Opinion ID: 2779091
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Washington Constitution

Text: The City argues that were it required to maintain the interceptor pipe, the resulting expenditure would constitute the gifting of public money to private parties in violation of article VIII, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. We will not reach the merits of this argument because the City failed to raise it prior to filing its petition for review. The City did not mention article VIII, section 7 in its cross motion for summary judgment before the superior court. Indeed, aside from a single passing remark in its opening Court of Appeals brief, the City never once raised this issue before either the superior court or the Court of Appeals. This court generally does not consider issues, 12 The Washington State Association of Municipal Attorneys (WSAMA) filed an amicus brief warning of a parade of horribles that would follow if we affirm the Court of Appeals decision. According to WSAMA, if the City becomes responsible for a groundwater facility over which neither it nor Snohomish County had direct knowledge and did not expressly accept-just because it exists-that same thing could happen to any county, city or town. Amicus Br. of WSAMA in Supp. of City of Bothell at 1-2. These concerns are misplaced. The City is not responsible for maintaining the interceptor pipe just because it exists; they are responsible for maintaining it because that is the only reasonable interpretation of the disputed plat. The plat clearly shows a drainage easement within Tract 999, and the record contains no indication that Tract 999 contains any drainage facility of any type aside from the interceptor pipe and the A.W. D. sanitary sewer pipe. If we were to exclude the interceptor pipe from the scope of the easement, we would effectively be reading the drainage easement out of the plat. Moreover, the City-as successor in interest to the County-did have knowledge of the interceptor pipe through the record before the hearing examiner. Finally, our holding is narrower than WSAMA fears. We do not hold that plats cannot distinguish between stormwater and groundwater facilities; we simply hold that this particular plat did not make that distinction and that reading such a distinction into this plat would be inappropriate under the particular circumstances of this case. 15 Crystal Ridge Homeowners Ass'n eta/. v. City of Bothell, No. 89533-3 even constitutional ones, raised first in a petition for review, State v. Benn, 161 Wn.2d 256, 262 n.1, 165 P.3d 1232 (2007), and we decline to do so now. Before it sought review with this court, the City's only reference to article VIII, section 7 appeared in the section of its Court of Appeals brief discussing whether a common-law dedication of the pipe occurred. The City argued that because it never accepted a common-law dedication of the pipe, the City never assumed responsibility for the pipe's maintenance. The City referenced article VIII, section 7 not as part of an independent argument, but only as support for its assertion that because the interceptor pipe benefited private parties, the City could never have accepted a dedication of the pipe under common law. 13 In this context, the City's offhand remark cannot reasonably be construed as raising the issue before the Court of Appealsand indeed, the Court of Appeals did not address article VIII, section 7 in its opinion. '[N]aked castings into the constitutional sea are not sufficient to command judicial consideration and discussion.' In re Rosier, 105 Wn.2d 606, 616, 717 P.2d 1353 (1986) (quoting United States v. Phillips, 433 F.2d 1364, 1366 (8th Cir. 1970)). Because the City failed to raise this issue below, we decline to address it now. 14 13 As noted above, the City's common-law-dedication argument was itself a non sequitur; respondents never raised common-law dedication because the drainage easement satisfied the statutory dedication requirements. 14 The court grants in part and denies in part the City's Motion to Strike Portions of Respondents' Supplemental Brief and New Document Attached as an Exhibit to Respondents' Supplemental Brief. The motion is granted with respect to striking Exhibit A and references to it in respondents' supplemental brief, as respondents provided no justification for failing to submit this document to the trial court so that it would be part of the record on appeal. The motion is denied in all other respects. The City challenges several statements that it characterizes as factual assertions that are not supported by any citation to the record. But viewed in context, each of the challenged statements is either a proper inference or argument based on factual assertions that respondents did, in fact, support with citations to the record. 16 Crystal Ridge Homeowners Ass'n et at. v. City of Bothell, No. 89533-3