Opinion ID: 1224377
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Specific statutes

Text: ¶ 17 As amended, § 45-141(B) prohibits a finding of forfeiture or abandonment when water has been used on less than all the land to which the right was appurtenant. This provision creates a new protection against a finding of abandonment or forfeiture that did not exist in the former § 45-141. The consequences of failure to make use of appropriated water on all of the appropriator's land must be determined on the basis of the law existing at the time of the event, not on the basis of subsequently enacted legislation that may change the order of priority. Cf. Klein, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) at 148. Section 45-141(C) eliminates any possibility of forfeiture for rights initiated before June 12, 1919. If applied retrospectively, this too creates a new and unconstitutional protection for pre-1919 water rights that may have been forfeited and vested in others under the law existing prior to 1995. Forfeiture and resultant changes in priority must be determined under the law as it existed at the time of the event alleged to have caused the forfeiture. ¶ 18 Section 45-151(D) [4] provides that the availability of alternative water sources does not affect a surface water right. No such provision existed under the prior statutory law, and it cannot be retroactively added to the statute or engrafted in the common law. Section 45-151(E) (contained in both HB 2276 and HB 2193) states that water rights appropriated on federal land belong to the person who first made beneficial use of the water; § 45-151(F) states that water on federal land may be used at any location; and § 45-156(E) provides that failure to obtain approval for a change in use does not result in abandonment, forfeiture, or loss of priority. These are all new enactments that cannot be retroactively applied to affect rights vested under the interpretation of statutes or common law existing at the time of the events. Among the over 70,000 pending claims, it is likely that some, perhaps many, will depend on the meaning of the law as it existed at the time of the events at issue. The resolution of such issues and consequent effect on priority must be determined by interpretation and application of the then-existing statutory and common law. Substantive rights and consequent priorities cannot be determined by statutes subsequently enacted, especially those enacted while the case is pending before the court. See Hall, 149 Ariz. at 138, 717 P.2d at 442; Tower Plaza Invs., 109 Ariz. at 251-52, 508 P.2d at 327-28. ¶ 19 Section 45-162(B) provides that a delay by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) in processing a water right application does not affect priority. As we read the old and new versions of the statute, the priority date under both is the application's filing date. If this new provision changes anything at all, it does so retroactively. ¶ 20 Section 45-187 recognizes an appropriator's acquisition of water rights through adverse possession until May 21, 1974. [5] The previous version of the statute recognized adverse possession claims only until 1919. [6] Thus, rights may now be claimed by adverse possession for the period from 1919 through 1974, to the possible detriment of users whose statutory appropriative rights accrued after 1919. This new version of § 45-187 cannot sensibly be read to apply to the consequences of events occurring after March 17, 1995the date the statute took effect. ¶ 21 These changes to § 45-187 present a paradigm of unconstitutional retrospective application. The changes not only apply to previous conditions but also change the consequences of past events. As the previous versions of § 45-187 recognized, before 1919 water rights could be acquired by adverse possession. Whether a water right could be acquired by adverse possession between 1919 and 1974 is not entirely clear. For instance, Tattersfield v. Putnam suggests that to initiate and perfect a water right, certain statutory formalities were required after 1919. 45 Ariz. 156, 174, 41 P.2d 228, 235 (1935). Accordingly, one could not appropriate water by mere beneficial use. Id. It could thus be argued that one who failed to meet the formalities in the 1919 water codeapplying for a permit and recording the certificatecould not have acquired a right by adverse possession after 1919. On the other hand, at least one case suggests otherwise. Gibbons v. Globe Development, Nevada, Inc., expressly states that a water right may be obtained by adverse possession. 