Loading...
You are here:  Home  >  Featured News  >  Current Article

[EXCLUSIVE] Important water ruling analyzed

Posted by   /  August 10, 2018  /  No Comments

    Print       Email

Evan Bolick

By Evan Bolick, Rose Law Group Litigator

Yesterday the Arizona Supreme Court issued an important ruling relating to water rights.  Here’s a link to the opinion – and a brief summary of the highlights below.

  • MAIN QUESTION – Is ADWR required to consider unquantified federal reserved water rights when determining the adequacy of developers’ water supplies? MAJORITY says no.

  • Acknowledges that counties may (but are not required) to make developers demonstrate they have an adequate water supply. This requires (1) a showing that there is water legally and physically available to satisfy 100 year demand needs; and (2) developer shows it has the financial capability to construct water facilities making water capable for use.

  • Physical availability requires a hydrology study and does NOT require consideration of unquantified federal reserved water rights.

  • Court of appeals erred in considering projected declines in groundwater supply when considering physical availability.

  • Legal availability also does not require consideration of unquantified federal reserved water rights.

  • Legal availability should be interpreted in accordance with ADWR’s prior construction/regulations.

  • CC&N’s are compelling evidence of legal availability of a 100 year

    water supply and can be supplemented by ACC orders and regulations.

  • In adopting the water statutes, legislature struck a balance between consumer protection from unscrupulous developers and property right to develop land.

  • Requiring ADWR to consider unquantified federal reserved water rights when considering legal, physical, or continuous availability would require ADWR to engage in too speculative of an analysis.

  • If we want more rigorous assessment, consideration of unquantified federal reserved water rights, or stronger consumer protections, legislature

    should amend the statute.

  • Does not decide, but heavily suggests, that quantified federal reserved water rights need to be considered in a legal availability analysis.

    Print       Email

Leave a Reply

You might also like...

How Rose Law Group partner, Adam Trenk, helped prevent NYC’s helicopter tourism industry from being grounded

Read More →