AN ACT Relating to rental property disclosures of flooding history and flood risk;
Summary
SB 6237 amends Washington’s Residential Landlord-Tenant Act to require additional disclosures to tenants about flooding and related hazards. The bill adds a new landlord duty to inform tenants, at the time a lease is signed, if the property is located in a special flood hazard area or an area of potential flooding, that the landlord’s insurance does not cover the tenant’s personal possessions, and that flood-risk information may be available from the county government where the property is located. The measure applies to leases entered into after December 31, 2026.
The bill also requires landlords to provide tenants with information approved by the Department of Health about indoor mold hazards and how tenants can reduce mold growth. In addition, it preserves and restates existing landlord obligations in the residential code, including maintaining habitable premises, keeping structural components and common areas in safe condition, providing adequate heat and water, and giving tenants notice about smoke alarms, fire safety, and other building emergency plans. The bill includes immunity language for landlords who fail to comply with the mold-information requirement unless the failure is knowing and intentional, and it clarifies notice and service rules for out-of-state owners and agents.
Impact
The bill amends RCW 59.18, the state’s landlord-tenant law, by expanding mandatory rental disclosures and updating landlord duties related to habitability and tenant safety. Its main legal effect is to create a new statutory disclosure regime for flood risk and flood-related insurance limitations, while also requiring distribution of state health information on indoor mold. It affects landlords, property managers, tenants, and residential rental agreements, especially in flood-prone areas and multifamily housing.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad but not unanimous support. The Senate Housing Committee advanced the substitute bill unanimously, and both chambers passed it with clear majorities, indicating general agreement with the bill’s consumer-protection and tenant-notification goals. The final floor votes, however, show some opposition in both chambers, suggesting that while the bill was broadly acceptable, it was not entirely uncontroversial.
Contention
The most likely points of contention are the added compliance burden on landlords and the scope of required disclosures. Landlords may be concerned about the administrative burden of determining flood-hazard status, providing standardized notices, and distributing mold guidance, as well as the potential liability implications of the new requirements. Tenants and housing advocates are likely to support the bill’s emphasis on transparency, especially for renters in flood-prone areas and those facing mold-related health risks. The substitute bill and the inclusion of limited immunity for mold-disclosure failures suggest lawmakers were balancing tenant information needs against landlord concerns about liability and implementation.