113 Ariz. 324, 325, 553 P.2d 1198, 1199 (1976). Gibbons held that there was a triable issue of fact whether a water right by adverse possession had been established. Id. at 326, 553 P.2d at 1200. It did not specify the year the adverse use began. Whether a right could be acquired by adverse possession between 1919 and 1974 must be determined by the law in effect at the time, not by the 1995 statute. The power to define existing law in adjudicating disputes rests exclusively within the judicial branch. Chevron Chem. Co., 131 Ariz. at 440, 641 P.2d at 1284. ¶ 22 Sections 45-188(A), (B), and (C) likewise impermissibly affect vested substantive rights. The 1974 version of § 45-188 provided simply that a water right could be lost through abandonment or forfeiture (nonuse, without sufficient cause for five years), without reference to the date the right was initiated. Subsections (A) and (B) of the 1995 version, however, limit nonuse forfeiture to those rights initiated on or after June 12, 1919. [7] The effect of the 1995 statutory amendment is to negate the forfeiture provisions of the 1974 statute. Given that some claims may be based on rights or priorities acquired through forfeiture of otherwise senior rights after 1974, the provisions added to § 45-188 were undoubtedly intended to alter the legal consequences of preenactment events. Some otherwise junior appropriators may have already advanced in priority due to forfeited water rights. The forfeited senior rights cannot be revived by legislation passed in 1995. ¶ 23 Subsection (C) of § 45-188 insulates from abandonment and forfeiture water rights appurtenant to lands within an irrigation district, water users' association, or the like so long as an operable delivery system is maintained. This, too, did not exist before HB 2276 and must share the same fate as subsections (A) and (B). These provisions all alter the law regarding the creation, appropriation, retention, priority, abandonment, or forfeiture of previously vested water rights and are thus substantive changes. They are retroactive because they may alter the vested consequences of past events. Legislation that changes the rules governing the legal consequences of past events violates article II, section 4 of the Arizona Constitution. Cf. Chevron Chem. Co., 131 Ariz. at 438-40, 641 P.2d at 1282-84. ¶ 24 The Legislature added in § 45-189(E) the following five new exceptions to post-1919 forfeiture for nonuse: 8. The reconstruction, replacement, reconfiguration or maintenance of water storage or distribution facilities, using reasonable diligence including the failure to divert or store water as a result of those activities. 9. An agreement between the holder of a reservoir right and the United States, this state or any city, county or other municipal or governmental entity to leave a minimum pool of water in the reservoir for the benefit of the public for recreation, fish and wildlife purposes. 10. Use of the water appropriated on less than all of the land to which the right is appurtenant. 11. An agreement between the operator of a reservoir and a person entitled to the use of water stored in the reservoir allowing the water to be withdrawn over a period of time exceeding five years. 12. A written agreement between two or more appropriators of water pursuant to which one or more of the appropriators agrees to forbear the exercise of its water right, in whole or in part, for the benefit of one or more appropriators within the same river system and source if the appropriator who forbears exercise of the right continues the beneficial use associated with the right. The last exception on the list (No. 13) [a]ny other reason that a court of competent jurisdiction deems would warrant nonuse remains unchanged. Judge Bolton held that because the statute has always provided a nonexclusive list of sufficient reasons for nonuse, the new exceptions were valid so long as they were applied prospectively only. We agree that the Legislature may prospectively add to this nonexclusive list. These new exceptions, however, applying to events occurring between 1919 and 1995, obviously were intended to affect and alter the legal consequences of conduct occurring before the enactment date. As a result, they retroactively affect vested substantive rights. Again, the effect of acts that occurred before the effective date of HB 2276 must be determined by the law that existed at the time of the event. The Legislature may not retroactively determine the law. See Hall, 149 Ariz. at 138, 717 P.2d at 442. ¶ 25 The Apache Tribes urge this court to hold § 45-262 unconstitutional. The statute, which did not exist prior to HB 2276, provides: Contributions of surface water by an appropriator to an Indian water rights settlement shall not diminish the appropriator's decreed water right pursuant to section 45-257 unless a severance and transfer of that right are specifically provided for in the settlement agreement, but the appropriator shall not use water available under its decreed right if the water is actually being used by an Indian tribe pursuant to the settlement agreement. The decree entered for the appropriator shall include any contributions that are made and that are designated as for the benefit of the tribe, subject to the provisions of the settlement agreement. Although Judge Bolton did not address this statute in her ruling, we conclude that it cannot stand. It is not limited to future settlement agreements. Consequently, this statute, like those previously discussed, is invalid because it may retroactively alter the consequences of past events.