Cornelius v. Dep't of Ecology

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court affirmed decisions upholding the Department of Ecology's approval of Washington State University's applications to amend groundwater rights. The court rejected as-applied due process and separation-of-powers challenges to Washington's Municipal Water Law and upheld Ecology's streamlined evaluation process. It also addressed statutory authority concerning amendments to water certificates, impairment, SEPA, beneficial use, relinquishment, and related water-right issues.

Holdings

1. Applying the Municipal Water Law to WSU's water rights did not violate separation of powers because there were no previously litigated adjudicative facts or vested judicial rights for the agency to alter. The statute authorized Ecology to identify WSU's rights as municipal water-supply rights despite earlier nonmunicipal labels.
2. Applying the Municipal Water Law to WSU did not violate Cornelius's due process rights. Relabeling WSU's rights as municipal rights did not resurrect relinquished rights or deprive Cornelius of a vested property right.
3. Ecology did not exceed its statutory authority by using a streamlined process to evaluate WSU's amendment applications because WSU's municipal water rights were immune from relinquishment.
4. RCW 90.44.100 permits holders of system-capacity certificates for municipal water-supply purposes to amend unperfected portions of their rights to add well locations without separately perfecting those portions through beneficial use.
5. Ecology was not required to supplement WSU's determination of nonsignificance or prepare a new environmental determination because the amendment did not expand WSU's vested water rights and therefore supplied no qualifying new information.
6. The court did not decide whether RCW 90.44.130 applies to amendments of existing certificates generally, but held that Ecology and the Board did not err in declining to apply the provision to WSU because WSU was the senior water user rather than a subsequent appropriator.
7. WSU exercised reasonable diligence in prosecuting its water rights despite decades of not using the full quantities listed in its certificates and permit.
8. WSU did not abandon Claim No. 98523 because, even assuming a long period of nonuse, the evidence showed no intent to abandon the water right.
9. The Board properly granted summary judgment to WSU because Cornelius's personal observations, photographs, and temperature data did not establish a genuine dispute concerning reasonable efficiency.
10. The Board's determination that Permit No. G3-28278P was an alternate source of water and did not need to be reduced by the quantity associated with invalid Claim No. 098524 was supported by substantial evidence.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the 2003 Municipal Water Law was unconstitutional as applied to WSU's water rights under the separation of powers and due process doctrines.
2. Whether Ecology's streamlined process for making tentative determinations on WSU's amendment applications exceeded its statutory authority.
3. Whether RCW 90.44.100 authorized WSU to amend its certificates to add well locations before fully perfecting the rights through beneficial use.
4. Whether Ecology was required under SEPA to supplement WSU's determination of nonsignificance or prepare a new environmental determination.
5. Whether the Pollution Control Hearings Board improperly limited evidence concerning impairment of existing rights and public welfare.
6. Whether RCW 90.44.130 required Ecology to determine whether WSU's proposal would maintain a safe sustaining yield of groundwater.
7. Whether WSU exercised reasonable diligence in developing and using its water rights.
8. Whether WSU abandoned Claim No. 98523.
9. Whether WSU's golf-course irrigation satisfied beneficial-use and reasonable-efficiency requirements.
10. Whether the quantity authorized by Permit No. G3-28278P had to be reduced because Claim No. 098524 was invalid.
11. Whether Cornelius was entitled to attorney fees.

Disposition

affirmed