Permanently in Recovery
Washington state’s ongoing struggle to streamline permitting
Washington state has made some significant strides in reforming its environmental permitting processes through its Permit Timelinesss initiative. The Governor’s Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance (ORIA) has spearheaded this effort by tracking permit processing times and developing online resources to assist applicants. Tools include a permit processing data repository, visual permit schematics, and an interactive regulatory handbook, all of which provide valuable transparency and help businesses plan for permitting requirements. However, while a number of permits have seen improved processing times in recent years, average review times are increasing, despite the added transparency. This suggests data are not being utilized to the extent they could be in permit streamlining.
Elsewhere, Washington has experimented with the creation of coordination teams and councils to fast track ecological recovery and other priority projects. These efforts show promise but also have limitations that should be considered. For instance, expedited permitting sometimes disproportionately favors certain industries, while projects that do not align with specific state priorities face longer delays. Additionally, increased consultation requirements for environmental justice considerations have sometimes introduced new hurdles that can offset the benefits of streamlining efforts.
Washington’s Permit Timeliness program
Like most states, Washington’s economy depends on businesses being able to develop new projects in a timely fashion. If permitting takes too long or the process is unclear, this can delay needed development and make it harder for businesses to operate. Recognizing the importance of a speedy and efficient permitting system, the Washington State Auditor’s Office conducted a performance audit in 2013 focused on the timeliness of regulatory permitting decisions.
The auditors found that state agencies could make simple improvements to significantly reduce the time it takes to review permit applications from businesses. Specifically, providing clear information to applicants about the process along with expected timelines, measuring and publishing processing times, and identifying process bottlenecks based on data collection and analysis were some of the key recommendations in the auditor’s report.
In response to the audit, the state legislature passed a law in 2014 requiring certain regulatory agencies to track the time it takes to process business permit applications and make other improvements to enhance transparency and predictability. The legislature acknowledged that more accessible data on permitting performance would help businesses plan new developments and allow the public to hold agencies accountable for good customer service. The Governor’s ORIA was tasked with working with agencies to implement these reforms.
Since the passage of the 2014 law, ORIA has published four progress reports detailing the results of the Permit Timeliness initiative. These reports compile data from 14 state agencies covering over 150 different environmental permit types. Each report included permit inventories for the various agencies (see Table 1 for the most recent inventory) and identified problem areas and plans for improvement.
Table 1: 2019 permit reporting, by participating agency

Source: Governor’s Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance, Permit Timeliness Report 2020, p. 8.
Note: Applications are for calendar year 2019.
Reports in 2016, 2018, and 2020 analyzed additional trends in timeliness and spotlighted where agencies were making headway or encountering roadblocks. The ORIA progress reports provide a wealth of information. For each agency and permit type, they report the average and maximum time for completing reviews of an application, along with the number of applications received. This allows for tracking changes in timeliness over the years, to see where processing speed has increased or slowed down. The reports also describe specific improvement efforts undertaken by each agency, such as deploying new software to streamline workflows, improving application instructions, or dedicating more staff to processing.
A number of success stories emerge from examining the Permit Timeliness reports. The state Department of Agriculture, for example, cut the average processing time for its Seed Labeling Permit by 84 percent between 2015 and 2017. The Department of Ecology cut the average time of its Biosolids Management Permit by 350 days between 2017 and 2019 (see figure 2). The Department of Agriculture sped up average review times for its cottage food operations permit from 79 days in 2017 to 36 days in 2019, even as the number of permits approved rose from 53 to 127 during the same time period.
Figure 1: Top 10 most Improved permits, by change in days of average processing times, 2017-2019

Source: Governor’s Office for Regulatory Innovation and Assistance, Permit Timeliness Report 2020.
Beyond offering stories about the most improved permits, the ORIA analyses also reveal some persistent challenges with permits in need of improvement. Certain permit types, such as those involving complex water rights or cleanup of contaminated sites, continue to take many months to process despite attempts to streamline them. The data also imply an overall increase in the number of permit applications in recent years, which may strain agency capacity even with efficiency improvements. Some agencies note that statutory deadlines and public notice requirements constrain their ability to expedite processing for some permits. Continuing to chip away at these difficult cases should be a priority going forward.
