IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS...A.R.S. 45-158 and 162(A). Because subsections 45-153(A)...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Janet L. Miller (Bar No. 011963) Nicole D. Klobas (Bar No. 021350) Arizona Department of Water Resources 3550 N. Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85012 Telephone: (602) 771-8472 Fax: (602) 771-8686 [email protected] [email protected]

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the Matter of the Department of Water Resources’ Denial of Mohave County’s Objections to Freeport Mineral Corporation’s Applications to Sever and Transfer Certain Water Rights Appurtenant to Land Located Within Planet Ranch and Lincoln Ranch along the Bill Williams River

Docket No. 14A-SW001-DWR ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES’ RESPONSE BRIEF Hon. Tammy Eigenheer Administrative Law Judge

Pursuant to Case Management Order No. 5, the Arizona Department of Water

Resources (“ADWR”) files this brief in response to the arguments raised by the Mohave

County Board of Directors (“Mohave County”) in its opening brief. Mohave County did

not establish that it is entitled to relief in this matter. I. MOHAVE COUNTY CONCEDES THAT ITS OBJECTION TO

FREEPORT’S SEVER AND TRANSFER APPLICATIONS DOES NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF A.R.S. § 45-172(A)(2) (ISSUE 1).

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

-2-

On August 4, 2014, ADWR filed a Notice of Hearing that identified four issues for

hearing. The first issue, set forth below, concerns whether Mohave County’s objection

complied with A.R.S. § 45-172(A)(2). ISSUE 1. Whether Mohave County raised a proper objection based on A.R.S. § 45-172(A)(2), where Mohave County failed to allege that it holds vested or existing water rights that would be affected, infringed upon or interfered with if the Sever and Transfer Applications1 were granted.

Mohave County has conceded this issue.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 45-172(A)(2), the “[v]ested or existing rights to the use of

water shall not be affected, infringed upon nor interfered with” by the severance and

transfer of a water right. Mohave County admits that it does not have a water right in the

Bill Williams watershed where the water rights subject to Freeport’s sever and transfer

applications are located. If, as ADWR contends, the requirements of subsection 45-

172(A)(2) must be alleged, Mohave County concedes that “ADWR correctly denied

Mohave County’s objection because Mohave County does not have a water right in the

Bill Williams watershed.”2 II. MOHAVE COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE STANDING UNDER A.R.S. § 45-172(A)(2) TO OBJECT TO FREEPORT’S SEVER AND TRANSFER APPLICATIONS DUE TO IMPACTS ON THE VESTED OR EXISTING WATER RIGHTS OF OTHERS (ISSUE 2).

The second issue noticed for hearing concerns whether Mohave County has

standing to raise an objection under A.R.S. § 45-172(A)(2) on behalf of others. This issue

is described as follows:

ISSUE 2. Whether Mohave County has standing under A.R.S. § 45-172(A)(2) to object to the Sever and Transfer applications on the grounds

1 This is a reference to Freeport’s sever and transfer applications. See ADWR’s Opening Brief at pp. 1-2. 2 Mohave County’s Opening Brief at p. 4, ll. 2-4.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

-3-

that granting the Sever and Transfer Applications would allegedly affect, infringe upon or interfere with the vested or existing water rights of others.

Mohave County clearly does not have standing under A.R.S. § 45-172(A)(2) for two

reasons. First, although Mohave County alleges that there would be negative impacts on

water supplies in the area, Mohave County fails to assert that the vested or existing water

rights of others would be affected, infringed upon or interfered with if Freeport’s sever

and transfer applications were granted. Second, even if Mohave County had made such

an assertion concerning the water rights of others, Mohave County would not have had

standing to do so because Mohave County did not allege a distinct and palpable injury to

itself. See Seven Springs Ranch, Inc. v. State, 156 Ariz. 471, 475, 753 P.2d 161, 165

(Ariz. App. 1987) (where ranchers’ leases with the state were not an issue in the case,

ranchers lacked standing to present constitutional arguments on behalf of the school trust

lands in Arizona).3

In its notice of appeal and opening brief, Mohave County contends that it has

standing because it is an “interested person” as that term is used in subsection 45-

172(A)(7). In support of this contention, Mohave County refers to other subsections of

A.R.S. § 45-172(A), which Mohave County characterizes as requiring “a clear and

straightforward nexus to the water right that is to be severed and transferred.”4

Nonetheless Mohave County then argues that such a requirement is not part of subsection

45-172(A)(7). Mohave County’s argument is inherently inconsistent and without legal

support.

In the Yavapai Apache case, the Arizona Court of Appeals describes well-accepted

rules of statutory construction, including the requirement to give meaning to every word

3 Also see ADWR’s Opening Brief at 7-9, and cases cited therein. 4 Mohave County’s Opening Brief at p. 5, ll. 15-16.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

-4-

used in a statute.5 Contrary to those rules, Mohave County’s argument fails to give

meaning to the word “interested” in subsection 45-172(A)(7), even though Mohave

County admits that other provisions of A.R.S. § 45-172 are based on an “interest” in the

water right to be severed and transferred.6 See subsections 45-172(A)(2) through (A)(6).

Mohave County argues that any “interested” person may file an objection but fails to give

meaning to the word “interested.” As defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, an “interested

person” is, “A person having a property right in or claim against a thing, such as a trust or

decedent’s estate.”7 In this case, using the words of Mohave County, ADWR submits that

an interested person is one having “a clear and straightforward nexus to the water right

that is to be severed and transferred,” as described in subsections 45-172(A)(2) through

(6). Mohave County has not alleged that it has such an interest.

Mohave County argues that it is an interested person, however, because subsection

45-172(A)(7) does not restrict the filing of an objection to certain grounds as do other

statutes, which Mohave County lists in a footnote.8 These statutes are not instructive.

As stated by the Court of Appeals in the Yavapai Apache case, “a statute should be

construed in conjunction with other statutes that relate to the same subject or purpose.”9

(Emphasis added.) The statutes noted by Mohave County do not relate to the same

subject or purpose as the severance and transfer of vested or existing surface water rights,

but rather to matters related to groundwater management, and underground water storage,

savings and replenishment. The language of A.R.S. § 45-172(A) itself provides a basis

5 Yavapai Apache Nation v. Sandra Fabritz-Whitney, 227 Ariz. 499, 504, 260 P.3d 299, 304, ¶ 20 (Ariz. App. 2011), cited in ADWR’s Opening Brief at p. 9. 6 Mohave County’s Opening Brief at p. 5. 7 Black’s Law Dictionary 1178 (8th ed. 2004). 8 Mohave County’s Opening Brief at p. 6, n. 10. 9 n. 4, supra.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

-5-

for proper construction of A.R.S. § 45-172(A)(7), not the unrelated statutes relied upon by

Mohave County.

