Legal Opinion · Dissent

Five Corners Family Farmers v. State

Washington Supreme Court

Decided December 22, 2011No. 84632-4Published

1DissentWiggins, J.

¶33 (dissenting) — I agree with the majority that appellants Five Corners Family Farmers et al. have *316standing and that Easterday Ranches Inc. is not entitled to attorney fees. I dissent because I believe the stock-watering permit exemption in RCW 90.44.050 is ambiguous and the legislature intended to limit the exemption to 5,000 gallons of water per day.

¶34 The purpose of requiring a permit for groundwater use is to protect senior water rights and the public welfare. Before a permit is issued, the Department of Ecology must find that (1) water is available, (2) the proposed use is beneficial,…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Department of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C.Washington Supreme Court · 2002
  2. State, Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell & GwinnWashington Supreme Court · 2002
  3. Bennett v. HardyWashington Supreme Court · 1990
  4. State v. RoggenkampWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  5. State v. RoggenkampWashington Supreme Court · 2005

12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API