RCW 90.54.010. ¶48 And, consistent with the overall goal of preserving natural resources and aesthetic values, among the wide range of beneficial uses to which water may be put that are summarized in the Water Resources Act of 1971 are “fish and wildlife maintenance and…”
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 142 Wash. 2d 68 (Wash. 2000). “RCW 90.54.010(l)(a); RCW 90.03.005 (describing policy of water use yielding maximum net benefits from both diversionary use of waters and retention of water instream to protect natural values and rights); RCW *83 90.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.54.010(l)(b) — 3 cases
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. Skagit Cnty., 158 P.3d 1179 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 90.54.010. 28 RCW 90.54.010(l)(b) (emphasis added).”
Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd. (Wash. 2016). “RCW 90.54.010(1)(b) (emphasis added); RCW 36.”
Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd. (Wash. 2016). “RCW 90.54.010(1)(b) (emphasis added); RCW 36.”
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.