NOTICE: SLIP OPINION

(not the court’s final written decision)

The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the 

written opinions that are originally filed by the court. 

A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions 

can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an 

order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential 

purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits 

(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the 

opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court 

decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An 

opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of 

the court.

The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it 

has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official 

text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes 

of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the 

language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of 

charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports. 

For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential 

(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see 

https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

BENTON COUNTY WATER 

CONSERVANCY BOARD,

Respondent,

v.

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT 

OF ECOLOGY,

Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 38803-4-III

PUBLISHED OPINION

PENNELL, J. — The Benton County Water Conservancy Board petitioned the 

superior court for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act, chapter 34.05 

RCW, seeking to enjoin the Department of Ecology’s refusal to accept and record certain 

agreed administrative divisions of water rights. The trial court ruled in favor of the Board, 

but we reverse. The Board has not established standing to challenge Ecology’s 

administrative division decisions. The petition must therefore be dismissed. 

WATER RIGHTS BACKGROUND

Since the water code was initially adopted in 1917, Washington’s waters have 

been considered public property, not subject to private ownership. RCW 90.03.010; 

RCW 90.44.040.1 Although private individuals cannot own water, they can acquire the 

 1

Surface water rights are addressed in chapter 90.03 RCW. Ground water rights 

are addressed in chapter 90.44 RCW. This case involves only surface water rights.

FILED

FEBRUARY 28, 2023

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III

For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 38803-4-III

Benton County Water Conservancy Bd. v. Dep’t of Ecology

2

right to appropriate water for beneficial use. Id. This is what is known as a water right. 

Dep’t of Ecology v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 118 Wn.2d 761, 766, 827 P.2d 275 

(1992).

Water rights attach to the “land or place upon which the same is used.” 

RCW 90.03.380(1). Nevertheless, in appropriate circumstances, the right “may be 

transferred to another or to others and become appurtenant to any other land or place

of use.” Id. The Washington Legislature has tasked the Department of Ecology with 

processing applications to change or transfer water rights. Id. The change application

process is not automatic. Before approving an application to change a characteristic of a 

water right, including its place of use, Ecology must assess whether the change can be 

made without injury or detriment to existing rights. Id. This involves assessing whether 

the water right has been “beneficially used to its full extent.” Okanogan Wilderness 

League, Inc. v. Town of Twisp, 133 Wn.2d 769, 779, 947 P.2d 732 (1997). If Ecology

approves a change application, it must issue a certificate, record the certificate internally,

and make a duplicate copy available for the county auditor. RCW 90.03.380(1).

An assessment of the term “beneficial use” is critical to understanding the contours 

of a water right. “‘[B]eneficial use’ encompasses two principles. . . . First, ‘beneficial 

use’ refers to the types of activities for which water may be used (e.g., irrigation or 

For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 38803-4-III

Benton County Water Conservancy Bd. v. Dep’t of Ecology

3

agriculture) . . . . Second, ‘beneficial use’ determines the measure of a person’s water 

right (i.e., a person is entitled to the amount of water he or she has traditionally put to 

beneficial use).” Cornelius v. Dep’t of Ecology, 182 Wn.2d 574, 605, 344 P.3d 199 

(2015). 

If a water right holder ceases putting water to beneficial use, the right may

be subject to relinquishment. See RCW 90.14.130-.180; Dep’t of Ecology v. Aquavella, 

131 Wn.2d 746, 757-58, 935 P.2d 595 (1997). When a water right is relinquished, it 

reverts to the State of Washington. RCW 90.14.130.

A water right holder can avoid relinquishment by temporarily transferring its 

water right to the State through its trust water rights program, which is managed by 

the Department of Ecology. RCW 90.14.140(2)(h). “Trust water rights acquired by the 

[S]tate shall be held in trust and authorized for use by the [D]epartment [of Ecology] for 

instream flows, irrigation, municipal, or other beneficial uses consistent with applicable 

regional plans for pilot planning areas, or to resolve critical water supply problems.” 

RCW 90.42.040(1). A water right temporarily donated to the trust water rights program

eventually reverts back to the certificate holder, retaining its original use characteristics. 

RCW 90.42.080(9).

Over the years, the State has adopted procedures for facilitating uncontested water 

For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 38803-4-III

Benton County Water Conservancy Bd. v. Dep’t of Ecology

4

right transfers. Water conservancy boards were created to administer uncontested 

transfers, changes, amendments, or other alterations of water rights within a board’s

geographic jurisdiction. See RCW 90.80.005, .020, .030, .070. All board decisions are 

subject to approval by the Department of Ecology. RCW 90.80.080; WAC 173-153-150. 

Ecology generally has 45 days to affirm, reverse, or modify an action by a conservancy 

board. RCW 90.80.080(4); WAC 173-153-150(5)(c). Ecology’s decision is subject to 

appeal to the Pollution Control Hearings Board. RCW 90.80.090; WAC 173-153-180.

The Department of Ecology has also adopted an internal policy entitled the

“Administrative Policy for Recording the Agreed Division of Water Rights Among 

Multiple Property Owners.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 152-54 (some capitalization omitted). 

