Opinion ID: 2429351
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reasonableness of Commission's Construction

Text: The commission's examiners reasoned that pooling should be ordered in one MIPA proceeding because (1) this approach would achieve the general purposes of the MIPA; (2) there is no logical reason to treat the two sands as a common reservoir for proration and allocation purposes, but not for pooling purposes; (3) adopting Pend Oreille's position would be an inefficient use of administrative resources; and (4) Pend Oreille's construction would undermine the MIPA's effectiveness. Pursuant to APTRA section 19(e)(5), we conclude that the commission's application of the term common reservoir to the facts of this case is reasonable. We hold that the court of appeals erred in reversing that portion of the commission's order pooling both the Main and Stray Sands as a common reservoir.