SENATE BILL REPORT
SB 5922
As Reported By Senate Committee On:
Environment, Energy & Water, February 27, 2001
Title: An act relating to appeals of water right decisions regarding water rights subject to a general stream adjudication.
Brief Description: Changing water right appeals procedures for rights subject to a general stream adjudication.
Sponsors: Senators T. Sheldon, Rasmussen, Honeyford, Fraser and Morton.
Brief History:
Committee Activity: Environment, Energy & Water: 2/20/01, 2/27/01 [DPS].
SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT, ENERGY & WATER
Majority Report: That Substitute Senate Bill No. 5922 be substituted therefor, and the substitute bill do pass.
Signed by Senators Fraser, Chair; Regala, Vice Chair; Eide, Hale, Jacobsen, McDonald, Morton and Patterson.
Staff: Genevieve Pisarski (786‑7488)
Background: A general stream adjudication in superior court is the procedure established by law for conclusively determining the existence of a water right or claim, including its validity, quantity, priority, and other elements. The procedure established by law for applications to change or transfer a water right calls for a decision by the Department of Ecology that is appealable to the Pollution Control Hearings Board, followed by judicial review. A water right or claim that is subject to a general stream adjudication may also, at the same time, be the subject of an application for a change or transfer. Jurisdiction over appeals relating to such a water right or claim is not conclusively established.
Summary of Substitute Bill: The Legislature intends to assure an efficient appeals process that preserves the rights of all parties.
Substitute Bill Compared to Original Bill: The statement of legislative intent replaces provisions relating to jurisdiction of the Pollution Control Hearings Board and the adjudication court.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Available.
Effective Date: Ninety days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.
Testimony For: Under existing law, there appear to be two appeals processes that apply to a water right that is the subject of a change or transfer and, also, of an adjudication. This could result in duplication that would be a strain on all parties. A more efficient appeals process that preserves the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes and federal parties and preserves the standing of third parties is needed.
Testimony Against: This would compel an expansion of the waivers of sovereign immunity that were intended to be limited to the Yakima adjudication.
Testified: PRO: Joe Mentor, Jr., Steve Gano, Trendwest Resorts Inc.; CON: James Van Damme, WEC; Dawn Vyvyan, Yakama Nation; Ken Slattery, Department of Ecology (concerns).