Law Commons^™

Putting The Public Back In The Public Trust Doctrine: A Reinterpretation To Advance Native Hawaiian Water Rights, Steven Hindman

Washington Law Review

The public trust doctrine guarantees that the government will hold natural resources in trust and protect them for the common good. The doctrine has played a key role in the allocation of water rights, particularly for Native American and Native Hawaiian interests in the United States. State and federal courts often consider the doctrine when deciding if certain use rights should be granted. In Hawai‘i, the doctrine has taken on a particularly robust form because the State Constitution expressly provides that all public natural resources are to be held in trust for the benefit of all Hawaiians. Unfortunately, the doctrine’s …

When Uncle Sam Spills: A State Regulator’S Guide To Enforcement Actions Against The Federal Government Under The Clean Water Act, Ian M. Staeheli

Washington Law Review

The U.S. government is one of the largest polluters on the planet. With over 700 domestic military bases and countless more federal facilities and vessels operating within state borders, there exists an enormous potential for spills and discharges of pollutants into state waters. The regulatory burden for enforcing environmental laws against the federal government falls on the Environmental Protection Agency and state regulators. But enforcing laws and regulations against the federal government and its progeny is a daunting regulatory task.

Other scholarship addresses some of the vexing peculiarities involved when regulating Uncle Sam. Those works discuss the “confusing mess” that …

Water Banks In Washington State: A Tool For Climate Resilience, Jennifer J. Seely

Washington Law Review

Water banks—a tool for exchanging senior water rights and offsetting new ones—can address multiple problems in contemporary water law. In the era of climate change, water banks enable needed flexibility and resilience in water allocation. As growing cities require new water rights, water banks can repurpose old water for new uses. These advantages should lead the Washington State Legislature to incentivize water banks, but in the 2018 “Hirst fix” it embraced habitat restoration as a false equivalent for water. The Legislature is rightfully concerned about the speculation that some private water banks allow. But overall, water banks enable new and …

Changing Course: Revisiting Instream Flow Rulemaking In Washington State Following Swinomish V. Ecology, Haylee J. Hurst

Washington Law Review

Since the adoption of Washington’s Water Resources Act in 1971, legal recognition of instream water uses to preserve fish, wildlife, and other environmental values have become firmly entrenched in Washington water law. By establishing “instream flow rules,” rules that require a certain amount of water to be left in streams before water may be withdrawn for any new uses, the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) must protect the environment while also managing water to achieve “maximum net benefits” for the people of Washington State. Ecology may only allow new withdrawals of water that will impair established instream flows if …

Dealing With Ocean Acidification: The Problem, The Clean Water Act, And State And Regional Approaches, Robin Kundis Craig

Washington Law Review

Ocean acidification is often referred to as climate change’s “evil twin.” As the global ocean continually absorbs much of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide produced through the burning of fossil fuels, its pH is dropping, causing a plethora of chemical, biological, and ecological impacts. These impacts immediately threaten local and regional fisheries and marine aquaculture; over the long term, they pose the risk of a global mass extinction event. As with climate change itself, the ultimate solution to ocean acidification is a worldwide reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. In the interim, however, environmental groups such as the Center for Biological Diversity …

The Decline And (Possible) Renewal Of Aspiration In The Clean Water Act, Robert W. Adler

Washington Law Review

In the approximately four decades since Congress adopted sweeping amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act—creating what is commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA)—the United States has made significant progress in reducing many kinds of water pollution. It is clear, however, that the United States has not attained the most ambitious of the statutory goals and objectives, including the overarching objective to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.”1 Indeed, although discrete water quality improvements continue in some places and for some forms of pollution, on a national scale progress toward …

All Carrot And No Stick: Why Washington's Clean Water Act Assurances Violate State And Federal Water Quality Laws, Oliver Stiefel

