Summary
The Arizona Supreme Court held that A.R.S. § 45-172 identifies the exclusive grounds on which the Arizona Department of Water Resources may deny a properly filed application to sever and transfer a surface-water right. The Court further held that an “interested person” entitled to object under the statute must allege an interest protected by § 45-172, and that Mohave County did not qualify. The Court vacated the superior court’s judgment, affirmed ADWR’s final decision, and remanded for proceedings concerning attorney fees.
Holdings
- A.R.S. § 45-172 identifies the limitations and conditions governing ADWR's review and the only grounds on which ADWR may deny a properly filed application to sever and transfer a water right. ADWR may not deny such an application based on additional, generally stated public-interest or tax-burden concerns not authorized by that statute.
- An "interested person" entitled to object to a proposed severance and transfer is a person who alleges an interest protected by § 45-172 and that would be affected by the proposed transfer. Mohave County did not qualify because it identified no such protected interest.
Questions Presented
- Whether A.R.S. § 45-172 identifies the exclusive grounds on which ADWR may deny a properly filed application to sever and transfer a water right.
- Whether the phrase "any interested person" in A.R.S. § 45-172(A)(7) includes a county that alleges generalized effects on local water supplies, tax burdens, or the public interest but does not allege an interest protected by § 45-172.
- Whether ADWR acted contrary to law, arbitrarily or capriciously, or abused its discretion by rejecting Mohave County's objections.
Disposition
vacated
Cases Cited (9)
- Davis v. Agua Sierra Resources, L.L.C., 220 Ariz. 108, 203 P.3d 506 (2009)(followed)
- Adams v. Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n, 53 Ariz. 374, 89 P.2d 1060 (1939)(followed)
- J.D. v. Hegyi, 236 Ariz. 39, 335 P.3d 1118 (2014)(followed)
- Lewis v. Debord, 238 Ariz. 28, 356 P.3d 314 (2015)(followed)
- State ex rel. Montgomery v. Harris (Shilgevorkyan), 234 Ariz. 343, 322 P.3d 160 (2014)(followed)
- Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129 (1993)(followed)
- FCC v. AT&T Inc., 562 U.S. 397 (2011)(followed)
- Bennett v. Napolitano, 206 Ariz. 520, 81 P.3d 311 (2003)(distinguished)
- Armer v. Superior Court, 112 Ariz. 478, 543 P.2d 1107 (1975)(distinguished)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…