Determining what is in the public welfare in water appropriations and transfers: The intel example

Natural Resources Journal

Volumn 36, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 103-125

[No Author Info available]

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 26444471992     PISSN: 00280739     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (168)

1. Douglas L. Grant, Public Interest Review of Water Right Allocation and Transfer in the West: Recognition of Public Values, 19 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 681 (1987).
2. Id. at 685.
3. See, e.g., Young & Norton v. Hinderlider, 110 P. 1045 (N.M. 1910); Cookingham v. Lewis, 114 P. 88 (Or. 1911), reh'g denied, 115 P. 32 (Or. 1911); In re Commonwealth Power Co., 143 N.W. 937 (Neb. 1913).
4. See Grant, supra note 1, at 688.
5. See Richard Ausness, Water Rights, The Public Trust Doctrine, and the Protection of Instream Uses, 1986 U. ILL. L. REV. 407 (1986).
6. The terms public interest and public welfare are interchangeable for purposes of this discussion. Where cases and statutes specifically use one term or the other, this Note reflects that terminology.
7. See ALASKA STAT. § 46.15.080(a) (Michie 1962 & Supp. 1995); ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 45-153(A) (West 1994 & Supp. 1995-96); CAL. WATER CODE § 1255 (West 1971 & Supp. 1995); IDAHO CODE § 42-203A(5)(e) (Michie 1948 & Supp. 1995); KAN. STAT. ANN. §§ 82a-711 (1989 & Supp. 1993); MONT. CODE ANN. § 85-2-311(4)(b)(iii) (1995); NEB. REV. STAT. §§ 46-234(2), 235(2)(a)(iii), (1993 & Supp. 1994); NEV. REV. STAT. § 533.370(3) (1986 & Supp. 1993); N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 72-5-1, 6, 7, 72-12-3(E) (Michie 1978 & Supp. 1985); N.D. CENT. CODE ANN. § 61-04-06 (Michie 1995); OR. REV. STAT. § 537.170 (Butterworh 1987); S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 46-2A-9 (Michie Rev. 1987 & Supp. 1995); TEX. WATER CODE ANN. § 11.134(3)(c) (Vernon's 1988); UTAH CODE ANN. § 73-3-8(1) (Michie 1953 & Supp. 1995); WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 90.03.290 (West 1992 Supp. 1995); WYO. STAT. § 41-4-503 (Michie 1995). The two states without public interest review statutes are Oklahoma and Colorado. See COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 37-82-101 et seq. (West 1990 & Supp. 1995); OKLA. STAT. ANN. §§ 82-105 et seq. (West 1990 & Supp. 1995-6).
8. These states are: Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, and North Dakota.
9. Norman K. Johnson & Charles T. DuMars, A Survey of the Evolution of Western Water Law in Response to Changing Economic and Public Interest Demands, 29 NAT. RESOURCES J. 347, 349 (1989).
10. N.M. CONST. ART. XVI, § 3: "Beneficial use shall be the basis, the measure and the limit of the right to use of water".
11. Johnson & DuMars, supra note 9, at 356.
12. N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 72-5-51, 72-5-6, 72-5-7, 72-5-23, 72-5-24, 72-12-7 (Repl. Pamp. 1985).
13. See Hinderlider, 110 P. 1045; In re Commonwealth Power, 143 N.W. 937; Big Horn Power Co. v. State of Wyoming, 148 P. 1110 (Wyo. 1915).
14. Hinderlider, 110 P. at 1057. There, the court said that "the failure of any irrigation project carries with it not only disastrous consequences to its owners and to the farmers who are depending on it, but besides tends to destroy faith in irrigation projects generally." Id.
15. Id. at 1056-57.
16. 143 N.W. 937 (1913).
17. Id. at 939.
18. Id. at 938-39.
19. 148 P. 1110 (Wyo. 1915).
20. Id. at 1114-15.
21. Grant, supra note 1, at 688.
22. Act of Feb. 28, 1929, ch. 245, § 1, 1929 Or. Laws 252-53. The currently amended version is at OR. REV. STAT. § 537.170(5) (1987).