Washington Law Review

Current Washington State rules governing timber activities—including logging, road construction, and timber processing—were achieved through negotiated compromise. In response to growing concern over the decline of several salmonid species, stakeholders from government agencies, environmental groups, and the timber industry negotiated a plan for regulating timber activities to better meet the needs of aquatic species, while maintaining a robust and sustainable timber industry. The rivers and streams flowing through Washington’s forests provide habitat for numerous aquatic species, including several species of anadromous salmonids. Timber activities, however, pose a threat to healthy habitat. In the 1990s, degraded forest habitat in Washington necessitated …

The Mccarran Amendment And Groundwater: Why Washington State Should Require Inclusion Of Groundwater In General Stream Adjudications Involving Federal Reserved Water Rights, Aubri Goldsby

Washington Law Review

All water is connected through the hydrologic cycle. When a farmer pumps water from an underground aquifer to irrigate crops, that act may affect a family relying on a nearby surface water stream for its water supply. Despite the scientific link between surface and groundwater, the law often treats the two separately. The legal choice to ignore the interaction of surface and groundwater is particularly notable in “general stream adjudications.” States file these large-scale lawsuits against users in a particular stream or waterbody to determine, in a single lawsuit, all the rights existing in that water source. In 1952, Congress …

The Mccarran Amendment And Groundwater: Why Washington State Should Require Inclusion Of Groundwater In General Stream Adjudications Involving Federal Reserved Water Rights, Aubri Goldsby

Washington Law Review

All water is connected through the hydrologic cycle. When a farmer pumps water from an underground aquifer to irrigate crops, that act may affect a family relying on a nearby surface water stream for its water supply. Despite the scientific link between surface and groundwater, the law often treats the two separately. The legal choice to ignore the interaction of surface and groundwater is particularly notable in “general stream adjudications.” States file these large-scale lawsuits against users in a particular stream or waterbody to determine, in a single lawsuit, all the rights existing in that water source. In 1952, Congress …

Leading A Judge To Water: In Search Of A More Fully Formed Washington Public Trust Doctrine, Ivan M. Stoner

Washington Law Review

Under the public trust doctrine, a state must hold certain types of natural resources, most particularly navigable waters and shorelands, in trust for the benefit of the public. For that reason, courts closely scrutinize state actions impacting these public trust resources. In Caminiti v. Boyle, the Washington State Supreme Court developed a test that addresses situations where the State transfers control of public trust resources to private parties. But no firm rule guides Washington courts where a state action impacts the public trust without an alienation. This Comment examines the review Washington courts have applied in such situations, and …

Got Water? Limiting Washington's Stockwatering Exemption To Five Thousand Gallons Per Day, Kara Dunn

Washington Law Review

In Washington, a comprehensive groundwater code governs groundwater withdrawals and use. This regulatory scheme protects water users, minimizes disputes over water rights, and maximizes the beneficial use of public water resources. Despite these protections, groundwater resources are declining in many parts of the state. Washington exempts certain types of small withdrawals from the groundwater code’s regulations, including water for livestock. Conflicting interpretations of this stock-watering exemption have created uncertainty over whether exempt stock-watering withdrawals are unlimited, or are limited to 5000 gallons per day. This Comment analyzes the conflicting interpretations of the groundwater exemption statute under Washington’s rules of statutory …

Murky Waters: Courts Should Hold That The "Any-Progress-Is-Sufficient-Progress" Approach To Tmdl Development Under Section 303(D) Of The Clean Water Act Is Arbitrary And Capricious, Kelly Seaburg

Washington Law Review

Congress enacted the 1972 Amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) to combat water pollution stemming from both discrete and diffuse sources. Section 303(d) of the CWA reduces both types of pollution by requiring each state to promulgate "total maximum daily loads" (TMDLs) of pollutants for all waters that are unable to meet water quality standards. A TMDL is the maximum amount of a pollutant that can be discharged from all combined sources into a given body of water if that water is going to comply with water quality standards. Although section 303(d) required states to promulgate TMDLs by 1979, …

