Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hirst v. Whatcom County

Supreme Court of Washington

September 18, 2015

ERIC HIRST, LAURA LEIGH BRAKKE, WENDY HARRIS, DAVID STALHEIM, and FUTUREWISE, Petitioners,
v.
WHATCOM COUNTY and WESTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD, Respondents.

          Bill Clarke, WSBA No. 28800 TUPPER MACK WELLS PLLC Sarah E. Mack, WSBA No. 12731 (206) 493-2300 Attorneys for Amici Curiae Washington REALTORS®, Building Industry Association of Washington, and Washington State Farm Bureau.

          BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE WASHINGTON REALTORS®, BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF WASHINGTON, AND WASHINGTON STATE FARM BUREAU

         TABLE OF CONTENTS

         I. INTRODUCTION.......................................................1

         II. IDENTITY AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ...................2

         III. STATEMENT OF THE CASE..............................................2

         IV. ARGUMENT............................................................3

         A. Under the Nooksack Rule, water is legally available for new single domestic uses and uses relying on permit-exempt groundwater wells...................................................3

         1. Ecology has exclusive authority over water right permitting and rulemaking..............................3

         2. In the Nooksack Rule, Ecology has established minimum instream flows that do not apply to permit-exempt groundwater withdrawals........................6

         3. In the Nooksack Rule, Ecology has determined that water is legally available for new single domestic uses in most areas of the basin..................................7

         B. The Board erred in fashioning a GMA mandate inconsistent with the requirements of applicable state water resource regulations............................................................9

         1. Under Kittitas County, counties must address water availability issues in a way that is consistent with state water law...................................................10

         2. In the GMA, the Legislature specifically considered and rejected the Board's approach to water availability...................................................11

         3. The Board's decision conflicts with GMA regulations...............................................13

         4. The Board misapplied Postema and the Nooksack Rule..........................................................15

         5. The Board misunderstood what constitutes a public water system under Washington law, discerning a "large ambiguity" in the County's policy where none exists.........................................................16

         6. The Board erred in relying on an Ecology letter about the 2006 amended Skagit Basin Rule..................18

         C. The Hirst Petitioners' "water availability" challenge is an improper collateral attack on Ecology's Nooksack Rule......19 V. CONCLUSION.............................................................. 20

         TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

         Cases

         Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146 Wn.2d 1, 43 P.3d4 (2002) 5, 10

         Dep't of Ecology v. Wahkiakum County, 184 Wn.App. 372, 337 P.3d 364 (2014), review denied, 182 Wn.2d 1023 (2015).............. 12

         Five Comers Family Farmers v. State, 173 Wn.2d 296, 268 P.3d 892 (2011)...........................................................................................................5

         Hillis v. Dep't of Ecology, 131 Wn.2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997)...................5

         Kittitas County v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., 172 Wn.2d 144, 256 P.3d 1193 (2011)................................... 4, 9, 10, 11

         Lewis v. Dep't of Licensing, 157 Wn.2d 446, 139 P.3d 1078 (2006)........... 12

         Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd, 142 Wn.2d 68, 11 P.3d 726 (2000)..............................................................................passim

         Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Ecology, 178 Wn.2d 571, 311 P.3d 6 (2013).......................................................................................... 19

         Weden v. San Juan County, 135 Wn.2d 678, 958 P.2d 273 (1998)............... 12

         Whatcom Co, v. W. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hr'gs Bd, 186 Wn.App. 32, 344 P.3d 1256 (2015)..................................................................................1

         Statutes

         Laws of 1990, 1st Ex. Sess., ch. 17, §63...........................................13

         Laws of 1997, ch. 429, §7............................................................................. 13

         RCW 19.27.097......................................................................................... 13, 15

         RCW 34.05.510.........................................................................19

         RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c).........................................................................................15

         RCW 36.70A.070(5)(c)(iv)............................................................................20

         RCW36.70A.190(4)............................................................................. 14

         RCW 36.70A.280(1)...................................................................................19

         RCW43.21A.020.............................................................................................3

         RCW43.21C.......................................................................................4

         RCW 58.17.110............................................................................................... 15

         RCW 70.119A.020(12)....................................................................................17

         RCW 77.55.100...................................................................................................... 4

         RCW 90.03.........................................................................................................3

         RCW 90.03.247.............................................................................................4, 7

         RCW 90.03.290..................................................................................... 4, 5, 12

         RCW 90.03.345.............................................................................................15

         RCW 90.14.........................................................................................................3

         RCW 90.22..........................................................................................................3

         RCW ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.