U.S. Water News Online
PHOENIX -- The Arizona Supreme Court has partially overturned a lower court's ruling and said state regulators have flexibility in how they impose water conservation mandates.
State regulators do not have to include conservation requirements for water users in regional management plans and can leave that step up to municipalities and other providers, the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling said.
The Supreme Court's decision in a lawsuit filed by Arizona Water Co. overturned the state Court of Appeals on the issue of whether state law requires the Department of Water Resources to impose conservation steps on water users.
However, the Supreme Court upheld another finding that the state can include Colorado River water delivered by the Central Arizona Water aqueduct in its calculations on whether providers are meeting state mandates for conservation requirements on use of groundwater.
The Court of Appeals' 2-1 ruling on Aug. 12 said the state's 1980 groundwater law requires the Department of Water Resources to set conservation requirements for "end users,'' not just providers.
The 1980 law is generally intended to bring groundwater use into balance with recharge of aquifers.
The Arizona Water Co. sued the state, arguing that it was being put in a bind by the department's mandate for conservation and an Arizona Corporation Commission requirement that it meet its customers needs.
The department had argued that the law did not require it to mandate conservation steps for water users, and the Court of Appeals' majority acknowledged there was "no specific statutory provision by which the Legislature definitely ordered the department to create and impose conservation measures for end users.''
However, the Court of Appeals said other provisions of the law add up to the conclusion that lawmakers intended the department to have that power in areas where the state regulates groundwater use.
The Supreme Court disagreed, saying that department has the discretion &emdash; but not a duty &emdash; to impose conservation requirement on users. Saying otherwise would amount to rewriting state law, the justices said.
Arizona Water had argued that allowing the department to include CAP water in its calculations would overstep its authority, but the Supreme Court upheld the portion of the Court of Appeals ruling that said including CAP water helps encourage conservation.
Regarding the CAP issue, the Court of Appeals had reached a similar conclusion in a 1994 ruling in which it said the department could include recovered effluent in its analysis of whether providers were complying with groundwater use limits.
The case is Arizona Water Co. vs. Arizona Department of Water Resources, CV-03 0321-PR.
Return to the U.S. Water News Archives page Or Return to the U.S. Water News Homepage
Editor@uswaternews.com
*Your Name:
*Your Email:
*Friend's Email:
Use a comma to separate e-mail addresses:
*Your Comments:
Hi, I thought you might like to read this article.
*Required Fields