Mohave County further maintains that “standing is not a requirement for

challenging an action under Arizona law.”10 In support of this position, Mohave County

cites the B Bar Enterprises case.11 Mohave County’s citation to this case is misleading.

Although the Arizona Supreme Court in that case noted that Arizona does not have a case

or controversy provision in its constitution, the Court nonetheless recognized that there is

a standing requirement in Arizona. The Court stated:12 In order to possess standing to assert a constitutional challenge, an individual must himself have suffered ‘some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal action.’

As required by the Arizona Supreme Court in this case, Mohave County itself must

demonstrate that it would suffer a threatened or actual injury from Freeport’s sever and

transfer applications, which it has not done. Accord Bennett v. Napolitano, 206 Ariz. 520,

81 P.3d 311 (Ariz. 2003); Sears v. Hull, 192 Ariz. 65, 961 P.2d 1013 (Ariz. 1998).13

Without question, Mohave County did not have standing to file an objection in this matter. III. ADWR DOES NOT HAVE AUTHORITY UNDER A.R.S. § 45-172 TO DENY FREEPORT’S SEVER AND TRANSFER APPLICATIONS ON PUBLIC INTEREST GROUNDS (ISSUES 3 AND 4).

There are two issues noticed for hearing that relate to whether ADWR has

authority under A.R.S. § 45-172 to deny Freeport’s sever and transfer applications on

public interest grounds. These two issues are described as follows:

10 n. 6, supra. 11 State v. B Bar Enterprises, Inc., 133 Ariz. 99, 649 P.2d 978 (Ariz. 1982). 12 133 Ariz. at 101, 649 P.2d at 980. 13 These cases were cited by ADWR in its Opening Brief at pp. 7-8.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

-6-

ISSUE 3. Whether the Department has authority under A.R.S. § 45-172 to deny the Sever and Transfer Applications on the grounds that granting the Sever and Transfer Applications allegedly would result in a negative effect on water supplies in the area, including the Big Sandy Aquifer, riparian areas and flows to the Colorado River, contrary to the public interest. ISSUE 4. Whether the Department has authority under A.R.S. § 45-172 to deny the Sever and Transfer Applications on the grounds that granting the Sever and Transfer Applications allegedly would result in an increased tax burden on county taxpayers.

Mohave County contends that ADWR has authority to deny an application filed

under A.R.S. § 45-172 on public interest grounds because those grounds are required

under A.R.S. § 45-153(A). These statutes are not related to the same subject matter, and

the one does not inform the other. A.R.S. § 45-172 concerns applications for the

severance and transfer of vested or existing water rights to a different place of use, and for

a different purpose. On the other hand, A.R.S. § 45-153(A) concerns applications for a

permit to appropriate surface water, which is not a vested or existing water right. A

permit to appropriate surface water provides authority for the permit holder to put water to

beneficial use, after which a certificate of water right may be issued upon proof of

appropriation. A.R.S. §§ 45-158 and 162(A). Because subsections 45-153(A) and 45-172

do not relate to the same subject or purpose, they should not be construed together. See

Yavapai Apache, supra.14

In addition, it is clear that the legislature intended that the requirements of

subsection 45-153 and subsection 45-172 be different. Under A.R.S. § 45-153(A), in

order to obtain a permit to appropriate surface water, the application must be in proper

form and seek to appropriate water for a beneficial use, “but when the application or the

proposed use conflicts with vested rights, is a menace to public safety, or is against the

interest and welfare of the public, the application shall be rejected.” The legislature only 14 n. 4, supra.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

-7-

included one of these requirements in A.R.S. § 45-172(A)(2); namely, that “vested or

existing rights to the use of water shall not be affected, infringed upon nor interfered

with.” The legislature did not require ADWR to determine whether a sever and transfer

application would be a menace to public safety or against the interests and welfare of the

public. Although it could have done so, the legislature did not include these public safety

and public interest requirements in A.R.S. § 45-172(A). Under the principle of expressio

unius est exclusio alterius, when a term is used in one statute but not in another one, the

missing term may not be read into the statute where it is omitted. Pima County v.

Heinfeld, 134 Ariz. 133, 134, 654 P.2d 281, 282 (Ariz. 1982) (“[a] well established rule of

statutory construction provides that the expression of one or more items of a class

indicates an intent to exclude all items of the same class which are not expressed.”);

Goulder v. Arizona Dep’t of Transportation, 177 Ariz. 414, 416, 868 P.2d 997, 999 (Ariz.

App. 1993)(“A recognized rule of statutory construction holds that an expression of one or

more items of a class indicates the intent of the legislature to exclude all items of the same

class not included.”). Here, the legislative intent is clear. The public safety and public

interest requirements of subsection 45-153(A) are not and cannot be included in

subsection 45-172.

This interpretation is further supported by the legislative history of A.R.S. §§ 45-

153 and 172, which may be properly considered. Goulder, supra. The predecessor of

subsection 45-153(A) is found in Section 7 of the 1919 Public Water Code, and it is

virtually the same now as it was then.15 The predecessor of A.R.S. § 45-172 is found in

Section 48 of the 1919 Public Water Code, and similar to current law, it authorized the

sever and transfer of water rights “if such change can be made without detriment to

existing rights.”16 This statute remained virtually unchanged until 1962, when the 15 Laws 1919, Ch. 164, § 7. 16 Id. at § 48.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

-8-

legislature first adopted A.R.S. § 45-172,17 which included the same conditions as those

currently set forth in subsections 45-173(A)(1) through (A)(6). At no time during the

legislative history of A.R.S. §§ 45-153 and 172, spanning almost 100 years, did the

legislature include the public safety and public interest requirements of subsection 45-

153(A) in subsection 45-172.18

Regardless, Mohave County contends that ADWR should have considered the

public safety and public interest requirements of A.R.S. § 45-153(A) during its review of

Freeport’s sever and transfer applications, but cites no authority for this proposition.

Instead, Mohave County describes what it believes to be public policy reasons for doing

so. However, that is the province of the legislature, which by statute determines the

requirements that an agency must follow. Here, ADWR may only impose those

requirements identified by A.R.S. § 45-172(A). See A.R.S. § 41-1030(B).19 Furthermore,

it is up to the legislature to create additional requirements, if it so desires, not the

judiciary. Newman v. Cornerstone Nat’l Ins. Co., 322 P.3d 194, 196, ¶ 6 (Ariz. App.

2014).20

For the first time, in its opening brief Mohave County argues that ADWR’s failure

to impose a public interest requirement on a sever and transfer application violates the

public trust doctrine. Mohave County did not include this argument in its objection, and

is therefore prevented from raising it on appeal. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.03(B), which states

in part:

17 Laws 1921, Ch. 64, § 21; Rev. Code 1928, § 3314; Code 1939, § 75-135; Laws 1962, Ch. 113, § 5. 18 Copies of the session laws cited in this paragraph are found in the Appendix to this brief. 19 ADWR Opening Brief at pp. 6, 10. 20 Id. at 10.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

-9-

A notice of appeal or request for a hearing also may be filed by a party who will be adversely affected by the appealable agency action or contested case and who exercised any right provided by law to comment on the action being appealed or contested, provided that the grounds for the notice of appeal or request for a hearing are limited to the issues raised in that party’s comments.

