Opinion ID: 2774435
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: DNR Challenges the Issue of Compatibility

Text: DNR challenged the factual findings underpinning the trial court's conclusion that the uses are compatible. First, DNR argued to this court that the trial court did not take testimony pertaining to the impacts of the proposed condemnation on the state's existing or future use of the land or otherwise cite to evidence submitted by the parties. Rather, the trial court based its ruling largely on its own observation that cattle graze under power lines in many parts of Okanogan county ....  Pet. for Review at 6 (quoting TP at 18). Second, DNR challenged the trial court's compatibility finding on the grounds that [t]he trial court did not take testimony to determine whether the PUD's proposal to erect towers, build roads and run transmission lines was actually compatible with DNR' s existing and prospective use of these lands, and it lacked a sufficient basis to enter the factual finding underpinning its holding in this regard. Appellants State of Wash. & Peter Goldmark's Opening Br. at 34, cited in Appellants State of Wash. & Peter Goldmark's Suppl. Br. at 15. In addition, in a section entitled In The Alternative, Genuine Issues Of Material Fact Regarding The Compatibility Of The PUD's Proposed Use With The State's Current Public Use Preclude Summary Judgment, DNR argues that [t]he trial court should have considered evidence, e.g., 3 Pub. Uti!. Dist. No. 1 of Okanogan County v. State, et al., No. 88949-0 (Gonzalez, J., concurring/dissenting) whether placing a transmission line and roads through the middle of state trust lands along with associated impacts impairs the long term revenue generating capacity of that land. Id. at 39, cited in Appellants State of Wash. & Peter Goldmark's Suppl. Br. at 15. DNR' s challenge deserves more critical attention than the majority gives it. C. CNW's Environmental Concerns Have Been Ignored More importantly, the majority's analysis gives short shrift to CNW's concerns. CNW argued before the trial court: The proposed transmission line would bisect the largest contiguous piece of publically owned shrub-steppe habitat in the Methow Valley and will have multiple adverse environmental impacts on the Methow Valley, including introduction of noxious weeds, fragmentation of wildlife habitat, increased fire risk, and exacerbating erosion, and sedimentation. CP at 585. CNW continued to point to critical environmental issues related to the PUD's proposed use of the lands before this court. Appellant/Cross-Resp't Conserv. Nw.'s Suppl. Br. at 1. These issues merit more careful consideration than they have received. I am not without sympathy to PUD' s argument that DNR did not adequately raise issues of fact before the trial court regarding how DNR's current use of the lands is incompatible with PUD's proposed use. See, e.g., Suppl. Br. ofResp't PUD at 2, 11. 2 The parties agreed that there were no issues of material fact before the trial 2 Rather than arguing factual issues regarding compatibility, DNR focused its argument on what legal test should apply; essentially, DNR considered that the compatibility standard applied by the trial court and the Court of Appeals, and which is affirmed by the majority, is a new test, whereas PUD argued that the compatibility test dates back more than 100 years and provided 4 Pub. Uti!. Dist. No. I of Okanogan County v. State, et al., No. 88949-0 (Gonzalez, J., concurring/dissenting) court. 3 TP at 5. However, DNR and CNW did not know how the trial court would resolve the compatibility issue, let alone that the trial court would rely on its own observations in making the decision, and the trial court failed to apply the facts regarding CNW's enviromnental concerns to its compatibility analysis. CNW and DNR deserve an opportunity to show more clearly how PUD's proposed use is not compatible with DNR's use in light ofCNW's concerns. D. Remand Is Proper The standard of review of an order of summary judgment is de novo, and the appellate court performs the same inquiry as the trial court. Jones v. Allstate Ins. Co., 146 Wn.2d 291, 300, 45 P.3d 1068 (2002) (citing Lybbert v. Grant County, 141 Wn.2d 29, 34, 1 PJd 1124 (2000)). The court considers facts and inferences in a light most favorable to the nonmoving parties, here DNR and CNW. Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 123 Wn.2d 891, 897, 874 P.2d 142 (1994) (citing Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wn.2d 434, 437, 656 P.2d 1030 (1982)). The court may grant summary judgment if the pleadings, affidavits, and depositions establish that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter oflaw. Lybbert, 141 Wn.2d at 34 (citing Ruffv. King County, 125 Wn.2d 697, 703, 887 P.2d 886 (1995)). factual evidence of compatibility. See Pet. for Review at 14; PUD's Answer to Pet. for Review at 10. 3 CNW, in its motion for summary judgment and dismissal pursuant to CR 56, stated that [t]here are no genuine issues of material fact. CP at 487. 5 Pub. Uti!. Dist. No. I of Okanogan County v. State, eta!., No. 88949-0 (Gonzalez, J., concurring/dissenting) Based on a de novo review, I would remand to the trial court for robust factual finding on the compatibility issue, including consideration of CNW' s environmental concerns. I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part. 6 Pub. Uti!. Dist. No. 1 of Okanogan County v. State, et al., No. 88949-0 (Gonzalez, J., dissenting) 7