"Group sues over WSU water rights decision"

I was struck with the similarity between this quote from urban planner Richard Carson's essay, "Wicked Thoughts at a Public Hearing:"

The outraged and uninformed neighbor spends money to hire a lawyer and possibly other experts to prove that a proposed development project is an abomination against nature (their nature) and violates all manner of codes and the comprehensive plan. This outrage results in an appeal of a staff or planning commission decision to the locally elected officials, and ultimately to a land use appellate board or a state court of appeals.

In every state there is a cottage industry made up of professionals who make a living aiding and abetting such unhappy neighbors. I say "cottage industry" because many of these folks pride themselves on their anti-establishment and a counter-culture lifestyle that is strangely at odds with the often gluttonous lifestyles of the property owners they represent. It is a perverse fact of life that instead of buying the now offending property, the neighboring property owner ends up financially supporting people he (or she) otherwise would shun. You know, like lawyers with names like Freedom Child.

And this quote from today's Daily News:

A group of conservationists is continuing its legal fight against a decision that allows Washington State University to consolidate its water rights.

Rachael Paschal Osborn, a Spokane-based attorney with the Center for Environmental Law and Policy, filed a lawsuit Thursday against WSU, the Washington State Department of Ecology and the Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board.

Osborn represents the Palouse Water Conservation Network, the Palouse Group Sierra Club and Pullman-area resident Scotty Cornelius.

I just want to know who is financially supporting the anti-development cottage industry. Prince Cornelius is not doing it on his own.

From today's Moscow-Pullman Daily News:

A group of conservationists is continuing its legal fight against a decision that allows Washington State University to consolidate its water rights.

Rachael Paschal Osborn, a Spokane-based attorney with the Center for Environmental Law and Policy, filed a lawsuit Thursday against WSU, the Washington State Department of Ecology and the Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board.

The lawsuit, filed in Whitman County Superior Court, is a request for review of the Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board's April decision that shot down the group's appeal of an Ecology decision granting WSU's water rights consolidation.

Osborn represents the Palouse Water Conservation Network, the Palouse Group Sierra Club and Pullman-area resident Scotty Cornelius. They claim the WSU consolidation will allow WSU to annually pump more than three times as much water as it currently does.

The Pollution Control Hearings Board based its decision on the state's 2003 Municipal Water Law, which allowed Ecology to issue water rights based on how much a municipal system's pumps and pipes can handle, rather than how much water actually is needed. The Municipal Water Law was challenged by conservationists and a handful of American Indian tribes, and key parts of it were ruled unconstitutional by a King County Superior Court judge in June.

The King County ruling could affect the amount of water WSU is allowed to pump on an annual basis, considering the university is deemed a municipality under the water law.

The consolidation permit allows the university to pump up to 5,300 acre feet, or 1.72 billion gallons, of water each year. However, WSU only pumped 505 million gallons of water in 2007, when irrigation began on the new golf course. That's an increase from the 477 million gallons it pumped in 2006.

Osborn said the King County decision provides additional ammo for her case.

"The board found WSU's water rights were valid based on the Municipal Water Law. Now, King County has held that it's not constitutional. So the very law the board and Ecology relied on is invalid," she said. "We've known all along that these cases would affect each other."

WSU spokesman James Tinney said university officials are hoping for a positive outcome.

"The substance of (the lawsuit) was not a big surprise, but we think our position will be upheld in court," he said. "We agreed with the Department of Ecology's original decision and the Pollution Control Hearings Board's original decision. We hope that will prevail in court this time around, too."

In 2006, Ecology granted WSU's request to consolidate its seven wells. The Pollution Control Hearings Board reviewed the conservationists' initial appeal in January, and ruled April 17 that they did not prove that the consolidation would negatively affect other wells in the area. The board also denied the group's request for reconsideration.

Last month, Osborn filed an appeal of the hearings board's April decision in Whitman County Superior Court.

The group points to the university's new 18-hole Palouse Ridge Golf Club as a project that will create more drawdown of the area's primary water source.

Osborn said the case in Whitman County Superior Court will allow oral argument and testimony in front of a judge only. Ecology and WSU have 20 days from Thursday to file a response to the lawsuit. A conference likely will then take place to set a court date.