conflicts requirement in Washington

2016The Board properly held that this conflicts with the requirement placed on counties to protect water availability under the GMA, as well as our holding in Postema, 142 Wn.2d 68 . 10 9 Wash. Supreme Court oral argument, Whatcom County v. Hirst, No. 91475-3 (Oct. 20, 2015), at 3 min., 25 sec., audio recording by TVW, Washington State's Public Affairs Network, http://www. tvw.org. 10 The dissent relies on a 1992 attorney general opinion (AGO) to support its conclusion that RCW 19.27.097 does not require proof of the legal availability of water.

2016The Board properly held that this conflicts with the requirement placed on counties to protect water availability under the GMA, as well as our holding in Postema, 142 Wn.2d 68 . 10 ¶54 The County’s adoption of the Nooksack Rule, with its presumption that water is available for permit-exempt appropriations, fails to satisfy the protective purposes and requirements of the GMA.

2014Elllis v. Barto, 82 Wn.

2014Ellis v. Barto, 82 Wn.

2021App. 480 , 494, 918 P.2d 937 (1996).

2019Jury instruction 17 states that an "employer must provide 34 Carlson appears to be referring to this instruction when she claims the court erroneously allowed jury instruction 21. 35 Hill v. BCTI Income Fund-I, 144 Wn.2d 172, 192-93 , 23 P.3d 440 (2001). 36 Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc., 152 Wn.2d 138, 148 , 94 P.3d 930 (2004). -21- No. 76354-7-I /22 reasonable accommodation for an employee" unless it will impose an "undue hardship on the employer." It also identifies factors to consider to evaluate an undue hardship claim, states that "[t]here may be more than one reasonable accommodation of a dis

2019Jury instruction 17 states that an "employer must provide 34 Carlson appears to be referring to this instruction when she claims the court erroneously allowed jury instruction 21. 35 Hill v. BCTI Income Fund-I, 144 Wn.2d 172, 192-93 , 23 P.3d 440 (2001). 36 Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc., 152 Wn.2d 138, 148 , 94 P.3d 930 (2004). -21- No. 76354-7-I /22 reasonable accommodation for an employee" unless it will impose an "undue hardship on the employer." It also identifies factors to consider to evaluate an undue hardship claim, states that "[t]here may be more than one reasonable accommodation of a dis

2019Jury instruction 17 states that an "employer must provide 34 Carlson appears to be referring to this instruction when she claims the court erroneously allowed jury instruction 21. 35 Hill v. BCTI Income Fund-I, 144 Wn.2d 172, 192-93 , 23 P.3d 440 (2001). 36 Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc., 152 Wn.2d 138, 148 , 94 P.3d 930 (2004). -21- No. 76354-7-I /22 reasonable accommodation for an employee" unless it will impose an "undue hardship on the employer." It also identifies factors to consider to evaluate an undue hardship claim, states that "[t]here may be more than one reasonable accommodation of a dis

2019Jury instruction 17 states that an "employer must provide 34 Carlson appears to be referring to this instruction when she claims the court erroneously allowed jury instruction 21. 35 Hill v. BCTI Income Fund-I, 144 Wn.2d 172, 192-93 , 23 P.3d 440 (2001). 36 Riehl v. Foodmaker, Inc., 152 Wn.2d 138, 148 , 94 P.3d 930 (2004). -21- No. 76354-7-I /22 reasonable accommodation for an employee" unless it will impose an "undue hardship on the employer." It also identifies factors to consider to evaluate an undue hardship claim, states that "[t]here may be more than one reasonable accommodation of a dis

2015Moreover, we emphasized that the OCPI exception is “not a device for wide-ranging reweighing or reallocation of water.” Swinomish, 178 Wn.2d at 585 .