Enjoys Long Walks On The Beach: Washington's Public Trust Doctrine And The Right Of Pedestrian Passage Over Private Tidelands, Ewa M. Davison

Washington Law Review

Under Washington's public trust doctrine, the state retains a jus publicum interest in tidelands, regardless of ownership. This interest obligates the state to protect the public rights encompassed within the jus publicum: navigation, fishing, boating, swimming, water skiing, and corollary recreational activities. The state satisfies this duty so long as its actions do not circumscribe public access to those resources, including tidelands, traditionally protected by the public trust doctrine. The title to any tidelands property sold into private ownership is similarly burdened; a private tidelands owner may not utilize property in a way that would compromise the state's jus …

Washington's Municipal Water Rights Bill Of 2003: Providing "Certainty And Flexibility" Or Violating The Separation Of Powers Doctrine?, Jason T. Morgan

Washington Law Review

The separation of powers doctrine limits the ability of the legislature to retroactively overrule judicial constructions of existing statutes. It is the province of the judiciary to interpret the law. Once a court interprets a statute, the legislature can only amend that statute prospectively. In the 1998 case of Theodoratus v. State Department of Ecology, the Supreme Court of Washington interpreted the Water Code to require that the proper measure of a water right is the amount of water actually beneficially used, and not the capacity of a water delivery system. In 2003, the Washington Legislature responded to the …

Water, Property, And The Clean Water Act, Janis Snoey

Washington Law Review

In PUD No. I of Pend Oreille County v. Department of Ecology, the Supreme Court of Washington held that Washington State has authority under the Clean Water Act to impose a minimum stream flow requirement on a hydroelectric project seeking to amend its federal license, regardless of whether the flow requirement affects an existing water right. A water right is property protected by the U.S. Constitution's prohibition on taking without just compensation. If a state's imposition of a minimum flow requirement under the Clean Water Act restrains a project from diverting the full quantity of an existing water right, …

Extending Winters To Water Quality: Allowing Groundwater For Hatcheries, Amy Choyce Allison

Washington Law Review

The Winters Doctrine of federally reserved water rights applies to groundwater and water quality. Because most Indian tribes would have no water rights under state law, the reserved water rights doctrine, known as the Winters Doctrine, emerged to establish a federal right to water on Indian reservations sufficient to fulfill the purposes of the reservation. The reserved water rights doctrine originated in Winters v. United States, which was preceded by two cases upholding the federal government's right to reserve certain water rights. Winters rested on one of the Canons of Construction for Indian treaties that require agreements involving Indians …

All Together Now: Legal Responses To The Introduction Of Aquatic Nuisance Species In Washington Through Ballast Water, Jason R. Hamilton

Washington Law Review

Aquatic nuisance species (ANS) are a substantial threat to the global environment, causing harm to ecosystems and costing U.S. industry billions of dollars per year. To combat ANS, legal regimes are being established on the international, federal, and state levels. In some western states, advocates have proposed legislation that is more stringent than the international and federal legal regimes' voluntary ballast-water-exchange regulations. This Comment argues that Washington and the United States should remain in conformity with the international legal regime and should not enact regulations calling for mandatory ballast water-exchange at this time. Instead, the U.S. Coast Guard should strengthen …

Ferc's Dam Decommissioning Authority Under The Federal Power Act, Beth C. Bryant

Washington Law Review

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) asserted in a 1994 Policy Statement that it has the authority under the Federal Power Act to deny a new license for a hydroelectric dam or impose environmental conditions on a new license that may render a project unprofitable, when doing so is in the public interest. In addition, FERC stated that it would impose decommissioning costs on the dam owner. The hydroelectric industry claims that FERC lacks the authority to take these actions, and that if maintaining a dam is no longer in the public interest, either the federal government or another party …

