Arizona Department of Water Resources v. McClennen
360 P.3d 1023
Ariz.2015Background
- Water rights in Arizona may be severed and transferred subject to § 45-172(A) and ADWR conditions.
- § 45-172(A) lists explicit limitations; ADWR must approve severance/transfer and define conditions.
- Freeport sought severance/transfer of Planet Ranch water rights to a Wikieup wellfield for use at Bagdad and other Planet Ranch areas; no physical water movement.
- Bill Williams River Settlement Act of 2014 required a final decision by Dec 15, 2015 for approval; deadlines could be extended by agreement.
- Mohave County objected on grounds of public impact and tax burden, but ADWR denied objections and the superior court later vacated that decision; this Court granted special action and addressed the statutory limits and standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can ADWR deny under grounds outside § 45-172(A)? | Mohave County argues broader discretion (public interest). | ADWR authority limited to § 45-172(A) limitations. | ADWR may not deny on non‑enumerated grounds; denial must rely on § 45-172(A) limitations. |
| Who qualifies as an ‘interested person’ to file objections? | Mohave County asserts broad standing. | Only parties with interests protected by § 45-172 may object. | ‘Interested person’ limited to those with interests protection under § 45-172; County not qualifying here. |
| Did County identify any violation of § 45-172(A) in its objections? | County claimed potential public and tax impacts. | Objections did not allege violations of § 45-172(A) and thus were not legally valid. | County failed to identify § 45-172(A) violations; objections validly denied. |
| Does other statutory language (public ownership, public interest) expand ADWR’s severance/transfer authority? | Public ownership and public interest could constrain transfers. | § 45-172(A) governs transfers; other statutes do not broaden authority for this proceeding. | Other statutes do not expand ADWR’s authority beyond § 45-172(A) limitations. |
| Is ADWR’s final decision subject to further appeal after this Court’s ruling? | N/A. | N/A. | ADWR’s final decision affirmed; case remanded for attorney fees assessment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Agua Sierra Resources, L.L.C., 220 Ariz. 108 (Ariz. 2009) (distinguishes surface water from groundwater and context of appropriation)
- Lewis v. Debord, 238 Ariz. 28 (Ariz. 2015) (interpreting statutory context and avoiding implied broad readings)
- Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129 (U.S. 1993) (statutory interpretation requires context; words not read in isolation)
- FCC v. AT&T Inc., 562 U.S. 397 (U.S. 2011) (interpretation of phrases depending on context; multi-word phrases)
- State ex rel. Montgomery v. Harris (Shilgevorkyan), 234 Ariz. 343 (Ariz. 2014) (standards for standing/interpretation of term ‘interested person’)