BP BHEAD INT S [atlas:bill]

AN ACT Relating to aquatic weed control; amending RCW 90.24.010, 90.24.020, 90.24.040, and 90.24.066; adding a new section to chapter 90.48 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 90.58 RCW; and providing an expiration date.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:

Sec. 1. RCW 90.24.010 and 1985 c 398 s 28 are each amended to read as follows:

Ten or more owners of real property abutting on a meandered lake may petition the superior court of the county in which the lake is situated, for an order to provide for the regulation of the outflow of the lake in order to maintain a certain water level therein and to authorize other lake management objectives authorized in this chapter. The court, after hearing, is authorized to make an order fixing the water level thereof and directing the department of ecology to regulate the outflow therefrom in accordance with the purposes described in the petition. This section shall not apply to any meandered lake or reservoir used for the storage of water for irrigation or other beneficial purposes, or to lakes navigable from the sea.

Sec. 2. RCW 90.24.020 and 1939 c 107 s 3 are each amended to read as follows:

Such petition shall contain a complete description of the property surrounding said lake with the number of front feet contained in each tract with the name of the owner thereof and his address together with a brief statement of the reasons and necessity for such application; that the level sought to be established will in no ((~~wise~~)) way interfere with the navigability of said lake or in any manner affect or interfere with fish or game fish which may be then contained or may thereafter be deposited in said lake, but that in order to protect fish or game fish in said lake the construction of fish ladders or other devices may be required to conserve and protect such fish or game fish, and to request such lake management objectives authorization as is requested by the lake front property owners, then in that event the property owners to be benefited by the establishment of said water level or management objectives in such lake shall be required to pay the cost thereof, in proportion to lineal feet of water front owned by each.

Sec. 3. RCW 90.24.040 and 1985 c 398 s 29 are each amended to read as follows:

At the hearing evidence shall be introduced in support of the petition and all interested parties may be heard for or against it. The court shall make findings and conclusions and enter an order granting or refusing the petition, and if the petition is granted, shall fix the water level to be maintained and direct the department of ecology to regulate and control the outflow of the lake so as to properly maintain the water level so far as practicable within maximum and minimum limits when the proper control devices are installed, and shall authorize such lake management proposals requested by waterfront owners as it deems appropriate: PROVIDED, That the court shall have continuing jurisdiction after a petition is once granted and shall, upon subsequent petition filed and heard in accordance with the preceding sections, make such further findings and conclusions and enter such further orders as are necessary to accomplish fully the objectives sought in the initial petition: AND PROVIDED FURTHER, That shall the court find any such riparian owners abutting on a stream or river flowing from such lake be adversely affected in any way by the granting of such a petition, such petition shall be refused.

Sec. 4. RCW 90.24.066 and 1988 c 133 s 1 are each amended to read as follows:

A superior court may ((~~continue its jurisdiction over weed control in those lakes that had been under the court's jurisdiction for such purposes prior to July 28, 1985~~)) authorize the use of assessment funds requested by the petition of the waterfront owners for (1) the control or removal of aquatic plants and vegetation; (2) water quality; (3) the control of water levels; (4) storm water diversion and treatment; (5) agricultural waste control; (6) studying lake water quality problems and solutions; (7) cleaning and maintaining ditches and streams entering or leaving the lake; (8) water safety and petitioning local government for water safety regulation; and (9) the related administrative, engineering, legal, and operational costs of the organization or persons whom the court authorizes to act. The continuing jurisdiction of a superior court for ((~~such weed control~~)) lake management purposes shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter ((~~90.24 RCW~~)) in the same manner as the continuing jurisdiction of a superior court over the maintenance of lake water levels and shall be applicable to proceedings in effect on the effective date of this section.

The superior court shall hold hearings under RCW 90.24.040 whenever subsequent petitions are filed with it concerning ((~~weed control~~)) lake management on a lake over which it has continuing jurisdiction for ((~~weed control~~)) lake management purposes. If the court finds that the ((~~weed control~~)) lake management proposals are in the best interests of the abutting property owners, it shall determine what measures should be taken to accomplish these objectives, the probable annual cost thereof, and by its order apportion the cost among the persons whose property abuts on the lake in proportion to the lineal feet of waterfront owned by each, which sum shall constitute a lien against the real property. The court and its authorized organizations and persons are not required to obtain permits to accomplish the lake management proposals authorized if such proposals are within the requirements and regulations of the federal environmental protection agency and applicable regulation specifically authorized by the legislature. The departments of ecology and fish and wildlife shall submit to the court any evidence that they may have with respect to the proposals without any presumption of expertise or competence. Payments of these sums shall be made to the county treasurer who shall place these payments into a special fund to be known as "Lake . . . . . . weed removal fund." The court shall appoint a suitable organization or person, to be compensated by the property owners, to undertake ((~~weed control~~)) lake management activities as decreed by the court.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. A new section is added to chapter 90.48 RCW to read as follows:

The procedural requirements of this chapter do not apply to proceedings determining and implementating lake management practices authorized by court decree pursuant to chapter 90.24 RCW. The treatment of lakes with federally registered pesticides in accordance with their respective label requirements shall not be considered pollution as defined in this chapter.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. A new section is added to chapter 90.58 RCW to read as follows:

The procedural requirements of this chapter do not apply to proceedings determining and implementing lake management practices authorized by court decree pursuant to chapter 90.24 RCW. The treatment of lakes with federally registered pesticides in accordance with their respective label requirements shall not be considered pollution as defined in chapter 90.48 RCW.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. This act expires December 31, 1999.