Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 90.54.020 (2026)
General declaration of fundamentals for utilization and management of waters of the state
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Utilization and management of the waters of the state shall be guided by the following general declaration of fundamentals:
(1) Uses of water for domestic, stock watering, industrial, commercial, agricultural, irrigation, hydroelectric power production, mining, fish and wildlife maintenance and enhancement, recreational, and thermal power production purposes, and preservation of environmental and aesthetic values, and all other uses compatible with the enjoyment of the public waters of the state, are declared to be beneficial.
(2) Allocation of waters among potential uses and users shall be based generally on the securing of the maximum net benefits for the people of the state. Maximum net benefits shall constitute total benefits less costs including opportunities lost.
(3) The quality of the natural environment shall be protected and, where possible, enhanced as follows:
(a) Perennial rivers and streams of the state shall be retained with base flows necessary to provide for preservation of wildlife, fish, scenic, aesthetic and other environmental values, and navigational values. Lakes and ponds shall be retained substantially in their natural condition. Withdrawals of water which would conflict therewith shall be authorized only in those situations where it is clear that overriding considerations of the public interest will be served.
(b) Waters of the state shall be of high quality. Regardless of the quality of the waters of the state, all wastes and other materials and substances proposed for entry into said waters shall be provided with all known, available, and reasonable methods of treatment prior to entry. Notwithstanding that standards of quality established for the waters of the state would not be violated, wastes and other materials and substances shall not be allowed to enter such waters which will reduce the existing quality thereof, except in those situations where it is clear that overriding considerations of the public interest will be served. Technology-based effluent limitations or standards for discharges for municipal water treatment plants located on the Chehalis, Columbia, Cowlitz, Lewis, or Skagit river shall be adjusted to reflect credit for substances removed from the plant intake water if:
(i) The municipality demonstrates that the intake water is drawn from the same body of water into which the discharge is made; and
(ii) The municipality demonstrates that no violation of receiving water quality standards or appreciable environmental degradation will result.
(4) The development of multipurpose water storage facilities shall be a high priority for programs of water allocation, planning, management, and efficiency. The department, other state agencies, local governments, and planning units formed under *section 107 or 108 of this act shall evaluate the potential for the development of new storage projects and the benefits and effects of storage in reducing damage to stream banks and property, increasing the use of land, providing water for municipal, industrial, agricultural, power generation, and other beneficial uses, and improving streamflow regimes for fisheries and other instream uses.
(5) Adequate and safe supplies of water shall be preserved and protected in potable condition to satisfy human domestic needs.
(6) Multiple-purpose impoundment structures are to be preferred over single-purpose structures. Due regard shall be given to means and methods for protection of fishery resources in the planning for and construction of water impoundment structures and other artificial obstructions.
(7) Federal, state, and local governments, individuals, corporations, groups and other entities shall be encouraged to carry out practices of conservation as they relate to the use of the waters of the state. In addition to traditional development approaches, improved water use efficiency, conservation, and use of reclaimed water shall be emphasized in the management of the state's water resources and in some cases will be a potential new source of water with which to meet future needs throughout the state. Use of reclaimed water shall be encouraged through state and local planning and programs with incentives for state financial assistance recognizing programs and plans that encourage the use of conservation and reclaimed water use, and state agencies shall continue to review and reduce regulatory barriers and streamline permitting for the use of reclaimed water where appropriate.
(8) Development of water supply systems, whether publicly or privately owned, which provide water to the public generally in regional areas within the state shall be encouraged. Development of water supply systems for multiple domestic use which will not serve the public generally shall be discouraged where water supplies are available from water systems serving the public.
(9) Full recognition shall be given in the administration of water allocation and use programs to the natural interrelationships of surface and groundwaters.
(10) Expressions of the public interest will be sought at all stages of water planning and allocation discussions.
(11) Water management programs, including but not limited to, water quality, flood control, drainage, erosion control and storm runoff are deemed to be in the public interest.
Notes:
*Reviser's note: Sections 107 and 108 of this act were vetoed by the governor.
Findings—Intent—2007 c 445: See note following RCW 90.46.005.
Severability—1989 c 348: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1989 c 348 s 13.]
Rights not impaired—1989 c 348: See RCW 90.54.920.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1973–2025 · leading case: Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. Dep't of Ecology, 311 P.3d 6 (Wash. 2013).
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. Dep't of Ecology, 311 P.3d 6 (Wash. 2013). “This provision states: (3) The quality of the natural environment shall be protected and, where possible, enhanced as follows: (a) Perennial rivers and streams of the state shall be retained with base flows necessary to provide for preservation of wildlife, fish, scenic,…”
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 11 P.3d 726 (Wash. 2000). “The groundwater regulations for the relevant river basins, WAC 173-507-040, WAC 173-508-050 and WAC 173-509-050, are consistent with the statutes they implement. We hold that Ecology did not fail to engage in required rule-making in Postema's case.”
