Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 90.03.300 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No permit for the appropriation of water shall be denied because of the fact that the point of diversion described in the application for such permit, or any portion of the works in such application described and to be constructed for the purpose of storing, conserving, diverting or distributing such water, or because the place of intended use or the lands to be irrigated by means of such water, or any part thereof, may be situated in some other state or nation, but in all such cases where either the point of diversion or any of such works or the place of intended use, or the lands, or part of the lands, to be irrigated by means of such water, are situated within the state of Washington, the permit shall issue as in other cases: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, That the department may in its discretion, decline to issue a permit where the point of diversion described in the application is within the state of Washington but the place of beneficial use in some other state or nation, unless under the laws of such state or nation water may be lawfully diverted within such state or nation for beneficial use in the state of Washington.
[ 1987 c 109 s 87; 1921 c 103 s 3; RRS s 7383. Formerly RCW 90.20.070.]

Notes:

PurposeShort titleConstructionRulesSeverabilityCaptions1987 c 109: See notes following RCW 43.21B.001.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 2010–2010 · leading case: Lummi Indian Nation v. State, 241 P.3d 1220 (Wash. 2010).
Lummi Indian Nation v. State, 241 P.3d 1220 (Wash. 2010). “The parties inform us that there is at least one “as applied” challenge currently pending before the Pollution Control Hearings Board. Appellant/Cross-Resp’t Wash. State Univ.”
Lummi Indian Nation v. State, 241 P.3d 1220 (Wash. 2010). “Opening Br. at 26-27 (citing Cornelius v. Dep't of Ecology, No.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 90.03.300(3) — 2 cases
Lummi Indian Nation v. State, 241 P.3d 1220 (Wash. 2010). “The parties inform us that there is at least one “as applied” challenge currently pending before the Pollution Control Hearings Board. Appellant/Cross-Resp’t Wash. State Univ.”
Lummi Indian Nation v. State, 241 P.3d 1220 (Wash. 2010). “Opening Br. at 26-27 (citing Cornelius v. Dep't of Ecology, No.”
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.