Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 90.03.220 (2026)

Determination of water rights—Failure to appear—Estoppel

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Whenever proceedings shall be instituted for the determination of the rights to the use of water, any defendant who shall fail to appear in such proceedings, after legal service, and submit proof of his or her claim, shall be estopped from subsequently asserting any right to the use of such water embraced in such proceeding, except as determined by such decree.

[ 2013 c 23 s 595; 1917 c 117 s 24; RRS s 7375. Formerly RCW 90.12.120.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1979–2002 · leading case: Dep't of Ecology v. Acquavella, 112 Wash. App. 729 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dep't of Ecology v. Acquavella, 112 Wash. App. 729 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “RCW 90.03.220 provides that *739 [w]henever proceedings shall be instituted for the determination of the rights to the use of water, any defendant who shall fail to appear in such proceedings, after legal service, and submit proof of his claim, shall be estopped from…”

State, Dept. of Ecology v. Acquavella, 51 P.3d 800 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 6× “Finally, Timberlands argues that a construction of the Amosso adjudication as one that was limited to irrigation rights is consistent with the common understanding at that time that the 1917 Water Code addressed only conflicting irrigation rights.”

McLeary v. Dep't of Game, 591 P.2d 778 (Wash. 1979). “RCW 90.03.220. When the decree failed to grant Game's predecessor in interest a water right for fish hatchery uses, it was a denial of that claim.”

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.