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 142 Wash. 2d 68 (Wash. 2000). “See also RCW 90.54.020(10). The existing rules do not require revision, however.”
Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 381 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2016). “020 and RCW 90.54.020, respectively, such that a county’s comprehensive plan must both “protect” and “enhance” water quality.”
Ctr. for Env't Law & Policy v. Dep't of Ecology, 196 Wash. App. 360 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Management and utilization ofWash-ington waters are guided by a general declaration of fundamentals in RCW 90.54.020. RCW 90.54.020(1) establishes which uses of water are deemed beneficial.”
Foster v. Dep't of Ecology, 362 P.3d 959 (Wash. 2015). “RCW 90.54.020 (emphasis added). This final sentence is the OCPI exception.”
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Dep't of Ecology, 146 Wash. 2d 778 (Wash. 2002). “005 and RCW 90.54.020. However, when an application for change under RCW 90.”
Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 90 P.3d 659 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 90.54.020(1). Even so, if the Port’s plan amounts to management, rather than “use” of stormwater, then the water right requirement, by definition, would not apply.”
Dep't of Ecology v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 849 P.2d 646 (Wash. 1993). “B Section 401's Integration of "Any Other Appropriate Requirement of State Law" Ecology also maintains that the streamflow condition it imposed in Tacoma's section 401 certificate was an appropriate measure to carry out RCW 90.54.020(3)(a), which provides that "[pjerennial…”
Pub. Util. DIST. v. State, Dept. of Ecology, 51 P.3d 744 (Wash. 2002). “005 and RCW 90.54.020. However, when an application for change under RCW 90.”
Hallauer v. Spectrum Props., Inc., 18 P.3d 540 (Wash. 2001). “The Hallauers propose to use water under their certificated water right for use in their heat pump and cooling system, and for fish propagation.”
Hallauer v. Spectrum Props., Inc., 143 Wash. 2d 126 (Wash. 2001). “The Hallauers propose to use water under their certificated water right for use in their heat pump and cooling system, and for fish propagation. Their domestic use of water is clearly a beneficial use falling within the Legislature’s declaration that beneficial uses are public…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.54.020(1) — 16 cases
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. Dep't of Ecology, 311 P.3d 6 (Wash. 2013). “This provision states: (3) The quality of the natural environment shall be protected and, where possible, enhanced as follows: (a) Perennial rivers and streams of the state shall be retained with base flows necessary to provide for preservation of wildlife, fish, scenic,…”
Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 90 P.3d 659 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 90.54.020(1). Even so, if the Port’s plan amounts to management, rather than “use” of stormwater, then the water right requirement, by definition, would not apply.”
Ctr. for Env't Law & Policy v. Dep't of Ecology, 196 Wash. App. 360 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Management and utilization ofWash-ington waters are guided by a general declaration of fundamentals in RCW 90.54.020. RCW 90.54.020(1) establishes which uses of water are deemed beneficial.”
Hallauer v. Spectrum Props., Inc., 18 P.3d 540 (Wash. 2001). “The Hallauers propose to use water under their certificated water right for use in their heat pump and cooling system, and for fish propagation.”
Hallauer v. Spectrum Props., Inc., 143 Wash. 2d 126 (Wash. 2001). “The Hallauers propose to use water under their certificated water right for use in their heat pump and cooling system, and for fish propagation. Their domestic use of water is clearly a beneficial use falling within the Legislature’s declaration that beneficial uses are public…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.54.020(10) — 2 cases
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 11 P.3d 726 (Wash. 2000). “The groundwater regulations for the relevant river basins, WAC 173-507-040, WAC 173-508-050 and WAC 173-509-050, are consistent with the statutes they implement. We hold that Ecology did not fail to engage in required rule-making in Postema's case.”
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 142 Wash. 2d 68 (Wash. 2000). “See also RCW 90.54.020(10). The existing rules do not require revision, however.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.54.020(2) — 10 cases
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. Dep't of Ecology, 311 P.3d 6 (Wash. 2013). “This provision states: (3) The quality of the natural environment shall be protected and, where possible, enhanced as follows: (a) Perennial rivers and streams of the state shall be retained with base flows necessary to provide for preservation of wildlife, fish, scenic,…”
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 11 P.3d 726 (Wash. 2000). “The groundwater regulations for the relevant river basins, WAC 173-507-040, WAC 173-508-050 and WAC 173-509-050, are consistent with the statutes they implement. We hold that Ecology did not fail to engage in required rule-making in Postema's case.”