(Emphasis added.) Under the clear language of this statute, because the public trust issue

now being presented to the ALJ was not included in Mohave County’s objection, it cannot

be considered. Furthermore, Mohave County did not provide any legal authority to

support its position.21

The public trust doctrine applies to lands held in state ownership under waterways

determined to be navigable at the time of statehood. Defenders of Wildlife v. Hull, 199

Ariz. 411, 416, 18 P.3d 722, 727, ¶ 12 (Ariz. App. 2001). Mohave County appears to

contend that the public trust doctrine should nonetheless be applied to Freeport’s sever

and transfer applications without addressing the fact that none of the watercourses in

Mohave County were navigable at the time of statehood. Without such a finding of

navigability at the time of statehood, the public trust doctrine does not apply.

At the time of Arizona’s statehood, Arizona “acquired title to the lands below high-

water mark in all navigable watercourses within its boundaries.” Arizona Center for Law

in the Public Interest v. Hassell, 172 Ariz. 356, 360, 837 P.2d 158, 162 (Ariz. App. 1991)

(emphasis added). The Arizona Navigable Stream Adjudication Commission (“ANSAC”)

is responsible for determining whether watercourses in the state were navigable at the

21 Mohave County cited two unpublished decisions, inter alia, which ADWR is moving to strike concurrently with the filing of this brief. In addition, adding requirements to existing statutes under the “auspices of the Public Trust Doctrine” as proposed by Mohave County was explicitly rejected in Seven Springs, supra (the drawing of groundwater basin and sub-basin boundaries by statutory definitions in the Groundwater Management Act, which must be followed. 156 Ariz. 471, 475-76, 753 P.2d 161, 165-66.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

-10-

time of statehood. Proceedings before ANSAC are governed by A.R.S. §§ 37-1101 et

seq. Under A.R.S. § 37-1101(8), public trust land is defined as follows: “Public trust land” means the portion of the bed of a watercourse that is located in this state and that is determined to have been a navigable watercourse as of February 14, 1912. Public trust land does not include land held by this state pursuant to any other trust.

(Emphasis added.) Pursuant to A.R.S. § 37-1130(A), a determination by ANSAC that a

watercourse is non-navigable “constitutes a waiver, relinquishment and disclaimer of this

state’s right, title or interest in the bed of the watercourse based on its navigability.”

(Emphasis added.)

This case involves watercourses in Mohave County, which ANSAC has

determined to be non-navigable. ANSAC’s reports indicate that all minor watercourses

within Mohave County, and the five major watercourses consisting of the Bill Williams

River, Big Sandy River, Santa Maria River, Virgin River and Burro Creek are non-

navigable.22 As a result, the state has no “right, title or interest” in the beds of those

watercourses and the public trust doctrine does not apply. Mohave County’s arguments

cannot stand.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Maricopa County’s objection should be denied and its

appeal dismissed.

/

/

/

/

22 The list of ANSAC’s reports are included in the Appendix to this brief. See www.ansac.gov.

http://www.ansac.gov/

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

-11-

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 26th day of September, 2014. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF

WATER RESOURCES /s/ Janet L. Miller Janet L. Miller, Deputy Counsel Nicole D. Klobas, Deputy Counsel Electronically filed and served via https://portal.azoah.com/oedf this 26th day of September, 2014 /s/ Sharon Scantlebury

Docket No. 14A-SW001-DWR ADWR Response Brief

September 26, 2014

APPENDIX

(1) Laws 1919, Ch. 164, §§ 7, 48 (2) Laws 1921, Ch. 64, § 21 (3) Rev. Code 1928, § 3314 (4) Code 1939, § 75-135 (5) Laws 1962, Ch. 113, § 5 (6) ANSAC Status Reports

t;

~/)

l ' "!- /

r ?

r

PERiiANENT FILE COPY , I

WATER CODE OF THE

State of Arizona CHAPTER 164

REGULAR SESSION

FOURTH LEGISLATURE OF THE

State of Arizona

1919

lf I !

( \

280 LAWS OF ARIZONA

papers, maps, plans and other instruments issued from his office.

Section 5.. Any person, association or corporation, munici-pality or the State of Arizona or the United States of America hereafter intending to acquire the right to the beneficial use of any waters shall, before commencing the construction, en-largement or extension of any dam, ditch, canal or other dis-tributing or controlling works, or performing any work in connection with said construction, or proposed appropriation, make an application to the Commissioner for a permit to make such appropriation.

Section 6. Each application for a permit to appropriate water shall set forth the name and postoffice address of the applicant, the source of water supply, the nature and amount of the proposed use, the location and description of the pro-posed ditch, canal, or other work; the time within which it is proposed to begin construction, the time required for the completion of the construction, and the time for the com-plete application of the water to the proposed use. If for agricultural purposes, it shall give the legal subdivisions of the land and the acreage to be irrigated as near as may be .. If for power purposes, it shall give the nature of the works by means of which the power is to be developed, the pressure head and amount of water to be utilized, the points of diver-sion and release of the water, and the uses to which the power is to be applied. If for the construction of a reservoir, it shall give the height of dam, the capacity of the reservoir, and the t:ses to be made of the impounded waters.. If for municipal water supply, it shall give the present population to be.served, and, as near as may be the future requirements of the city. If for mining purposes, it shall give the location and the na-ture of the mines to be served, and the methods of supplying and utilizing the waters All applications shall be accom-panied by such maps and drawings, and such other data as may hereafter be prescribed by the Commissioner, and such accompanying data shall be considered as a part of the ap-plication

Section 7. Upon receipt of an application, it shall be the duty of the Commissioner to make an endorsement thereon of the date of its receipt and to keep a record of the same.. If upon 'examination the application is found to be defective it shall be returned for· correction or completion, and the date of and reasons for the return thereof shall be endorsed there-on and made of record in his office No application shall lose

J !

I

f

LAWS OF ARIZONA 281

its priority of filing on account of such defects, provided ac-ceptable maps and drawings and data are filed in the office of the Commissioner within sixty days from the date of said return to the applicant All applications which shall coinply with the provisions of this act shall be recorded in a suitable book kept for that purpose, al}d it shall be the duty of the Commissioner to approve all applications made in proper form which contemplate the application of water to a bene-ficial use, when the provisions of this act are complied with; but when the proposed use conflicts with vested r·ights, or is a menace to the safety or against the interests and welfare of the public, the application< shall be rejected.

