Justices and counsel debated whether seasonal-change applications could have saved farmer's irrigation plans

Counsel for both sides and several justices discussed the mechanics and limits of the seasonal-change (seasonal-transfer) application process. Ecology's counsel explained the process involves publication notice, a 30-day protest period and roughly two months for processing, so an application would not authorize unpermitted withdrawals while pending. That procedural timing means filing earlier is necessary if irrigation is needed the same season.

Petitioner stressed that the agency's February 15 practice effectively closed that route for some applicants and that the record shows a seasonal-change application submitted in January was denied February 14. Ecology said the outcome of any application would have been uncertain because changes that impair other users are barred; counsel argued Ecology had to evaluate applicants together and that a pending filing would not cure ongoing unpermitted use.

Justices questioned whether Ecology was obligated to consider untimely seasonal-change proposals as part of technical assistance; the exchange highlighted tension between administrative timing constraints and the statute's requirement that Ecology offer technical assistance before imposing penalties.