This bill amends existing Washington law (including RCW 70.05.074 and related 1997 provisions) to change procedures for on-site sewage system permitting. It requires a local health officer to respond within 30 days after receiving a fully completed on-site sewage system permit application by indicating approval, denial, or pending status. Denials must be for cause based on public health or environmental protection concerns or conflicts with other laws, and must include a written justification and an explanation of the appeal procedure. If an application remains pending past 30 days the local health officer must provide a written explanation of why more time is needed, what specific information is required, and an estimated decision date. The bill also restricts local health officers from limiting the number of alternative on-site sewage systems in a jurisdiction without cause; any limitation must be based on public health or environmental protection concerns or legal conflicts, be justified in writing, and include appeal information. It requires approval of alternative on-site sewage disposal systems on parcels surrounding a water body that has an established total maximum daily load (TMDL) for total phosphorus when three conditions are met: the system meets the “highest treatment level” established by the department, the system’s operation will not violate water quality criteria adopted by the Department of Ecology for that water body, and the system discharges effluent through subsurface soil disposal. The amendment adds an explicit statement that nothing in the act repeals, limits, or alters chapter 70A.110 RCW. This is a procedural change to existing permitting law, not a creation of a new crime or change to criminal penalties; it imposes new response deadlines, documentation and justification requirements, limits on jurisdictional caps for alternative systems, and conditional approval requirements tied to TMDL-designated water bodies. The text references “the department” and several key terms (for example, “local health officer,” “fully completed application,” “alternative on-site sewage system,” and “highest treatment level”) but does not define them here; the department that establishes the highest treatment level is not specified in this excerpt, and specific appeal procedures and cross-references to chapter 70A.110 RCW are not detailed in the provided facts.

If enacted, local public health officers would have to act faster and document their reasons more clearly: they must approve, deny, or say an application is pending within 30 days of getting a fully completed septic permit application, give written justification and appeal information for any denial or cap on alternative systems, and explain why more time is needed if a decision is still pending after 30 days. Homeowners and developers would likely get quicker answers and broader access to alternative on-site sewage systems near water bodies with an established phosphorus TMDL so long as those systems meet the highest treatment level, do not violate Department of Ecology water quality rules, and dispose effluent into subsurface soil. The main people affected are local health officers (who may need more staff, process changes, and produce more paperwork and face greater legal scrutiny) and applicants (who should face fewer arbitrary limits and shorter waits but may have to buy higher-performance systems to qualify). The law refers to a department that sets the “highest treatment level” and to appeal procedures and other definitions that are not specified here, so practical costs, timelines, and the exact approval process remain uncertain until those details are defined elsewhere.