Opinion 88-4

STATE O F I D A H O OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL JIM JONES BOISE 83720 AnORNEY GENERAL ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO TO: R. Keith Higginson, D i r e c t o r Department of Water Resources Statehouse Mail Boise, ID 83720 P e r Request f o r Attorney G e n e r a l ' s Opinion TELEPHONE 12081 334-2400 QUESTIONS PRESENTED: 1. Does t h e f i l i n g of an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r change i n p o i n t of d i v e r s i o n , p l a c e of use, p e r i o d of use, o r nature of use of a water r i g h t t o l l t h e running of t h e f o r f e i t u r e period f o r nonuse of a w a t e r r i g h t e s t a b l i s h e d by Idaho Code !j 42-222(2) (Supp. 1988)? 2 . Does an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r assignment of a water r i g h t t o t h e water supply bank and subsequent acceptance of t h e r i g h t i n t o t h e bank t o l l t h e running of t h e f o r f e i t u r e period f o r nonuse of a w a t e r r i g h t e s t a b l i s h e d by Idaho Code Ij 42-222(2) (Supp. 1986), o r does Idaho Code Ij 42-1764 (Supp. 1988) r e q u i r e t h a t t h e water r i g h t be subsequently r e n t e d o u t of t h e bank and b e n e f i c i a l l y used t o p r e v e n t f o r f e i t u r e ? CONCLUSIONS : 1. The f i l i n g of an a p p l i c a t i o n .for change i n p o i n t of d i v e r s i o n , p l a c e of u s e , p e r i o d of u s e , o r nature of. use of a water r i g h t does n o t t o l l t h e running of t h e f o r f e i t u r e period f o r nonuse of a water r i g h t e s t a b l i s h e d by Idaho Code Ij 42-222(2) (Supp. 1988). 2 . There a r e two p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of Idaho Code 5 42-1764 (Supp. 1988), which provides f o r t h e t o l l i n g of t h e f o r f e i t u r e p e r i o d f o r non-use of water placed i n t h e water supply bank. On i t s f a c e , s e c t i o n 42-1764 seems t o r e q u i r e t h a t a water r i g h t be accepted and subsequently r e n t e d out i n o r d e r t o t o l l t h e f ~ r f e i t u r e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 42-222 ( 2 ) ; however, when t h e R . Keith Higginson, D i r e c t o r Department of Water Resources i. October 4, 1988 Page 2 s e c t i o n i s i n t e r p r e t e d i n l i g h t of t h e e n t i r e Water Supply Bank Act, it i s p o s s i b l e t o argue t h a t t h e f o r f e i t u r e period should be t o l l e d whenever a water r i g h t i s placed i n t o t h e bank. Because of t h e ambiguity w i t h i n t h e Act, it .is n o t possible t o p r e d i c t which i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a c o u r t might adopt. Your l e t t e r of June 14, 1988, requests guidance on t h r e e q u e s t i o n s concerning f o r f e i t u r e of water r i g h t s . After reviewing t h e q u e s t i o n s p r e s e n t e d , we f i n d t h a t t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e f i r s t two q u e s t i o n s subsume t h e t h i r d question. Further, your l e t t e r i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n s , while general i n nature, have a r i s e n i n reviewing t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e Canyon View ~ r r i c ~ a t i o n Company t o p l a c e n a t u r a l flow water r i g k t s from t h e Snake River b a s i n i n t o t h e water supply bank. The policy of t h i s o f f i c e i s t o provide opinions only on q u e s t i o n s of law; t h e r e f o r e , ve have reformulated your f i r s t two q u e s t i o n s t o focus s o l e l y on i s s u e s of law. We express no opinion on t h e n a t u r e and extent of any water r i g h t s claimed by Canyon