## Facts

- The Hallauers owned lakeshore property on Lake Osoyoos and held a state-issued certificate authorizing diversion of water from a spring located on neighboring land.
- After a bluff collapse exposed the spring on the neighbor’s parcel, the Hallauers and the then-owner agreed the Hallauers would apply for a water right from the spring and pay the neighbor after approval.
- The Department of Ecology issued the Hallauers a certificated water right for diversion from that spring.
- The Hallauers installed a pipeline across the neighboring land to convey spring water to their property for domestic use and to supply ponds used for fish propagation associated with a small private community development.
- After the neighboring parcel changed ownership, the new owners discovered the pipeline, demanded its removal, and negotiations failed.
- The Hallauers filed an action to privately condemn an easement (a statutory “way of necessity”) across the neighbor’s land to continue conveying the certificated spring water.

## Issues

1. Whether Washington’s way-of-necessity/private condemnation statute permits condemnation of an easement to convey water where the condemnor holds a certificated water right at a point of diversion located on neighboring land.
2. Whether “reasonable necessity” is categorically defeated because the condemnor’s parcel is not landlocked for roadway access or because alternative water sources may exist.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and allowed the condemnation action to proceed.
- The court held that a statutory “way of necessity” is not confined to road access and may include an easement for pipelines or other conduits to convey water.
- The court held that “reasonable necessity,” not absolute necessity, governs; the existence of potential alternatives is relevant but not dispositive.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings, including determination of just compensation for any easement taken.

## Legal Principles

- Washington’s way-of-necessity statute authorizes private condemnation for uses beyond roadway access, including water conveyance necessary to make beneficial use of land and related rights.
- “Reasonable necessity” requires a genuine, substantial need assessed in light of practicality and cost; it does not require the absence of all conceivable alternatives.
- A certificated water right issued by the state is a significant factor in the necessity analysis because the right may be rendered ineffective if the holder cannot lawfully convey water from the authorized point of diversion.
- Even when condemnation is permitted, the burdened landowner is entitled to just compensation, and necessity must be proven under the statutory standard.

## Conclusion

The court held that a landowner with a certificated right to divert water from a spring on neighboring property may pursue private condemnation of an easement to convey that water when reasonably necessary, rejecting a rule limiting such condemnation to physically landlocked parcels or barring it merely because other water sources might be available.


Hallauer v. Spectrum Props., Inc., 143 Wash. 2d 126, 18 P.3d 540 (Wash. 2001)