Opinion ID: 1679190
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the second permit

Text: FWS sought the right to the continued natural flow of six springs if the water table dropped due to conditions or use by others. Landowners argue that the Second permit would improperly reserve a future use by protecting against future diminution. Under SDCL 46-5-38, only a few enumerated agencies may reserve future water rights. FWS concedes that it is not one of the statutorily enumerated agencies. The springs' natural flow was intended for current use to maintain 235 acres of marshes and other waterfowl habitat. Although FWS did not intend to divert any of the natural flow, [1] the court found that the use was current and that the permit was not granted for an impermissible future use. Landowners have not shown this to be error.
SDCL 46-2A-9 governs water right permits: A permit to appropriate water may be issued only if there is reasonable probability that there is unappropriated water available for the applicant's proposed use, that the proposed diversion can be developed without unlawful impairment of existing rights and that the proposed use is a beneficial use and in the public interest. Landowners contend that the Second permit would impair the quality of water flowing to DeKay's property and the quantity of water reaching Hines' property. The court found that the permit would not change existing natural conditions and that it would not impair the quality of water reaching DeKay's property or the quantity of water reaching Hines' property. Landowners have failed to show that the finding was erroneous.
SDCL 46-2A-9 also requires that the permit constitute a beneficial use. Under SDCL 46-1-6(3), a beneficial use is: any use of water within or outside the state, that is reasonable and useful and beneficial to the appropriator, and at the same time is consistent with the interests of the public of this state in the best utilization of water supplies[.] A two-part analysis is required to determine beneficial use. First, the use must be reasonable, useful, and beneficial to the appropriator. SDCL 46-1-6(3). Landowners argue that because duck production declined on the refuge from 1983 to 1990, [2] the use for waterfowl habitat is no longer a beneficial use for the Refuge. The court found that the habitat provides for a nationally significant population of trumpeter swans, and for Canada geese, snow geese, blue geese, cranes, and other wildlife. The court concluded that [p]ropagation of all these species is reasonable, useful and beneficial to FWS and the public. Landowners cite Lake Shore Duck Club v. Lake View Duck Club, 50 Utah 76, 166 P. 309 (1917), for the proposition that appropriating water for cultivating food for wildlife and waterfowl is not a beneficial use. However, the weight of authority indicates that beneficial use is an evolving concept, and a concept that can be expanded to reflect changes in society's recognition of the value of new uses of our resources. Rick A. Thompson, Statutory Recognition of Instream Flow Preservation: A Proposed Solution for Wyoming, 17 Land & Water L.Rev. 139, 143 (1982). Appropriation of water for waterfowl habitat and other wildlife is a beneficial use. ARSD 74:03:04:01 (All streams in South Dakota are assigned the beneficial uses of irrigation and wildlife propagation and stock watering.) (emphasis added); State v. Morros, 104 Nev. 709, 766 P.2d 263, 268 (1988). The protection of migratory birds and their habitat is in the national interest. North Dakota v. United States, 460 U.S. 300, 309, 103 S.Ct. 1095, 1101, 75 L.Ed.2d 77 (1983). A series of treaties signed by the United States starting in 1916 obligates the United States to preserve and protect migratory birds through the regulation of hunting, the establishment of refuges, and the protection of bird habitats. 460 U.S. at 309-10, 103 S.Ct. at 1101, 75 L.Ed.2d 77. It was not error to conclude that maintenance and protection of waterfowl habitat was a beneficial use by FWS. Landowners also contend that the proposed use will not be reasonable, useful, or beneficial because the area is already subirrigated by a high water table. The court found that natural precipitation is not dependable and that dependable water is required to provide for continuous growth of aquatic plants and insects, and to provide habitat needed for critical periods of wildlife development. The court concluded that FWS established that it is reasonable, necessary, and beneficial for FWS to have uninterrupted use of water. Landowners have not shown this to be error. Landowners also argue that the land is not suitable for traditional commercial irrigation because of the type of soil in the area. They argue that no beneficial use exists because water used for a wildlife refuge is not irrigation and only irrigation constitutes a beneficial use. The Board found and the court agreed that a beneficial use existed even though the crops are not harvested by human beings but by migratory birds and wildlife. The court held that a beneficial use from irrigation is not limited to raising traditional cash crops. Under ARSD 74:02:01:01(4), irrigation is providing moisture for any plant growth. The court concluded that even if it were not an irrigation use, it is a beneficial use. Under ARSD 74:03:04:01, the use of water for aquatic plant growth for wildlife propagation is a beneficial use whether or not it constitutes irrigation. Secondly, SDCL 46-1-6(3) requires that the use must be in the public interest to be deemed a beneficial use. Landowners contend that the permit is not in the public interest because FWS' past use of water has caused flooding of their land. The court found that the Board provided for the public interest. Board granted the permit subject to qualification. Under SDCL 46-1-14, the Board may issue any permit or license subject to terms, conditions, restrictions, qualifications, quantifications or limitations [ ] which it considers necessary to protect the public interest[.] Board issued the Second permit with the following qualification: Use of water authorized by this permit may not impair the use of any lands adjoining the LaCreek National Wildlife Refuge including, but not limited to, flooding or specific alteration of plant species directly attributable to water use under this permit. Flooding of adjoining land may occur if a written flood easement is obtained from the property owner or owners.