Wash. Rev. Code » Title 90 · Chapter 90.03

Wash. Rev. Code § 90.03.345

Establishment of reservations of water for certain purposes and minimum flows or levels as constituting appropriations with priority dates

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The establishment of reservations of water for agriculture, hydroelectric energy, municipal, industrial, and other beneficial uses under RCW 90.54.050(1) or minimum flows or levels under RCW 90.22.010 or 90.54.040 shall constitute appropriations within the meaning of this chapter with priority dates as of the effective dates of their establishment. Whenever an application for a permit to make beneficial use of public waters embodied in a reservation, established after September 1, 1979, is filed with the department of ecology after the effective date of such reservation, the priority date for a permit issued pursuant to an approval by the department of ecology of the application shall be the effective date of the reservation.
[ 1979 ex.s. c 216 s 7.]

Notes:

Effective date—Severability—1979 ex.s. c 216: See notes following RCW 90.03.245.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1997–2019 · leading case: Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Department of Ecology
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Swinomish Indian Tribal Community v. Department of Ecology (2013) wash · cites it 8× “247, RCW 90.03.345, and RCW 90.22.030. The Tribe contends that Ecology’s reliance on the overriding-considerations exception is based on an incorrect interpretation of RCW 90.”
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd. (2000) wash · cites it 4× “RCW 90.03.345. Thus, a minimum flow set by rule is an existing right which may not be impaired by subsequent groundwater withdrawals.”
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Board (2000) wash · cites it 4× “RCW 90.03.345. Thus, a minimum flow set by rule is an existing right which may not be impaired by subsequent groundwater withdrawals.”
Richard A. Fox And Marnie B. Fox, Apps. v. Skagit County, Res. (2016) washctapp · cites it 2× “” RCW 90.03.345. Accordingly, these minimum flow levels are like any other water appropriation right—they cannot affect existing water rights, and they take priority over subsequently established rights.”
PUBLIC UTILITY DIST. v. State, Dept. of Ecology (2002) wash “Moreover, conditions in a § 401 water quality certificate are effective during the term of a federal license, and may be reevaluated or revised when a project is up for relicensing. In contrast, minimum instream flows under the state's water resources statutes constitute an…”
Public Utility District No. 1 v. Department of Ecology (2002) wash “Moreover, conditions in a § 401 water quality certificate are effective during the term of a federal license, and may be reevaluated or revised when a project is up for relicensing.”
State, Dept. of Ecology v. Theodoratus (1998) wash “See RCW 90.03.345 ("The establishment of reservations of water for agriculture, hydroelectric energy, municipal, industrial, and other beneficial uses .”
Department of Ecology v. Theodoratus (1998) wash “See RCW 90.03.345 (“The establishment of reservations of water for agriculture, hydroelectric energy, municipal, industrial, and other beneficial uses .”
Magdalena T. Bassett v. Washington State Department Of Ecology (2019) washctapp · cites it 4× “See WAC 173-518-040(3); RCW 90.03.345. DOE based the MIFs on recommendations of the 2005 Elwha- Dungeness Watershed Plan, discussed further below.”
Hubbard v. Department of Ecology (1997) washctapp “RCW 90.03.345. As a result, the minimum instream flow established in 1976 for the Okanogan River, WAC 173-549-020(2), has priority over subsequent water rights appropriators, such as the Hubbards.”
Center For Environmental Law & Policy v. State Of Washington (2019) washctapp · cites it 2× “RCW 90.03.345. Water appropriated prior to adoption of the Rule are senior water rights and are not affected by the Rule.”
Swinomish Indian Tribal Comm'y v. Dep't of Ecology (2013) wash · cites it 8× “247, RCW 90.03.345, and RCW 90.22.030. The Tribe contends that Ecology's reliance on the overriding-considerations exception is based on an incorrect interpretation ofRCW 90.”
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.