Opinion ID: 501787
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Exemption from Water Replacement Requirements for Holders of Senior Water Rights

Text: 340 This issue involves the meaning of Sec. 717(a) of the SMCRA, which provides that: 341 Nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting in any way the right of any person to enforce or protect, under applicable law, his interest in water resources affected by a surface coal mining operation. 342 The interpretation of this provision is required by a challenge to a regulation promulgated to implement Sec. 717(b), quoted supra. The Secretary's regulation essentially mirrored the statutory language. See 30 C.F.R. Sec. 816.41(h). Industry challenged that regulation, arguing that Sec. 717(a) exempted mine operators who had senior water rights from the Sec. 717(b) water replacement requirements and that the regulation failed to reflect this limitation. During the course of litigation before the district court, the Secretary rejected this argument, but reinterpreted his regulation to exempt the legitimately exercised senior water rights of miners. 343 The Secretary agrees that sec. 717(a) requires deference to state water law on questions of water use, and thus interprets sec. 717(b) and the rule at issue as not requiring the replacement of water supplies to the extent a surface coal mine operator consumes or legitimately uses the water supply under a senior water right determined under applicable State law. 344 PSMRL II (Round III), 620 F.Supp. at 1525 (quoting Secretary's Response, at 6) (emphasis added). Industry accepted that interpretation and withdrew its challenge to the regulation. NWF, as intervenor, then challenged the new interpretation, arguing that Sec. 717(a) did not apply to mine operators at all and thus that there ought to be no exemption for miner's senior water rights, whether or not legitimately exercised. NWF asserted that Sec. 717(a) is a savings provision that allows afflicted water users to retain whatever remedies state law affords them against anyone who damages their water supplies--including mine operators--in addition to the water replacement remedy created by Sec. 717(b) of the SMCRA. The district court rejected this challenge and upheld the regulation as interpreted by the Secretary. PSMRL II (Round III), 620 F.Supp. at 1525. 345 NWF's characterization of Sec. 717(a) as a savings provision is accurate; but it errs in identifying what and whose rights are being saved. It is clear from the legislative history that the applicable laws referred to are state laws. H.R.REP. NO. 218, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 181 (1977), reprinted in U.S.CODE CONG. & ADMIN.NEWS 593, 712. 97 And state water laws confer rights and responsibilities on both senior and junior water users. 98 Nothing in the Act nor in the legislative history supports the proposition that only the rights of junior water users are saved by Sec. 717(a). 99 346 We can find no indication in the legislative history that mine operators were meant to be excluded from the operation of Sec. 717(a), or that Congress, when it said any person meant any person except the operator of a surface coal mine. The most reasonable interpretation of the statutory language is that whatever water rights state law afford mine operators are preserved along with those of other users. Under such a reading, Sec. 717(b) creates an additional remedy against illegitimate water uses, but does not deprive anyone, including mine operators, of whatever rights to the use of water they had previously. The savings provision by its terms applies to any persons. Congress could have easily excluded mine operators had it so intended. Moreover, throughout the SMCRA, Congress expressed a concern for preserving existing property rights, and for not interfering with state determination of those rights. The district court's decision upholding the regulation is affirmed. 347