A Washington appeals court has ruled that a county water board doesn’t have standing to sue the Department of Ecology over the state agency’s refusal to assign water rights to a new owner.

The decision issued Tuesday by the Court of Appeals Division III overturned a lower court ruling that sided with the Benton County Water Conservancy Board.

In the 3-0 reversal, the appeals court ruled the board — which doesn’t have a water right — couldn’t sue because it wasn’t harmed by Ecology’s decision.

Benton board chairman Darryll Olsen said Wednesday the board almost certainly will appeal to the state Supreme Court.

“Damn right, we were harmed,” he said. “We’re there to protect the rights of water right holders and the people of Benton County.”

Ecology was pleased with the decision, but doesn’t expect it to have broad impact, agency spokesman Jimmy Norris said in an email.

“It validates our interpretation of the law and policies surrounding water right transfers in this specific set of circumstances,” he said. “This was a very specific case, with very narrow ramifications.”

Water conservancy boards review applications to transfer or change water rights. Ecology can reject or modify board decisions.

The Benton board sued Ecology after the department denied an application by Plymouth Ranch to sell a portion of a Columbia River water right to Frank Tiegs LLC.

The water right was temporarily held in trust by Ecology, a place water right holders can park water and not risk relinquishing it for not using it.

The board claimed Ecology had no lawful reason to stop Tiegs from acquiring the water right. It alleged Ecology had an unwritten rule to deny dividing water rights held in trust.

The board’s claim was hogwash, according to Ecology. The transfer was denied because Tiegs doesn’t own the land attached to the water right, according to the department.

Plymouth and Tiegs were not parties to the lawsuit, leaving Ecology and the Benton board to battle it out over Ecology’s policy on dividing water right ownership.

In a brief, the Benton board called Ecology a “rogue agency” intent on “limiting human use of water.”

Ecology countered the board’s advocacy for Tiegs brought into question its ability to objectively evaluate water right transfers.

The appeals court heard the case Jan. 24. The hearing was scheduled for 30 minutes, but went 55 minutes longer as judges gamely tried out to untangle the dispute.

At one point, Benton board attorney James Buchal called Ecology’s actions “diabolical.”

“It’s not helpful to say ‘diabolical,'” Judge Rebecca Pennell said. “What is going on?”

The Benton board compared dividing ownership of a water right to filing a quit claim deed and accused Ecology of an “astounding refusal to discharge a clerical duty.”

Questions over how and where Tiegs would use the water would be dealt with later, Buchal said.

Ecology argued the board submitted a change-of-ownership form that had problems, such as missing signatures and wrong parcel numbers, as well as the fact that Tiegs didn’t own the land.

The appeals court ruled the Benton board mischaracterized Ecology’s policy on submitting a form to report a division of water rights, hence it wasn’t an unwritten and illegal rule.