Tribal Water Quality Standards Under The Clean Water Act: Protecting Traditional Cultural Uses, William C. Galloway

Washington Law Review

Since 1987, the Clean Water Act has allowed Indian tribes to be treated as states for various purposes under the Act. Among the regulatory powers of states under the Clean Water Act is the ability to set water quality standards, subject to approval by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Upstream pollution dischargers must comply with a downstream state's water quality standards once it is established that an upstream discharge demonstrably impacts downstream water quality. The power to set water quality standards represents a new and potentially powerful tool to protect traditional uses and enhance reservation environments, but only if tribes …

Mission Revival Jurisprudence: State Courts And Hispanic Water Law Since 1850, Peter L. Reich

Washington Law Review

In this Article, the author argues that after the United States' annexation of the Southwest, state judges in California, New Mexico, and Texas knowingly distorted the communal nature of applicable Spanish and Mexican water law. While previous scholars have acknowledged that courts misinterpreted municipal and riparian water rights originating in the Southwest's Hispanic period, most historians have attributed the distortion to ignorance rather than design. Using archival sources, the author demonstrates that American judges created an historical fiction of "Spanish" absolute water control, and intentionally disregarded actual law and custom dictating water apportionment. The resulting doctrines of pueblo water rights …

From Quantification To Qualification: A State Court's Distortion Of The Law In In Re General Adjudication Of All Rights To Use Water In The Big Horn River System, Berrie Martinis

Washington Law Review

The Wyoming Supreme Court applied state law to Indian reserved water rights in its recent decision in In re General Adjudication of All Rights to Use Water in the Big Horn River System (Big Horn III). Prior to Big Horn III, courts never applied state law to such rights. This Note argues that the Wyoming decision contradicts federal reserved water rights law and federal Indian law, and concludes that Congress should enact legislation overturning the Big Horn III decision.

Not On Claims Alone: Determining Indian Title To Intertidal Lands—United States V. Aam, 887 F.2d 190 (9th Cir. 1989), Andrea Geiger Oakley

Washington Law Review

The equal footing doctrine creates a presumption against conveyance of the beds of navigable waters by the United States prior to statehood. Where submerged lands lie within the boundaries of an Indian reservation, the presumption may conflict with the canons of construction applicable in Indian law. In United States v. Aam, the Ninth Circuit attempted to resolve this conflict by establishing a per se test to determine when the presumption is rebutted. This Note examines the Ninth Circuit's opinion and concludes that in light of the respective policies underlying the conflicting doctrines, the court's test gives insufficient weight to the …

Protecting Puget Sound: An Experiment In Regional Governance, Katherine Fletcher

Washington Law Review

The 1985 Puget Sound Water Quality Act set in motion an ambitious experiment in regional problem-solving: a comprehensive and coordinated approach to protecting Puget Sound from pollution and degradation. This Article summarizes the challenges of regional governance, reviews the background and implementation of the 1985 Act, and discusses some of the controversies and challenges associated with the effort to protect Puget Sound. Dedication: This Article is dedicated to my father, who raised me with a sense of place.

The Clean Water Act: When Dumping Dead Fish Is Not The Discharge Of A Pollutant—National Wildlife Federation V. Consumers Power Co., 862 F.2d 580 (6th Cir. 1988), Cheri Y. Cornell

Washington Law Review

The Clean Water Act defines "discharge of a pollutant" as "any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from a point source." This Note examines National Wildlife Federation v. Consumers Power Co., in which the court held that an addition occurs only when a pollutant is introduced into water from the outside world. The Note argues that legislative history and the structure of the Clean Water Act demand an interpretation of "addition" which includes causing a pollutant to appear in water.

