## Facts

- Cyril and Sharon Gillette owned farm property bordering Cedar Creek, a salmon-spawning stream in Clark County, Washington.
- Seasonal flooding eroded the creek bank and left a utility pole unsupported near the creek’s edge.
- After the local public utility declined to reset the pole, the Gillettes had an employee rebuild the bank in September 1976 using heavy equipment.
- The work involved driving through the stream and pushing material from the creek bed and adjacent field into the bank, creating a dike up to about 20 feet above the creek.
- Washington law (RCW 75.20.100) required written hydraulic project approval for work that would interfere with a stream bed; the Gillettes did not obtain approval and were unaware of the requirement.
- Soon after the project, downstream observers reported muddy water and dead fish.
- The Department of Fisheries investigated and concluded the project removed spawning gravel, increased silt, and corresponded with fewer observed spawning nests than expected.
- The Department sued the Gillettes in negligence for damages to the State’s salmon fishery resource.
- The trial court directed a verdict for the Department on liability and submitted proximate cause and damages to the jury, which awarded $3,150.

## Issues

1. Whether the Department of Fisheries had capacity and standing to bring a civil action for damage to the State’s fishery resource, and whether the Department of Game was a necessary party.
2. Whether the Department’s proof of fishery damage and its expert’s valuation method were too indirect or speculative to support the jury’s award.
3. Whether the trial court erred in evidentiary rulings concerning expert reliance on other studies, admission of a demonstrative chart, and exclusion of certain defense photographs.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the Department.
- The Department of Fisheries had capacity and standing to sue as trustee for the State’s fishery resources; joinder of the Department of Game was not required.
- The evidence and expert testimony provided a reasonable, non-speculative basis for the jury’s damage award despite reliance on circumstantial ecological indicators.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in the challenged evidentiary rulings and did not err in its damages instructions.

## Legal Principles

- A state agency charged by statute with protecting fishery resources may bring a civil action to recover damages for injury to those public resources caused by unauthorized hydraulic projects.
- Where the fact of damage is established, uncertainty as to the exact amount does not bar recovery; damages are sufficient if the evidence provides a reasonable basis for calculation.
- In environmental and fishery-injury cases, circumstantial ecological evidence and expert opinion may support causation and damages without requiring precise pre- and post-event population counts.
- Experts may rely on data and studies prepared by others when such reliance is consistent with accepted practice and the methodology is reliable; demonstrative aids may be admitted to help the jury understand technical testimony.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a damages award against landowners who rebuilt a salmon-stream bank without required approval, ruling that the Department of Fisheries could sue without joining the Department of Game and that expert, circumstantial proof of fishery loss supported the verdict.


State Dep’t of Fisheries v. Gillette, 621 P.2d 764 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980)