The bill adds two new sections to chapter 43.30 RCW and amends RCW 58.04.007 to require the Department of Natural Resources to notify and involve affected and adjoining landowners before conducting certain land boundary surveys on lands other than "aquatic lands." It requires written notice within 30 days to affected landowners when the department conducts a survey intended to establish boundaries, and requires written notice and an opportunity for review, comment, presentation of historical evidence, and involvement before the department undertakes any survey under chapter 58.09 or 79.10 RCW on non-aquatic lands. This is a procedural change and a statutory amendment: it creates new notice and participation procedures (new sections in chapter 43.30 RCW) and adds a precondition to existing law by requiring the department to comply with those procedures before bringing suit under RCW 58.04.007 or 58.04.020. The bill preserves existing options for landowners to resolve disputed boundaries by written agreement recorded under chapter 58.09 RCW or by suit if they cannot agree; it specifies that recorded agreements must contain legal descriptions and a survey map, be signed and acknowledged as required for conveyance, be recorded, and will bind successors and run with the land. The text provided does not include the statutory definition of "aquatic lands," definitions of "affected" or "adjoining" landowners, the required form or delivery method for written notice, or the full procedural details in the referenced chapters and statutes.

If enacted, the Department of Natural Resources would have to notify and actively involve nearby landowners before placing or relocating section corners or other boundary markers on non‑aquatic state lands, giving those owners at least 30 days to review, comment, and present historical evidence. That requirement also applies before the department conducts certain statutory surveys, and the department generally must meet these steps before it can file a court action to determine a boundary. Practically, this will add administrative steps and likely slow some survey and legal timelines while giving landowners a clearer, earlier chance to influence boundary locations and to try to resolve differences without a lawsuit. The biggest effects fall on the department (more notice, recordkeeping, and coordination work and likely modest new costs or delays), on landowners (more opportunity but possible need to gather historic evidence or pay for surveys or legal help), and on county real estate offices (continued or increased recording of written boundary agreements). Important implementation details are missing here, including exact definitions of which lands and which owners must be notified and how notice must be delivered, so how much delay or cost this creates in practice is uncertain.