Legal Challenges to Municipal Water Law
NEW:
Supreme Court Decides Fate of Municipal Water Law (PDF) -
Washington state Supreme Court decision of 10-28-10 affirms the
constitutionality of the Municipal Water Law. The Court upheld all
the sections of the MWL challenged in Lummi Indian Nation v. State,
holding that they do not violate the separation of powers, and do
not facially violate the right to due process.
We have created this page to help water system
owners understand how they will be affected by the court ruling.
Background
The Washington State Legislature enacted the Municipal Water Law in 2003
to give municipal water suppliers more certainty and flexibility
with their water rights. The law also required municipal suppliers
to use water efficiently. Since then, the Departments of Health and
Ecology have developed rules and guidance to implement the law.
Several Indian tribes, environmental groups, and citizens, had
sued the state, contending that several sections of the Municipal
Water Law violate the U.S. and State Constitutions.
On June 11, 2008, King County Superior Court Judge Jim Rogers struck
down parts of the law.
Additional information is on the Department of Ecology's website. One of the effects of the ruling invalidated the definitions of "municipal
water supplier" and "municipal supply purposes." The ruling also
affected a section of the law concerning water rights.
On October 28 2010, the State Supreme Court issued a
unanimous decision on the state's Municipal Water Law. The Court
ruled in favor of the State of Washington.
The Supreme Court ruling overturned the 2008 King County Superior
Court decision that said three sections of the Municipal Water Law
were invalid because they violated the state constitution’s
separation of powers.
What does this mean and what's next?
Here's what we know for now:
- In overturning the 2008 decision, the Court ruled that all
of the challenged sections of the Municipal Water Law are valid.
In particular, the Court upheld sections of the law that define
"municipal water supply suppliers" as public and private water
utilities that serve 15 or more residential connections.
- The court also affirmed that water right certificates based
on water system infrastructure, rather than actual water usage,
are "rights in good standing." This ruling protects the validity
of numerous water right certificates held by water utilities
serving homes and businesses throughout Washington.
- Under the lower court ruling, privately owned utilities were
exempted from the benefits and obligations of the Municipal
Water Law. The Supreme Court's ruling means these utilities now
have more flexibility with their water rights, but they also
will be required to do more with water conservation by complying
with the state's water use efficiency requirements.
- Customers of these water systems are likely to be hearing
more from their water utilities about water conservation. They may be
asked to share in the cost of efficiency measures, such as
installing customer service meters.
Guidance for water systems
Our goal is to offer clear guidance
about what this ruling will mean to you. We will inform you about
any policy decisions that may affect your water system.
If you
have questions about how your water rights might be affected by the
ruling, contact your nearest
Department of Ecology regional office.
For more information
Planning:
Linda Kildahl,
(360) 236-3186
Water Use Efficiency:
Mike Dexel,
(360) 236-3154 |
