## Facts

- A landowner held a valid irrigation water right appurtenant to a specific tract of land.
- The landowner improved irrigation efficiency on the righted tract (including lining ditches), reducing seepage and waste.
- These efficiency measures produced “saved” or surplus water that previously would have been lost.
- The landowner diverted the saved water to irrigate other parcels she owned that had no appurtenant or adjudicated water rights.
- The water users’ association sought an injunction to stop use of the saved water on non-righted lands, asserting Arizona’s rule that irrigation rights remain tied to the original place of use unless transferred under statutory procedures.
- The trial court denied injunctive relief and entered judgment for the landowner; the association appealed.
- The association’s supply was not shown to have been reduced by the landowner’s conservation and reuse.

## Issues

1. Whether a holder of an appurtenant irrigation water right may apply water conserved through efficiency measures on the righted tract to other, non-righted lands without complying with statutory transfer procedures.
2. Whether the absence of a measurable reduction in another appropriator’s supply permits a change in place of use contrary to appurtenancy limits.

## Decision

- The Arizona Court of Appeals held that irrigation water rights in Arizona are strictly appurtenant to the land.
- The court concluded that conserved or “saved” water remains part of the original appurtenant right and cannot be used on other lands as a matter of right.
- A change in place of use requires compliance with the water code’s procedures governing severance and transfer; conservation does not bypass those requirements.
- The court treated the absence of demonstrated injury to the association’s supply as not controlling given the statutory and common-law limits on severance and place-of-use changes.

## Legal Principles

- An irrigation water right is a usufructuary right to beneficial use on a specific parcel and is not a transferable entitlement to a fungible quantity of water.
- Irrigation rights are strictly appurtenant to the land and may be severed or transferred only in the circumstances and manner authorized by statute.
- Water conserved through improved efficiency does not create a new, independent right that may be applied to non-righted land without a lawful change in the underlying right.

## Conclusion

The court reaffirmed Arizona’s strict appurtenancy doctrine by holding that efficiency-created “saved” water remains tied to the original righted land and cannot be used on other, non-righted parcels absent statutory severance or transfer procedures, even where no reduction in another user’s supply is shown.


Salt River Valley Water Users' Ass'n v. Kovacovich, 3 Ariz. App. 28, 411 P.2d 201 (Ct. App. 1966)