at 482 (citing Heinsma v. City of Vancouver, 144 Wn.2d 556, 29 P.3d 709 (2001)). In this case, we hold that the Board’s resolution irreconcilably conflicts with the authority granted to water districts under RCW 57.08.012, and the two cannot be harmonized. Essentially, the Board’s resolution is a local regulation that prohibits what state law permits: the ability of water districts to regulate the content and supply of their water systems expressly granted to them by statute. The resolution ordering fluoridation takes away any decision-making power from water districts with respect to the content of their water systems, and the express statutory authority granted to water districts pursuant to RCW 57.08.012 would be rendered meaningle Seattle, 117 Wn.2d 606, 618, 817 P.2d 1373 (1991) (<HOLDING>). We lend further support for this conclusion
holding that a courts order invalidating part of a city billboard ordinance did not moot a claim for damages arising from that invalidated portion of the ordinance holding that provision barring recovery of consequential damages did not necessarily bar all loss of use damages but damages for loss of use of money were consequential holding that no recovery exists for speculative damages holding that it is wellsettled that although a plaintiff is entitled to full recovery for its damages it is not entitled to a double recovery for the same loss or injury holding that an entire ordinance which gave the city of seattle blanket immunity from liability for damages for loss of electrical services was void because it conflicted with state statutes authorizing suits against utilities and permitting recovery of damages for negligently caused losses