23. Grant, supra note 1, at 688.
24. ALASKA STAT. § 46.15.080(b) (1962 & Supp. 1995) reads as follows: In determining the public interest, the commissioner shall consider (1) the benefit to the applicant resulting from the proposed appropriation; (2) the effect of the economic activity resulting from the proposed appropriation; (3) the effect on fish and game resources and on public recreational opportunities; (4) the effect on public health; (5) the effect of losses of alternate uses of water that might be made within a reasonable time if not precluded or hindered by the proposed appropriations; (6) harm to other persons resulting from the proposed appropriations; (7) the intent and ability of the applicant to complete the appropriation; and (8) the effect upon access to navigable or public waters.
25. See supra, note 7.
26. Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, and North Dakota currently have statutes requiring public interest review of water rights transfers. See supra, note 7.
27. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 45-801.01-898.01 (West 1994 & Supp. 1995).
28. CAL. WATER CODE §§ 1243, 1243.5 (West 1971 & Supp. 1995).
29. IDAHO CODE § 42-1501 (Michie 1990 & Supp. 1995).
30. 1907 N.M. Laws, ch. 49, § 28.
31. Young & Norton v. Hinderlider, 110 P. 1045 (N.M. 1910).
32. Consuelo Bokum, Options for Implementing the Public Welfare Requirement in New Mexico's Water Code 1-2 (Oct. 1994) (unpublished manuscript on file with the author).
33. Id. at 2.
34. N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 72-5-23, 72-5-24 (Michie 1978 & Supp. 1985) (surface water); N.M. STAT. ANN. § 72-12-7 (Michie 1978 & Supp. 1985) (ground water).
35. N.M. STAT. ANN. § 72-12-3(E) (Michie 1978 & Supp. 1985).
36. Id.
37. Young & Norton v. Hinderlider, 110 P. 1045, 1056 (N.M. 1910).
38. Sleeper v. Reynolds, No. RA 84-53(C), (N.M. Dist. Ct. Apr. 16, 1985) [hereinafter Sleeper I], rev'd, 760 P.2d 787 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988), cert. quashed, 759 P.2d 200 (N.M. 1988). For a detailed discussion of the Sleeper case, see Shannon A. Parden, Note, The Milagro Beanfield War Revisited in Ensenada Land and Water Association v. Sleeper: Public Welfare Defies Transfer of Water Rights, 29 NAT. RESOURCES J. 861 (1989).
39. Sleeper v. Ensenada Land and Water Ass'n, 760 P.2d 787 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988) [hereinafter Sleeper II].
40. Sleeper I, slip op. at 2.
41. Id. at 4.
42. Id.
43. Id.
44. Id. at 5.
45. Id.
46. Id.
47. Sleeper II, 760 P.2d at 789.
48. Sleeper I, slip op. at 6-8.
49. Id.
50. Parden, supra note 38, at 864.
51. Id. at 865.
52. Sleeper I, slip op. at 5-6.
53. Id. at 8.
54. Parden, supra note 38, at 865-66.
55. Sleeper II, 760 P.2d at 791.
56. N.M. STAT. ANN. § 72-5-23 (Michie 1978 & Supp. 1985).
57. See Shokal v. Dunn, 707 P.2d 441 (Idaho 1985).
58. See Johnson & DuMars, supra note 9, at 351. An appropriative water right, once vested, is a constitutionally protected property interest. It can be sold, leased, or transferred. This protection came about out of the necessity to promote investment of capital and protect the stability of long-term financial arrangements of economic development which depended on water.
59. Sleeper I, slip op. at 7-9.
60. Rio Arriba County Land Subdivision Regulations, 1 WATER MARKET UPDATE 1, 9-10 (1987), cited in Grant, supra note 1, at 701.
61. See Grant, supra note 1, at 701.
62. Id. at 701-02, citing Schmidt, COMMENTARY IN WESTERN WATER RESOURCES: COMING PROBLEMS AND THE POLICY ALTERNATIVES, 221-222 (M. Duncan ed., 1980): "[W]e can't say that one decision-making system is better, more efficient, or more equitable . . . without first asking whose interests we want to serve . . ."
