268 P.3d 892
Wash.2011Background
- Legislature requires a permit to withdraw public groundwater or to construct a well for that purpose; RCW 90.44.050; exemptions exist for certain uses.
- Easterday Ranches operates a large cattle feedlot in Franklin County; obtained a Pepiot Transfer granting 316 acre-feet/year (~282,106 gallons/day) to withdraw water.
- Stock-watering withdrawals under the transfer may use up to 66 acre-feet/year (~58,921 gallons/day) for stock water, with greater use for other feedlot purposes.
- Appellants seek a declaratory judgment that RCW 90.44.050’s stock-watering exemption is limited to 5,000 gallons/day and request an injunction.
- Franklin County Superior Court granted summary judgment to respondents on the interpretation of RCW 90.44.050 and denied fees; appellate review affirmed standing and the exemption interpretation.
- The court held stock-watering withdrawals are exempt without a permit and are not limited to 5,000 gallons/day.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there proper standing to challenge RCW 90.44.050 interpretation? | Appellants lack standing. | Respondents argue standing exists. | Appellants have standing. |
| Does RCW 90.44.050 stock-watering exemption limit withdrawals to 5,000 gallons/day? | Stock-watering exemption is a bundle limited to 5,000 gpd. | Exemption broken into four independent categories; stock-watering has no 5,000 gpd cap. | Stock-watering exemption not limited to 5,000 gpd; four-category interpretation valid. |
| Is Easterday entitled to attorney fees for venue change under RCW 4.12.090? | Easterday should recover fees for changing venue. | Venue proper where suit first filed; no fee shift. | Easterday not entitled to attorney fees. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grant County Fire Prot. Dist. No. 5 v. City of Moses Lake, 150 Wn.2d 791 (2004) (standing requires zone-of-interests and injury-in-fact; procedural injuries relax standing)
- Save a Valuable Env’t v. City of Bothell, 89 Wn.2d 862 (1978) (zone-of-interests and injury-in-fact framework)
- Seattle Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Apprenticeship & Training Council, 129 Wn.2d 787 (1996) (procedural injury standing analysis)
- State v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1 (2002) (statutory interpretation—plain meaning unless ambiguous)
- To-Ro Trade Shows v. Collins, 144 Wn.2d 403 (2001) (justiciability and standing interplay with declaratory actions)