Hubbard v. Department of Ecology
Washington Court of Appeals
86 Wash. App. 119, 936 P.2d 27 (1997)
- Written by Curtis Parvin, JD
Facts
James and John Hubbard (plaintiffs) acquired property in Washington on which they each drilled groundwater wells. They applied to the Washington Department of Ecology (the department) (defendant) for permits to draw water for beneficial use (irrigation and frost protection for their orchards). The department had previously set a minimum flow for the nearby Okanogan River to protect existing appropriative water rights on the river. In analyzing the Hubbards’ claims, the department determined that the aquifer from which they were pumping was connected to the river and contributed to its flow, even if slowly through another aquifer. The Hubbards contended that the department could not use the minimum flow levels to defeat their water rights and that the contribution of water pumped from their wells was so low that it had no practical effect on the river’s flow. Rejecting the Hubbards’ arguments, the department conditioned the Hubbards’ future appropriation rights on a minimum river flow; when the river flow was below a certain level, the Hubbards could not pump from their wells. The Hubbards’ administrative appeal and appeal to the superior court were unsuccessful, and they appealed to the Washington Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Schultheis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.