Rights to Use of Gila River, Matter of
| Decision Date | 19 March 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. WC-90-0001-IR,WC-90-0001-IR |
| Citation | 830 P.2d 442,171 Ariz. 230 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the RIGHTS TO THE USE OF THE GILA RIVER. Petition of SALT RIVER PROJECT/SALT RIVER VALLEY WATER USERS' ASSOCIATION, Petitioner. |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
We granted review of this interlocutory appeal to determine whether the procedures adopted by the trial court for service of summons and filing and service of pleadings in this water rights adjudication proceeding comport with due process under the United States and Arizona Constitutions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 45-252 and Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(3). See infra note 2.
This case is a consolidated general adjudication of all water rights in the Salt, Verde, Gila, Agua Fria, Upper Santa Cruz, and San Pedro River watersheds. The procedural history of this adjudication is already complex, and is outlined in earlier interlocutory decisions. See Arizona v. San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona, 463 U.S. 545, 557-59, 103 S.Ct. 3201, 3209-10, 77 L.Ed.2d 837 (1983) (subsection entitled "The Arizona Cases"); United States v. Superior Court, 144 Ariz. 265, 270-71, 697 P.2d 658, 663-64 (1985) (subsection entitled "The Controversy"). We therefore limit our description to the procedural history relevant to the analysis of the issue now before us. It is necessary to mention, however, that the issues in this consolidated proceeding are central to the future of this state:
The problem ... is clear. Since there is not enough water to meet everyone's demands, a determination of priorities and a quantification of the water rights accompanying those priorities must be made. Obviously, such a task can be accomplished only in a single proceeding in which all substantial claimants are before the court so that all claims may be examined, priorities determined, and allocations made.
United States v. Superior Court, 144 Ariz. at 270, 697 P.2d at 663.
The Salt River Valley Water Users Association (SRVWUA) initiated the adjudication in 1974 by filing a petition with the Arizona State Land Department (SLD) under former A.R.S. §§ 45-231 to 45-245 for an adjudication of water rights in the Salt River. Those statutes were repealed and superseded in 1979, and this adjudication now proceeds pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 45-251 to 45-260. The current statutes assign jurisdiction over water rights adjudications to the superior courts. Accordingly, the original petition by SRVWUA was transferred from SLD to the Maricopa County Superior Court, where it was consolidated with other petitions filed under A.R.S. §§ 45-251 to 45-260 for general adjudications of water rights in the Salt, Verde, and San Pedro Rivers, and assigned to the current trial judge. The trial court consolidated the various petitions and subsequently granted motions expanding the scope of the adjudication to include the Upper Agua Fria, Upper Gila, Lower Gila, and Upper Santa Cruz Rivers. 1
On May 29, 1986, the trial court entered Pre-Trial Order No. 1 Re: Conduct of Adjudication (hereinafter the Pretrial Order). Through this order, the trial court established the procedures it would follow to manage this complex, multi-party litigation, and identified the legal issues the court would resolve before proceeding to its adjudication of individual claims. From 1987 to 1990, the trial court received briefs and heard arguments on these issues from a steering committee of lawyers it had appointed for this purpose. Throughout this period, the court applied the procedures established by the Pretrial Order.
On December 11, 1990, we granted interlocutory review of six issues decided by the trial court through its pretrial orders. 2 This opinion addresses the first of those issues: whether the Pretrial Order's provisions for filing and service satisfy the due process guarantees of the United States and Arizona Constitutions. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 4. 3 We received briefs on this issue from various parties, including parties arguing that the procedures in the Pretrial Order are constitutional (the Proponents) as well as parties asserting that they are unconstitutional (the Opponents).
