The washington Legislature passed legislation giving property
containing floaging homes before 1984 a Grandfather clause. The
department of natural resources is in the process of changing their
rules. The new rules are indicating that the space where the floating
homes are moored is what is grandfathered not the floating home.  I
want to know what the intent of the Washington Legislature was when it
passed the law giving these Grandfathered designations. I currently
own a floating home that was in a department of natural resources
space before l984.  It was evicted from the space and has no space to
move to.  The new rules would take away the "Grandfather clause" I
believed I had when I purchased the Floating Home. If the Department
of Natural Resources is successful in changing these Grandfathering
clauses to mean the space only , some Marina owners will be given a
lot of power. That means they can raise their rents, make demands on
home owners regarding anything they decide they want. It will be like
they are the owners of the actual home because the only remedy of the
floating home owner would be to move the floating home which is very
expensive and there are very few spaces available.  There are
especially very few spaces for homes that were on the water before
l984 because they are older styles and older conditions.

The laws of the state of Washington can be found and searched at:

http://access.wa.gov/government/awlaws.asp

I conducted a search on "floating home":

http://search.leg.wa.gov/pub/textsearch/ViewRoot.aspAction=Html&Item=0&X=617042949&p=1

The current Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 82.08.034 unambiguously
states that:

(7) "Floating home" means a building on a float used in whole or in
part for human habitation as a single-family dwelling, which is not
designed for self propulsion by mechanical means or for propulsion by
means of wind, and which is on the property tax rolls of the county in
which it is located.

There are other sections of the RCW that repeat this same definition.

Thus, it seems clear that, for the purposes of these laws (which all
relate to taxation), the definition of a floating home clearly
pertains to the building itself, rather than the space in which it is
moored.

I hope this answers your question.  If your situation pertains to a
different aspect of law, please clarify your request, and I will look
into it further.

Thanks...and good luck.

Dave

---

Request for Answer Clarification by whitehead-ga on 17 Jun 2002 16:23 PDT

The information you provided is what I currently had.  What I need to
know is what was the legislative intent.  The operative word here is
intent.  It may help to clarify why I know it's important.  I am
currently a candidate for the legislature and have spent time working
for the legislature.  I therefore know all about the government sites
for rules, regulations and actual laws.  What I do not have in the
case of Washington is the knowledge of who was a legislator on the
committee that drafted the l984 grandfather clause and what was the
intent of the legislature that drafted the law.  Thanks I hope you can
help.

---

Clarification of Answer by davidsar-ga on 17 Jun 2002 17:33 PDT

I might be able to help you with a more detailed response, but first,
I need some more information from you.  Please provide a citation for
the law itself, or its popular name, or some way of identifying it
more precisely.  If you could also describe the grandfather clause in
more detail (what are the obligations of the non-grandfathered
floating homes, that the grandfathered homes are exempted from) that
would be a great help as well.  With this information, I can conduct
some more in-depth research and quite possibly, provide exactly what
you need.

---

Request for Answer Clarification by whitehead-ga on 18 Jun 2002 03:37 PDT

From Rick Cooper, The legislature in l984 passed a law that prohibited
any new houseboats unless they were in existence on or before October
l984. My question continues to be what was the legislative intent of
that legislation. I did not and do not have a lease with the
Department of Natural Resources. I believe the intent of the
Legislation was to allow floating homes in existence before l984 to
remain on the water.  My home was evicted from it's moorage, therefore
I am technically evicted from the waters in the Columbia.  I am unable
to find another suitable location for the floating home.  The 
proposed new rules, which I recently received a copy of, state the
space has the Grandfather clause. My floating home if not in a space
effectively looses it's "grandfather" status. I am still trying to
find out what the legislative intent was. I am still in the water one
mile post away from where I was originally located. At this time I
have not been given notice of any violation but am sure it is on the
way. Again I still need the legislature's intent.

---

Clarification of Answer by davidsar-ga on 18 Jun 2002 14:43 PDT

Sorry you were dissatisfied with my answer.  I thought I'd add a final
observation and piece of information.

Legislatures do often right reports accompanying their bills which
state their legislative intent.  This information does not appear to
be available (as far as I an determine) for the law in question here. 
However, the law itself does include a "findings" section, which
serves as a codified statement of intent and legislative philosophy,
and one that carries much more legal weight than a committee report. 
If you haven't already, please look over the findings at the link
below -- they may be of some help...and good luck with your case.

Dave

http://www.leg.wa.gov/rcw/index.cfm?fuseaction=chapter&chapter=79.90&RequestTimeout=500#rcw79.90.450

RCW 79.90.450
Aquatic lands -- Findings.

[this is a brief excerpt -- check out the entire text!]
The legislature finds that state-owned aquatic lands are a finite
natural resource of great value and an irreplaceable public heritage.
The legislature recognizes that the state owns these aquatic lands in
fee and has delegated to the department of natural resources the
responsibility to manage these lands for the benefit of the public.
The legislature finds that water-dependent industries and activities
have played a major role in the history of the state and will continue
to be important in the future. The legislature finds that revenues
derived from leases of state-owned aquatic lands should be used to
enhance opportunities for public recreation, shoreline access,
environmental protection, and other public benefits associated with
the aquatic lands of the state. The legislature further finds that
aquatic lands are faced with conflicting use demands. The purpose of
RCW 79.90.450 through 79.90.545 is to articulate a management
philosophy to guide the exercise of the state's ownership interest and
the exercise of the department's management authority, and to
establish standards for determining equitable and predictable lease
rates for users of state-owned aquatic lands.

[1984 c 221 § 1.]

I don't seem to get the answer to the question. Perhaps it is because
legislators have not responded. the Legislature makes laws, agencies
interpret the laws and make rules. The intent is enforceable. The
rules are in the process of being changed. I need to get to the
legislative intent to stop the rule change.

There may be a few other considerations. 

1.  Assuming that they State has not infringed a "fundamental
Constitutional right" (and I think most would agree that such a
"fundamental" interest does not exist here) they (State of Washington)
only need to show a "legitimate government interest" and that the
"means used to regulate that interest are rationally related to the
interest).  Although there do not APPEAR to be such fundamental
interests at stake, certainly from a federal constitutional
perspective, are there any State of Washington constitutional
protections that you can rely upon?  Attorney question.

2.  Even if the state is justified in making such regulation, there
may be a Fifth Amendment "Takings" issue ("No person shall . . . be
deprived of . . . property, without due process of law; nor shall
private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.")
 It is difficult to ascertain from the fact pattern presented whether
there has been a taking of a personal property right, or a real
property right, or a deprivation generally for fifth amendment
purposes here. Again, attorney question.

A good property law expert should be consulted - he/she should be able
to fairly quickly (within, say, two hours of billable time) reach a
preliminary conclusion as to whether the state's actions are
justified, and if justified, are compensable.


Remembering that you asked about legislative intent, I would suggest
that this is very difficult to ascertain with Internet resources. You
may want to find out who your local representative in the state
legislature is and consult a member of his/her staff. They should be
able to track this down for you. If there is a state library, that
would be another great source. You will obviously want to look at the
committee hearing transcripts to get at this question. Caution though,
absent some significant debate to exactly support your position, many
(though not all) courts will not go that way and rely strictly upon
the plain reading of the text.

Best of luck. I would definitely consult a property attorney.

weisstho-ga

I believe that this is the proposed regulation you are referring to:

http://www.wa.gov/dnr/htdocs/aqr/residentaluse/draft%20rule.htm

It *appears* that, unless the legislature has recently taken action,
that this is still in the proposal stage?