The Public Trust Doctrine: Accommodating The Public Need Within Constitutional Bounds—Orion Corp. V. State, 109 Wash. 2d 621, 747 P.2d 1062 (1987), Cert. Denied, 108 S. Ct. 1996 (1988), Steven W. Turnbull

Washington Law Review

Following decades of neglecting its public trust duties, Washington now accepts the public trust doctrine as a permanent fixture in its law. In Orion Corp. v. State, the Washington Supreme Court reaffirmed the state's sovereign interest as the public's trustee in its tidelands, marshes, and shorelands. The court declared that private use of protected trust lands must conform to the public's interest in navigation, fishing, and recreation, and must not be harmful to the land's dependent wildlife. The court, however, declined to define the public trust's reach, stating only that it is coextensive with the public need. This standard suggests …

The Public Trust Doctrine: Accommodating The Public Need Within Constitutional Bounds—Orion Corp. V. State, 109 Wash. 2d 621, 747 P.2d 1062 (1987), Cert. Denied, 108 S. Ct. 1996 (1988), Steven W. Turnbull

Washington Law Review

Following decades of neglecting its public trust duties, Washington now accepts the public trust doctrine as a permanent fixture in its law. In Orion Corp. v. State, the Washington Supreme Court reaffirmed the state's sovereign interest as the public's trustee in its tidelands, marshes, and shorelands. The court declared that private use of protected trust lands must conform to the public's interest in navigation, fishing, and recreation, and must not be harmful to the land's dependent wildlife. The court, however, declined to define the public trust's reach, stating only that it is coextensive with the public need. This standard suggests …

The Determination Of Title To Submerged Lands On Indian Reservation, Rick Best

Washington Law Review

The treatment of submerged lands within Indian reservations provides a classic example of the Indian rights gap. Two possible owners may claim such lands under navigable water: the tribe or one of the several states. Substantial legal and economic significance attaches to ownership. The title may determine fishing rights as well as potentially lucrative mineral rights to gas and oil deposits. When a river is rerouted, the uncovered land may become a valuable recreational or commercial waterfront. Title can also determine criminal jurisdiction for acts taking place on the water. States rely on the equal footing doctrine to claim title …

Unused Riparian Water Rights In Washington—Department Of Ecology V. Abbott, 103 Wn. 2d 686, 694 P.2d 1071 (1985), Lynn B. Squires

Washington Law Review

In Department of Ecology v. Abbott, the Washington Supreme Court addressed the long-standing question of whether landowners who failed to exercise consumptive riparian rights3 within a reasonable period after the adoption of the Water Code of 1917 (1917 Code) lost those rights. The question arose when a riparian landowner, who had registered consumptive water rights as required by statute in 1971, was denied those rights in a 1982 stream adjudication. The basis for the denial was that the landowner's riparian rights had not been continuously exercised since 1917. The Water Rights Registration Act, with which the landowner complied in 1971, …

Federalism And The Wild And Scenic Rivers Act: Now You See It, Now You Don't, Sally K. Fairfax, Barbara T. Andrews, Andrew P. Buchsbaum

Washington Law Review

This article investigates the proposed designation of the North Coast rivers under WSRA. It chronicles developments in the legal controversy and relates them to the larger issues of land and water management. The shifting legal framework and changing economic and political interests in the North Coast controversy are particularly enlightening to students of federalism. Lawyers are among those who may be tempted to view the North Coast controversy in terms of federal-state conflict or intergovernmental cooperation run amuck, and to view the courts as an umpire in a dispute over authority.

Protecting The People's Waters: The California Supreme Court Recognizes Two Remedies To Safeguard Public Trust Interests In Water—National Audubon Society V. Superior Court, 33 Cal. 3d 419, 658 P.2d 709, 189 Cal. Rptr. 346, Cert. Denied, 104 S. Ct. 413 (1983), Kevin M. Raymond

Washington Law Review

This Note outlines the public trust remedies presently in place in California by discussing the background of the public trust doctrine and the appropriative water rights system in California as well as the holdings of the Mono Lake court. This Note also proposes changes to improve both the administrative and judicial public trust remedies.