Jensen v. Department of Ecology
Washington Supreme Court
102 Wash. 2d 109, 685 P.2d 1068 (1984)
- Written by Oni Harton, JD
Facts
Jensen (plaintiff) purchased property that had been irrigated for several years before he bought the property. The percolation of irrigation water from a federally funded project substantially augmented the naturally occurring groundwater table. Jensen’s property did not receive project irrigation water but was in an area where the groundwater table increased. Jensen applied for a permit to withdraw public groundwater. The Department of Ecology (DOE) (defendant) denied the application after determining that no groundwater was available for appropriation. Jensen subsequently filed an application to withdraw artificially stored groundwater, and the DOE approved the application. The permit required applicants to pay the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) for withdrawn water. Jensen requested approval for his first application for public groundwater. The DOE denied the application because there was no public groundwater available for appropriation and further withdraw would impair existing rights. Jensen argued that the water had become public groundwater available for appropriation because the Bureau’s water was either abandoned or commingled with naturally occurring groundwater. Jensen offered no evidence that the Bureau intended to relinquish or, in fact, relinquished control of its water.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Williams, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.