| OCR Text |
Show 106 ARIZONA did not invest the commissioner with judicial power, since the power to finally decide and adjudicate the various rights is vested in the superior court and not in the administrative officer.17 There is a procedure available for a preliminary evaluation of existing rights in relation to new appropriations at the time a water right is initiated. Rights to the public water of the State must be initiated by filing an application to appropriate. In order to approve a new filing, the commissioner must find-among other things-that the proposed use will not interfere with other vesteol rights. Any person affected by a decision of the department may, within 60 days, appeal to the superior court of the county in which the water pro- posed to be diverted is located. However, the right of a prior appro- priator to take an appeal appears to be quite restricted because the Arizona court has ruled that the commissioner cannot, in approving an application, affect vested rights. Of course, the approval of an application does not foreclose subsequent actions between users. A prior appropriator may initiate injunctive proceedings to protect his right or sue for damages if he is deprived of his water by another user.18 2.3 Other Agencies Having Water Resource Responsibilities A. WATER QTTALITY CONTROL Water quality control in Arizona is vested within the State de- partment of health (which includes the State board of health) and the State water quality control council. The council has the power to adopt reasonable standards of water quality for the waters of the State for the prevention, control, and abatement of pollution. Once water quality standards are adopted, the council may enforce them and any rules, regulations, or orders pertaining thereto. In addition to its other powers and duties, the board of health may adopt such rules and regulations as may be necessary to pre- vent, control, and abate existing or potential pollution-except for the establishment and enforcement of water quality standards for waters of the State and the issuance of orders regarding control of irrigation and drainage waters-which are vested exclusively in the council. The council and board may seek injunctive relief in the superior court, after proper notice and hearing, against any person who is engaging or threatens to engage in any act or practice which is in violation of any order of the council or board. In addition, it is a misdemeanor to violate the act or an order of the board or council. However, any person who is, or may be, adversely affected by any final order of the council or board may appeal that order to the superior court.19 While the historical emphasis in Arizona was on economic devel- opment and utilization of its water resource, in recent years there w Stuart v. Norviel, 26 Ariz. 493, 22ft Pac. 908 (1924). 18 Ariz. Rev. Stat. sees. 45-142, 143, 154 ; Ernst v. Superior Court of Apache Co., 82 Ariz. 17, 307 P. 2d 911 (1957) ; Salt River Valley Water Users' Association v. Kovacovioh, 3 Ariz. App. 28, 411 P. 2d 201 (1966) ; Lane v. Mathews, 74 Ariz. 201, 245 P. 2d 1025 (1952). w Ariz. Rev. Stat. sees. 36-1851 to 1868. |
