This bill amends RCW 34.05.514 and changes where petitions for judicial review under that chapter may be filed. It preserves the requirement that review proceedings are instituted by paying the fee required under RCW 36.18.020 and filing a petition in superior court, and it specifies that petitions may be filed in Thurston County, the county of the petitioner's residence or principal place of business, or any county where property owned by the petitioner and affected by the contested decision is located. The amendment adds or clarifies special venue rules: institutions of higher education may file in the county of the institution's principal office or in the county of a campus if the action involves that campus; petitions concerning Department of Ecology decisions about water-right changes or transfers that are subject to an active general adjudication must be filed with and consolidated into the superior court conducting that adjudication, and a party to the adjudication is a party to the appeal only if they file or are served with a petition for review; appeals of examinations or evaluation exercises of the board of pilotage commissioners must be filed in Thurston County or the county where the board's principal office is located; and petitions challenging agency action regarding wildlife management or wildlife interaction by the Fish and Wildlife Commission or Department of Fish and Wildlife must be filed in the county where the wildlife in question is located. This is a procedural change to existing law governing venue and consolidation for administrative review; it does not create a new crime or change criminal penalties. Important details are missing from the provided text: the exact fee amount under RCW 36.18.020 is not shown, the statute's broader context and prior text are not included, the phrase "where the wildlife in question is located" is not defined, and some renumbering/formatting in the section heading is unclear.

If enacted, the rule will give people and institutions more predictable choices about where to file court petitions challenging agency actions: most petitioners can pick Thurston County, their home or business county, or the county where affected property sits; colleges can file at their main office or the campus involved; marine pilotage appeals are limited to Thurston or the county of the board’s office; and wildlife disputes must be filed in the county where the wildlife is located. Water-rights challenges that are part of an active general adjudication must be filed and consolidated in the superior court handling that adjudication, and only those who file or are served will become parties to the appeal. A statutory filing fee still applies. Real-world effects will mainly fall on petitioners (private property owners, businesses, and institutions of higher education), the Department of Ecology and parties in water-rights adjudications, the Fish and Wildlife Commission and Department of Fish and Wildlife, the pilotage board, and county superior courts. Petitioners may save time and travel costs because they can often sue closer to home, while agencies and some counties could see shifts in filing volume and response burdens. Consolidation of water-rights appeals will likely reduce forum shopping but may force interested parties to participate in a specific adjudication court or to take steps to be formally served, changing litigation strategy and potentially increasing legal costs for those who must travel to or litigate in the adjudication forum. The bill leaves unclear how to determine the county “where the wildlife in question is located” and does not state the filing fee amount here, so some implementation details and potential disputes over venue remain uncertain.