Pub. Util. DIST. v. State, Dept. of Ecology, 51 P.3d 744 (Wash. 2002). “005 and RCW 90.54.020. However, when an application for change under RCW 90.”
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Dep't of Ecology, 146 Wash. 2d 778 (Wash. 2002). “005 and RCW 90.54.020. However, when an application for change under RCW 90.”
Hallauer v. Spectrum Props., Inc., 18 P.3d 540 (Wash. 2001). “The Hallauers propose to use water under their certificated water right for use in their heat pump and cooling system, and for fish propagation.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.54.020(3) — 14 cases
Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 381 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2016). “020 and RCW 90.54.020, respectively, such that a county’s comprehensive plan must both “protect” and “enhance” water quality.”
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 11 P.3d 726 (Wash. 2000). “The groundwater regulations for the relevant river basins, WAC 173-507-040, WAC 173-508-050 and WAC 173-509-050, are consistent with the statutes they implement. We hold that Ecology did not fail to engage in required rule-making in Postema's case.”
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 142 Wash. 2d 68 (Wash. 2000). “See also RCW 90.54.020(10). The existing rules do not require revision, however.”
Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 90 P.3d 659 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 90.54.020(1). Even so, if the Port’s plan amounts to management, rather than “use” of stormwater, then the water right requirement, by definition, would not apply.”
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. Dep't of Ecology, 311 P.3d 6 (Wash. 2013). “This provision states: (3) The quality of the natural environment shall be protected and, where possible, enhanced as follows: (a) Perennial rivers and streams of the state shall be retained with base flows necessary to provide for preservation of wildlife, fish, scenic,…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.54.020(3)(a) — 17 cases
Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty. v. Dep't of Ecology, 311 P.3d 6 (Wash. 2013). “This provision states: (3) The quality of the natural environment shall be protected and, where possible, enhanced as follows: (a) Perennial rivers and streams of the state shall be retained with base flows necessary to provide for preservation of wildlife, fish, scenic,…”
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 11 P.3d 726 (Wash. 2000). “The groundwater regulations for the relevant river basins, WAC 173-507-040, WAC 173-508-050 and WAC 173-509-050, are consistent with the statutes they implement. We hold that Ecology did not fail to engage in required rule-making in Postema's case.”
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 142 Wash. 2d 68 (Wash. 2000). “See also RCW 90.54.020(10). The existing rules do not require revision, however.”
Dep't of Ecology v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1, 849 P.2d 646 (Wash. 1993). “B Section 401's Integration of "Any Other Appropriate Requirement of State Law" Ecology also maintains that the streamflow condition it imposed in Tacoma's section 401 certificate was an appropriate measure to carry out RCW 90.54.020(3)(a), which provides that "[pjerennial…”
Foster v. Dep't of Ecology, 362 P.3d 959 (Wash. 2015). “RCW 90.54.020 (emphasis added). This final sentence is the OCPI exception.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.54.020(3)(b) — 10 cases
Snohomish Cnty. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 368 P.3d 194 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 90 P.3d 659 (Wash. 2004). “RCW 90.54.020(1). Even so, if the Port’s plan amounts to management, rather than “use” of stormwater, then the water right requirement, by definition, would not apply.”
Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 381 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2016). “020 and RCW 90.54.020, respectively, such that a county’s comprehensive plan must both “protect” and “enhance” water quality.”
Magdalena T. Bassett v. Washington State Dep't Of Ecology, 438 P.3d 563 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Port of Seattle v. PCHB, 90 P.3d 659 (Wash. 2004).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.54.020(5) — 3 cases
Richard A. Fox & Marnie B. Fox, Apps. v. Skagit Cnty., Res., 372 P.3d 784 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 381 P.3d 1 (Wash. 2016). “020 and RCW 90.54.020, respectively, such that a county’s comprehensive plan must both “protect” and “enhance” water quality.”
Whatcom Cnty. v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd. (Wash. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.54.020(9) — 3 cases
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 11 P.3d 726 (Wash. 2000). “The groundwater regulations for the relevant river basins, WAC 173-507-040, WAC 173-508-050 and WAC 173-509-050, are consistent with the statutes they implement. We hold that Ecology did not fail to engage in required rule-making in Postema's case.”
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 142 Wash. 2d 68 (Wash. 2000). “See also RCW 90.54.020(10). The existing rules do not require revision, however.”
H.c. Burkholder, App V. Pollution Control Hearings Bd. & Wa State Dept Of Ecology, Resps (Wash. Ct. App. 2025).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.54.020(a) — 1 case
Ctr. For Env't Law & Policy v. Dept Of Ecology (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
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.