The Washington Legislature passed a bill Tuesday requiring landlords to disclose if a rental property is at risk for flooding and recommend tenants consider buying flood insurance.

The bill now heads to the governor’s desk. If signed, the requirement would only apply to leases entered into after Dec. 31, 2026.

The legislation is in direct response to The Seattle Times’ reporting on tenants left unprepared for flooding that tore through homes in Western Washington in December, said Senate Bill 6237’s primary sponsor, Sen. Jessica Bateman, D-Olympia.

Unlike some states, including Oregon, California and Texas, Washington only required flood risk disclosures in home sales — not in rental leases.

Bateman said she was unaware that Washington lacked such a requirement before reading the Times reporting and described what happened to renters as tragic.

“This is just one way that we can help give people information and increase transparency,” she said.

Some renters whose homes flooded in December told The Seattle Times they would have never moved into their rental if they had known it was at risk of flooding.

Many also said they were unaware that standard renters insurance doesn’t cover possessions damaged by natural flooding, and they may have benefited from purchasing a specific insurance policy for flooding.

“I was a renter years ago, and I had rental insurance, and I did not know that rental insurance didn't cover floods,” Bateman said. “And with the increase in flooding that we've seen just last year … I want to make sure that tenants in Washington know that their regular rental insurance does not cover flooding.”

The proposed law would do just that — requiring landlords to disclose that their insurance does not cover the loss of the tenant's personal possessions, and that the tenant should consider purchasing renter's insurance and flood insurance.

In January interviews with The Seattle Times, renters without flood insurance described losing all their possessions in December's floods, including furniture, clothes and photos, as financially and emotionally devastating.

Heather Moe, a 52-year-old low-income renter who lost nearly all her possessions when her Snoqualmie rental unit flooded in December, said in an interview Wednesday that she’s since spent thousands of dollars trying to rebuild her life.

“I will never get anything like what I had back again,” she said.

If she knew FEMA had designated the area as high risk for flooding, she would have never moved into the rental unit, she said. She hopes the disclosure requirement will help future renters avoid her fate.

“Now, it’s your choice to protect yourself. It puts the onus on the landlord to be 100% clear,” she said.

Bipartisan support

The bill passed with bipartisan support — and no strong opposition from major landlord groups. But some say there’s still work to be done.

Sean Flynn, president of the Rental Housing Association of Washington, was initially concerned that a disclosure requirement would cause unnecessary fear and ostracism of certain properties. But with the requirement only applying to leases, and not rental advertisements, he’s changed his tune.

“What ended up getting passed, I think, meets everyone’s goals and is a good bill,” he said. “It’s pretty reasonable.”

Nick Marin, executive director of the Washington Multi-Family Housing Association, said the group is neutral on the bill.

“We really support the goal, but there’s an overall concern in the industry on how complex and numerous these state-mandated disclosures are becoming and how difficult it is to read and understand those disclosures for tenants,” he said.

However, a flood-risk disclosure could open up a helpful dialogue about where a landlord’s responsibility to respond to flooding ends and a tenant’s responsibility begins, he said.

Tenant advocates are generally supportive of the bill, but some don’t think it goes far enough.

Michele Thomas, director of Policy and Advocacy at the Washington Low Income Housing Alliance, said she wishes lawmakers had included a specific consequence for landlords of properties in flood zones who do not include the disclosure.

In Oregon, a tenant who suffers an uninsured loss due to flooding and didn’t receive a required flood-risk disclosure in their rental agreement can seek damages for the uninsured loss or two months’ rent.

“There’s no enforcement to it. So what really happens … is renters have to enforce it themselves,” Thomas said.

She also said that, although renters will be better informed about flood risk and can move, many still can’t afford flood insurance in addition to renters insurance.

FEMA-run flood insurance coverage for the contents of a rental is typically a few hundred dollars a year, according to the National Flood Insurance Program’s quoting tool. According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, renters insurance costs an average of $10 to $18 per month in Washington.

Bateman said she’s concerned about flood insurance accessibility as well. The Legislature must continue to improve flood protections for renters, she said, including making it easier for renters to afford flood insurance.

“We're going to see these types of issues come up more, and we're going to have to do additional work. But this (bill) was a first step in increasing that transparency so people have as much information as they can get,” she said.

_____

© 2026 The Seattle Times. Visit www.seattletimes.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.