Petitioner: May 16 letter and cease-and-desist orders do not meet statutory 'written assistance' requirement

Allison Daniel said the administrative record lists a May 16 letter addressed to the property owner but no written technical-assistance communication to Mr. Foday that identified lawful means to achieve his purposes. She argued the May 16 letter "does not offer any technical" assistance and that the cease-and-desist orders came after Ecology should have provided assistance and so cannot retroactively satisfy the statute.

Ecology's counsel countered that the letters were sent to the landowners, that Foday received those letters (his attorney acknowledged receipt), and that cease-and-desist orders provided written information about the legal problems and steps to stop unpermitted withdrawals. The justices pressed whether the cease-and-desist order is equivalent to the statutorily required written offer of technical assistance; counsel for Ecology said the orders supplemented earlier efforts and thus met the written requirement in context. The Court submitted the case.