We begin our due process analysis by considering the notice procedures employed at the initiation of this adjudication. We then address the notice and filing procedures of the Pretrial Order. 4
The SLD and the Arizona Department of Water Resources (DWR) 5 compiled a mailing list for the service of the summons by translating United States Geological Survey topographical maps of the watershed areas into assessor format. The Arizona Department of Revenue (DOR), the central depository for county assessors' real property records, took the assessor-format list and developed a list of the names and addresses of all property owners in the watersheds. The summons was sent via certified mail, return receipt requested, as mandated by A.R.S. § 45-253(A)(2), 6 to each person on this mailing list. See, e.g., San Pedro River Watershed Water Rights Adjudication Notification Process Report, WC-79-0001 to -0004, consolidated, Docket No. 1155, at 3 (hereinafter San Pedro Notification Report). 7 A notification package, which included, inter alia, a copy of the summons and a statement of claimant form, was also sent by certified mail to federal, state, and local governments and agencies, Native American communities, and irrigation districts within the watersheds. Id. at 3, 6. Finally, all well owners of record and all known holders of water rights within the watersheds were sent, among other information, instructions relating to the adjudication process and a statement of claimant form via first class mail. Id. at 7. 8
Together, SLD and DWR mailed over 849,000 summons informing recipients of the pendency of the adjudication and notifying them of the procedure for submitting their water rights claims. This mailing constituted the statutorily-mandated notification of "all known potential claimants." A.R.S. § 45-253(A)(2); see also former A.R.S. §§ 45-232, 45-234, 45-235. 9 SLD and DWR also provided notice of the adjudication by publication. See A.R.S. § 45-253(B); former A.R.S. § 45-232. Various legal notices were published in newspapers in communities in or near the watershed areas. For the San Pedro River adjudication, for example, the following notices were among those published (including, in parentheses, the number of consecutive weeks of once-a-week publication):
1. Statement of initiation of adjudication (two weeks).
2. Rules, dates, and places for taking testimony (i.e., submitting statements of claimant) (two weeks).
3. Order extending filing deadline and setting subsequent places for submitting statements of claimant (four weeks).
4. Extension of filing deadline (four weeks)
5. Republication of summons, prior orders (four weeks).
San Pedro Notification Report at 3-6.
Persons who received the summons--as well as persons who otherwise received actual notice of the adjudication--and who did not submit statements of their claims before the applicable deadline now may be precluded by statute from asserting any claims to rights in the adjudicated watersheds. See A.R.S. § 45-254(E). 10 The statutory treatment of persons who did not receive actual notice of the pending adjudication is more lenient: such persons may intervene in the adjudication by filing their claims within one year of the deadline for the filing of claims by persons with actual notice. See id. 11
The issue of due process arises because those persons who did not receive actual notice of the adjudication may, under § 45-254(E), lose claims to water rights without having an opportunity to defend their claims. Water rights are property rights. 6 Edward Clyde, Waters and Water Rights § 530 (R. Clark ed. 1972); A. Dan Tarlock, Law of Water Rights and Resources § 7.06[b] (1991); 93 C.J.S. Waters § 1 (1956 & Supp.1991); id. § 181 (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re General Rights of Gila River System, WC-02-0003-IR.
...when we ordered a series of petitions consolidated into a single proceeding. See In the Matter of the Rights to the Use of the Gila River ("Gila I"), 171 Ariz. 230, 232-33, 830 P.2d 442, 444-45 (1992).3 In 1995, the Legislature declared that "an early focus by the general stream adjudicatio......
-
State ex rel. State Eng'r v. United States
...claimants, and the limits of due process notice therefore require flexibility in this context. See In re Rights to Use of Gila River , 171 Ariz. 230, 830 P.2d 442, 449–50 (1992) ; Lu Ranching Co. v. United States , 138 Idaho 606, 67 P.3d 85, 88–89 (2003). The measures taken by the State her......
-
Gila River Indian Cmty. v. Cranford
...River, into a general stream adjudication in Maricopa County Superior Court (the "Gila Adjudication"). Matter of Rights to Use of Gila River , 171 Ariz. 230, 830 P.2d 442, 445 (1992) ; see Gen. Adj. 2006 , 127 P.3d at 886 n.3 (listing cases describing history of Gila River general stream ad......
-
In re In re Gen. Adjudication of All Rights to United Statese Water in the Little Colo. River Sys.
...v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, 463 U.S. 545, 557–59, 103 S.Ct. 3201, 77 L.Ed.2d 837 (1983); In re Rights to the Use of the Gila River ( Gila I ), 171 Ariz. 230, 232–33, 830 P.2d 442, 444–45 (1992); Superior Court, 144 Ariz. at 269–71, 697 P.2d at 662–64; John E. Thorson et al., Dividing Wester......