Governor’s Office for Regulation Innovation and Assistance
ORIA is a Washington state government agency that helps individuals and businesses navigate the state’s regulatory requirements related to permitting and business activities. Its mission is to provide information, resources, and assistance to meet regulatory requirements efficiently, thereby saving time, money, and frustration. ORIA serves as a customer-focused organization, aiming to be the first point of contact for those needing regulatory guidance. It works closely with state agencies and local and federal partners to improve regulations and regulatory processes. The goal is to make government interactions more reasonable and integrated for citizens and businesses operating in Washington.
ORIA has a number of resources available that make navigating the permitting process easier for individuals and businesses. ORIA, in collaboration with partner regulatory agencies, has developed environmental permit schematics that illustrate the application, review, and appeal phases for specific permits in Washington state. These schematics provide a visual representation of the permitting process, showing the responsibilities of the applicant, the regulatory agency, and the public at each step. The point is to help applicants understand how to work with agencies, visualize the entire process from start to finish, and identify stages where public comment may be required. The schematics serve as a planning tool, allowing applicants to chart out and prepare for the permitting process in advance.
ORIA also maintains a central online repository with annually updated permit processing data, allowing for more transparency and tracking. This provides data on how long it takes to complete and review permit applications across different agencies in the state government. The dataset goes back to 2015 and covers different permit types, allowing for analysis of timeliness trends over time.
Of the 104 permits for which data are available in both 2015 and 2023, the average permit took 19 days from the time of the receipt of a permit application to the time when the application was deemed “complete” by the agency. This increased to 29 days in 2023. Similarly, in 2015 the average permit took 120 days from the completion stage to the decision being issued by the agency, and this increased to 135 days in 2023 (see figure 2).
These data suggest a deterioration in permit review efficiency in recent years, which is clearly at odds with the intent of the permit timeliness initiative. Thus, while Washington is making progress on transparency, it needs to do a better job utilizing the new data being produced so as to actually improve the quality of governance. Agencies like ORIA, set up specifically for this purpose, should be especially concerned with this result.
That said, there are a few caveats to consider. For one, these data represent broad averages, and therefore they do not preclude improvements in individual cases (such as those noted above). Second, a number of state permits were dropped from this tally since they didn’t have data available in either 2015 or 2023. Finally, it is possible that the increase in the overall number of permit applications is contributing to slower average approval times. Thus, in spite of improvements, agencies are swimming upstream. In any case, the data suggest considerable room for improvement.
Figure 2: Review times for the average permit, 2015 and 2023

Source: data.wa.gov. Accessed June 17, 2024.
Data note: Values represent the average review time across all permits types for which data are available in both 2015 and 2023.
The ORIA website also hosts an interactive Regulatory Handbook with detailed information on the steps and timelines for each permit type, serving as a valuable resource for businesses and the public. The Regulatory Handbook contains information about numerous state permits, including their costs, application requirements, and agency contacts. Together, these tools and the above-mentioned reports provide a level of transparency around permitting performance that is not available in most states.
The MART process
Beyond the transparency initiatives, there are several other areas where Washington state’s permitting process offers some constructive lessons. The Multi-Agency Review Team (MART) works to streamline the environmental permitting process for habitat recovery projects in the Puget Sound Basin of Washington state. Established as a working group under the Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task Force, MART brings together staff from key federal, state, and local permitting agencies to provide coordinated assistance to applicants navigating the complex permitting landscape.
The MART process is designed to expedite permitting for projects that are ecologically beneficial, located in priority watersheds, and ready to be permitted. By focusing on these criteria, MART’s efforts are directed toward initiatives that will have the greatest positive impact on Puget Sound’s ecosystem recovery.
When a project is selected for MART assistance, the team develops contact lists for permitting staff at each relevant agency, holds pre-application meetings with the applicant, conducts site visits, and provides guidance on each agency’s specific permit requirements and any available expedited pathways. Throughout the permitting process, MART holds monthly check-in meetings to monitor progress, troubleshoot issues, and coordinate on interdependent permits.
