Laserfiche WebLink
<br />South Dakota's statutory provisions are similar. A transfer is permitted only if the <br />change "does not unlawfully impair existing water rights and is for a beneficial use and in <br />the public interest [emphasis added]." (S,D. Codified Laws Ann., 46-2A-12) Nevada's <br />legislation requires the state engineer to reject a transfer application where the proposed <br />change in use "conflicts with existing rights, or threatens to prove detrimental to the public <br />interest [emphasis added]." (Nev, Rev. Stat., 533.370) <br /> <br />Idaho's experience in defining the public interest is especially interesting because <br />the state has both statutory and case law affecting water transfers. The statutory provisions <br />are vague; the court ruling much more specific. The director of the Department of Water <br />Resources is charged with approving a proposed transfer provided the change in water use, <br />among other criteria, "is in the local public interest as defined in section 42-203A(5), Idaho <br />Code; except the director shall not approve a change in the nature of use from agricultural <br />use where such change would significantly affect the agricultural base of tbe local area." <br />(Idaho Code, 42-222) The section referenced in the statutes defines the local public <br />interest as "the affairs of the people in the area directly affected by the proposed use." <br /> <br />The application of Idaho's public interest definition is illustrated in a 1988 decision <br />by the director of the Department of Water Resources approving a transfer of 15,900 acre- <br />feet of water to a new agricultural use; the local public interest was defined in economic <br />terms. The director acknowledged that although the transfer might slightly decrease crop <br />prices, it would stimulate the local economy through the sale of goods and services <br />associated with crop irrigation, increase the local tax base, and create jobs.14 <br /> <br />The Idaho Supreme Court has provided an expansive definition of what constitutes <br />the public interest. In Shokal v. Dunn, 707 P.2d 441 (Idaho 1985), tbe court required the <br />Department of Water Resources to reassess its granting of a permit to appropriate water <br /> <br />8 <br />