An application may be approved for a less amount of water than that applied for, if there exists substantial reasons there-for, and in any event shall not be approved for more water than can be applied to a beneficial use.. Applications for municipal water supplies may be approved to the exclusion of all subsequent appropriations, if the exigencies of the case de-mand, upon consideration and order by the Commissioner. As between two or more conflicting applications under considera-· tion of the Commissioner at the same time, for the use of any \~ aterfrom a given stream, lake, or other source of water sup-ply where the capacity of the supply is not sufficient for all applications and for which no permit has been granted, pref-erence shall be given by the Commissioner according to the relative values to the public of the proposed uses to which the water is supplied The said relative values to the public shall be taken by the Commissioner for this purpose in the following order of importance:

First: Domestic and municipal uses.

Domestic use shall be construed to include gardens not exceeding ;0 acre to each family

Second: Irrigation and stock watering

Third. \lV ater power and mining uses.

Section 8 The approval or rejection of an application shall be endorsed thereon, and a record made of such endorsement in the Commissioner's office The application so endorsed shall be returned immediately to the applicant in person or by mail. If approved, the applicant shall be authorized, on receipt thereof, to proceed with the construction of the neces-sary works and to take all steps required to apply the water to a beneficial use, and to perfect the proposed appropriation. lf the application is refused, the applicant shall take no steps

296 LAWS OF ARIZONA

intendent of the district in which said ditch or reservoir is located, by written notice, setting forth such facts, asking the water superintendent to regulate such ditch or reservoir for the purpose of making a just division or distribution of water from the same to the parties entitled to the use thereof. The judge of any Superior Court may also direct the water super-intendent of the district to take charge of and enforce any de-cree relative to water rights made under the jurisdiction of said Court pending a determination of all the water rights of the watershed Upon receiving such order, the said water superintendent shall regulate such ditch or reservoir for the purpose of dividing or distributing the water therefrom in accordance with the established rights continuing the said work until the necessity therefor shall cease to exist. Said rights shall be deemed to have been established when the same have been determined by the Commissioner, by any decree of any Superior Court of this State or by contract or other written agreement ·

Section 46 To bring about a more economical use of the available water supply, it shall be lawful for water users own-uig lands which have attached water rights, to rotate in the use of supply to which they may be collectively entitled, and when-ever two or mpre water users shall notify the water superin-tendent that they desire to use the water by rotation and shall present a written agreement as to the manner of such rotation, the water superintendent shall distribute the water in accord-ance with such written agreement

Section 47. In suits for injunction affecting the use of water from streams upon which the rights to use water have been determined, no restraining order shall be granted before hearing had after at least ten days' notice thereof served upon all persons defendant All suits for injunction involving the use of water shall be heard, either in term time or during vaca-tion, not later than fifteen days after issues joined, unless for good cause shown further time be allowed.

Section 48. All water used in this State for irrigation pur-poses shall remain appurtenant to the land upon which it is used; provided, that if for any natural cause beyond control of the owners it should at any time become impracticable to be beneficially or economically use water for irrigation of any hnd to which water is appurtenant, said right may be severed from said land, and simultaneously transferred and become, appurtenant to other land, without losing priority of right theretofore established, if such change can be .made without

'

1 l 1

4

l I

LAWS OF ARIZONA 297

detriment to existing rights, on the approval of an application of the owner to the Commissioner. Before the approval of such transfer an inspection shall be made by the Commissioner or persons deputized by him, and the Commissioner shall approve or disapprove such transfer and prescribe the con-ditions therefor. Such order shall be subject to appeal as in this act provided

Section 49.. The unauthorized use of water to which an-other person is entitled, or the unauthorized diversion of water from a stream, or the wilful waste of water to the detriment of another, or the diversion of a stream to the injury or threat-ened injury of the lands of another shall be a misdemean0r

I

J

. '

A'RlZONA CODE 1939

Containing the

GENERAL LAWS OF ARIZONA

ANNOTATED

Published by Authority of Laws 1939, chapter 89

Compiled under the Supervision of the Members of the Supreme Court of Arizona

Chief Justice ·Henry D Ross

Associate Justices Alfred C Lockwood Archibald G McAlister

IN SIX VOLUMES

VOLUME FIVE

Indianapolis THE BOBBS-MERRILL COMPANY

Publishers r-------=:....:.:....:.

Nl::ll~::':i\

+J :-:·~ s nc:~:::,v·~r>

·. ·~·,... ' -.

. I '

:1

75-135 WATER CODE--IRRIGATION AND OTHER DISTRICTS 792

the superintendent shall distribute the water in accordance with such agreement. [Laws 1919, ch. 164, §§ 45, 46, p. 278; cons. & rev., R. C. 1928, § 3313.]

Comparative Legislation. Dispute among water users:

Ore. Code 1930, § 47-707.

75-135. Water to remain appurtenant to land-Transfer of right where not practicable to continue use.-Water used for irrigation pur-poses shall remain a right appurtenant to the land upon which it is used; if, however, at any time for any natural cause beyond control of the owner it becomes impracticable to beneficially or economically use the water for irrigation of the land to which it is appurtenant, the right may, with the approval of the commissioner, be severed .from the land, and simultaneously transferred and become appurtenant to other land without losing priority theretofore established, if such change can be made without detriment to existing rights. Before the approval of such transfer an inspection shall be made by the commissioner and he shall approve or disapprove such transfer and prescribe the conditions therefore. [Laws 1919, ch. 164, § 48, p. 278; 1921, ch·. 64, § 21, p. 118; rev., R. C. 1928, § 3314.]

Comparative Legislation. rights:

Ore. Code 1930, § 47-712.

Water-

NOTES TO DECISIONS

ANALYSIS

Appurtenant to, but not inseparable from, land.

Change in use. Construction of Oregon statute. Detached tract owned by same person. Lessor and lessee. Priority. Purpose of requirements. Right of transfer. Title or interest-Intent to appropriate. Transfer of right-Party claimant.

Appurtenant to, But Not Inseparable from, Land. Water for irrigation purpose is ap-

purtenant to the land for which it is appropriated and applied. It does not follow, however, that the water-right can not be conveyed and separated from the land or lost to the owner by a failure to comply with the conditions under which he is entitled to use the water. In an irrigation district the land with a water-right· may be sold for delinquent

. assessments. A change in the place of use should be made in a regular way which the decree permits. In other words, the water-right is appurtenant to, but not inseparable from, the land. In re Water-Rights of Deschutes River, 134 Ore. 623, 286 Pac. 563, 294 Pac. 1049.

Change in Use. Under the statute, it is a condition

precedent to the exercise of the right to change the place of the use of the water from that specified by the decree in a proceeding for the adjudication of water-rights that the owner of such right make application to the state engineer and ob-tain his approval of such change. Broughton v. Stricklin, 146 Ore. 259, 28 Pac. (2d) 219, 30 Pac. (2d) 332.