While each participating agency still makes its own final permit decisions, the MART framework allows for more collaboration and problem-solving. The regular communication and coordination among permitting offices can help identify bottlenecks or conflicts early on and facilitate solutions, thereby getting projects underway faster.
Coordinated permitting efforts like MART have sometimes faced challenges in states. For example, a similar effort in Colorado involved the creation of the Colorado Joint Review Process and the Colorado Coordination Council, both of which were underutilized by applicants and eventually allowed to sunset. However, MART has some distinctive features that may contribute to its staying power.
First, MART operates within the confined geographic space of the Puget Sound Basin, which allows the team to develop specialized expertise and stronger working relationships. Second, MART has a clear and unified environmental goal of advancing Puget Sound recovery, which provides a compelling motivation for agencies to work together. Third, by focusing on a discrete subset of projects that meet specific ecological and readiness criteria, MART can target its efforts for maximum efficiency and avoid getting bogged down in more controversial or complex proposals.
These attributes of regional focus, well-defined objectives, and selective project criteria could offer a model for other jurisdictions seeking to improve their permitting processes for high-priority conservation or development projects. While MART’s specific structure may not be universally applicable, its core principles could be adapted to suit a variety of contexts.
Recent legislative efforts to streamline permitting
In recent years, the Washington State Legislature has taken some additional steps to streamline the state’s environmental permitting processes through targeted reforms. While these legislative efforts have been incremental in nature, and not all of them are beneficial by any means, they collectively demonstrate the state’s ongoing commitment to reducing permitting burdens, particularly in areas deemed important for environmental goals or economic development.
One notable piece of legislation modernizes the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) review process. SB 5412 (2023) grants cities and counties planning under the Growth Management Act the authority to establish categorical exemptions from SEPA review for housing developments up to 65,000 square feet. To qualify for the exemption, however, projects must align with comprehensive plans and rely on prior environmental analyses.
In the realm of environmental restoration, SB 5381 (2021) streamlines the permitting process for fish passage projects. The legislation sets timelines for state agencies to issue certain permit decisions and expedites certain fish habitat enhancement projects.
Another change in law came from HB 1216, passed in 2023, which focuses on improving the siting and permitting of clean energy projects. The law creates a special designation for “clean energy projects of statewide significance” and institutes a coordinated permit process overseen by the Department of Ecology for such projects. Akin to the MART process discussed above, the bill established an interagency coordinating council tasked with improving collaboration among state agencies involved in the permitting process. Similar legislation passed in 2022, which streamlines the permitting process for energy facilities and “clean energy” product manufacturers by expanding the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council’s authority, thereby facilitating the state’s carbon dioxide reduction goals.
Conclusion and policy recommendations
Legislative actions in recent years represent piecemeal reforms rather than a comprehensive overhaul of Washington state’s permitting system. While it is likely that creating new offices to coordinate and specialize on certain types of permits can fast track projects deemed high-priority, this selective approach may also distort the marketplace, as some projects receive prioritized resources, expedited reviews, or coordinated interagency support regardless of their actual value to the community.
Beyond creating some exemptions for politically favored energy projects, laws like HB 1216 and HB 1812 increase coordination efforts with various stakeholder groups, such as tribal entities. Stakeholder outreach is important but complicates the permitting process by adding more layers of consultation, which can introduce additional points of disagreement or conflict. While aiming to be inclusive, community engagement can inadvertently make consensus more difficult, particularly when dealing with diverse interests that may have conflicting priorities. These laws are self-defeating in the sense that even while they speed up some aspects of permitting, they also weaponize community engagement, creating additional hurdles to development.
Overall, Washington’s experience offers a cautionary roadmap for jurisdictions seeking to improve the timeliness and consistency of their own permit reviews. The state excels at transparency efforts and availability of online resources. But reporting is not being utilized to the extent it could and other initiatives may be hindering reform efforts. Having an oversight body in the form of ORIA or MART, one with clear goals to improve the customer experience for permit applicants, can facilitate more timely reviews. But having conflicting goals or too much democratic input can slow down permitting, as it will be impossible to please everyone. Washington’s experience thus underscores the importance of weighing the benefits and drawbacks of added transparency, stakeholder input, and regulatory consistency to avoid unintended consequences that may hinder progress.