Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Kovacovich - 411 P.2d 201 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966)

Rule:

Under the doctrine of beneficial use, a water right is attached to the land on which it is beneficially used and becomes appurtenant thereto. The right is not in any individual or owner of the land. It is in no sense a floating right, nor can the right, once having attached to a particular piece of land, be made to do duty to any other land, with certain exceptions, for example, where the land is washed away. This doctrine was further implemented by enactment of a series of statutes, today referred to as the Arizona State Water Code, wherein matters pertaining to application of waters to new lands or changes in use of waters previously appropriated was placed under the jurisdiction of the Arizona State Land Department. In addition, these statutes prescribe certain standards to be followed by the Arizona State Land Department with respect to applications for acquisition of change in the use of water under title 45, chapter 1, articles 1 through 6 of the Arizona Revised Statutes.

Facts:

Appellee landowners used the river water for irrigation purposes. Appellees were able to conserve water that had normally been expended on their lands appurtenant to the Verde River. The appellees diverted the extra water to other uses. Appellant water company brought the present action seeking a permanent injunction against appellees to enjoin the use of waters of the Verde River upon certain land, and asking for determination with respect to whether or not valid and existing water rights were legally existing appurtenant to such land. The judgments, entered in appellee landowners' favor, denied the appellant water company its request to enjoin the landowners from using water from the Verde River in Yavapai County. Appellant sought review. 

Issue:

Were the appellee landowners entitled to divert the extra water for other uses, notwithstanding the lack of valid water appropriation? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On appeal, the court noted that the appellee landowners' conservation of water was admirable. The court found, however, that under the doctrine of beneficial use, the appellee landowners were not entitled to divert the extra water to other uses. The court held that beneficial use under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 45-101(B) was the measure and the limit to the use of water. The court held that the water rights were attached to the land and not in the landowners. In reversing, the court held that the appellee landowners were only entitled to appropriate water from the Verde River in an amount that could be beneficially used by the land to which the water was appurtenant. The court held that the appellee landowners were not entitled to divert extra water just because the amount used on appurtenant land was less than the maximum allowed under their appropriation. The court held that an injunction issued in favor of the appellant water company was an appropriate remedy.