Preview:

FILED MAY 7,2013
In the Office of the Clerk of Court W A State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO.1 OF  )  
OKANOGAN COUNTY, a municipal  )  
corporation,  )  
)  
Respondent!  )  
Cross Appellant,  )  
)  
v.  )  
)  
STATE OF WASHINGTON, PETER  )  
GOLDMARK, Commissioner ofPublic  )  
Lands,  )  
)  
Respondent!  )  
Cross Appellant,  )  
)  
ood  )  
)  
CONSERVATION NORTHWEST, a  )  
nonprofit corporation,  )  
)  
Appellant,  )  
)  
and  )  
)  
CHRISTINE DAVIS, a single person,  )  
TREVOR KELPMAN, a single person,  )  
DAN GEBBERS and REBA GEBBERS,  )  
husbood ood wife, ood WILLIAM C.  )  

No. 29121-9-111 Consolidated with No. 29123-5-111
PUBLISHED OPINION No. 29121-9-III; No. 29123-5-III
PUDv. State
WEAVER, custodian for Christopher C. ) Weaver, a minor, )
)
Respondents, )
KULIK, J. -More than 15 years ago, the Okanogan County Public Utility District No.1 (PUD) began the process required to construct a new transmission line and substation between Pateros and Twisp in the Methow Valley. Following a decade of environmental review and litigation, PUD obtained an environmental impact statement (BIS). Next, PUD needed to obtain easements over the proposed land. PUD negotiated with approximately 85 percent ofthe property owners for easements on their land. Ultimately, PUD filed a petition for condemnation against the remaining property owners. This included the State,l which owned school trust lands that were required for the project.
Conservation Northwest (CNW), a group engaged in conservation activities, filed a motion to intervene. The court granted CNW's motion. Both CNW and the State filed motions for summary judgment, arguing that PUD lacks the authority to condemn school trust land. The State stipulated to the entry ofthe order on public use and necessity, which addressed the narrow issues of whether the transmission line project was a public
1 We refer to the following parties collectively as the "State:" Christine Davis, Trevor Kelpman, Dan Gebbers, Reba Gebbers, William Weaver, Peter Goldmark, and the No. 29121-9-III; No. 29123-5-III
PUDv. State
use and whether the easements sought were reasonably necessary for that use.
The court denied the State's and CNW's motions, granted summary judgment in favor of PUD, and entered findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order on public use and necessity.
CNW appealed, challenging the order of summary judgment, in addition to the order on public use and necessity. PUD then cross appealed, challenging the trial court's order granting intervention to CNW. The State also appealed the summary judgment order, contending that PUD had no statutory authority to condemn the State trust lands at issue here.
We conclude that the State trust lands may be condemned as a matter oflaw. We affirm summary judgment in favor of PUD and the denial ofsummary judgment to the State and CNW. Given that we affirm the trial court's order on the PUD's condemnation authority, we need not address the PUD's cross appeal challenging CNW's limited intervention.
FACTS Introduction. In 1889, Washington became a state. At that time, the federal government granted to Washington approximately three million acres of land for
State ofWashington.
No. 29121-9-III; No. 29123-5-III
PUDv. State
educational purposes and the support of common schools. Enabling Act, ch. 180,

Download 29121-9.pdf

Washington Law