Court Opinion

ID: 9531062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:07:04.482855+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:20.086210
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, Justice,
concurring specially.
I am satisfied that in this instance, in both proceedings, the State Board of Control held a full statutory hearing and ruled there was insufficient evidence of potential benefit or injury, thus disposing of the abandonment proceedings on the merits. I am in complete agreement with the opinion of the court, and I concur in it.
My examination of the pertinent statutes persuades me there is a legislative policy foreclosing unlimited retention of unused water rights. Such rights are considered to be abandoned, and the holder forfeits “all water rights and privileges appurtenant thereto.” Wyo.Stat. § 41-3-401(a) (Supp.1992) provides, in pertinent part:
Where the holder of an appropriation of water from a surface, underground or reservoir water source fails, either intentionally or unintentionally, to use the water therefrom for the beneficial purposes for which it was appropriated, whether under an adjudicated or unadjudicated right, during any five (5) successive years, he is considered as having abandoned the water right and shall forfeit all water rights and privileges appurtenant thereto.
Wyo.Stat. § 41-3-402(a) (Supp.1992) then provides, in pertinent part:
When any appropriator has failed, intentionally or unintentionally, to use any portion of surface, underground or reservoir water appropriated by him, whether under an adjudicated or unadjudicated right, for a period of five (5) successive years, the state engineer may initiate forfeiture proceedings against the appropriator with the state board of control, to determine the validity of the unused right.
While another water user may have difficulty in establishing benefit or injury with respect to an unused water right, the state engineer does not have to meet that burden, and the right may be forfeited as a matter of appropriate management and regulation. Such efforts would be appropriate to meet the policy concerns expressed in the dissenting opinion. While traditionally the state has relied upon adversary proceedings between users of water to address abandonment, in view of the burden imposed upon a junior appropriator that this case recognizes, the state engineer may be obliged to pursue the statutory forfeiture proceedings.