 |
 |
Here are summaries of recent decisions by the Washington Supreme Court on issues we've been tracking
The Washington Supreme Court is the highest court in the
State of Washington. It frequently decides cases involving important land use and real estate issues. The Court is composed of nine elected justices.
Recent Decisions
- Stock-watering exemption to groundwater permit program is not limited to withdrawals of 5,000 gallons per day
Easterday Ranches planned to withdraw groundwater to provide drinking water for 30,000 head of cattle at a new feedlot in Franklin County, requiring an estimated 450,000 to 600,000 gallons of water per day. The Department of Ecology and Easterday Ranches agreed that no permit was required for this withdrawal because RCW 90.44.050, which established a groundwater withdrawal permit program, exempts "any withdrawal of public groundwaters for stock-watering purposes ...." A lawsuit was brought by environmental groups, who maintained that the statute limits the stock-watering exemption, as well as all other listed exemptions, to withdrawals of 5,000 gallons per day. The trial court granted summary judgment to Ecology, finding that no such limitation applies to withdrawals for stock-watering purposes. The Supreme Court accepted direct review, and affirmed the trial court, holding that "under a plain reading of RCW 90.44.050, groundwater withdrawn for stock-water purposes is not limited to 5,000 gallons per day." Five Corners Family Farmers v. State of Washington, 2011 WL 6425114, *8 (Dec. 22, 2011). Three judges dissented. For a more detailed discussion of the decision, click on: Law on the Horizon: Stock-Watering Exemption.
- Public Records Act requires that agencies conduct a search reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents
The Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County submitted to Spokane County a request for certain metadata on some electronic files, including the date such files were created. The County produced a log that showed a date of creation later than the date modified for the relevant files. It was eventually learned that the computer that had generated the files had been replaced, and when the files were transferred to the replacement computer's hard drive, the date of copying became the date of creation. The old computer was not searched for the requested metadata, which presumably would have shown the actual date of creation. The Alliance filed a lawsuit under the Public Records Act, claiming that the County had failed to conduct an adequate search because the only place it looked (the replacement computer) was the one place it knew the requested metadata would not be found. The trial court granted summary judgment to the County, finding that there was no evidence that responsive records did in fact exist. The Court of Appeals reversed. Applying the same standard as federal courts have used under the Freedom Information Act (FOIA), the court held that "[t]he adequacy of the agency's search is judged by a standard of reasonableness, construing the facts in the light most favorable to the requestor." Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County v. County of Spokane, 153 Wn. App. 241, 257 (2009). The court held that the agency has the burden of demonstrating "beyond a material doubt that its search was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents." Id. The agency must also show that "it made a good faith effort to conduct a search for the requested records, using methods which can be reasonably expected to produce the information requested. The Supreme Court accepted review of the case, and affirmed the Court of Appeals on this issue. It noted that "[u]nder this approach, the focus of the inquiry is not whether responsive documents do in fact exist, but whether the search itself was adequate." Neighborhood Alliance of Spokane County v. County of Spokane, 172 Wn.2d 702, 719-20 (2011).
|
|
