Clarifies that potential dual purposes of land do not reduce the scope of immunity provided by section 2 of this act.

Finds that the state supreme court has created a disincentive for recreational facility investments in its recent interpretation of RCW 4.24.210 (section 2 of this act), the state's recreational immunity statute.

Declares an intent to: (1) Overrule the state supreme court's holding in Camicia v. Howard S. Wright Construction Company, No. 85583-8 (January 30, 2014); and

(2) Establish the changes made to RCW 4.24.210 by section 2 of this act as the state policy on how the immunity provided by RCW 4.24.210 applies to bicycling as an activity and to land that may serve additional purposes beyond recreation.