Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Kovacovich
3 Ariz. App. 28, 411 P.2d 201 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A water right is appurtenant to the specific parcel of land for which it was appropriated and cannot be transferred to other lands, even if water-saving practices result in no net increase in the total quantity of water used. Water conserved on the appurtenant land inures to the benefit of other water users in the system, not to the appropriator for use on non-appurtenant lands.
Facts:
- Kovacovich and Ward owned land with valid appropriations of water from the Verde River for irrigation.
- They also owned adjacent lands that were not used for farming and had no water rights.
- Neither Kovacovich nor Ward ever applied under the Arizona Water Code to appropriate water for these adjacent lands.
- Beginning in 1933 and 1950 respectively, Kovacovich and Ward began cultivating these adjacent lands, irrigating them with water from the Verde River.
- Through water-saving practices, such as lining ditches with concrete, they used no more total water to irrigate the combined (original and adjacent) lands than they had previously used on only the original lands with the valid water appropriation.
Procedural Posture:
- The appellant (Salt River Valley Water Users' Association, unnamed in opinion) filed actions in Yavapai County Superior Court (trial court) against appellees Kovacovich and Ward.
- Appellant sought a permanent injunction to stop appellees from using Verde River water on lands without a valid water right.
- The parties submitted the case to the trial court on motions for summary judgment based on an agreed statement of facts.
- The trial court denied the injunction and ruled in favor of the appellees, confirming their right to use the water as they had been.
- Appellant appealed the trial court's judgment to the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of beneficial use permit a landowner with a valid water right for a specific parcel of land to use water saved through conservation efforts to irrigate adjacent land that has no water right?
Opinions:
Majority - Edwin Thurston, Superior Court Judge
No. The doctrine of beneficial use precludes the application of waters gained by water conservation practices to lands other than those to which the water was originally appurtenant. The court's reasoning is that a water right is not a personal, floating right to a quantity of water, but is instead attached to the specific land on which it is beneficially used. Citing precedent like Gillespie Land & Irrigation Co., the court affirmed that a water right 'is not in any individual or owner of the land' and 'once having attached to a particular piece of land, [cannot] be made to do duty to any other land.' The right is limited by the amount of water that can be beneficially used on the appurtenant land. Any water saved through conservation does not create a new right or a marketable commodity; it must remain in the watercourse for the benefit of subordinate water rights holders. Allowing landowners to unilaterally expand irrigation to non-appurtenant lands would undermine the entire legal framework of water rights and return the state to the 'chaos' that the Doctrine of Beneficial Use was created to resolve.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the strict principle of appurtenancy in Arizona water law, clarifying that a water right is a usufructuary right tied to a specific parcel of land, not a right to a fungible quantity of water. It establishes that the benefits of on-farm conservation flow to the entire water system, not exclusively to the individual who implements the conservation measures. This precedent prevents senior water rights holders from unilaterally expanding their irrigated acreage, thereby protecting the availability of water for junior rights holders and reinforcing the state's administrative authority over any changes in the place or manner of water use.
