Wash. Rev. Code » Title 90 · Chapter 90.14
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 90.14.130 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
When it appears to the department of ecology that a person entitled to the use of water has not beneficially used his or her water right or some portion thereof, and it appears that said right has or may have reverted to the state because of such nonuse, as provided by RCW 90.14.160, 90.14.170, or 90.14.180, the department of ecology shall notify such person by order: PROVIDED, That where a company, association, district, or the United States has filed a blanket claim under the provisions of *RCW 90.14.060 for the total benefits of those served by it, the notice shall be served on such company, association, district or the United States and not upon any of its individual water users who may not have used the water or some portion thereof which they were entitled to use. The order shall contain: (1) A description of the water right, including the approximate location of the point of diversion, the general description of the lands or places where such waters were used, the water source, the amount involved, the purpose of use, and the apparent authority upon which the right is based; (2) a statement that unless sufficient cause be shown on appeal the water right will be declared relinquished; and (3) a statement that such order may be appealed to the pollution control hearings board. Any person aggrieved by such an order may appeal it to the pollution control hearings board pursuant to RCW 43.21B.310. The order shall be served by registered or certified mail to the last known address of the person and be posted at the point of division or withdrawal. The order by itself shall not alter the recipient's right to use water, if any.
[ 2013 c 23 s 607; 1987 c 109 s 13; 1967 c 233 s 13.]

Notes:

*Reviser's note: RCW 90.14.060 was repealed by 1969 ex.s. c 284 s 23, which act added new sections relating to the registration of claims for water rights as codified in this chapter.
Purpose—Short title—Construction—Rules—Severability—Captions—1987 c 109: See notes following RCW 43.21B.001.
Proceedings under this section deemed adjudicative—Application of RCW sections to specific proceedings: RCW 90.14.200.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case: Motley-Motley, Inc. v. State, 110 P.3d 812 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Motley-Motley, Inc. v. State, 110 P.3d 812 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “on of PCHB that Motley's water right was relinquished for nonuse; (3) the decision of PCHB relinquishing Motley's water right was not supported by substantial evidence in the record; (4) DOE's investigation was arbitrary, capricious, irrational, and fundamentally unfair and,…”
Motley-Motley, Inc. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 127 Wash. App. 62 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “on of PCHB that Motley’s water right was relinquished for nonuse; (3) the decision of PCHB relinquishing Motley’s water right was not supported by substantial evidence in the record; (4) DOE’s investigation was arbitrary, capricious, irrational, and fundamentally unfair and,…”
Cornelius v. Dep't of Ecology, 344 P.3d 199 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 3× “180; see also RCW 90.14.130 (recognizing such reversion).”
R.D. Merrill Co. v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 969 P.2d 458 (Wash. 1999). · cites it 2× “RCW 90.14.130; RCW 90.14.160-.180. RCW 90.”
Sheep Mountain Cattle Co. v. Dep't of Ecology, 726 P.2d 55 (Wash. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “RCW 90.14.130, 1 enacted in 1967, provides that *430 when the supervisor of water resources believes a person has not beneficially used his water rights, he must notify the person to show cause at a hearing before the supervisor why his rights should not be declared relinquished.”
State, Dept. of Ecology v. Acquavella, 935 P.2d 595 (Wash. 1997). “233, §§ 13-18, at 1125 (codified at RCW 90.14.130 -.180). As of the effective date of the 1967 law, any water right holder who, for a period of five successive years, voluntarily fails, without sufficient cause, to use beneficially all or any part of the water right, will…”
Dep't of Ecology v. Acquavella, 131 Wash. 2d 746 (Wash. 1997). “As of the effective date of the 1967 law, any water right holder who, for a period of five successive years, voluntarily fails, without sufficient cause, to use beneficially all or any part of the water right, will relinquish such right or a portion thereof.”
United States v. Washington, 375 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (W.D. Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “See Wash. Rev.Code § 90.14.130. Plaintiff Lummi and Defendant Ecology both cite Ecology v.”
City of Union Gap v. Dep't of Ecology, 148 Wash. App. 519 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “2d 458 (1999) (citing RCW 90.14.130, .160-. 180). The party asserting statutory relinquishment, here Ecology, must prove nonuse for the five-year period.”
Crown West Realty, LLC v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 435 P.3d 288 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “140(2) now reads: Notwithstanding any other provisions of RCW 90.14.130 through 90.14.180, there shall be no relinquishment of any water right: .”
City of Union Gap v. State Dept. of Ecology, 195 P.3d 580 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008). “2d 458 (1999) (citing RCW 90.14.130, .160-.180). The party asserting statutory relinquishment, here Ecology, must prove nonuse for the five-year period.”
United States v. Washington, 375 F. Supp. 2d 1050 (W.D. Wash. 2005). · cites it 2× “See Wash. Rev.Code § 90.14.130. Plaintiff Lummi and Defendant Ecology both cite Ecology v.”
Show all 18 citing cases →
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.