Wash. Rev. Code » Title 90 · Chapter 90.58

Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.050

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
This chapter establishes a cooperative program of shoreline management between local government and the state. Local government shall have the primary responsibility for initiating the planning required by this chapter and administering the regulatory program consistent with the policy and provisions of this chapter. The department shall act primarily in a supportive and review capacity with an emphasis on providing assistance to local government and on insuring compliance with the policy and provisions of this chapter.
[ 1995 c 347 s 303; 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 5.]

Notes:

Finding—Severability—Part headings and table of contents not law—1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2024 · leading case: Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Samuel's Furniture, Inc. v. Department of Ecology (2002) wash · cites it 28× “]’ ” 8 Because the court concluded that the SMA gave Ecology the authority to review local government decisions pursuant to RCW 90.58.050, a local jurisdiction decision was not final for purposes of LUPA.”
Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island (2007) wash · cites it 3× “RCW 90.58.050 (“This chapter establishes a cooperative program of shoreline management between local government and the state.”
Twin Bridge Marine Park v. State (2008) wash · cites it 4× “Division One of the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the SMA gave Ecology the authority to review local government decisions pursuant to RCW 90.58.050, and a local government decision was not final for the purposes of LUPA.”
Preserve Our Islands v. Shorelines Hearings Bd. (2006) washctapp “[23] RCW 90.58.050. The Department of Ecology "shall act primarily in a supportive and review capacity with an emphasis on providing assistance to local government and on insuring compliance with the policy and provisions of this chapter.”
Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley (1992) wash “RCW 90.58.050, .140(3). The Department, however, made no contact with the County except to inquire whether a substantial development permit had been applied for.”
Twin Bridge Marine Park, LLC v. Department of Ecology (2008) wash · cites it 3× “210 would constitute a collateral attack on a local government decision at odds with the policy of cooperation contemplated in RCW 90.58.050.” Id. at 743. Ecology’s disagreement with the local permitting authority should have been resolved through LUPA and not through a series…”
Clam Shacks of America, Inc. v. Skagit County (1987) wash · cites it 2× “RCW 90.58.050. Central to the scheme of the SMA are local governments' master programs and their regulation of shoreline uses in a manner consistent with the guidelines developed in the SMA.”
Batchelder v. City of Seattle (1995) washctapp · cites it 2× “To insure coordinated development of our shorelines the SMA establishes a permit system, with the primary responsibility for its administration upon local government, for the control of such development consistent with the SMA and the jurisdiction's "shoreline master program".”
Twin Bridge Marine Park, L.L.C. v. Department of Ecology (2005) washctapp · cites it 3× “210 to collaterally attack a local government decision would be at odds with the policy of cooperation encompassed in RCW 90.58.050.” Samuel’s Furniture, 147 Wn.”
Olympic Stewardship Foundation v. Environmental & Land Use Hearings Office Ex Rel. Western Washington Growth Management (2017) washctapp “’’ RCW 90.58.050. 3 “ ‘Watershed’ means a geographic region within which water drains into a particular river, stream or body of water.”
Futurewise v. WESTERN WASH. GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BD. (2008) wash “250(GMA); RCW 90.58.050, .070, .080,.090(SMA). After much study, the legislature made its first attempt to coordinate the two acts five years after enacting the GMA.”
Futurewise v. Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (2008) wash “250 (GMA); RCW 90.58.050, .070, .080, .090 (SMA). After much study, the legislature made its first attempt to coordinate the two acts five years after enacting the GMA.”
Show all 25 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.