Company owning water-right can not by contract or any other arrangement with water users above, on river, author-ize such upper water users to divert the water awarded to the company for power purposes, a nonconsuming use, and thereby deprive lower users of such, water. Broughton v. Stricklin, 146 Ore. 259, 28 Pac. (2d) 219, 30 Pac. (2d) 332.

The point of diversion of water can not be changed if thereby the rights of others are prejudiced. Broughton d). Stricklin, 146 Ore. 259, 28 Pac. (2 219, 30 Pac. (2d) 332; Hutchinson d). Stricklin, 146 Ore. 285, 28 Pac. (2 225 .

Proposed arrangement between millibg company and upper irrigators, where Y the milling c.ompany would refrain from demanding the use of the water it was entitled to, would result in a change of the place and character of the use of the

CH -112

in ;e not be ation provided ,f the amount teaching aids

>ol funds may ;upplementary state board of -1101, and for because of an God, provided in such quan-ibed by para-

line carefully

1ildren when her within or

ns or papers r.

(,

as it deems

1 as deemed ct.

s or papers a majority

may permit •se. Any ex-vided under be a charge

rovided · the

. . ·-·~· ltfi:;(_.

CH -113 LAWS OF ARIZQN~ 265

7. Construct buildings ac~essory to· the operation of .the schools within the district

. · .. \ • , , ' .. I,

8. Sell to the state, county or city any school property re-quired for a public purpose, provided the sale of the property will not affect the normal operations of a school within the school district. · ·

Sec. 2. EMERGENCY

To preserve the public peace, health and safety it is neces-sary that this act become immediately operative. It is therefore declared to be an emergency measure, to take effect as pro-vided by law.

Approved by the Governor-March 23, 1962.

Filed in the Office of the Secretary of State-March 23, 1962.

CHAPTER 113

Senate Bill. No. 39

AN ACT

·RELATING TO WATERS; PRESCRIBING RIGHTS OF THE . STATE IN APPROPRIATION OF WATER; PERMITTING . ·TRANSFER OF WATER RIGHTS APPURTENANT TO

CROP LAND FOR MUNICIPAL AND RECREATIONAL PURPOSES UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND LIMI-TATIONS; USES OF TRANSFERRED WATER RIGHTS; APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER AND NOTICE; ORDERS OF STATE LAND COMMSSIONER, FINALITY;.INJUNC-TION; APPEAL, AND AMENDING SECTIONS 45-141, 45-142, 45-147, 45-150 AND 45-172, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES. ' ''" ·

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of AriZona:

Section 1. Sec. 45-141, Arizona Revi~ed Stat~tes, is amended· to read: · " •;, · · .. · .,

45-141. RIGHT OF APPROPRIATION; ':PERMITTED USES .~ ; .'·.:~. , '

A. Any person or the state of Arizona or a political subdivi-sion thereof may appropriate unappropriated water for domes-tic, municipal, irrigation, stock watering, water.:p6wer, recrea-tion, wildlife, including fish, m~ning uses, for his personal use

CH -113 268 LAWS OF ARIZONA

. Sec. 5. Sec. 45-172, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

45-172. TRANSFER OF WATER RIGHTS; APPLICA-TION; LIMITATIONS; REQUIRED CONSENT

A water right may be severed from the land to which it is appurtenant or from the site of its use if for other than irriga-tion purposes and with the consent and approval of the owner of such right may be transferred for use for irrigation of agri-cultural lands or for municipal, stock watering, power and mining purposes and to the state or its political subdivisions for use for recreation and wildlife purposes (including fish) without losing priority theretofore established, subject to the following limitations and conditions:

1. Except as otherwise provided in this section no such sever-ance or transfer shall be made unless approved by the depart-ment, and the approval of the department shall· prescribe the conditions therefor.

: 2. Vested or eXisting rights· to the use of water shall not be affected, infringed upon nor interfered with, and in no event shall the water diverted or used after the transfer of such rights ~xceed the vested rights existing at the time of such severance and transfer, and the state land commissioner shall by order so define and limit the amount of water to be diverted or used annually su~sequent to such transfer.

3. The water rights soughtto be transferred shall have beeri lawfully perfected under the laws of the territory or the state of Arizona and shall not have thereafter been forfeited or abandoned.

4. No such severance or transfer of water rights shall be permitted or allowed from lands within the exterior boundaries of any irrigation district, agricultural improvement district or water users association without first having obtained the writ-ten consent and approval of such irrigation district, agricultural improvement district or water users association.

· 5. No right to the use of water on or from any watershed or drainage area which supplies or contributes water for the irri-gation of lands within an irrigation district, agricultural im-provement district or water users association shall be severed or transferred without the consent of the governing body of such irrigation district, agricultural improvement district or water users association. All proposed applications for the severance and transfer of a right to use water ofor from any watershed or drainage area which supplies or contributes water for the ir-

CH -113 LAWS OF ARIZONA

... . . ' '/;_ -~.~~_;;~~-~-;.; -·; ~-~, rigation of lands within ·any irrigation district, agricultural improvement district or water users association shall be sub-mitted to the governing body of such irrigation district, agri-cultural improvement district or. water users association prior to the filing of such application with .the department. Within forty-five days after the receipt thereof such governing body shall reject or approve the proposed application. Failure,, of ~uch goverriiilg body to approve or -reject the proposed appliCa-tion within forty-five days after receipt thereof shall. constitute approval of the proposed application by such governing body. No application for the severance or transfer of a right to the use of water of or from any watershed or drainage area which sup-plies or contributes water for the irrigation of lands within any irrigation district, agricultural improvement district or water users association shall be accepted for filing· by ·the department unle~s accompanied by tpe written consent .of the governing body of such il;'rigation district, agricultural im-provement district or water users· association to the. proposed application or by satisfactory evidence that such governing body failed··to either accept or reject the ·proposed fipplicatlon within forty-five days after x:eceipt thereo~ by such gov~g body.. : - . . ~. . ... ;·_ :··.·. . ... · . ., ·.:' :··::-•: ..• : .. . . 6; A, severance ~nd transfer 'of an irrigation ~ater,right·~p.. ptfrteriarit to land$ within the botiridries of an 'irrigation district to Oilier lands within tp.e t>ou~aries of the Saine irrigation ·di$J.-trict for agricultural use may be· accompliShed the E!Xchisiort of l~ndst9 ~hich a "':ate~::". right is, ~pp~nll.!lt poundries . of an irrigati()n ::diStzic~, ~nd . '4ie !:L .. '"-·'"-W:.'U:~ thereof of 'other lands within the boundries of ~....._=--""" district: ·such' severance. and transfer "of ri water quir~ . the :·c9~se.n(.()( ()nly ~e. ir:rlptiQn ~.rict _within the' affectedlands ate situated.and of the owners atfected by· ·the'severarice and thinsier. No. . . . .. nor approval by the ·aepartment Sliaifbe·"'.,.,· .. ,;,,.Arl to·acc~onttplish such severance and transfer. , • -- -_ . ' ~- -. '{;'_>-."ff' __ ;... --__ ·_:,-_:·_~-.:~--~ ·:- _,:-._~'\'-.--:~,'-?:·-· '7. An application for severancel¢d transfetof:a·wa(erriglit~ sh.all be filed with. the'·department: The department shall fiX .. ~time and place for a hearing thereon and·~ :give.n6tice0f such h:earing by publication· once a week for three StieceSSive weeks m a newspaper of general cirCulation ~ t1'1.e coimty. ·9r ~unties in which the·watershed or drabiage_ ·a.rea·is'located. Any interested p~rson may . appear.· and· sb9w calise ·why:· the proposed ·application for the severance and transfer- Shall' not be granted. · · ' :::,::; ,,;;a~z .-:"·. ' '•

