Opinion ID: 1373013
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the reasonable efficiency test

Text: In limiting the Grimeses' vested water right, the referee balanced several factors, including the water duty for the geographical area and crop under irrigation, the claimants' actual diversion, and sound irrigation practices. In his report, the referee described his method of calculating the Grimeses' water right as a reasonable efficiency test. [56] Amici curiae argue that this test is contrary to judicial decisions which have recognized that the standard of reasonable beneficial use of water for irrigation is limited to consideration of the use of the established means of diversion and application according to the reasonable custom of the locality. [57] Respondent Ecology argues that the 3-part reasonable efficiency test cited by the referee provides the balance sought by the courts between the competing needs of efficiency and maximum utilization of the water, and the existing physical and economic limitations in each situation. [58] Ecology asserts that local custom in irrigation practices is but one of several factors the court must consider in deciding whether a given use of water is reasonable, and, therefore, beneficial. While the referee stated that he relied on this test, and while he did in fact consider some of its elements, he did not actually utilize the test in its entirety. Therefore, we will review the factors he did consider to determine whether his analysis remained within the boundaries of prior appropriation law. In his discussion of the basis for his recommendation concerning the Grimeses' claim, the referee stated that he would balance [the water duty] against not only the actual amount of water diverted from the lake for irrigation purposes but also against the concepts of beneficial use of water and sound irrigation practices. [59] Amici curiae urge this court to hold that only the established means of diversion and application according to the reasonable custom of the locality may be considered in defining reasonable use. [60] This argument is based on the eminent domain provision of the State Water Code, which prohibits condemnation of a water right when the owner of that right is using the water: for the irrigation of his land then under irrigation to the full extent of the soil, by the most economical method of artificial irrigation applicable to such land according to the usual methods of artificial irrigation employed in the vicinity where such land is situated. In any case, the court shall determine what is the most economical method of irrigation.[ [61] ] [11] This court has consistently held that rights of users of water for irrigation purposes are vested rights in real property. [62] Amici curiae assert that the local custom test has been employed historically to determine whether given applications of water are wasteful, within the meaning of beneficial use, and that courts should now apply it in the setting of general adjudications. This is the established law in this state. [63] Decisions of courts throughout the western states provide a basis for defining reasonable efficiency with respect to irrigation practices. [64] While customary irrigation practices common to the locality are a factor for consideration, they do not justify waste of water. [65] As this court stated in a case predating the Water Code of 1917: [W]hen rights in such an important element as water is in the arid regions are to be measured by the courts, we cannot lay down a rule that would give to the user an arbitrary right to use water at will. [An irrigator's] rights are to be measured by his necessities ... and not by any fanciful notion of his own.... .... ... [C]ustom can fix the manner of use of water for irrigation only when it is founded on necessity .. . [and] an irrigator is entitled to use only so much as he can put to a beneficial use, for the public policy of the people of the United States will not tolerate waste of water in the arid regions.[ [66] ] Local custom and the relative efficiency of irrigation systems in common use are important elements, but must be considered in connection with other statutorily mandated factors, such as the costs and benefits of improvements to irrigation systems, including the use of public and private funds to facilitate improvements. [67] [12] In limiting the Grimeses' water use by a requirement of reasonable efficiency, the referee properly considered the Irrigation Report, the Grimeses' actual water use, and their existing irrigation system. The referee alluded to a test incorporating factors that consider impacts to the water source and its flora and fauna. [68] While consideration of these impacts is consonant with the State's obligations under RCW 90.03.005 and 90.54.010(1)(a) and (2), these factors cannot operate to impair existing water rights. Other laws may, however, operate to define existing rights in light of environmental values. [69] There is some confusion in the record as to the legal standard used by the referee in determining beneficial use. In his original report, the referee discussed determination of water duty. His proposed volume and rates of water were based upon exhibit 5 and expert testimony, when quantitative evidence of the rate and volume of a right was neither submitted nor made clear during testimony. [70] There is no discussion in the original report of any reasonable efficiency test. However, the referee rendered a supplemental report in response to exceptions taken by the Grimeses. In it he considered a storage right and made it clear that that right should not be confused with the diversion right of 1.5 c.f.s. But in a footnote the referee set forth a detailed test of reasonable efficiency which he purportedly used in determining beneficial use. That test is stated as follows: (1) [C]ustomary delivery and application practices in the area, (2) technology and practices improvements feasible and available to reduce water consumptions and financial needs associated with implementation thereof, and (3) impacts of improvements of existing facilities and practices, if initiated, upon (a) the water source from which the diversion takes place, (b) the existing flora and fauna within the area of diversion, conveyancy and actual uses, (c) other water rights from said water source, and (d) other water users on other water sources.[ [71] ] There is nothing in the record to support the referee's statement that he employed the reasonable efficiency test. Nowhere in the record does he discuss application of the elements of the so-called test. If he had in fact applied the test, it would be necessary for this court to reverse and remand. That test is without statutory authorization in an adjudication proceeding which relates exclusively to confirmation of water rights established or created under other provisions of state law or under federal laws. [72] [13, 14] Adjudication proceedings cannot be used to lessen, enlarge, or modify the existing rights of any riparian owner, or any existing right acquired by appropriation, or otherwise. [73] The suggested test would be contrary to the vested rights of water users. It has long been settled in this state that property owners have a vested interest in their water rights to the extent that the water is beneficially used on the land. [74] Included in the vested rights is the right to diversion, delivery and application according to the usual methods of artificial irrigation employed in the vicinity where such land is situated. [75] The Legislature sets a standard clearly contradictory to the suggested test in RCW 90.03.040, which relates to eminent domain over water rights. The test is contrary also to long established principles of Western water law. [76] While we reject use of the specific test suggested by the referee, we affirm because (1) there is no indication in the record that he in fact applied the factors stated in the test, and (2) he applied the actual beneficial use made by Grimes, taking into account the actual needs and use and the methods of delivery and application in the vicinity. The adjudication and confirmation of a water right in an amount less than claimed by Grimes does not result from application of the so-called test. Rather, as the referee makes clear: Quantification of the amount of water to which this right is entitled creates somewhat of a problem in that there has been no direct testimony regarding the amount of water placed to beneficial use other than a reference in the state's investigatory report that 56 sprinklers are utilized in the system.[ [77] ] In the absence of such proof, the referee nevertheless confirmed the right by using a normal duty of water for the type of crops raised and specifically added 25 percent for transportation loss. Making the best of inadequate proof by the claimant, it appears from the record that the referee applied the usual methods of irrigation employed in the vicinity where the Grimeses' land is located.