## Facts

- Sinking Creek is a nonnavigable stream in Lincoln County, Washington, historically used by ranchers to water cattle through the creek, ponds, and springs.
- For more than 20 years, the ranchers complained that nearby irrigation farmers’ groundwater pumping reduced Sinking Creek’s flow.
- After investigations, the Washington Department of Ecology concluded groundwater withdrawals were hydrologically connected to the creek’s diminished flow and that the ranchers’ surface-water rights were senior to the pumpers’ rights.
- Ecology issued cease-and-desist orders barring further groundwater withdrawals that, in Ecology’s view, interfered with the ranchers’ senior rights.
- The orders were subject to administrative review before the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB), but the dispute centered on whether Ecology or PCHB could decide water-right priorities at all.
- The superior court asserted jurisdiction, ruled Ecology lacked authority to adjudicate competing rights and priorities through enforcement orders, and invalidated the cease-and-desist orders.
- Ecology, PCHB, and the groundwater users sought appellate review.

## Issues

1. Whether Ecology or the PCHB has statutory authority to adjudicate competing water-right priorities and enforce that adjudication through cease-and-desist orders absent a general adjudication in superior court under RCW 90.03.
2. Whether Ecology’s permitting and enforcement powers allow only tentative, conflict-screening determinations, rather than final adjudications of vested water-right priorities.
3. Whether the public trust doctrine independently enlarges Ecology’s regulatory authority over water use.
4. Whether the superior court may exercise inherent judicial power to review the final agency orders when administrative review lies to a body lacking authority to resolve the controlling legal issue.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s exercise of jurisdiction and its invalidation of Ecology’s cease-and-desist orders.
- Neither Ecology nor the PCHB has authority to adjudicate priorities among competing water rights; such disputes are reserved to superior courts through general adjudications under RCW 90.03.
- Ecology’s permit-related authority entails only a tentative assessment of water availability and potential conflicts with existing or claimed rights, not a final ranking of priorities.
- The public trust doctrine did not supply Ecology independent authority to assume the State’s public trust duties.
- Because the available administrative appeal lay to a tribunal lacking authority to decide the dispositive issue, superior court review was available under the court’s inherent power to review administrative actions.

## Legal Principles

- Administrative agencies have only the authority granted by the Legislature; agency rules and practices cannot modify or amend statutes.
- Determining competing water-right priorities requires a general adjudication in superior court in which all claimants are joined to determine rights and priorities.
- Ecology may investigate and screen for conflicts when administering permits, but its determinations are tentative and nonadjudicative and cannot conclusively resolve priority disputes.
- Water rights constitute vested property interests to the extent beneficially used, supporting the requirement that priority adjudications occur through judicial process authorized by statute.
- The public trust doctrine imposes duties on the State concerning public access to navigable waters and shorelands, but it does not independently enlarge an agency’s statutory authority.
- When an agency issues a final order and administrative review lies only to a body without authority to decide the controlling legal question, superior courts may review the order under inherent judicial power without strict exhaustion.

## Conclusion

The court held that only superior courts, through statutory general adjudications, may finally determine competing water-right priorities, and Ecology cannot enforce its own priority determinations by cease-and-desist orders; superior court review was proper because the administrative review forum lacked authority to resolve the central issue.


Rettkowski v. Department of Ecology, 122 Wash. 2d 219, 858 P.2d 232 (1993)