Originally adopted in 2003, this policy is also commonly known as “POL-1070.” Id. 

POL-1070 enables Ecology to track and record an agreed division of water rights when 

multiple parties own a piece of land to which a single water right is appurtenant. Id. at 

152. Pursuant to POL-1070, Ecology has promulgated “Form ECY 070-88,” entitled 

“Request for Administrative Confirmation of Division of a Water Right.” Id. at 10-12;

see also id. at 153-54. POL-1070 enables property owners requesting a division of water 

rights to receive superseding water-rights documents.

POL-1070 was not adopted pursuant to a statutory mandate. Instead, POL-1070 

For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 38803-4-III

Benton County Water Conservancy Bd. v. Dep’t of Ecology

5

appears to have been adopted as a way of streamlining the apportionment of water rights 

pursuant to a division in ownership that reflects “the historic beneficial use of water on 

the property” to which the right attaches. Id. at 153. POL-1070 states in multiple instances 

that it does not prevent “a water right holder from seeking a change via RCW 90.03.380 

. . . or other applicable statutes.” Id. at 152-53.

THE BOARD’S POSITION REGARDING 

ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISIONS AND POL-1070

The Benton County Water Conservancy Board believes Ecology has been 

misusing POL-1070 in an effort to interfere with the alienation of water rights. According 

to the Board, Ecology refuses to confirm agreed divisions of water rights if the water 

rights are temporarily placed in trust. The Board claims this is problematic because a 

division confirmation “operates as a sort of quit claim deed to update the ownership 

records in Ecology’s Water Rights Tracking System.” Id. at 5.2 The Board claims that 

when Ecology refuses to authorize a division request, it interferes with the Board’s 

ability to perform its legislatively authorized function of processing water right transfer

applications. The Board also complains that by refusing to process divisional requests

 2 The authority cited in support of this claim is RCW 90.14.010 and

RCW 90.54.030, which require Ecology to maintain records for the efficient 

administration of our state’s waters.

For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 38803-4-III

Benton County Water Conservancy Bd. v. Dep’t of Ecology

6

for rights that are temporarily held in trust, Ecology is not maintaining an accurate record 

of water rights ownership, in violation of statutory mandates. See RCW 90.14.010;

RCW 90.54.030.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In 2015, Plymouth Ranch, LLC, temporarily donated a portion of its water right, 

G4-26018C, to Ecology’s trust water program. At some point after the donation, 

Plymouth Ranch sold a portion of its property, but retained the water rights associated 

with that property, some of which were those donated to the trust water program. In 

June 2020, Plymouth Ranch extended its water right donation of portions of G4-26018C 

through the year 2030, and donated additional water rights to the trust program, including 

portions of water rights G4-26464C and G4-31006C. 

Soon after Plymouth Ranch extended its donation, it sold the trusted portions of 

water rights G4-26018C and G4-26464C to Frank Tiegs, LLC. Tiegs did not own the land 

to which those water right certificates were appurtenant. In June 2021, Plymouth and 

Tiegs filed a request for administrative confirmation of a division of a water right, using 

Form ECY 070-88.

3 CP at 45-46.

 3 The administrative division documents were submitted by the Benton County 

Water Conservancy Board on behalf of Plymouth Ranch and Frank Tiegs, LLC.

For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 38803-4-III

Benton County Water Conservancy Bd. v. Dep’t of Ecology

7

Ecology denied the request for administrative confirmation of division, referencing 

POL-1070. In an August 2021 letter directed to Plymouth and Tiegs, Ecology identified 

several deficiencies in the requested administrative divisions which it stated “must be 

addressed prior to Ecology agreeing to divide” the certificates. Id. at 31. One of the 

problems identified by Ecology was the fact that Tiegs did not own the property within 

the authorized place of use. Ecology’s denial of the administrative division informed 

Plymouth and Tiegs of their right to appeal Ecology’s decision to the Pollution Control 

Hearings Board within 30 days of receipt of the denial. No appeal was filed.

In September 2021, the Board petitioned the Benton County Superior Court under 

the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), chapter 34.05 RCW, for judicial review of 

Ecology’s decision. The Board stated it had the power to “‘sue or be sued’” and was 

bringing the action because Ecology’s refusal to administratively divide water rights 

interfered with the Board’s statutory duty to process water right transfer applications. CP 

at 2 (quoting RCW 90.80.060)). The Board claimed it was entitled to judicial review of 

Ecology’s actions under the APA because Ecology’s denial of voluntary division requests 

was “‘outside the statutory authority of the agency or the authority conferred by provision 

of law’” or “‘arbitrary or capricious.’” Id. at 8 (quoting RCW 34.05.570(4)(c)(ii)-(iii)). 

Alternatively, the Board claimed Ecology’s ongoing refusal to administratively divide 

For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 38803-4-III

Benton County Water Conservancy Bd. v. Dep’t of Ecology

8

water rights placed in trust represented an agency rule that was not promulgated pursuant 

to required rulemaking procedures, as outlined in RCW 34.05.570(2).