- . . ~ --- ~--:;r:\;~~r~~~_;/ .. _._;~~:--:

1700 W. WashingtonRoom B-54

Phoenix, AZ 85007

Voice 602.542.9214Fax 602.542.9220Cell 602.290.3760

You Are Here: Home > commission reports

ANSAC Determination Final ReportsOne of the Commission's customer care administrative objectives is to include all ratified

Commission Reports online on this page on this site. As part of that objective it is a further goal to include each report online within 7 working days of each report being adopted by the Commission

and we are meeting that goal.

Commission Reports

Watercourse Report Issue Date Determination Report in PDF

Agua Fria River Nov 17, 2009 Not Navigable Aqua Fria River.pdf

Apache Cy S&M Dec 14, 2011 Not Navigable Apache County Small & Minor.pdfBig Sandy River Apr 28, 2011 Not Navigable Big Sandy River.pdf

Big Williams Apr 28, 2011 Not Navigable Big Williams.pdfBlue River Jun 28, 2004 Not Navigable Blueriver.pdfBurro Creek Apr 28, 2011 Not Navigable Burro Creek.pdf

Cochise Cy S&M Dec 16, 2003 Not Navigable Cochise Cy Small & Minor.pdf

Coconino Cy Small & Minor Apr 28, 2011 Not Navigable Coconino Cy Small & Minor.pdf

Gila Cy S&M Apr 11, 2007 Not Navigable Gila County Small & Minor.pdf Gila River Jan 27, 2009 Not Navigable Gila River.pdf

Graham Cy S&M Jun 28, 2004 Not Navigable Graham County S&M

Greenlee Cy S&M June 28, 2004 Not Navigable Greenlee Cy Small & Minor.pdf

Hassayampa River Nov 17, 2009 Not Navigable Hassayampa River.pdf La Paz Cy S&M Sep 23, 2003 Not Navigable La Paz County S&M

Little Colorado River (LCR) Nov 17, 2009 Not Navigable Little Colorado River Lower Salt River Sep 21, 2005 Not Navigable Lower Salt River

Maricopa Cy S&M Oct 18, 2006 Not Navigable Maricopa County S&M Mohave Cy S&M Sep 23, 2003 Not Navigable Mohave County S&M

Navajo CY S&M Dec 14, 2011 Not Navigable Navajo County Small & Minor.pdf

Pima Cy S&M Nov 17, 2005 Not Navigable Pima Cy Small & Minor.pdf

Pinal Cy S&M Sep 21, 2005 Not Navigable Pinal Cy Small & Minor.pdf Puerco River Nov 17, 2009 Not Navigable Puerco River

San Francisco River Jun 28, 2004 Not Navigable San Franscisco River.pdf San Pedro River Oct 18, 2006 Not Navigable San Pedro River.pdf

Santa Cruz Cy S&M Dec 16, 2003 Not Navigable Santa Cruz County S&M Santa Cruz River Oct 18, 2006 Not Navigable Santa Cruz RiverSanta Maria River Apr 28, 2011 Not Navigable Santa Maria River.pdf Upper Salt River Dec 13, 2007 Not Navigable Upper Salt River.pdf

Verde River Mar 24, 2008 Not Navigable Verde River.pdfVirgin River Jan 27, 2009 Not Navigable Virgin River.pdf

Yavapai Cy S&M Dec 14, 2011 Not Navigable Yavapai County Small & Minor.pdfYuma Cy S&M Feb 20, 2003 Not Navigable Yuma County S&M

Contact ANSAC | Privacy Policy | Accessibility | Log In1700 W. Washington Room B-54, Phoenix, Arizona 85007 - All Rights Reserved

Home

Old Case Legal Mems

Old Case Evidence

New Case Legal Memos

Remand General Memos

Old Case Transcripts

Remand Case Transcripts

USSC Montana Case Memos

Supplemental Evidence

Status of Cases

Commission Reports

Parties By Case

Completed Recorded Cases

Other Legal Docs

Contact Us

Page 1 of 1Commission Reports

9/26/2014http://www.ansac.az.gov/commission_reports.asp

sscantleburyHighlight





1700 W. WashingtonRoom B-54

Phoenix, AZ 85007

Voice 602.542.9214Fax 602.542.9220Cell 602.290.3760

You Are Here: Home > status of cases

The Commission receives a number of questions regarding potential future hearings. The Commission has held more than 150 hearings throughout the state during its various iterations these past few years.

NOTE: The following table represents hearing dates, etc., from 2001-2005 and does not reflect anything regarding the six remand cases: the Gila River, Lower Salt River, San Pedro River, Santa Cruz River, Verde River, and Upper Salt River. The Commission voted on October 22, 2012 to open the records for receiving new evidence on all six of the remand cases in two specific areas: (1) Natural & Ordinary Conditions, and (2) Segmentation. While no hearings have been scheduled to accept new evidence, it is the intent of the Commission to complete all hearings by the end of 2013.

(This page was most recently updated August 19, 2013)

CASES LOG(A) Future Planned ANSAC Hearing Dates.

Bold in left column indicates major watercourse.

Watercourse Hearing Date Hearing Location

All Plannerd Watercourse Navigability Evidentiary Hearings have been completed pending results of cases in Pima County Superior Court, Maricopa County Superior Court and the Arizona Court of

Appeals.

None Scheduled None Scheduled

(B) ANSAC hearings held.

Bold in left column indicates major watercourse. Post Hearing Opening Legal Memorandums are due 30 days following completion of each hearing and the close of receipt of evidence, and Response Memorandums to the Opening Memorandums are due 20 days following the end date for Opening Memorandums. Both of these times are subject to the Commission granting extensions of filing times.