63. Schmidt, COMMENTARY IN WESTERN WATER RESOURCES: COMING PROBLEMS AND THE POLICY ALTERNATIVES, 1980 221-222 Id.
64. ALASKA STAT. § 46.15.080(b). Other examples of public interest statutes which comprehensively define public welfare include N.D. CENT. CODE § 61-4-06 (1985) and OR. REV. STAT. § 537.170(5) (1985).
65. UTAH CODE ANN. § 73-3-8 (Michie 1953 & Supp. 1995). Other examples include CAL. WATER CODE §§ 1256-58 (West 1972 & Supp. 1987) and UTAH CODE ANN. § 73-3-8 (Supp. 1986).
66. CAL. WATER CODE §§ 1256-1258 (West 1971 & Supp. 1995).
67. NEV. REV. STAT. § 533.370(3) (1986 & Supp. 1993).
68. N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 72-5-5.1, -6, -7, -23, 72-12-3, 72-12-7 (Michie 1978 & Supp. 1985).
69. UTAH CODE ANN. § 73-3-8(1) (Michie 1953 & Supp. 1995).
70. Stempel v. Department of Water Resources, 508 P.2d 166 (Wash. 1973); Shokal v. Dunn, 707 P.2d 441 (Idaho 1985).
71. Stempel, 508 P.2d 166.
72. Id. at 172.
73. WASH. REV. CODE ANN. §§ 90.54.010-.920 (West 1992 & Supp. 1995).
74. WASH. REV. CODE ANN. §§ 43.21C.010-.910 (West 1983 & Supp. 1995).
75. Stempel, 508 P.2d. at 171-72.
76. 707 P.2d 441 (Idaho 1985).
77. Shokal, 707 P.2d at 448, citing IDAHO CODE § 42-1501 (Supp. 1986).
78. Shokal, 707 P.2d at 448, citing IDAHO CODE § 42-1501.
79. Shokal, 707 P.2d at 449.
80. See Grant, supra note 1, at 690-91.
81. See, e.g., ALASKA STAT. ANN. § 46.15.080 (1962 & Supp. 1995).
82. See Shokal, 707 P.2d at 448-49. There, the Idaho Supreme Court held that the elements listed in the Alaska statute (§ 46.5.080(b)) must be considered part of the local public interest. It further held that assuring minimum stream flows, discouraging waste, and encouraging conservation should also be considered.
83. See generally NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER, LIVING WITHIN OUR MEANS: A WATER MANAGEMENT POLICY FOR NEW MEXICO IN THE 21ST CENTURY (1992).
84. ALASKA STAT. ANN. § 46.15.080(b) (1985).
85. Id.
86. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. §§ 45.801.01 to 898.01 (Supp. 1995).
87. CALIF. WATER CODE §§ 1243, 1243.5 (West 1962 & Supp. 1995).
88. IDAHO CODE § 42-1501 (Michie 1948 & Supp. 1995).
89. NEB. REV. STAT. § 46-2, 107 (1993), § 46-2, 111 (Supp. 1995).
90. OR. REV. STAT. § 537.170(5) (Butterworth 1987).
91. WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 9054.010 (West 1992 & Supp. 1995).
92. Grant, supra note 1, at 708-09.
93. Id. at 710.
94. TEX. WATER CODE ANN. § 11.024 (Supp. 1987). Another example is a provision in the California Water Code: "It is hereby declared to be the established policy of this State that the use of water for domestic purposes is the highest use of water and that the next highest use is for irrigation." CAL WATER CODE § 106 (West 1971 & Supp. 1995).
95. But the North Dakota water code, for example, contains the following preference statute: "When there are competing applications for water from the same source, and the source is insufficient to supply all applicants, the state engineer shall adhere to the following order of priority: (1) Domestic use; (2) Municipal use; (3) Livestock use; (4) Irrigation use; (5) Industrial use; (6) Fish, wildlife, and other outdoor recreation." N.D. CENT. CODE ANN. § 61-04-06.1 (Michie 1995).
96. See generally Charles T. DuMars & Michelle Minnis, New Mexico Water Law: Determining Public Welfare Values in Water Rights Allocation, 31 ARIZ. L. REV. 817 (1989).