View I r r i g a t i o n Company. Question 1: Idaho Code 5 42-222(2) (Supp. 1988) provides, i n p a r t , a s follows with r e s p e c t t o f o r f e i t u r e of water r i g h t s : ( 2 ) A l l r i g h t s t o t h e use of water acquired under t h i s c h a p t e r o r otherwise s h a l l be l o s t and f o r f e i t e d by a f a i l u r e f o r the term of f i v e ( 5 ) years t o apply it t o t h e b e n e f i c i a l u s e f o r which it was appropriated and when any r i g h t t o t h e use of- water s h a l l be l o s t through nonuse o r f o r f e i t u r e such r i g h t s t o such water s h a l l r e v e r t t o t h e s t a t e and be a g a i n s u b j e c t t o a p p r o p r i a t i o n under t h i s c h a p t e r . . . . Thus, f a i l u r e t o apply water t o b e n e f i c i a l use over a five-year p e r i o d w i l l r e s u l t i n f o r f e i t u r e of t h e water r i g h t . However, upon t h e f i l i n g of an a p p l i c a t i o ~ l f o r extension of time t o put water t o b e n e f i c i a l u s e b e f o r e t h e end of t h e five-year f o r f e i t u r e period, t h e d i r e c t o r of t h e department of water resources i s authorized t o extend t h e time f o r f o r f e i t u r e f o r nonuse f o r a period n o t t o exceed f i v e a d d i t i o n a l y e a r s . Idaho Code 9 42-222(2) (Supp. 1988). R . Keith Higginson, D i r e c t o r Department of Water Resources October 4, 1988 Page 3 F o r f e i t u r e s t a t u t e s r e f l e c t a w e l l - s e t t l e d r u l e of p u b l i c p o l i c y " t h a t t h e r i g h t t o t h e use of t h e public water of t h e s t a t e can only be claimed where it i s applied t o a b e n e f i c i a l use i n t h e manner r e q u i r e d by law." Graham v. Leek, 65 Idaho 279, 287, 144 P.2d 475, 479 (1943). 1 By making nonuse of water f o r f i v e consecutive y e a r s grounds f o r f o r f e i t u r e under s e c t i o n 42-222(2), t h e Idaho L e g i s l a t u r e intended t o implement t h i s policy. In l i g h t of t h i s s t r o n g p u b l i c p o l i c y , exceptions t o t h e f o r f e i t u r e s t a t u t e should n o t be l i g h t l y i n f e r r e d . The language of s e c t i o n 42-222 does not manifest any i n t e n t by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o t o l l t h e running of t h e f o r f e i t u r e s t a t u t e upon t h e f i l i n g of an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r change i n p o i n t of diversion, p l a c e of u s e , p e r i o d of use, o r n a t u r e of use of a water r i g h t ( h e r e i n a f t e r c a l l e d " a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t r a n s f e r " ) , and no Idaho case law h a s been found so i n t e r p r e t i n g +,he s e c t i o n . In t h e absence of some m a n i f e s t a t i o n t o t h e c o n t r a r y , we assume t h e l e g i s l a t u r e intended t h e o r d i n a r y import of t h e words it used. Micolaus v . Bodine, 92 Idaho 639, 641, 448 P.2d 645, 647 (1968). Furthermore, s e c t i o n 42-222 comtains language which shows t h a t when t h e Idaho L e g i s l a t u r e wants t o t o l l t h e running of t h e f o r f e i t u r e s t a t u t e , it w i l l do so by an express p r o v i s i o n . For example, through a 1988 amendment, t h e f o r f e i t u r e s t a t u t e i s expressly t o l l e d f o r " a l l water r i g h t s appurtenant t o land contracted i n a f e d e r a l cropland s e t - a s i d e program . . . . " Idaho Code § 42-222(2) (Supp. 1988). Thus, s i n c e t h e r e i s n e i t h e r an express nor implied manifestation by t h e Idaho L e g i s l a t u r e t o t o l l the p r o v i s i o n s concerning f o r f e i t u r e f o r nonuse when an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t r a n s f e r i s f i l e d under s e c t i o n 42-222(1), we conclude t h a t a f i l i n g of an a p p l i c a t ' o n f o r t r a n s f e r does n o t t o l l t h e running of the f o r f e i t u r e period. 