Ernst v. Collins, 5935
| Decision Date | 05 November 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 5935,5935 |
| Citation | 302 P.2d 941,81 Ariz. 178 |
| Parties | Roger ERNST, State Land Commissioner of the State of Arizona, The State Land Department, and the State of Arizona, Appellants, v. C. W. COLLINS, Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
Ross F. Jones, former Atty. Gen., and Roderic M. Jennings, former Asst. Atty. Gen., on the brief, Robert Morrison, Atty. Gen., and Herbert B. Finn, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., appearing for oral argument, for appellants.
Andrew L. Bettwy and Clark & Coker, Phoenix, for appellee.
The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the lower court was legally correct in adjudging that appellee C. W. Collins was entitled to drill a new irrigation well in a critical area and remove underground waters thereform for the purpose of irrigating lands held by him under state lease.
The facts are not in dispute and may be summarized as follows: One F. H. Pilcher (who is not a party to this suit) is the owner in fee simple of 120 acres of patented land lying in the SE 1/4 of section 8 T. 4 N. R. 2 East, G. & S. R. Base and Meridian, and at all times pertinent hereto held permit from appellant State Land Commissioner for the drilling of a well in the northeast corner of said quarter section. Furthermore, that well was drilled during the year 1951 and its waters were thereafter regularly put to use for irrigation purposes.
Appellee Collins, at all times pertinent hereto, has held an agricultural lease for 200 acres of state land lying in the west half of section 9 (), which acreage is contiguous to the Pilcher lands, supra. Originally Collins had filed a 'notice of intention' to drill a well on this acreage but no drilling was done within the specified period; hence, it expired by its own limitations. A year later permits were issued to him for the drilling of two irrigation wells on said leased lands. However, before any drilling was commenced by Collins, an agreement was entered into between him and Pilcher whereby the latter subleased the Collins lands. This contract provided in part that if the agreement were approved by the land commissioner and the rights were granted to Pilcher to irrigate the state lands therein described, Collins would withdraw his application for the two wells for which he had been given permits. Therefore, the agreement contained a request to amend Pilcher's permit to include the Collins lands in section 9. This request was granted and a permit was issued to Pilcher on March 11, 1952, for the use of waters from his well to irrigate the Pilcher and Collins lands.
When the relationship of landlord and tenant expired, Collins was again on his own to obtain underground waters for his leased lands. He then made application for a permit to drill a well on the NE 1/4 SE 1/4 NW 1/4 of section 9, which request is the subject matter of this controversy. Collins' application stated that a replacement well was necessary because 'the well from which the lands * * * above are irrigated and which well is desired to be replaced is owned by other persons.' Admittedly, all this land lies within the Salt River Valley critical area as established by the commissioner on September 1, 1951. The application-for the well in question-was rejected by the state land commissioner.
A timely appeal was taken by Collins to the superior court under the provisions of section 11-110, A.C.A.1939, as amended by the Laws of 1952, chapter 117, section 5 (A.R.S. § 37-134). There a trial de novo was had to the court sitting without a jury. The court found that 'in equity and good conscience' the plaintiff (Collins) and entitled to drill an irrigation well 'and that underground waters may be withdrawn therefrom for the purpose of irrigating' the lands held under state lease by Collins. The state land commissioner has appealed from this judgment.
The sole assignment of error advanced by the commissioner is as follows:
'The trial court erred by granting the applicant the right to construct a replacement well without any showing the well sought to be replaced would no longer yield sufficient water to irrigate the land normally supplied by it during the past five years.'
When the legislature adopted the ground-water code, which made provision for the establishment of critical and restricted areas, it made one exception to the prohibition against the drilling of any irrigation wells in such areas:
Laws 1953, ch. 42, section 3 (now appearing as 45-316, A.R.S.) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cutshaw
...An unreasonable interpretation is not to be given when there is a reasonable construction readily available. Ernst v. Collins, 81 Ariz. 178, 302 P.2d 941 (1956). Our own Supreme Court has 'The Arizona statutes prohibit Only the causing or encouraging of acts Which have the effect of injurin......
-
Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co.
...and does not lead to an impossibility, and the plain meaning may not be extended though the result may be harsh. Ernst v. Collins, 81 Ariz. 178, 182, 302 P.2d 941 (1956). We must read the Act in the light of the Constitution and adopt the construction which harmonizes with constitutional pr......
-
Camerena v. Department of Public Welfare
...if the language is plain or unambiguous, courts should observe the obvious and natural import of the language used. Ernst v. Collins, 81 Ariz. 178, 302 P.2d 941 (1956). Words of a statute should be given their ordinary meaning unless it appears from their context that a different meaning is......
-
City of Mesa v. Killingsworth
...and conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no occasion for resorting to the rules of statutory interpretation. Ernst v. Collins, 81 Ariz. 178, 302 P.2d 941; Palmcroft Development Co. v. City of Phoenix, 46 Ariz. 200, 49 P.2d 626, 103 A.L.R. 802, modified on other grounds, 46 Ariz. 4......