All Small & Minor Watercourses in Yuma County 02-001-NAV September 23, 2002 Yuma, Arizona

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Mohave County 02-002-NAV December 9, 2002 Kingman, Arizona

All Small & Minor Watercourses in La Paz County 02-003-NAV December 10, 2002 Parker, Arizona

Santa Cruz River (Santa Cruz County) 03-002-NAV 1st of 3 Counties March 11, 2003 Nogales, Arizona

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Santa Cruz County 03-001-NAV March 11, 2003 Nogales, Arizona

San Pedro River (Cochise County) 03-004-NAV 1st of 3 Counties March 12, 2003 Bisbee, Arizona

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Cochise County 03-003-NAV March 12, 2003 Bisbee, Arizona

Lower Salt River 03-005-NAV (Granite Reef Dam to the confluence with the Gila River) April 7 & 8, 2003 Phoenix, Arizona

Gila River (Graham County) 03-007-NAV 1st of 6 Counties

October 14, 2003 Safford, Arizona

Home

Old Case Legal Mems

Old Case Evidence

New Case Legal Memos

Remand General Memos

Old Case Transcripts

Remand Case Transcripts

USSC Montana Case Memos

Supplemental Evidence

Status of Cases

Commission Reports

Parties By Case

Completed Recorded Cases

Other Legal Docs

Contact Us

Page 1 of 7Status of Cases

9/26/2014http://www.ansac.az.gov/status_of_cases.asp


All Small & Minor Watercourses in Graham County 03-006-NAV October 14, 2003 Safford, Arizona

Gila River (Greenlee County) 03-007-NAV 2nd of 6 Counties (was 03-009) October 15, 2003 Clifton, Arizona

Blue River (Greenlee County) 03-011-NAV October 15, 2003 Clifton, Arizona

San Francisco River (Greenlee County) 03-010-NAV October 15, 2003 Clifton, Arizona

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Greenlee County 03-008-NAV October 15, 2003 Clifton, Arizona

Santa Cruz River (Pima County) 03-002-NAV 2nd of 3 Counties (was 04-001) January 22, 2004 Tucson, Arizona

San Pedro River (Pima County) 03-004-NAV 2nd of 3 Counties (was 04-002) January 22, 2004 Tucson, Arizona

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Pima County 04-003-NAV January 22, 2004 Tucson, Arizona

Santa Cruz River (Pinal County) 3d of 3 Counties 03-002-NAV (was 04-004) March 9, 2004 Florence, Arizona

San Pedro River (Pinal County) 03-004-NAV 3d of 3 Counties (was04-005) March 9, 2004 Florence, Arizona

Gila River (Pinal County) 03-007-NAV 3d of 6 Counties (was 04-006) March 9, 2004 Florence, Arizona

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Pinal County 04-007-NAV March 9, 2004 Florence, Arizona

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Gila County 04-010-NAV

November 15, 2004-Cont. Globe, Arizona

Gila River in Gila County, 03-007-NAV 4th of 6 Counties November 15, 2004 Globe, Arizona

Upper Salt River in Gila County, 04-008-NAV 1st of 2 Counties November 15, 2004 Globe, Arizona

Gila River in Yuma County, 03-007-NAV 5th of 6 Counties January 24, 2005 Yuma, Arizona

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Yavapai County 05-001-NAV March 29, 2005 Prescott, Arizona

Agua Fria River (Yavapai County) 05-002-NAV 1st of 2 Counties March 29, 2005 Prescott, Arizona

Hassyampa River (Yavapai County) 05-004-NAV 1st of 2 Counties March 29, 2005 Prescott, Arizona

Burro Creek (Yavapai County) 05-003-NAV 1st of 2 Counties March 29, 2005 Prescott, Arizona

Santa Maria River (Yavapai County) 05-005-NAV 1st of 3 Counties March 29, 2005 Prescott, Arizona

Verde River (Yavapai County) 04-009-NAV 1st of 2 Counties March 29, 2005 Prescott, Arizona

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Navajo County 05-006-NAV April 25, 2005 Holbrook, Arizona

April 25, 2005 Holbrook, Arizona



Little Colorado River (Navajo County) 05-007-NAV 1st of 3 Counties

Puerco River (Navajo County) 05-008-NAV 1st of 2 Counties April 25, 2005 Holbrook, Arizona

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Apache County 05-009-NAV April 26, 2005 St. Johns, Arizona

Little Colorado River (Apache County) 05-007-NAV 2nd of 3 Counties April 26, 2005 St. Johns, Arizona

Puerco River (Apache County) 05-008-NAV Last of 2 Counties April 26, 2005 St. Johns, Arizona

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Coconino County 05-010-NAV July 14, 2005 Flagstaff, Arizona

Little Colorado River (Coconino County) 05-007-NAV Last of 3 Counties July 14, 2005 Flagstaff, Arizona

Big Sandy (Mohave County) 05-011-NAV Only County August 8, 2005 Kingman, Arizona

Bill Williams (Mohave County) 05-012-NAV 1st of 2 Counties August 8, 2005 Kingman, Arizona

Burro Creek (Mohave County) 05-003-NAV Last of 2 Counties August 8, 2005 Kingman, Arizona

Santa Maria River (Mohave County) 05-005-NAV 2nd of 3 Counties August 8, 2005 Kingman, Arizona

Virgin River (Mohave County) 05-013-NAV Only County August 8, 2005 Kingman, Arizona

Bill Williams (La Paz County) 05-012-NAV Last of 2 Counties August 9, 2005 Parker, Arizona

Santa Marie River (La Paz County) 05-005-NAV Last of 3 Counties August 9, 2005 Parker, Arizona

Agua Fria River (Maricopa County) 05-002-NAV Last of 2 Counties September 21, 2005 Phoenix, Arizona

Hassayampa River (Maricopa County) 05-004-NAV Last of 2 Counties September 21, 2005 Phoenix, Arizona

Upper Salt River (Maricopa County) 04-008-NAV Last of 2 Counties October 20, 2005 Phoenix, Arizona

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Gila County (Completion of Hearing from 11/15/04) October 20, 2005 Phoenix, Arizona

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Maricopa County 05-014-NAV November 16, 2005 Phoenix, Arizona

Gila River (Maricopa County) 03-007-NAV Last of 6 Counties

November 16 & 17, 2005 Phoenix, Arizona

Verde River (Maricopa County) 04-009-NAV Last of 2 Counties

Nov 16, and Nov 17, 2005 and concluded on January 18, 2006

Phoenix, Arizona

(C) ANSAC Navigability Determinations and Dates, and Report Issue Dates.

Bold in left column indicates major watercourse. Reports Pending is repeated in Section F and approximately nine months of appeal time during which a party may file a motion for Judicial Review

begins on the Report Issue Date listed below.

