Other LanguagesRCW 90.44.050 exempts withdrawals of groundwater for stock-watering purposes from the permitting requirement, without setting a numeric limit on the quantity of water withdrawn. 2. The Department of Ecology does not have authority to impose a categorical limit on the quantity of groundwater that may be withdrawn for stock-watering without a permit. In certain circumstances, the Department of Ecology’s statutory authority to regulate the use of water may affect or limit such withdrawals, just as it may affect or limit withdrawals for other purposes.3. An agency may not alter its interpretation of a statute in a manner that is inconsistent with statutory language and legislative intent to address changed societal conditions.
The debt limitation of a water district is to be calculated on the basis of the actual value of the taxable property located therein, and not upon the basis of the assessed valuation of such property.
1. The procedure established in RCW 90.03.383(3) for modifying a water right permit based on an intertie between public water supply systems applies only to interties existing and in use on January 1, 1991. 2. Under RCW 90.03.383(3), when the Department of Ecology processes a change in place of use occasioned by an intertie between public water supply systems, the resulting permit(s) should show the quantity of water delivered through the intertie as well as the change in place of use. 3. Under RCW 90.03.383(4), the Department of Ecology's scope of inquiry is whether each system's use is within the annual and instantaneous withdrawal rate specified in its water right authorization and whether the exchange or delivery through the intertie adversely affects existing water rights.
(1) Under the State Ground Water Code of 1945, as amended, the extent of protection for the holder of a ground water right established subsequent to the enactment thereof is dependent upon a site‑specific factual inquiry and technical analysis which takes into consideration both the geohydraulic characteristics of the aquifer and the state of pump and well construction technology.(2) The protection afforded such a ground water right holder would not be affected by the pit or quarry operator having authorization from the State to drain water away from the pit or quarry.(3) The protection thus afforded the ground water right holder by the Ground Water Code of 1945 would not be different if the right was established prior to the enactment thereof.(4) A wide variety of public and private entities may exercise the right to condemn water and water rights for a variety of uses; the right to condemn water under RCW 90.03.040 extends to "any person."
The state department of ecology may not condition a water right permit issued under RCW 90.03.290 by providing, pursuant to an administrative regulation, that once such a permit has been in effect for at least twenty-five years the state, upon giving five years' notice, may utilize a certain prescribed formula for the measurement of damages if it exercises its power of eminent domain to condemn the water right embodied in the permit ‑ in lieu of paying full compensation as ascertained by the court or jury under Article I, § 16 (Amendment 9) of the state constitution.
(1) The Department of Ecology may not concur in the proposed issuance of a wate discharge permit by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under § 301(h) of the Federal Clean Water Act if the proposed federal permit contains effluent quality limitations which require less waste treatment than is required under state law. (2) A municipality is required to obtain a waste discharge permit from the Department of Ecology under RCW 90.48.162 prior to discharge of its sewerage wastes into marine waters of the state even though the municipality already holds a waste discharge permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under § 301(h) of the Federal Clean Water Act which was concurred in by the Department of Ecology under that provision. (3) The Department of Ecology is not precluded by federal law from including in a state permit such waste treatment requirements, mandated by state law, as are more stringent than those contained in a permit which was issued by the Environmental Protection Agency without express state concurrence. (4) While state law does not expressly prohibit a municipality from discharging wastes from its sewerage system into Puget Sound, or other marine waters, without providing secondary treatment, all waste proposed for discharge into such waters must be provided with "all known, available, and reasonable methods of treatment" prior to being discharged into those waters‑-regardless of the quality of the water.
A board of commissioners of a water district may, in its resolution authorizing the investment of surplus funds in a bank or savings and loan association, direct the county treasurer, as agent for the water district, to invest the funds in a specific bank or association designated in the resolution.
Under RCW 29.13.050, which has impliedly amended the preexisting provisions of RCW 57.12.030, the term of office of a water district commissioner elected on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in November of an odd-numbered year is to begin as of noon on the second Monday in January following his election.
(1) Without regard to any other property interests or rights which the state may have, members of the public have the right to use and enjoy the wet and dry sand areas of the ocean beaches of the state of Washington by virtue of a long-established customary use of those areas. (2) The right of members of the public to use and enjoy the wet and dry sand areas of the ocean beaches of Washington by virtue of a long-established customary use of those areas does not presently extend to such ocean beach areas as are within the exterior boundaries of the Quinault Indian Reservation.
RCW 70.116.020 establishes the procedure for adopting coordinated water system plans in areas designated as critical water supply service areas. RCW 36.93.090(5) provides that a boundary review board may review extension of water service by a city or town outside existing corporate boundaries. A boundary review board does not have authority under RCW 36.93.050(5) to review extension of water service beyond corporate city or town limits if it is consistent with the coordinated water system plan adopted pursuant to RCW 70.116.020.