Opinion ID: 1679190
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the third permit

Text: Under SDCL 46-5-34, amendment of a water permit is allowed when it should become impracticable to use all or any part of the water beneficially or economically for irrigation of any land to which the right of its use is appurtenant[.] Landowners claim that FWS made no showing that appropriation from the old dam, the initial diversion point, was impracticable. They claim that the breach of the old dam is not a sufficient showing of impracticability. FWS presented evidence that the costs of constructing a new dam at the same diversion point would be $750,000. The Board found and the court affirmed that use of this original diversion point would be made impracticable by the necessity that a new dam be built. Landowners have not shown that amendment of the permit to allow a new diversion point was improper. Landowners also argue that a permit may be amended only if the new land is appurtenant to the old land or the water source. Landowners appear to argue that appurtenancy requires that the new land must be contiguous to the property in the original permit. SDCL 46-5-34 provides: All water used in this state for irrigation purposes shall remain appurtenant to the land upon which it is used. However, if for any reason it should become impracticable to use all or any part of the water beneficially or economically for irrigation of any land to which the right of its use is appurtenant, all or any part of the right may be severed from the land and simultaneously transferred and become appurtenant to other land without losing priority of right previously established, subject to existing rights, upon approval of an application for an amended permit. No increase in total acres irrigated may be allowed under this section. Id. (emphasis added). The court correctly concluded the statute imposes no requirements that the original and the new property be contiguous. Landowners contend that use of water under the Third permit would impermissibly amend an irrigation use into a non-irrigation use. The Board found that the use of the water under the Third permit would provide habitat for waterfowl, including sloughs and marshlands with plant growth essential for waterfowl survival and propagation. Under ARSD 74:02:01:01(4), the use remains for irrigation by providing moisture for plant growth. The court affirmed the Board on this point and no error is shown. We affirm. MILLER, C.J., and WUEST, AMUNDSON and KONENKAMP, JJ., concur.