2 '1daho Code § 42-222(2) i s the successor of o t h e r l e s s l e n i e n t f o r f e i t u r e s t a t u t e s . For example, i n 1899 t h e Idaho Legislature r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e r i g h t t o use water "be f o r some useful o r b e n e f i c i a l purpose, and when t h e appropriator o r h i s successor i n i n t e r e s t c e a s e [ d ] t o use it f o r such purpose, t h e r i g h t ceaseid] . " Act approved Feb. 25, 1899, § 3 , 1899 Idaho Sess. Laws 380. This e a r l y s t a t u t e i s i l l u s t r a t i v e of t h e p o l i c y underlying f o r f e i t u r e . Although t h e f o r f e i t u r e period may have run, an individual may be a b l e t o claim a defense t o f o r f e i t u r e a t t h e end of t h e (Footnote Continued) R . K e i t h Higginson, D i r e c t o r Department o f Water Resources October 4, 1988 Page 4 The second q u e s t i o n a s k s whether t h e f o r f e i t u r e p r o v i s i o n s of Idaho Code 5 42-222(2) (Supp. 1988) a r e t o l l e d by f i l i n g an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r assignment o f a water r i g h t t o t h e water supply bank and subsequent a c c e p t a n c e of t h e r i g h t i n t o t h e bank o r , c o n v e r s e l y , whether Idaho Code § 42-1764 (Supp. 1988) r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e water- r i g h t b e s u b s e q u e n t l y - r e n t e d o u t of t h e bank and b e n e f i c i a l l y u s e d t o p r e v e n t f o r f e i t u r e . An answer t o t h i s q u e s t i o n r e q u i r e s an a n a l y s i s of t h e s t a t u t e c r e a t i n g t h e water s u p p l y banlr. Idaho Code $ 5 42-1761 t o 42-1766 (Supp. 1988) c r e a t e t h e water s u p p l y banlr. S e c t i o n 42-1762 a u t h o r i z e s t h e water resource board t o "purchase, l e a s e , r e n t o r o t h e r w i s e o b t a i n water r i g h t s t o b e c r e d i t e d t o t h e water supply b a n k . " T h i s s e c t i o n f u r t h e r p r G 8 v i d e s t h a t " [ t l h e w a t e r r i g h t s may b e r e t a i n e d i n t h e water supply bank f o r a p e r i o d a s determined by t h e board, a l l under such p r o v i s i o n s a s a r e s p e c i f i e d i n t h e t e r m s of t h e purchase o r l e a s e . " Idaho Code $ 42-1763 (Supp. 1988) p r o v i d e s f o r the l e a s i n q o r r e n t i n g of " [ d l e c r e e d , l i c e n s e d o r p e r m i t t e d water r i g h t s " o u t of t h e w a t e r s u p p l y bank t o end u s e r s . The same s e c t i o n a l s o s t a t e s t h a t " [ t ] h e t e r m s and c o n d i t i o n s of any such l e a s e o r r e n t a l must b e approved by t h e d i r e c t o r o f t h e department of water r e s c u r c e s . " S e c t i o n 42-1764 l i m i t s t h e t o l l i n g of t h e f o r f e i t u r e p e r i o d t o l e a s e s 01- r e n t a l s "acquired p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 42-1763" t h a t have been "approved." Since s e c t i o n 42-1763 i s 1.imited t o l e a s e s o r r e n t a l s t o end u s e r s and s i n c e t h e o n l y approval s p e c i f i e d i n t h e Water Supply Bank Act concerns l e a s e s o r r e n t a l s t o end u s e r s p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 42-1763, it appears t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d t o l i m i t t h e t o l l i n g of t h e f o r f e i t u r e p e r i o d under s e c t i o n 42-1764 t o t h o s e l e a s e s o r r e n t a l s of water from t h e banlr t o a n end u s e r a have been approved by t h e d i r e c t o r . This c o n c l u s i o n i s f u r t h e r supported b y t h e f a c t t h a t s e c t i o n 42-1764 d o e s n o t by i t s terms r e f e r t o s e c t i o n 42-1762, which i s t h e ( F o o t n o t e Continued) f o r f e i t u r e t i m e p e r i o d . The Idaho c o u r t s have recognized s e v e r a l d e f e n s e s t o f o r f e i t u r e . See J e n k i n s v. S t a t e , 103 Idaho 384, 389, 647 P . 