241 P.3d 1220
Wash.2010Background
- Washington follows a system where water rights vest upon beneficial use and not merely capacity, with Theodoratus requiring actual beneficial use for vesting; 2003 amendments defined municipal water suppliers and clarified retroactive effects to preserve pre-September 9, 2003 certificates; amendments broadly defined municipal water suppliers and allowed place-of-use shifts within approved plans; the legislature aligned the statute with this court’s Theodoratus framework while preserving existing rights; challenges were facial separation-of-powers and due-process claims, with trial court ruling in the challengers’ favor on separation of powers but not on due process; the Supreme Court held the amendments constitutional overall, affirming in part and reversing in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do RCW 90.03.015(3)-(4) and RCW 90.03.330(3) violate separation of powers? | Challengers contend retroactive overrule of Theodoratus | State argues legislative amendments preserve judicial framework | No separation-of-powers violation. |
| Do the 2003 amendments violate due process by retroactively enlarging municipal rights? | Due process violated for junior rights due to retroactive effects | Amendments are prospective to new applications and define municipal concepts | No facial due process violation. |
| Do RCW 90.03.386(2) and related changes facially violate due process by enabling changes without notice? | Potential collateral impact to others requires notice | Procedural safeguards remain; changes prospective and reviewable | No facial due process violation. |
| Do RCW 90.03.260(4)-(5) unconstitutionally limit or expand rights for municipal supply? | Service-connection and population figures could bind others | Provisions integrate with existing planning and are prospective | No facial due process violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Ecology v. Theodoratus, 135 Wash.2d 582 (1998) (holding that beneficial use must precede vesting; books capacity-based vesting invalid for non-municipal rights)
- Hale v. Wellpinit School Dist. No. 49, 165 Wash.2d 494 (2009) (retroactivity and separation of powers considerations in legislative policy changes)
- McClarty v. Totem Electric, 157 Wash.2d 214 (2006) (court defers to legislative policy while preserving judicial function)