Opinion ID: 1275766
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Perfection

Text: The third step in the statutory process is perfection. Perfection occurs when the appropriation envisioned in the permit is complete. Here, perfection occurs when the construction is complete. RCW 90.44.080, which governs perfection of groundwater permits, provides: Upon a showing to the department that construction has been completed in compliance with the terms of any permit issued under the provisions of this chapter, it shall be the duty of the department to issue the permittee a certificate of ground water right stating that the appropriation has been perfected under such permit. Thus, pursuant to the statutory text, perfection occurs when construction, as specified in the permit, is complete and not, as the majority declares, through actual use. Here the permit facially specified that Theodoratus shall appropriate by constructing a water delivery system. Accordingly, perfection occurred upon completion of Theodoratus' water delivery system. This is how the PCHB construed the statute. See CP at 82 (PCHB Final Findings, Finding No. XII) (The `pumps and pipes' interpretation would presently vest Mr. Theodoratus with water for 93 homes on the lots which the water supply system is ready to serve.). And this is how Ecology interpreted the statute because the permit it issued stated a final certificate of water right would issue when the permanent diversion facilities have been installed together with a mainline system capable of delivering the recommended quantity of water to an existing or proposed distribution system within the area to be served. Exhibit R-3. Ecology reiterated this same position on at least three subsequent occasions: 1. If, as the completion of construction form you submitted May 27, 1980, indicates the system is now serving at least one house, the system can be considered complete. Letter, Ecology to Mr. Theodoratus, dated June 4, 1980 (Exhibit R-9). 2. It would appear the best thing to do would be to issue your certificate for whatever quantity your pump now supplies (gpm) and the acre ft. will be based on the number of lots that your main lines supply. Letter, Ecology to Mr. Theodoratus, dated April 19, 1982 (Exhibit R-13) 3. The well, pump, mainlines to all lots, and with at least one hookup, must be installed, to go to final certificate. Letter, Ecology to Mr. Theodoratus, dated December 22, 1982 (Exhibit R-15). CP at 80-81 (PCHB Final Findings, Finding No. IX). But the majority defeats the simple statutory language by somehow concluding perfection occurs not upon completion of construction but rather upon actual prior use. This is impossible since there can be no use prior to construction of the delivery system. Plugging the majority's spin into the perfection statute, the landowner could necessarily vest nothing because at the moment when construction has been completed, there is no actual use at all. At the moment construction is complete the house has not been built, nor sold, nor has the family which some day may buy the house used the faucet, flushed the toilet, or watered the lawn. Accordingly, no new development could be vested with any right to water. Adding further confusion the majority approves Ecology's revised position that Theodoratus will have a water right vested in the 28 homes which have been constructed rather than the 93 lots for which the water system has been constructed. But allowing a water right to vest for completed construction (not actual use) violates the majority's own rule that only prior actual use will define a water right. Empty houses use no more water than empty lots. Further, assuming the majority were to attempt to reconcile its own inconsistencies by asserting that construction of 28 homes is a beneficial use, how then does it justify its conclusion that construction of a water delivery system for 93 lots is not? The majority's definitions and approach are internally inconsistent, giving way to scrutiny, while yielding an absurd result. Allowing a water right to vest upon completion of the water delivery system, as our statute does, allows a developer to build the often costly and complex system with assurance such will guarantee him a water right. Without such a guarantee no developer in his right mind would invest. [2] Moreover, under the majority's reading it is not clear when, if ever, even the homeowner will be entitled to a certificate. The majority asserts actual use is the talisman yet the statute says a certificate shall issue upon completion of construction. Actual use upon completion of construction is zero, thus entitling the owner to nothing. No rational person would buy a home with no prior guarantee of water. The PCHB recognized the same. See CP at 82-83 (PCHB Final Findings, Finding No. XII) (The pumps and pipes approach allows a developer to assure prospective purchasers that a lot is sold with water. This underpins the saleability [ sic ] of the lot. That done, the developer can obtain financing to build the water supply system. The building of homes is then likely to follow.). [3] As a leading case noted when allowing the water right to be measured according to the capacity of the system, `[c]ourts are not to shut their eyes to the realities of business life.' City & County of Denver v. Sheriff, 105 Colo. 193, 96 P.2d 836, 841 (1939) (quoting Barkin Constr. Co. v. Goodman, 221 N.Y. 156, 116 N.E. 770, 771 (1917)). But the majority does exactly that. The majority's rule will defeat planned development. Such approach not only contravenes the language of the statute but defeats the statute's stated purpose to support[] economically feasible ... development of physical facilities. RCW 90.03.005. The fear underlying the majority's odd rule may be that allowing developers to vest a water right in the capacity of their water delivery system may forever tie up needed water. However, such concern ignores our relinquishment statute which allows relinquishment for non-use. RCW 90.14. In sum, the majority ignores our statute in favor of a line of inapplicable water adjudication cases. However, if the majority looked to our statute, as it should, it must agree pumps and pipes is not only a valid approach to establishing a water right in groundwater, but probably the only approach which truly makes sense in the context of residential or municipal development.