2 d 1256, 1261 (1982)- R . Keith Higginson, D i r e c t o r Department of Water Resources October 4, 1988 Page 5 p r o v i s i o n a u t h o r i z i n g t h e board t o "purchase, lease, r e n t o r otherwise o b t a i n water r i g h t s " f o r t h e water supply bank. Because of t h e grammatical s t r u c t u r e of the second sentence of s e c t i o n 42-1764, however, t h e argument t h a t t h e f o r f e i t u r e period i s only t o l l e d when water committed t o t h e water supply bank i s withdrawn and p u t t o use by a l e s s e e i s not without doubt. The sentence s t a t e s : "Leases o r r e n t a l of water r i g h t s acquired p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 42-1763, Idaho Code, s h a l l not be subject t o f o r f e i t u r e under s e c t i o n 42-222 ( 2 ) , Idaho Code, provided t h a t t h e r e n t a l agreements have been approved." This statement i s a non s e q u i t u r . The s u b j e c t of t h i s sentence i s t h e phrase " l e a s e s o r r e n t a l . " S e c t i o n 42-222(2) does not a f f e c t l e a s e s o r r e n t a l s , however; it a f f e c t s water r i g h t s . Despite t h i s grammatical problem, t h e s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e back t o sect.ion 42-1763 s t i l l lends support t o t h e conclusion t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e intended t o t o l l t h e f o r f e i t u r e p e r i o d only f o r approved l e a s e s from t h e water supply banlr. Another i n t e r p r e t a t i o n problem with section 42-1764 i s t h a t t h e l a s t sentence of s e c t i o n 42-1763 i s a l s o the f i r s t sentence of s e c t i o n 42-1764. This r e p e a t of a sentence i n a successive s e c t i o n i s n o t e a s i l y explained. Arguably, t h i s redundancy supports t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t t h e second sentence of section 42-1764 was intended t o l i m i t t h e t o l l i n g of t h e f o r f e i t u r e period t o those l e a s e s approved pursuant t o s e c t i o n 42-1763. An i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h a t r e s u l t s i n a redundancy i s not favored, however. S t a t e v . Iiozlowslri, 143 A r i z . 137, 692 P.2d 316 ( C t . App. 1384). Thus, i f t h e f i r s t sentence of 42-1764 i s not t r e a t e d as a redundancy, then it must have a d i f f e r e n t meaning from t h e l a s t s e ~ l t e n c e of s e c t i o n 42-1763. The c o n t e x t of s e c t i o n s 42-1761 t o 42-1764 suggests t h a t it may r e f e r t o l e a s e s o r r e n t a l s e i t h e r t o t h e water supply bank o r from t h e water supply banlr. Because of t h e s e two ambic~uities, a court could interpl-et s e c t i o n 42-1764 i n l i g h t of apparent l e g i s l a t i v e purpose and public p o l i c y . S t a t e ex r e l . Evans v . ClicA, 102 Idaho 443, 631 P.2d 614 (1981); Black v. R e w o l d s , 109 Idaho 277, 707 P.2d 388 (1985); 2A 1 . Singer, Sutherland S t a t u t o r y Construction !j 45.09 ( 4 t h ed. 1984). According t o s e c t i o n 42-1761, t h e purposes of t h e water supply banlr a r e t o "make use of and o b t a i n t h e highest duty f o