Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 90.03.030 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person may convey any water which he or she may have a right to use along any of the natural streams or lakes of this state, but not so as to raise the water thereof above ordinary highwater mark, without making just compensation to persons injured thereby; but due allowance shall be made for evaporation and seepage, the amount of such seepage to be determined by the department, upon the application of any person interested. Water conveyed under this section may be conveyed to an approved intake structure located in a neighboring state in order to accomplish an approved modification of the point of diversion in a permit to appropriate water for a beneficial use, if approval of the neighboring state is documented to the satisfaction of the department.

[ 1999 c 232 s 3; 1987 c 109 s 68; 1917 c 117 s 3; RRS s 7353. Formerly RCW 90.28.050.]

Notes:

Purpose—Short title—Construction—Rules—Severability—Captions—1987 c 109: See notes following RCW 43.21B.001.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1984–2014 · leading case: Pub. Util. DIST. v. State, Dept. of Ecology, 51 P.3d 744 (Wash. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pub. Util. DIST. v. State, Dept. of Ecology, 51 P.3d 744 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 3× “, RCW 90.03.030; RCW 90.44.040. In this connection, we disagree with the District's contention that the absence of a savings clause in chapter 90.”

Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Dep't of Ecology, 146 Wash. 2d 778 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 3× “, RCW 90.03.030; RCW 90.44.040. In this connection, we disagree with the District’s contention that the absence of a savings clause in chapter 90.”

Jensen v. Dep't of Ecology, 685 P.2d 1068 (Wash. 1984). “Appellant also contends that the DOE's recognition of the Bureau's artificially stored water was limited to a horizontal depth, and that since his well is below that depth, he is withdrawing public groundwater. 2 The PCHB found that water withdrawn at the depth of appellant's…”

Richert v. Tacoma Power Util., 319 P.3d 882 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “See RCW 90.03.030 (person with right to use river water may not increase water in river above ordinary high-water mark); see also Thompson v.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.