Wash. Rev. Code » Title 90 · Chapter 90.44
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 90.44.030 (2026)

Chapter not to affect surface water rights

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The rights to appropriate the surface waters of the state and the rights acquired by the appropriation and use of surface waters shall not be affected or impaired by any of the provisions of this supplementary chapter and, to the extent that any underground water is part of or tributary to the source of any surface stream or lake, or that the withdrawal of groundwater may affect the flow of any spring, water course, lake, or other body of surface water, the right of an appropriator and owner of surface water shall be superior to any subsequent right hereby authorized to be acquired in or to groundwater.
[ 1945 c 263 s 2; Rem. Supp. 1945 s 7400-2.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1993–2019 · leading case: Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C., 146 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dep't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C., 146 Wash. 2d 1 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “290; RCW 90.44.030, .070; RCW 90.54.020. Of course, where the exemption in RCW 90.”
State, Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, 43 P.3d 4 (Wash. 2002). · cites it 2× “290; RCW 90.44.030, .070; RCW 90.54.020. Of course, where the exemption in RCW 90.”
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 11 P.3d 726 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 3× “RCW 90.44.030. This statute "emphasizes the potential connections between groundwater and surface water, and makes evident the Legislature's intent that groundwater rights be considered a part of the overall water appropriation scheme, subject to the paramount rule of `first in…”
Postema v. Pollution Control Hearings Bd., 142 Wash. 2d 68 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 3× “RCW 90.44.030. This statute “emphasizes the potential connections between groundwater and surface water, and makes evident the Legislature’s intent that groundwater rights be considered a part of the overall water appropriation scheme, subject to the paramount rule of ‘first in…”
Rettkowski v. Dep't of Ecology, 858 P.2d 232 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 4× “NOTES [1] Ecology also claims that RCW 90.44.030 explicitly gives priority to surface water appropriators vis-a-vis groundwater appropriators.”
Richard A. Fox & Marnie B. Fox, Apps. v. Skagit Cnty., Res., 372 P.3d 784 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “RCW 90.44.030 (emphasis added). Water obtained under RCW 90.”
Squaxin Island Tribe v. Dep't of Ecology, 312 P.3d 766 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “RCW 90.44.030; see also Swinomish Indian Tribal Cmty.”
Hubbard v. Dep't of Ecology, 936 P.2d 27 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “RCW 90.44.030; Rettkowski, 122 Wn.2d at 226 n.”
Magdalena T. Bassett v. Washington State Dep't Of Ecology, 438 P.3d 563 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “It additionally contends that the CBA and LBA analysis were optional because the Dungeness Rule was not a significant legislative rule.”
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.