Provider profile
Washington Water Damage & Cleaning Services
Provider snapshot
What this listing says
Kent-based, owner-operated restoration company covering King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties since 2007, with thermal imaging on every water or mold job and full rebuild capability under one roof.
Best for
- Homeowners in Kent, Seattle, Bellevue, and the surrounding King County area dealing with water damage or post-leak mold who want one company to handle extraction, drying, remediation, and rebuild.
- Property owners who want an owner-operated local company rather than a national franchise, with the same owner involved since 2007.
- Commercial building managers in the Kent Valley industrial corridor or Bellevue commercial core who need 24/7 emergency water or fire response with direct insurance billing.
- Condo owners dealing with multi-unit water events — several reviews describe the company managing damage across multiple units in the same building.
About this company
Washington Water Damage & Cleaning Services is an owner-operated restoration company headquartered in Kent, WA. Scott Russell founded the company in 2007 and still trains technicians, maintains certifications, and stays involved on large-loss projects across the Puget Sound. This is not a franchise — it is a locally owned business run by the same owner for nearly two decades.
The company handles the full restoration cycle in-house: water extraction, structural drying, fire and smoke damage, mold remediation, sewage cleanup, hardwood floor drying, contents pack-out and storage, and rebuild. Every job includes thermal imaging for moisture mapping. Their mold work covers inspection, containment, HEPA-filtered removal, and clearance testing. The coverage area page also mentions EPA-registered antimicrobials on every truck. They hold IICRC certifications in water restoration, applied structural drying, and mold remediation.
Scott has built a team with notable longevity. Reviewers name the same crew leads — Mike Stewart, Xavier, Leo Salgado, Miguel — across jobs spanning multiple years. The company works directly with insurance carriers and handles adjuster documentation, which multiple reviewers cite as a significant stress reducer.
With 38 Google reviews and a 4.7-star rating, the company sits in strong territory for a small independent operator. Most reviews describe water damage work rather than mold-specific jobs, which reflects the company's primary identity as a water damage restoration outfit that also does mold remediation.
Services
Service area
Headquartered in Kent, WA. The company claims coverage across King, Pierce, Snohomish, and Thurston counties — listing 100+ cities from Seattle and Bellevue east to Issaquah, south to Tacoma and Olympia, and north to Everett and Marysville. Their office location in Kent positions them well for south King County and the Kent Valley, but the full four-county claim is broad for a single independent company.
Review consensus
Scott draws praise across multiple reviews for personal involvement on jobs and direct communication with homeowners. Mike Stewart shows up as project leader on at least two rebuilds, with reviewers noting his follow-through on promises. Xavier stands out for responsiveness and keeping customers informed. Leo Salgado appears in reviews spanning several years, consistently described as efficient and polite. Multiple reviewers highlight the company's insurance coordination — several say the team handled all adjuster communication, documented losses to carrier standards, and billed directly so the homeowner paid nothing out of pocket upfront. Response speed is the most common praise theme: reviewers describe same-day arrival, crews on-site within hours, and 24/7 availability during holidays and weekends.
1 found across 38 total reviews at 4.7★. 1 found across 38 total reviews at 4.7 stars. Vlad (July 2025) describes the crew breaking a water pipe during attic work in a Kent townhome, flooding his unit and units below. He reports drying equipment noise, a musty smell on return, and an ongoing dispute over hotel reimbursement. The owner responded with specific details: the pipe was an unprotected brittle plastic pipe hidden in the attic, the unit was dried and restored within two weeks, and the reviewer chose three different hotels averaging $420 per night rather than a single reasonably priced option. The owner offered to cover a reasonable hotel cost (around $200/night) but disputes the full amount. Both sides agree the pipe break happened; they disagree on reimbursement terms. The reviewer has 6 total Google reviews, which suggests a real account.
The owner responds to the sole negative review with specific, detailed context rather than a template deflection. He names the property type (rented townhome), the timeline (under two weeks), and the dollar dispute ($420/night vs. $200/night). This level of detail suggests the company tracks jobs closely and is willing to engage publicly on specifics, which is a positive signal for accountability even when the tone gets defensive.
Scott Russell (owner/president — praised for personal involvement and training crews). Xavier (crew lead — praised for responsiveness and communication, named by Andrea Castro). Juan, Carlos, Antonio (crew members — praised for quick patching and painting work, named by Andrea Castro). Mike Stewart (project leader — praised for follow-through and commitment to quality, named by Karen Ho'o-Wilkins and Nora Williams). Miguel (crew lead — praised for politeness and good workmanship, named by Nora Williams). Leo Salgado (crew lead — praised for efficiency and courtesy, named by Mary Brown and Ryan Howland). Salvador (crew member — praised alongside Leo for moisture testing work, named by Mary Brown). Jeff Roach (crew lead — praised for rescheduling to respond to an emergency, named by Sylvia Serrado Barker). Jesus, Luciano (mitigation crew — praised for going above and beyond, named by Stacia Irons). Rebecca (office/admin — praised for answering questions and coordination, named by Stacia Irons). Karina (project coordinator — praised for reachability and responsiveness during fire displacement, named by Sigrid Barnickel).
Ask for Scott or Mike Stewart on larger jobs where you want owner or senior project manager involvement. Confirm in writing what happens if the crew causes accidental damage during the work — the one negative review shows this can become a reimbursement dispute. The company's strength is handling the full cycle from emergency response through rebuild with one team, which reduces coordination headaches but means you should verify their mold-specific credentials separately from their water damage work.
Keep in mind
- They do both mold inspection and mold remediation. That creates a conflict of interest — the same company diagnosing the mold problem is billing to fix it. Get an independent mold test before or after their work to confirm the scope.
- The service area claims four counties (King, Pierce, Snohomish, Thurston) and lists 100+ cities. That is a massive geographic footprint for a single independent company. Confirm actual response times for locations far from Kent, especially Olympia or Marysville.
- The one recent negative review describes the crew breaking a water pipe during attic work, flooding multiple condo units. The owner's response disputes the hotel reimbursement amount but confirms the pipe break happened. Accidental damage during restoration work is a real risk worth discussing upfront.
- Most Google reviews describe water damage restoration, not mold-specific work. The company's mold remediation track record is harder to evaluate from reviews alone.