This bill amends RCW 36.70A.110 and creates a new section. It clarifies that governmental service providers may, in limited circumstances, extend sewer or other urban governmental services beyond designated urban growth areas (UGAs) and directs that such extensions made in compliance with the act be liberally construed as complying with the chapter. Substantive provisions shown reiterate and clarify UGA planning rules and list limited circumstances when urban services may be extended into rural or floodplain areas, including to protect public health or environment, to serve certain solid waste or failing on-site sewage situations, or to connect properties near existing sewerage infrastructure. The bill describes constrained circumstances under which UGAs may include land in a 100-year floodplain (including specific limited-use situations and restrictions on permissible uses and impacts) and defines "one hundred year floodplain" for that subsection by reference to WAC 173-158-040 as of July 26, 2009. It also states that a county, city, or utility that has adopted a capital facilities plan or utilities element for sewer service is not obligated by the chapter to install sanitary sewers to certain properties within UGAs when those properties have existing, functioning, nonpolluting on-site sewage systems subject to public inspection and have no redevelopment capacity, or when densities are limited by wetlands, floodplains, fish and wildlife habitats, or geological hazards. The bill preserves and references procedural requirements for UGA designation and revision: counties must accommodate OFM population projections for a 20-year period, consult with cities and federally recognized tribes (with specified notification and mediation procedures), follow prioritization rules for locating growth, and meet detailed standards for UGA revisions (no net increase in acreage or capacity, contiguity, limits on added critical areas, transportation and capital facilities planning, and appealability to the Growth Management Hearings Board). Important text is missing from the provided excerpts: the new section’s full text is not included, parts of subsection (10)(b) and subsequent provisions are omitted, the specific identity of "the department" referenced is not specified here, and the excerpts do not show how these changes compare to current law.

If enacted, the bill would make it clearer that counties, cities, and utilities can extend sewer service outside designated urban growth areas in a handful of narrow situations, so some rural property owners with failing septic systems, properties within about a quarter mile of existing sewer lines or adjacent to a public right-of-way, and certain landfills could more readily get hooked up. Local governments and utilities would face occasional new costs to make those short extensions, and property owners who currently rely on failing on-site systems would gain an easier path to connection; at the same time counties and cities retain the ability not to install sewers in parts of UGAs where functioning, inspected septic systems exist or densities are restricted by wetlands, floodplains, habitat, or geologic hazards. The bill also tightens where UGAs can expand into large floodplains, allowing additions only in narrow cases (for example, existing urban development as of 2009, public-owned parcels with strictly limited nondevelopment uses, or where a river crossing makes out-of-floodplain expansion impractical), which will limit new urban development in high-risk flood areas and constrain developers’ options. Implementation will require continued tribal consultation, SEPA review, and possible mediation, and there is uncertainty about some operational details because the new section’s full text and the identity of the agency charged with resolving disputes are not included in the provided material.