Opinion ID: 2600008
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the CID expand without valid petitions representing one-half or more of the body of lands?

Text: ¶ 35 RCW 87.03.560 specifies that petitioners who want their land added to an irrigation district must be holders of title... representing one-half or more of any body of lands. Plaintiffs argue that CID erroneously accepted invalid petitions, and when these petitions are subtracted, the remaining petitions represented less than one-half of the Belmont land area. First, plaintiffs noted that Dennis Murphy of Hayden Enterprises signed 12 petitions encompassing 3.14 acres on November 6, 2006, after CID's posted deadline of October 27. 2006. Second, plaintiffs allege that of these 12 petitions signed by Murphy, 6 were for properties that had been sold to another person, totaling 1.57 acres. Third, plaintiffs claim that the petitions signed on behalf of Swanson-Parsons, LLC, and AM Properties, LLC, which together represented approximately 58.96 acres, were invalid because CID never received documents verifying the authority of each individual signer to act on behalf of each business entity. Fourth, they argue that seven petitions for properties totaling 1.83 acres, signed by Gregory and Carla Markel, cannot be counted because they were sold before the CID board officially acted on the petitions. If, as plaintiffs argue, the challenged petitions for property totaling 63.93 acres are excluded, then CID has petitions for only 212.37 acres of propertyjust slightly less than one-half of the 429.57 acres necessary. ¶ 36 Plaintiffs' argument fails for two reasons. First, they provide no support for their contention that the last category of petitionsthose signed by the landowner at the time and then later soldshould not be counted. The plain language of RCW 87.03.560 indicates that the assent of the title holder is necessary only at the time the petition is signed, the petition must contain the assent of the petitioners to the inclusion within the district of the parcels or tracts of land described in the petition, and of which the petition alleges they are respectively the owners. (Emphasis added.) As long as the petition signer is the title holder at the time of signing, the petition is valid. The seven petitions for the Markel properties, encompassing 1.83 acres, are therefore valid. [7] ¶ 37 Second, plaintiffs do not explain how CID violated the statute by accepting petitions after CID's October 27, 2006, deadline passed. No provision of chapter 87.03 RCW requires an irrigation district to impose a deadline for accepting petitions, and no provision explains the consequence of accepting a petition after a self-imposed deadline. Because the pertinent RCWs were silent on the matter, CID had discretion to set its own procedures for how to administer the add lands process. As long as the petitions were valid under the statute, the petitions were valid. Of the 12 petitions that Murphy signed on behalf of Hayden Enterprises, 6 for 1.57 acres were invalid because another person was the title holder at the time of the signature. But the remaining six for the other 1.57 acres were valid. Nothing in RCW 87.03.560 barred CID from accepting the petitions on November 6, 2006. ¶ 38 When the valid petitions from the Markels and Hayden Enterprises are counted, the total number of acres covered by valid petitions increases to 215.77. This is more than one-half of the total 429.57 acre block of land. After the petitions crossed this threshold, the validity of other petitions became irrelevant, and so we need not address the petitions offered on behalf of Swanson-Parsons, LLC, and AM Properties, LLC. Because CID received petitions from holders of title ... representing one-half or more of any body of lands, CID complied with RCW 87.03.560.