ANALYSIS

This case comes to us as a challenge to agency action under the APA. A

preliminary issue under the APA is standing. The Board, as the petitioner for judicial 

review, bears the burden of establishing standing. KS Tacoma Holdings, LLC v.

Shorelines Hr’gs Bd., 166 Wn. App. 117, 127, 272 P.3d 876 (2012). We review de novo 

the question of whether this burden has been met, without deference to the superior court. 

In re Est.of Becker, 177 Wn.2d 242, 246, 298 P.3d 720 (2013); Patterson v. Segale, 171

Wn. App. 251, 257, 289 P.3d 657 (2012).

Under the APA, a party has standing to obtain judicial review of an agency action 

if that person is aggrieved or adversely affected by the agency action. RCW 34.05.530. 

A party is aggrieved or adversely affected when three conditions are present:

(1) The agency action has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice that 

person;

(2) That person’s asserted interests are among those that the agency was 

required to consider when it engaged in the agency action challenged; and

(3) A judgment in favor of that person would substantially eliminate or 

redress the prejudice to that person caused or likely to be caused by the 

agency action.

For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 38803-4-III

Benton County Water Conservancy Bd. v. Dep’t of Ecology

9

Id.

 The first and third of the aforementioned prongs “are generally called ‘injury-in-fact’ 

requirements, while the second is called the ‘zone of interest’ prong.” Allan v. Univ. of 

Wash., 92 Wn. App. 31, 36, 959 P.2d 1184 (1998) (quoting St. Joseph Hosp. & Health 

Care Ctr. v. Dep’t of Health, 125 Wn.2d 733, 739, 887 P.2d 891 (1995)), aff’d, 140 

Wn.2d 323, 997 P.2d 360 (2000). A petitioner must satisfy all three prongs in order to 

establish standing. Id.

We focus our analysis on the APA’s injury-in-fact prongs. The Board argues it has 

suffered an injury-in-fact as a result of Ecology’s handling of POL-1070. According to 

the Board, Ecology’s refusal to accept all agreed divisions of water rights under POL1070 interferes with the Board’s ability to accurately track ownership of water rights and 

process change applications. We disagree.

4

The Board’s criticisms of Ecology stem from a mischaracterization of POL-1070. 

According to the Board, the administrative division of water rights under POL-1070 and 

Form ECY 070-88 operates as a type of quit claim deed, which Ecology is duty-bound 

to record. But the only authority offered by the Board for the analogy to a quit claim deed 

 4 The Board also claims it has standing because it has the power to “sue and be 

sued.” RCW 90.80.060(1). The right to sue is fairly ubiquitous and is insufficient to 

confer standing under the APA.

For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 38803-4-III

Benton County Water Conservancy Bd. v. Dep’t of Ecology

10

is its own statements. See CP at 5, 123, 171. No statute, regulation, or policy states

that POL-1070 operates as a ministerial, quit claim deed process. 

By its plain terms, POL-1070 was adopted to streamline the apportionment 

of water rights stemming from certain types of simple property divisions.

5 The benefit 

of POL-1070 is to avoid the more cumbersome change application process under 

RCW 90.03.380. POL-1070 was not created pursuant to a legislative mandate. Thus, 

Ecology is not duty-bound to process division requests that do not meet Ecology’s 

chosen criteria. The fact that a request to divide water rights fails to meet the criteria set 

by Ecology in POL-1070 does not mean that the parties to the request have not validly 

transferred ownership in a water right. It simply means the parties must use a separate 

process, such as a change application under RCW 90.03.380, to determine how the water 

right will be apportioned.

The Board seems to suggest that if Ecology is not using POL-1070 as a method

of recording water right transfers, it is failing its statutory duty to maintain water right

records under RCW 90.54.030. We disagree. While the legislature has tasked Ecology 

with maintaining water right records, it has not directed Ecology to do so in a specific

 5 As previously explained, POL-1070 applies only to the unique situation where a 

piece of land with one appurtenant water right is divided up between multiple owners.

For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
No. 38803-4-III

Benton County Water Conservancy Bd. v. Dep’t of Ecology

11

manner. Ecology admits it uses POL-1070 as a tool for documenting certain divisional 

water right transfers. But this does not mean it is the only tool for documenting changes in 

water rights. The Board’s claim that Ecology’s limited use of POL-1070 means Ecology 

is failing in its record-keeping duties amounts to nothing more than conjecture. This is 

insufficient to establish an injury-in-fact as required for APA standing. Freedom Found.

ex rel. State v. Bethel Sch. Dist., 14 Wn. App. 2d 75, 86, 469 P.3d 364 (2020).

The Board has not demonstrated any injury-in-fact resulting from Ecology’s 

application of POL-1070. It has therefore failed to establish standing pursuant to the 

APA. RCW 34.05.530(1), (3). The trial court’s decision granting relief under the APA 

must therefore be reversed.

CONCLUSION

The trial court’s order of summary judgment in favor of the Benton County Water 

Conservancy Board is reversed. The petition for judicial review is dismissed for lack of 

standing.

_________________________________

Pennell, J.

WE CONCUR:

______________________________ _________________________________

Fearing, J. Staab, J.

For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.