Developers: Don't Mess With An Ancient Warrior's Water Rights

As many owners, developers, and contractors know the landscape for new construction is tough right now given the real estate market and financial institution picture. Well for a handful of developers in Washington things got even tougher when they were met head on by 35,000-year-old quantum-leaping ancient-warrior named Ramtha. Well, maybe not Ramtha himself, but through Ramtha's medium, JZ Knight. If you're not familiar with JZ Knight and Ramtha, then your probably scratching your head, but in a nutshell, JZ Knight is a medium and channels her spiritual entity of Ramtha - who last roamed the Earth over 35,000 years ago. For Washington residents and natives like myself, JZ Knight has been a longtime fixture in our state. She maintains a large area of land located in Yelm, WA, where she runs her Ramtha School of Enlightenment.

Well, apparently no stranger to litigation, JZ Knight, recently won a key battle in her fight to maintain her water rights against potential intrusion by neighboring developers seeking to build new residential lots. In Knight v. City of Yelm, the WA Supreme Court held that JZ Knight had standing to challenge a plat approval that would potentially interfere with her superior water rights.

As it turns out, JZ Knight owns the water rights to the nearby Thompson Creek and its aquifer. Through a purchased certificate Knight is entitled to ownership over the surface waters and use of its groundwater, which is also in use by the City of Yelm. The various developers sought to build nearby residential lots. The developers were initially granted plat approval by a local hearing examiner and the city council. Well, Knight challenged the plat approval suggesting that the residential lots would not necessarily be adequately supported by the local water supply - which could also potentially interfere or deplete her own water supply. The WA Supreme Court agreed with Knight's position and it appears the development will be put on hold.

If you're interested the court case can be found here.

Back to the Drawing Board for Pierce County's Dangerous Dog Law

Imagine getting pulled over for speeding, when in fact you were not speeding (try to stay calm, it's just a hypothetical). Despite the fact that you were not speeding, the officer nonetheless issues you a traffic citation for $150. Next, try to imagine that you want to clear your good name and prove that you were not speeding; so, you decide to contest the traffic citation. Well, finally, imagine that the only way to contest the traffic citation was to pay a non-refundable $150 appeal fee; thus, in this hypothetical, even if you clear your name and get your citation dismissed you're still out $150. Ouch! What's the point? Might as well pay, right?

Well that scenario is kind of how it worked with Pierce County's Dangerous Dog laws, under Pierce County Code 6.07.015. Under the provisions of the code (as written), an animal control officer could claim your dog was dangerous and hence penalties could ensue or worse yet, your pet could be euthanized. The only way to contest the animal control officer's findings would be to request a hearing before a hearing examiner, and to do that would require a $250 non-refundable fee. Say What?

Well not to worry, the law has been declared unconstitutional and Pierce County has stopped collecting the fees, thanks to a Washington Court of Appeals decision put out last week by Division II, under the case of Heidi Downey v. Pierce County. The Court of Appeals agreed with Downey that the fees charged violated her due process rights and are therefore unconstitutional. So, it looks as though Pierce County will have to change up its laws on this one.

For more on the story behind the case, check out the News Tribune's article by Adam Lynn: Pierce County's Dangerous-Dog Policy Deemed Unconstitutional.