Washington Farm Family Takes Water Rights Fight to State Supreme Court
October 2, 2026
A nearly decade-long dispute between a Washington farm family and the state Department of Ecology has reached the Washington Supreme Court, with the case raising broader questions about water rights, agency rulemaking and the technical assistance state regulators must provide to water users.
Attorney Allison Daniel with the Pacific Legal Foundation said the state’s highest court recently heard arguments challenging how the Department of Ecology handled a seasonal water transfer involving the farm family.
“We brought two claims,” Daniel said. “One arguing that Ecology didn’t follow the statute, which is the technical assistance statute, and that they violated the Administrative Procedure Act and that they didn’t go through rulemaking for a deadline that they established for administrative convenience.”
At the center of the dispute is a February 15 deadline that Ecology used for applications seeking seasonal transfers of water rights. Daniel argues that deadline was established without going through the formal rulemaking process required under Washington law.
“They established a February 15th deadline for applications for seasonal transfer of water rights, and it was for their convenience,” Daniel said. “They said that the water master for the area needed the time to process the applications he received.”
According to Daniel, the deadline became consequential when the water master relied on it to deny the farmer access to the seasonal-transfer process.
“Every time he sought them, the water master would say, ‘It’s too late,’” Daniel said. “And he would fall back on that deadline to foreclose access to the statutory process for seasonal transfer.”
Technical Assistance at Center of Case
A second major issue before the court is whether Ecology fulfilled its statutory responsibility to provide technical assistance before moving to enforcement.
Daniel said Washington lawmakers created a process intended to give water users an opportunity to voluntarily comply with the law before penalties are imposed.
“The legislature made the policy choice to have the Department of Ecology work collaboratively with water users to enable voluntary compliance before they can assess penalties,” Daniel said. “They have to first provide assistance via the writing and see if the water user can come into voluntary compliance before they can move on to penalties.”
Daniel said state law specifically defines technical assistance to include help with permits and requires that assistance to identify potential ways a person can accomplish their purpose.
“Technical assistance must identify one or more means to accomplish the person’s purposes,” she said.
A lower appeals court previously sided with Ecology, according to Daniel, finding the deadline was inconsequential and that the agency had no technical assistance to provide once a lawful option was no longer available. Daniel characterized that decision as “poorly reasoned.”
Family Says Dispute Changed Their Lives
For the farm family involved, the legal arguments are only one part of a dispute they say has carried enormous financial and personal consequences.
The farmers described taking on the state government as overwhelming and said the dispute contributed to the loss of their farming operation.
“Very frustrating. Very overwhelmed to take on a behemoth like Ecology, basically the whole state government,” one family member said. “It just feels daunting to go up against those guys.”
The family said paperwork involving the property had been submitted in January and that repeated attempts were made to contact the water master as the February deadline approached. They maintain they were not informed about the deadline until it was too late.
They also said a water-right arrangement for the same property was approved the following year after what they described as only a slight adjustment.
“The very same property the following year, they approved the water rights with a slight tweaking, the exact same water rights Ron had submitted before,” the family said.
The financial impact, they said, has been devastating.
“We’ve lost really everything,” one family member said. “We had to sell all of our ground because you can’t get out of it. Really, it is death by a thousand cuts.”
The family also said the dispute has resulted in more than $1 million in legal fees and affected the future of what had been a generational farming operation.
Case Could Have Broader Implications
Daniel said the case could extend beyond one farm because it asks the court to clarify the limits of Ecology’s authority and its responsibilities when working with water users.
She said the Washington Water Utilities Council filed a brief supporting the farmers and arguing that Ecology’s interpretation could create problems for water users across the state.
For the family, that broader impact has become one reason to continue fighting.
“It feels good to help other water users, farmers and ranchers to come alongside and represent them because it is harrowing to take on the state,” the farmer said.
Daniel said a Washington Supreme Court decision is anticipated no later than January, although the timing ultimately rests with the court. Pasted text
Until then, the family and other Washington water users watching the case will be waiting to see how the state’s highest court defines Ecology’s responsibilities—and the limits of its authority.
Source: Western Ag Network
