241 P.3d 1220
Wash.2010Background
- In 1998, Theodoratus held private water rights vest upon actual beneficial use, not mere capacity; municipal rights were left unresolved.
- The legislature responded in 2003 by defining municipal water suppliers and municipal water supply purposes, retroactively applying some rules.
- The amendments targeted RCW 90.03.015, .260, .330, .386, and .560, and clarified that pre-Sept. 9, 2003 certificates based on capacity are in good standing.
- Two groups challenged the amendments as violating separation of powers or due process; trial court agreed on separation-based claims but not on others.
- The Supreme Court conducted facial constitutional review, applying Hale v. Wellpinit and related precedents, affirming in part and reversing in part.
- The court concluded the amendments do not violate separation of powers or due process on facial grounds, though as-applied challenges remain possible.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Separation of powers retroactivity | Amendments unsettled Theodoratus retroactively | Legislature acted within policy; prospective effect | No separation violation |
| Due process impact on vested rights | Some junior holders harmed without individualized notice | Amendments are prospective and collateral in impact | No facial due process violation |
| Adjudicative facts by legislation | Statute adjudicates facts about good standing | Amendments affirm existing rights, not adjudicate facts | No separation issue on facial challenge |
| Effect on municipal vs private rights | Definitions broaden municipal scope retroactively | Definitions clarify preexisting concepts without invalidating rights | No facial unconstitutional effect |
Key Cases Cited
- Theodoratus v. Dep’t of Ecology, 135 Wn.2d 582 (Wash. 1998) (holds that actual beneficial use must precede vesting; municipal issues left open)
- Hale v. Wellpinit School Dist. No. 49, 165 Wn.2d 494 (Wash. 2009) (retroactivity and separation-of-powers analysis; policy vs. adjudication)
- McClarty v. Totem Electric, 157 Wn.2d 214 (Wash. 2006) (legislative definitions and retroactivity post-McClarty)
- City of Tacoma v. O’Brien, 85 Wn.2d 266 (Wash. 1976) (distinguishes legislative findings from judicial factfinding)
- State v. Smith, 144 Wn.2d 665 (Wash. 2001) (precedes structural retroactivity principles in later cases)