r b e n e f i c i a l u s e from water, provide a source of adequate water s u p p l i e s t o b e n e f i t new and supplemental water uses, and provide a source of funding f o r improving water user f a c i l i t i e s and e f f i c i e n c i e s . " ~ h e s e l e g i s l a t i v e p o l i c y considerations support a R . Keith Higginson, D i r e c t o r Department of Water Resources / October 4, 1988 \ - Page 6 broad i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e Water Supply Bank Act t h a t would r e s u l t i n a t o l l i n g of t h e f o r f e i t u r e s t a t u t e when a water r i g h t i s "approved" by t h e board f o r placement i n t o t h e water supply bank. A water u s e r would n o t want t o place h i s water r i g h t i n t h e water supply bank i f he r i s k e d f o r f e i t u r e by making t h e placement. Yet, t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t t h e t o l l i n g of t h e f o r f e i t u r e period occurs only upon approval of a l e a s e from t h e bank could lead t o t h i s r e s u l t i n some s i t u a t i o n s . Thus, i f t h e apparent s t a t u t o r y p o l i c y i s t o be f u l l y achieved, t h e acceptance and r e t e n t i o n of water r i g h t s by t h e water supply bank should be s u f f i c i e n t t o t o l l t h e f o r f e i t u r e period without r e q u i r i n g t h e subsequent l e a s e o r r e n t a l and use of t h e water by an end u s e r . I n conclusion, t h e r e a r e two p o s s i b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of s e c t i o n 42-1764. On i t s f a c e , it seems t o provide t h a t t h e f o r f e i t u r e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 42-222(2) a r e t o l l e d only when a water r i g h t i s accepted and subsequently rented o u t t o another u s e r , and t h e n only i f t h e d i r e c t o r has approved t h e r e n t a l . On t h e o t h e r hand, an examination of t h e s t a t u t o r y language and of t h e purposes of t h e water supply bank seems t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e f o r f e i t u r e p e r i o d should be t o l l e d whenever a water r i g h t i s placed i n t o t h e water supply bank. Because both i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s arlt p l a u s i b l e , we a r e unable t o provide a d e f i n i t e answer t o your q u e s t i o n and suggest t h a t you seek l e g i s l a t i v e c l a r i f i c a t i o n on t h i s matter. A u t h o r i t i e s Considered: 1 . Idaho S t a t u t e s Idaho Code 3 42-222 (Supp. 1988). Idaho Code 3 42-1761 through -1766 (Supp. 1988). Act of Feb. 25, 1899, 3 3 , 1899 Idaho Sess. Laws 386. 2 . Idaho Cases Black v. Reynolds, 109 Idaho 277, 707 P.2d 388 (1985). Graham v Leek, 65 Idaho 279, 287, 144 P.2d 475, 479 (1943). Jenkins v. S t a t e , 103 Idaho 384, 389, 647 P.2d 1256, 1261 (1982). Nicolaus v. Bodine, 92 Idaho 639, 641, 448 P.2d 645, 647 (1968). S t a t e ex r e l . Evans v. C l i c k , 102 Idaho 443, 631 P.2d 614 ( 1 9 8 1 ) . R. Keith Higginson, Director Department of Water Resources 1 October 4, 1988 Page 7 3. Other Cases State v. Kozlowski. 143 Ariz. 137, 692 P.2d 316 (Ct. App. 1984). 4. Other Authorities 2A N. Singer, Sutherland, Statutory Construction § 45.09 (4th ed. 1984). Minutes of Idaho House of Representatives Resource and Conservation Committee, ' February 9, 15, 19 2nd 23 (1979). Minutes of Idaho Senate Resources and Environment Committee, - March 16 and 21 (1979). Water Supply Bank Rules, IDAPA 37.D.l.-2.6. (October, 1980). rQ Dated this 4 ' day of October. 1988 ATTORNEY GENERAL State of Idaho ANALYSIS BY: Clive J. Strong Steve Straek Phil Rassier Deputy Attorneys General Natural Resaurces Division