Opinion ID: 1275766
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Growing Communities Doctrine

Text: The majority further overlooks a second doctrine which also speaks to the facts of this case. Under the growing communities doctrine a community may perfect a water right in the amount of water it reasonably anticipates it will need to ensure water for future growth. Often the best indicator of the community's future intended water need is the capacity of the water distribution system it has constructed. As the PCHB concluded this doctrine fully applies to the case before us. The leading case applying the growing communities doctrine is City & County of Denver, 105 Colo. 193, 96 P.2d 836. There Denver built an expensive water pipeline system allowing it to bring water to the city from the opposite side of the continental divide. The system's capacity was considerably greater than Denver's then-current water needs. The unused excess was intended for future growth. The issue was whether Denver could perfect its water right by reference to its water system's capacity or whether it was limited to prior actual use. The Colorado high court held that where a complex water system has been built to accommodate future needs of a community, the water right may be based on the flow capacity of the system's pumps and pipes rather than on the present or past actual water use. Id. at 841. The theory of growing communities doctrine reflects a concept of constructive beneficial use because it includes an amount of probable future municipal use, as well as actual use. Janis E. Carpenter, Symposium on Northwest Water Law: Water for Growing Communities: Refining Tradition in the Pacific Northwest, 27 Envtl. L. 127, 136 (1997) [hereinafter J.E. Carpenter, Symposium on Northwest Water Law ]. See also Brian Faller, Special Treatment of Municipal Water Suppliers Under Washington Water Law [hereinafter B. Faller, Special Treatment of Municipal Water Suppliers Under Washington Water Law ] in Third Annual Sinking Creek Water Law Symposium 1-9 (Wash. Law Sch. Found., 1996) (DOE adopted what I refer in the section to follow as the concept of constructive beneficial use, to allow municipalities to certificate water that had not actually been put to beneficial use.). [5] The growing communities doctrine is recognized throughout the western states. See State ex rel. Reynolds v. Rio Rancho Estates, Inc., 95 N.M. 560, 624 P.2d 502, 506 (1981) (When determining the extent of a municipal water right, it is appropriate for the court to look to a city's planned future use of water from the well caused by an increasing population.); Reynolds v. City of Roswell, 99 N.M. 84, 654 P.2d 537, 540 (1982) (When determining the extent of a municipal water right, and the validity of any conditions attached thereto by the State Engineer, it is appropriate for the Court to look to a city's planned future use of water.); City & County of Denver v. Northern Colo. Water Conservancy Dist., 130 Colo. 375, 276 P.2d 992, 997 (1954) (when appropriations are sought by a growing city, regard should be given to its reasonably anticipated requirements.) (citing Van Tassel Real Estate & Live Stock Co. v. City of Cheyenne, 49 Wyo. 333, 54 P.2d 906 (1936)); City & County of Denver, 105 Colo. 193, 96 P.2d 836; 1 Wells A. Hutchins, Water Rights Laws in the Nineteen Western States 246-49 (1971) (discussing the growing communities doctrine); J.E. Carpenter, Symposium on Northwest Water Law, supra (same). This doctrine is reflected in Washington's current statutory scheme. See, e.g., RCW 90.03.260 (permit applications for municipal water supply, [] shall give the present population to be served, and near as may be, the future requirement of the municipality.); RCW 90.14.140(2)(d) (currently unused water right held by communities not subject to relinquishment). The growing communities doctrine serves important functions. It allows communities to secure a source of water to meet growing needs. It also allows a community to construct a properly scaled water system at the start rather than constantly expanding the system on a piece-meal basis to meet growing population. The realities of business life and common sense come into play as well. The pumps and pipes method serves important purposes: it allows municipalities to rationally plan and provide for future requirements. B. Faller, Special Treatment of Municipal Water Suppliers under Washington Water Law at 1-14. As commentators explain, As a practical reality, it is impossible for a municipality simply to tack on infrastructure and water rights year by year as its needs grow. Instead, municipalities typically plan one or two decades ahead, or more. The infrastructure required to serve a city cannot gradually be sized up. Pipes, treatment facilities and other components must be sized at the time of design to meet growing needs over time. Likewise, in order to carry out its responsibility to its citizens, the city must acquire water rights of sufficient size to meet those growing demands. Waiting until the last minute to acquire water rights for a growing community would be the height of irresponsibility. J.E. Carpenter, Symposium on Northwest Water Law at 137 (citing a 1995 brief filed in the Snake River Basin Adjudication (SRBA) on behalf of Boise's water supplier (Br. on Municipal Water Right Issues at 6-7), In re SRBA, 128 Idaho 155, 911 P.2d 748 (1995) (No. 39,576)). See also Frank J. Trelease, Preferences to the Use of Water, 27 Rocky Mtn. L.Rev. 133, 139 (1954) (A city without some excess water or promise of water cannot grow, and typically municipal supplies are procured in large amounts that exceed present needs and permit expansion.). The growing communities doctrine speaks to this case. While the Theodoratus development is not a municipality, the principle is the same and the doctrine is equally applicable to private developments. See, e.g., State ex rel. Reynolds v. Rio Rancho Estates, Inc., 95 N.M. 560, 624 P.2d 502, 506 (1981) (applying growing communities doctrine to private development). Further, this water system is in fact a public water system, RCW 70.116.030(3). The Theodoratus development is a community of its own, particularly from the perspective of water supply as it has its own self-contained public water system. Theodoratus anticipates his developing community has a growing need for water as each new family home is constructed. Accordingly, he constructed a large infrastructure project bringing water to 93 lots. He did so under Ecology's direction and pursuant to Ecology's promise that doing so would vest a water right. We must enforce this promise not only for his benefit, but for the good of society. Under the plain language of our statute Theodoratus' construction of this costly water distribution system provides a sufficient basis for a water right certificate. The water certificate should issue. JOHNSON, J., concurs.