Watercourse Report Issue Date










Determination & Date

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Yuma County 02-001-NAV

Non-Navigable, 12/09/02 February 20, 2003

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Mohave County 02-002-NAV

Non-Navigable, 03/12/03

September 23, 2003

All Small & Minor Watercourses in La Paz County 02-003-NAV


September 23, 2003

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Santa Cruz County 03-001-NAV

Non-Navigable, 09/23/03 December 16, 2003

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Cochise County 03-003-NAV


All Small & Minor Watercourse in Graham County 03-006-NAV

Non-Navigable, 01/27/04 June 28, 2004

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Greenlee County 03-008-NAV

Non-Navigable, 01/27/04 June 28, 2004

San Francisco River 03-010-NAV Non-Navigable, 01/27/04 June 28, 2004

Blue River 03-011-NAV Non-Navigable, 01/27/04 June 28, 2004

Lower Salt River 03-005-NAV (Presently On Appeal-AZ Court of Appeals)

Non-Navigable, 01/27/04 September 21, 2005

San Pedro River 03-004-NAV (Presently On Appeal-Pima Cy Superior Court)

Non-Navigable, 09/16/04 October 18, 2006

Santa Cruz River 03-002-NAV (Presently On Appeal-Pima Cy Superior Court)


All Small & Minor Watercourses in Pima County 04-003-NAV

Non-Navigable, 09/16/04 November 17, 2005

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Pinal County 04-007-NAV

Non-Navigable, 09/16/04 September 21, 2005

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Yavapai County 05-001-NAV


Report pending since 07/14/05

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Navajo County 05-006-NAV



All Small & Minor Watercourses in Apache County 05-009-NAV



Puerco River 05-008-NAV Non-Navigable, 07/14/05 November 17, 2009

Little Colorado River 05-007-NAV Non-Navigable, 10/20/05 November 17, 2009

Big Sandy 05-011-NAV Non-Navigable, 10/20/05 April 28, 2011

Bill Williams 05-012-NAV Non-Navigable, 10/20/05 April 28, 2011

Burro Creek 05-003-NAV Non-Navigable, 10/20/05 April 28, 2011







Santa Maria River 05-005-NAV Non-Navigable, 10/20/05

April 28, 2011

Virgin River 05-013-NAV Non-Navigable, 10/20/05 January 27, 2009

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Coconino County 05-010-NAV

Non-Navigable, 11/17/05 April 28, 2011

Agua Fria River 05-002-NAV Non-Navigable, 4/11/06 November 17, 2009

Hassayampa River 05-004-NAV Non-Navigable, 4/11/06 November 17, 2009

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Maricopa County 05-014-NAV


All Small & Minor Watercourses in Gila County 04-010-NAV

Non-Navigable, 5/24/06 April 11, 2007

Gila River 03-007-NAV Non-Navigable, 5/24/06 January 27, 2009

Upper Salt River 04-008-NAV (Presently On Appeal-Maricopa Cy Superior Court)


Verde River 04-009-NAV (Presently On Appeal-Maricopa Cy Superior Court)

Non-Navigable, 5/24/06 March 24, 2008

(D) ANSAC hearings awaiting post hearing legal memorandums.

Watercourses for which the evidentiary navigability hearings have been completed, all testimony has been heard and all physical evidence has been received, but the times are still pending for

receiving post hearing legal memorandums.


None-All Post Hearing Legal Memorandum Due Dates Have Expired. N/A N/A

(E) ANSAC hearings that are at issue and awaiting navigability determinations.

All testimony has been heard, all physical evidence has been received, all post hearing opening and response memorandums have been received and the times have expired for receiving additional

legal briefs. The evidence and legal memorandums are being reviewed by the Commissioners and a vote to determine navigability will be held in the future.


None-All Navigability Determinations have been Made. N/A N/A

(F) ANSAC reports pending and not yet completed and adopted by Commission.

Bold in left column indicates major watercourse. Once a report is completed and adopted by the Commission, approximately nine months of time begins during which an appeal can be filed in

Superior Court in the appropriate county. The navigability determination date, which is the date the report is ratified or adopted by the Commission, is also the beginning date for appeal time.

Watercourse Determination & Date Report Issue Date

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Yavapai County 05-001-NAV



All Small & Minor Watercourses in Navajo County 05-006-NAV



All Small & Minor Watercourses in Apache County 05-009-NAV







Big Sandy 05-011-NAV Non-Navigable, 10/20/05


Bill Williams 05-012-NAV Non-Navigable, 10/20/05Report pending since 10/20/05

Burro Creek 05-003-NAV Non-Navigable, 10/20/05Report pending since 10/20/05

Santa Maria River 05-005-NAV Non-Navigable, 10/20/05Report pending since 10/20/05

All Small & Minor Watercourses in Coconino County 05-010-NAV



(G) Notices of Intent to Appeal.

Watercourse By Notice Received by ANSAC

Lower Salt River 03-005-NAV State Land Department March 24, 2006

San Pedro River 03-004-NAV Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest July 23, 2007

Santa Cruz River 03-002-NAV Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest July 23, 2007

Upper Salt River 04-008-NAV State Land Department June 10, 2008

Verde River 04-009-NAV State Land Department September 19, 2008

Gila River 03-007-NAV State Land Department July 24, 2009

(H) Appeals/Judicial Reviews Filed in State Superior Court.

Watercourse By Date Filed Court/Division Date Completed Results

Lower Salt River 03-005-NAV

SLD/Attorney General

June 30, 2006

Maricopa County

Superior Court, Judge Carey Snyder Hyatt,

LC2006-000413-001DT

Judgment

August 7, 2007

ANSAC's Determination of September 21,

2005 was affirmed.

San Pedro River 03-004-NAV

Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest

July 18, 2007

Pima County Superior Court, Judge Paul E.

Tang, C20073884

Santa Cruz River 03-002-NAV

Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest

July 18, 2007

Pima County Superior Court, Judge Paul E.

Tang, C20073885

Upper Salt River 04-008-NAV


September 18, 2008

Maricopa County

Superior Court Judge Crane McLennen, LC2008-

000602-001 DT

Verde River 04-009-NAV


December 19, 2008 Maricopa

County Superior Court Judge Crane McLennen, LC2008-



000860-001 DT

Gila River 03-007-NAV


October 27, 2009

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Crane McLennen LC2009-000779-001 DT

(I) Appeals/Judicial Reviews Completed in State Superior Court and filed in the Arizona Court of Appeals.

Watercourse By Date Filed Date Completed Results

Lower Salt River 03-005-NAV

ACLPI, SLD/Attorney

General

August 29, 2007

May 3, 2010

Vacated Superior Court Decision and Remanded/Returned to ANSAC for Additional Proceedings. May 10, 2010, ANSAC filed Motion to Reconsider with the Court of Appeals. June 15, 2010, Court of Appeals denied Motion for Reconsideration and Upheld its original findings.

(J) Matters filed as Petitions for Review with the Arizona Supreme Court.

Watercourse By Date Filed Date Completed Results

Lower Salt River 03-005-NAV ANSAC

June 28, 2010

Contact ANSAC | Privacy Policy | Accessibility | Log In1700 W. Washington Room B-54, Phoenix, Arizona 85007 - All Rights Reserved



Date post:	17-Feb-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS...A.R.S. 45-158 and 162(A). Because subsections 45-153(A)...

Documents