97. See Grant, supra note 1, at 693.
98. The nondelegation doctrine limits the ability of the legislative branch to delegate powers to an executive agency because the delegation may offend the separation of powers doctrine. To ensure that the power is essentially retained in the legislature, delegated powers must not be broad but must be limited by standards to guide the agency and to allow courts to determine whether standards have been followed. See, e.g., Touby v. United States, 500 U.S. 160 (1991).
99. In Re the Applications of Intel Corporation to Appropriate the Underground Waters of the State of New Mexico in the Rio Grande Underground Water Basin, No. RG-57125, RG-57125-S and RG-57125-S-2 (June 10, 1994) (Findings and Order) [hereinafter State Engineer Findings and Order).
100. Id. at 3. However, Intel proposed to implement water conservation measures to reduce its total average water demand by between 1,430,000 gallons per day in January 1995 to 4,080,000 gallons per day in 1999, resulting in a per-day demand of 5,680,000 in January 1995 to 6,320,000 in January 1999. Thus, Intel estimated a reduction in its average total site water demand between 20.1% in 1995 and 39.2% in 1999. Id. at 4-5. The State Engineer retained jurisdiction over the permit until 1999 to monitor Intel's progress on the proposed water conservation measures. Id. at 15-16.
101. State Engineer Findings and Order, supra note 98, at 8.
102. An acre foot is the amount of water it takes to flood one acre a foot deep.
103. Intel Permit Applications Nos. RG-57125, RG-57125-S, and RG-57125-S-2.
104. Memorandum Brief in Support of Findings and Order for the Village of Corrales, In Re the Applications of Intel Corporation to Appropriate the Underground Waters of the State of New Mexico in the Rio Grande Underground Water Basin, No. RG-57125, RG-57125-S and RG-57125-S-2 (June 10, 1994) [hereinafter Corrales Memorandum Brief].
105. The State Engineer granted Intel an appropriation of 3,248.6 AFY, to be drawn from all three wells combined, instead of the 4,500 AFY Intel applied for. The State Engineer imposed the condition that the applicant install well monitoring systems in the Corrales area to monitor groundwater effects from Intel's wells for a period of three years from the first date of diversion of water resulting from the permit. The State Engineer further retained jurisdiction to evaluate the effects on the shallow wells in Corrales after three years of pumpage. Finally, the State Engineer retained jurisdiction over the permit to evaluate, through January 1999, the progress made by Intel on its water conservation programs. State Engineer Findings and Order, supra note 98, at 13-16.
106. Corrales Memorandum Brief, supra note 103, at 12-18.
107. Sleeper v. Reynolds, No. RA 84-53(C), (N.M. Dist. Ct. Apr. 16, 1985) [hereinafter Sleeper I], rev'd, 760 P.2d 787 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988), cert. quashed, 759 P.2d 200 (N.M. 1988).
108. Anaya v. Public Service Co. of New Mexico, No. 43,347 (N.M. First Jud. Dist. June 22, 1990), cited in Corrales Memorandum Brief, supra note 103, at 13. The court held that ditch users with provisionally determined priority dates earlier than that of the utility had the better right. Discussing public welfare considerations, the court said: "The interest of the public does not only comprehend economic values but cultural, historical and aesthetic values."
109. Corrales Memorandum Brief, supra note 103, at 13.
110. Id. at 16.
111. Id. at 18.
112. Id. at 16.
113. SOUTHWEST ORGANIZING PROJECT, INTEL INSIDE NEW MEXICO 31 (May 3, 1994). The report can be obtained from Southwest Organizing Project in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
114. Id. at 31.
115. Id.
116. Id. at 18.
117. Intel Corporations's [sic] Findings of Facts, and Conclusions of Law at 13, In Re the Applications of Intel Corporation to Appropriate the Underground Waters of the State of New Mexico in the Rio Grande Underground Water Basin, No. RG-57125, RG-57125-S and RG-57125-S-2 (June 10, 1994) [hereinafter Intel Findings and Conclusions].
