Facts: Following a decision by the city council of Port Angeles to fluoridate the city’s water supply, petitioner Our Water Our Choice filed an initiative that would have barred the city from fluoridating its water. The city council refused to enact the initiative or place it on the ballot, instead seeking a declaratory judgment in the Superior Court for Clallam County that the initiative was beyond the scope of the local initiative power as its subject matter was administrative rather than legislative in nature. The trial court ruled that the initiative was invalid as responsibility for administering the city’s water system had been specifically vested by the legislature in the city council rather than in the city and the decision to fluoridate Port Angeles’s water supply was therefore administrative rather than legislative and could not be reversed via initiative. Upon appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. Our Water Our Choice appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of Washington.

Question(s): Was the subject matter of the initiative administrative or legislative in nature?

Conclusion: Justice Tom Chambers’ opinion for the Court concluded that the subject matter of the initiative was administrative in nature and therefore outside of the scope of the initiative power as the city of Port Angeles enacted its water fluoridation program pursuant to an existing regulatory system established under Washington Revised Code §57.08.12, which, subject to specific limitations, vests the power to decide whether or not to fluoridate drinking water with municipal water suppliers. As this grant of power is not subject to any provision for local oversight, the Court affirmed the Washington Court of Appeals and declared the initiative invalid.

Docket No. 82225-5 (from Court of Appeals Division II Case No. 36935-4)

Petitioner: Our Water Our Choice

(Counsel: Gerald Barclay Steel)

Respondent: City of Port Angeles

(Counsel: William E. Bloor, Roger A. Pearce, and P. Stephen Dijulio)

Briefs:

Argument: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 10:00am

[Source: TVW, http://tvw.org]

Decided: Thursday, September 23rd, 2010

Prevailing Party: City of Port Angeles (Respondent)

Vote: 5-4

Citation: Pending

Court: Madsen1 Court (2010-2011)

Madsen

Johnson

Alexander

Sanders
(Dissent)

Chambers
(Majority)

Owens

Fairhurst

Johnson

Stephens

Opinion

Dissent