Other Languages1. In reviewing a water conservancy board record of decision concerning a water right transfer application, the Department of Ecology is not limited to reviewing the record established by the water conservancy board but may base its decision upon an independent factual investigation. 2. In reviewing a water conservancy board record of decision concerning a water right transfer application, the Department of Ecology is not required to: 1) defer to the water conservancy board’s findings of fact, or 2) defer to the board’s interpretation of the law. 3. A water conservancy board, in making a decision concerning a water right transfer application, is not legally required to follow policies or guidelines of the Department of Ecology which have not been adopted as statutes or administrative rules; however, the Department of Ecology may refer to and follow its own policies or guidelines in reviewing the local board’s decision.
RCW 90.44.050 exempts withdrawals of groundwater for stock-watering purposes from the permitting requirement, without setting a numeric limit on the quantity of water withdrawn. 2. The Department of Ecology does not have authority to impose a categorical limit on the quantity of groundwater that may be withdrawn for stock-watering without a permit. In certain circumstances, the Department of Ecology’s statutory authority to regulate the use of water may affect or limit such withdrawals, just as it may affect or limit withdrawals for other purposes.3. An agency may not alter its interpretation of a statute in a manner that is inconsistent with statutory language and legislative intent to address changed societal conditions.
1. The procedure established in RCW 90.03.383(3) for modifying a water right permit based on an intertie between public water supply systems applies only to interties existing and in use on January 1, 1991. 2. Under RCW 90.03.383(3), when the Department of Ecology processes a change in place of use occasioned by an intertie between public water supply systems, the resulting permit(s) should show the quantity of water delivered through the intertie as well as the change in place of use. 3. Under RCW 90.03.383(4), the Department of Ecology's scope of inquiry is whether each system's use is within the annual and instantaneous withdrawal rate specified in its water right authorization and whether the exchange or delivery through the intertie adversely affects existing water rights.
1. RCW 76.09.060(3) provides that a forest practices application shall indicate whether any land covered by the application will be converted or is intended to be converted to a use other than commercial timber production within three years after completion of the forest practices described in it. If the application does not state conversion is intended, for six years after the date of the application, a local government may deny all applications for permits or approvals relating to nonforestry uses of land subject to the application. 2. If a prior landowner did not indicate an intention to convert land to a use other than commercial timber production, RCW 76.09.060 empowers a local government to deny application for permits or approvals relating to nonforestry uses of land subject to the application filed by a subsequent owner of the land for six years after the date of the application by the prior landowner. 3. If a local government does not exercise its authority to deny applications for permits or approvals relating to nonforestry uses of land pursuant to RCW 76.09.060, a new landowner may convert the land to a use incompatible with timber growing, assuming such a change is lawful in other respects. 4. If a local government does not exercise its authority to deny applications for permits or approvals relating to nonforestry uses of land pursuant to RCW 76.09.060, a new forest practices application is necessary if the activity is a forest practice for which a forest practices application is required.
1.The Department of Ecology has limited authority under chapters 90.48, 90.54 and 90.58 RCW, and certain other statutes to adopt wetlands rules as envisioned in the 1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Authority Management Plan; the exact extent of this authority requires a point-by-point analysis of the subjects covered in the Plan and the type of rule envisioned.2.Chapter 90.70 RCW, creating the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority and authorizing the development of a management plan for Puget Sound, granted no additional authority to the Department of Ecology to engage in wetlands regulation; thus, in implementing the plan, the Department is limited to activities the Department had pre‑existing statutory authority to undertake.
The state department of ecology may not condition a water right permit issued under RCW 90.03.290 by providing, pursuant to an administrative regulation, that once such a permit has been in effect for at least twenty-five years the state, upon giving five years' notice, may utilize a certain prescribed formula for the measurement of damages if it exercises its power of eminent domain to condemn the water right embodied in the permit ‑ in lieu of paying full compensation as ascertained by the court or jury under Article I, § 16 (Amendment 9) of the state constitution.
(1) The Department of Ecology may not concur in the proposed issuance of a wate discharge permit by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under § 301(h) of the Federal Clean Water Act if the proposed federal permit contains effluent quality limitations which require less waste treatment than is required under state law. (2) A municipality is required to obtain a waste discharge permit from the Department of Ecology under RCW 90.48.162 prior to discharge of its sewerage wastes into marine waters of the state even though the municipality already holds a waste discharge permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency under § 301(h) of the Federal Clean Water Act which was concurred in by the Department of Ecology under that provision. (3) The Department of Ecology is not precluded by federal law from including in a state permit such waste treatment requirements, mandated by state law, as are more stringent than those contained in a permit which was issued by the Environmental Protection Agency without express state concurrence. (4) While state law does not expressly prohibit a municipality from discharging wastes from its sewerage system into Puget Sound, or other marine waters, without providing secondary treatment, all waste proposed for discharge into such waters must be provided with "all known, available, and reasonable methods of treatment" prior to being discharged into those waters‑-regardless of the quality of the water.
1.If Initiative 97 (relating to cleanup of hazardous waste spills) is approved by the voters in the November 1988 election, the Legislature would still be free to enact certain portions of House Bill 1967 (a 1988 bill dealing with regulation of underground storage tanks and cleanup of petroleum spills) without requiring approval of at least two-thirds of the members of both houses of the Legislature, but certain other provisions of House Bill 1967 would constitute "amendments" to the initiative measure and could not properly be enacted by the 1989 Legislature without the extraordinary majority required by the state constitution for amendments to initiative measures.2.If Alternative Measure 97B (also relating to cleanup of hazardous waste spills) is approved by the voters in the November 1988 election, the Legislature would be free to enact House Bill 1967 without requiring approval of at least two-thirds of the members of both houses of the Legislature.3.If either Initiative 97 or Alternative Measure 97B is approved by the voters in the November 1988 election, the Legislature's enactment within two years of some or all of the provisions of House Bill 1967 would not constitute an unconstitutional repeal of either initiative measure.
(1) Under RCW 86.16.035 the State Department of Ecology is authorized, in its discretion, to promulgate rules regulating the times when (a) the owner or operator of a "flood control facility" or (b) the owner or operator of any dam or other "water flow control facility" may release impounded water or otherwise alter the stream flow if the released water or altered stream flow might create a danger to life or property downstream.
(2) Under the same statute the Department of Ecology is also authorized to promulgate regulations requiring the notification of persons downstream or the posting of signs prior to the release of impounded water or other alteration in the stream flow by (a) a flood control dam or (b) any dam or water flow control facility when such release or alteration might create a danger to life or property below the dam.