118. Id. at 13.
119. Id.
120. Id.
121. Id. at 13-14.
122. TVI is a Community College in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
123. Intel Findings and Conclusions, supra note 117, at 14.
124. Id. at 15.
125. Id.
126. Id.
127. Id.
128. Id. at 14.
129. Id. at 6.
130. Id. at 7.
131. Id. at 8.
132. State Engineer Findings And Order, supra note 98, at 13.
133. Id. at 15.
134. Id. at 14.
135. Id.
136. Id.
137. City of El Paso v. Reynolds, 597 F. Supp. 694, 700 (D.N.M. 1984).
138. See Frank J. Trelease, Alaska's New Water Use Act, 2 LAND & WATER L. REV. 1 (1967).
139. See DuMars & Minnis, supra note 95; see also Martha C. Franks, The Meaning of "Public Welfare" in Water Law, 8 NEW MEXICO NAT. RESOURCES L. REP. 1 (1993).
140. John Klein-Robbenhaar, Balancing Efficiency With Equity: Determining the Public Welfare in Northern New Mexico Surface Water Transfers, 36 NAT. RESOURCES J. (1996).
141. See generally Bokum, supra note 32, at 19-28.
142. See generally DuMars & Minnis, supra note 95.
143. See Grant, supra note 1, at 709-10.
144. The Idaho Supreme Court in Shokal v. Dunn, 707 P.2d 441 (Idaho 1985), characterized the problem as follows: The relevant elements and their relative weights will vary with local needs, circumstances, and interests. For example, in an area heavily dependent on recreation and tourism or specifically devoted to preservation in its natural state, Water Resources may give great consideration to the aesthetic and environmental ramifications of granting a permit which calls for substantial modification of the landscape or the stream. Id. at 450.
145. See Grant, supra note 1, at 710.
146. Shokal, 707 P.2d at 450.
147. Id. at 451.
148. N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 72-14-1-72-14-42 (Michie 1978 & 1995 Supp.).
149. Id.
150. See DuMars & Minnis, supra note 95, at 837-38.
151. Id. at 838.
152. Id. The authors argue that ideally, water use priorities established through the regional water planning process would reflect hydrologic and economic conditions of the region as well as the distribution of public values regarding water characteristic of the region. Once a regional plan had been produced, it could serve as a set of binding regulations for purposes of determining public welfare for water decisions affecting the region.
153. See Bokum, supra note 32, at 17.
154. Id. at 18.
155. Kerr-McGee Nuclear Corp. v. New Mexico Envtl. Improvement Bd., 637 P.2d 38, 46 (N.M. Ct. App. 1981) ("[i]n administrative law it is essential that an independent state agency sit as a fair and impartial body at a hearing in which massive and important regulations are to be adopted."), cited with approval by Bokum, supra note 32, at 18.
156. See generally Klein-Robbenhaar, supra note 139.
157. 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370(b) (1988). The requirements for an environmental impact statement are found at 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).
158. See DuMars & Minnis, supra note 95, at 837; see also Klein-Robbenhaar, supra note 139.
159. See, e.g., Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 558 (1978). NEPA itself does not mandate particular results, but simply prescribes the necessary process.
160. N.M. STAT. ANN. § 72-2-8 (Michie 1978 & Supp. 1985).
161. See Bokum, supra note 32, at 21.
162. Id.
163. Id. at 28.
164. DuMars & Minnis, supra note 95, at 837-38.
165. The idea that citizen input should be involved in the legislature's process of defining public welfare came from Consuelo Bokum. (telephone interview with Consuelo Bokum, Mar. 28, 1995).
166. The New Mexico Supreme Court, in analyzing the public welfare requirement, stated that public welfare should be construed broadly. Young & Norton v. Hinderlider, 110 P. 1045, 1050 (N.M. 1910).
167. Douglas Grant argues that minimum standards will provide the additional benefit of streamlining permit processes by weeding out certain applications at the very outset of the process. Grant, supra note 1, at 710.
168. Conservation of water is already an important goal in New Mexico. The State Engineer must consider conservation of water in applications for appropriations and transfer of water. Water quality, like conservation of water, is an important social goal which should be made a part of public welfare considerations. Idaho, for example, requires that water quality be made part of public welfare considerations. The Shokal court reasoned that although the Department of Health was already primarily responsible for water quality, it would make little sense for the Department of Water Resources to grant permit requests without regard to water quality regulations. Shokal v. Dunn, 707 P.2d 441, 451 (Idaho 1985).