House Bill 1646 (69th Legislature, 2025 Regular Session) reenacts and amends RCW 43.21B.110 and changes which appeals the pollution control hearings board may hear. Specifically, the bill adds civil enforcement decisions of the Department of Natural Resources under RCW 76.04.205 to the list of decisions that may be appealed to the hearings board and clarifies the scope of the board’s jurisdiction and the matters it is excluded from hearing. This is a procedural jurisdictional change to existing law rather than the creation of a new substantive crime or penalty. The text repeatedly references the hearings board, the department, the director, and many agencies and programs that are affected or listed in the statute, including local conservation districts, air pollution control boards, local health departments, the department of fish and wildlife, parks and recreation commission, authorized public entities under chapter 79.100 RCW, and others. The bill states that review of rules and regulations adopted by the hearings board is subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (chapter 34.05 RCW) and that subsection (2) identifies hearings the board “shall not” conduct. Important context is missing from the provided excerpt. The document uses the terms “the department” and “the hearings board” without defining them here, and the full scope of included or excluded decisions depends on multiple cross-referenced RCW sections cited in the text; those definitions and the full statutory language are not included in the extracted facts.

If enacted, people and entities subject to civil enforcement actions tied to the Department of Natural Resources under RCW 76.04.205 would likely be able to contest those enforcement decisions before the Pollution Control Hearings Board rather than whatever other venues they currently use, which shifts where disputes are resolved and which procedural rules apply. That change will most directly affect the Department of Natural Resources and its commissioner (who must defend enforcement actions), the hearings board (which will likely see increased caseload and administrative work), and regulated parties such as landowners, timber operators, local conservation districts and other listed agencies that may now face appeals there; those parties can expect potential increases in legal and administrative costs, changes in timelines for resolving disputes, and altered litigation strategies. Key implementation details are unclear from the provided text — the chunk repeatedly uses the term “the department” without identifying it and relies on many cross‑referenced RCWs to define exactly which decisions are covered — so the exact scope of affected actions and any funding or staffing changes for the hearings board or agencies are not specified and would need the rest of the statute or accompanying budget provisions to determine.