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

Heading: Reopener provisions

Text: ¶ 26 The federal parties also contend the reopener provisions are invalid. Section 45-182(A) allows persons claiming a state law water right to file their statements of claim no later than ninety days before the date of DWR's final report for the subwatershed in which the claimed right is located. The previous deadline set by the first adjudication statute was June 30, 1979. Similarly, § 45-254(E) allows claimants to file statements or amend existing statements without leave of court up to ninety days before publication of DWR's final report for the subwatershed or federal reservation. After this time has expired but before the special master's hearings conclude, claimants may assert a claim for water use within that subwatershed or reservation without leave of court by filing a statement with DWR's director and a notice of filing with the court. When the special master has completed the hearings and has filed a report with the court, further claim filing is not permitted except with the court's permission. ¶ 27 As Judge Bolton concluded, the Legislature could have determined that the general adjudication's purpose of quantifying and prioritizing all water rights would not be well served if the 1979 filing deadline remained intact. Claimants will now be given a reasonable opportunity to properly make their claims. The reopener provisions are a legitimate exercise of legislative power and are thus constitutional. See, e.g., Davis v. Valley Distributing Co., 522 F.2d 827, 830-32 (9th Cir.1975) (upholding application of extended statutory limitations period to claim that would otherwise have been barred by prior limitations period); Chevron Chem. Co., 131 Ariz. at 438-40, 641 P.2d at 1282-84. Consequently, we affirm Judge Bolton's determination that the following statutes are procedural and may be applied retroactively: § 45-182(A), (D), and (E), reopening the time for filing statements of claims of water rights existing before March 17, 1995; and § 45-254(E), (F), and (G), providing a procedure for late filing of statements of claim and amended statements. ¶ 28 Similarly, Judge Bolton determined that § 45-263(A), which provides for the applicability of state law, is procedural. It reads: State law, including all defenses available under state law, applies to the adjudication of all water rights initiated or perfected pursuant to state law. Assuming the propriety of Judge Bolton's characterization of § 45-263(A) as a procedural statute, we note that to some extent water rights affecting federal land are governed by both state and federal law. See, e.g., Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128, 96 S.Ct. 2062, 48 L.Ed.2d 523 (1976). Thus, this provision is constitutional, but only to the extent it is interpreted consistently with the supremacy clause, article VI, clause 2 of the United States Constitution.