Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.190 (2026)

Appeal of department's decision to adopt or amend a master program

✓ 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 appeal of the department's decision to adopt a master program or amendment pursuant to RCW 90.58.070(2) or 90.58.090(5) is governed by RCW 34.05.510 through 34.05.598.

(2)(a) The department's final decision to approve or reject a proposed master program or master program amendment by a local government planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall be appealed to the growth management hearings board by filing a petition as provided in RCW 36.70A.290.

(b) If the appeal to the growth management hearings board concerns shorelines, the growth management hearings board shall review the proposed master program or amendment solely for compliance with the requirements of this chapter, the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines, the internal consistency provisions of RCW 36.70A.070, 36.70A.040(4), 35.63.125, and 35A.63.105, and chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to the adoption of master programs and amendments under chapter 90.58 RCW.

(c) If the appeal to the growth management hearings board concerns a shoreline of statewide significance, the board shall uphold the decision by the department unless the board, by clear and convincing evidence, determines that the decision of the department is noncompliant with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 or the applicable guidelines, or chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to the adoption of master programs and amendments under this chapter.

(d) The appellant has the burden of proof in all appeals to the growth management hearings board under this subsection.

(e) Any party aggrieved by a final decision of the growth management hearings board under this subsection may appeal the decision to superior court as provided in RCW 36.70A.300.

(3)(a) The department's final decision to approve or reject a proposed master program or master program amendment by a local government not planning under RCW 36.70A.040 shall be appealed to the shorelines hearings board by filing a petition within thirty days of the date that the department publishes notice of its final decision under RCW 90.58.090(8).

(b) In an appeal relating to shorelines, the shorelines hearings board shall review the proposed master program or master program amendment and, after full consideration of the presentations of the parties, shall determine the validity of the local government's master program or amendment in light of the policy of RCW 90.58.020 and the applicable guidelines, and chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to the adoption of master programs and amendments under this chapter.

(c) In an appeal relating to shorelines of statewide significance, the shorelines hearings board shall uphold the decision by the department unless the board determines, by clear and convincing evidence that the decision of the department is noncompliant with the policy of RCW 90.58.020 or the applicable guidelines, or chapter 43.21C RCW as it relates to the adoption of master programs and amendments under this chapter.

(d) Review by the shorelines hearings board shall be considered an adjudicative proceeding under chapter 34.05 RCW, the administrative procedure act. The appellant shall have the burden of proof in all such reviews.

(e) Whenever possible, the review by the shorelines hearings board shall be heard within the county where the land subject to the proposed master program or master program amendment is primarily located. The department and any party aggrieved by a final decision of the hearings board may appeal the decision to superior court as provided in chapter 34.05 RCW.

(4) A master program amendment shall become effective after the approval of the department or after the decision of the growth management hearings board or shorelines hearings board to uphold the master program or master program amendment, provided that either the growth management hearings board or the shorelines hearings board may remand the master program or master program amendment to the local government or the department for modification prior to the final adoption of the master program or master program amendment.

[ 2012 c 172 s 1; 2011 c 277 s 5. Prior: 2010 c 211 s 14; 2010 c 210 s 38; 2003 c 321 s 4; 1995 c 347 s 311; 1989 c 175 s 184; 1986 c 292 s 3; 1971 ex.s. c 286 s 19.]

Notes:

Effective date—Transfer of power, duties, and functions—2010 c 211: See notes following RCW 36.70A.250.

Intent—Effective dates—Application—Pending cases and rules—2010 c 210: See notes following RCW 43.21B.001.

Finding—Intent—2003 c 321: See note following RCW 90.58.030.

Finding—Severability—Part headings and table of contents not law—1995 c 347: See notes following RCW 36.70A.470.

Effective date—1989 c 175: See note following RCW 34.05.010.

Severability—1986 c 292: See note following RCW 90.58.030.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1980–2017 · leading case: Olympic Stewardship Found. v. Env't & Land Use Hearings Off. Ex Rel. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 199 Wash. App. 668 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Olympic Stewardship Found. v. Env't & Land Use Hearings Off. Ex Rel. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 199 Wash. App. 668 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 6× “280; RCW 90.58.190(2), .200, .060; WAC 173-26-171 to -251.”

Nisqually Delta Ass'n v. City of DuPont, 696 P.2d 1222 (Wash. 1985). · cites it 2× “This is significant because both DOE *744 and the City are mandated to account for changing conditions in master programs in RCW 90.58.190: The department [Department of Ecology] and each local government shall periodically review any master programs under its jurisdiction and…”

Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, 202 P.3d 334 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Under RCW 90.58.190(c), "the board shall uphold the decision by the department unless the board, by clear and convincing evidence, determines that the decision of the department is inconsistent with the policy of RCW 90.”

Kailin v. Clallam Cnty., 152 Wash. App. 974 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 90.58.190(3). Laws of 2003, ch. 321. Futurewise, 164 Wn.”

Skagit Cnty. v. Dep't of Ecology, 613 P.2d 115 (Wash. 1980). “The DOE's consent to dredge spoil site designation also is necessary under RCW 90.58.190, which requires DOE approval of master program "adjustments.”

Kailin v. Clallam Cnty., 220 P.3d 222 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “[16] RCW 90.58.190(3). [17] Laws of 2003, ch. 321.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.190(2) — 1 case

Olympic Stewardship Found. v. Env't & Land Use Hearings Off. Ex Rel. W. Washington Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 199 Wash. App. 668 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “280; RCW 90.58.190(2), .200, .060; WAC 173-26-171 to -251.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.190(2)(a) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.190(2)(b) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.190(2)(c) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.190(2)(d) — 1 case

— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.190(3) — 2 cases

Kailin v. Clallam Cnty., 152 Wash. App. 974 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 90.58.190(3). Laws of 2003, ch. 321. Futurewise, 164 Wn.”

Kailin v. Clallam Cnty., 220 P.3d 222 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “[16] RCW 90.58.190(3). [17] Laws of 2003, ch. 321.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.58.190(c) — 1 case

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.