concurring.
I concur with the majority opinion, and with the finding that severed groundwater may be transported from leased lands. I write separately to articulate my reasons for concurring in the answers given by today’s pronouncement.
I am still concerned with the responsibility we share to prevent the unbridled consumption of fresh groundwater and to exercise both the will and the wisdom to conserve the good earth, with the certain knowledge that unless we act, the Ogallala aquifer probably will be exhausted by the year 2020.1 We cannot wait until tomorrow to worry about this problem. It must be faced today, before the last acre-foot of water is sucked from the breast of the Ogallala, and the Panhandle becomes a desolate desert — a stark and silent monument to our unwillingness responsibly to function, and a place where the price of water exceeds the price of oil.2
I can think of no commodity which affects and concerns the citizens of this state more than fresh groundwater. Fresh water is of great concern not only in this state; citizens in eleven other western states are anguished by the depletion of the Ogallala aquifer. Fresh water use, dominion, appropriation, and control are also being thrust into the arena of international politics. Canadian officials attending a water conference in Toronto, Ontario, June 13, 1984, expressed fears that growing demand for water from middle western and southwestern states, including continued depletion of the Ogallala, will lead to large-scale diversion of water from the Great Lakes lowering the lakes’ water level by over thirteen inches within the next fifty years.3 Obviously, the issue of the use and control of fresh water is one publici juris, and of immediate local, national, and international concern.
I
BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES ACT THE OKLAHOMA WATER RESOURCES BOARD LACKED AUTHORITY TO ISSUE THE TEMPORARY PERMIT
The refusal of the trial court to allow removal of severed water from the surface estate in a critical and sensitive groundwater area was, in effect, a finding that the use of fresh groundwater for enhanced oil recovery was not a beneficial use and constituted waste. The order of non-removal of the water from the place of origin renders the failure of the trial court to revoke the temporary permit immaterial because the issuance of the temporary permit was an invalid exercise of jurisdiction by the Oklahoma Water Resources Board (Board). The Board’s failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act, either by including sufficient separate findings of fact and conclusions 4 of law or by promulgation of rules, is a fatal procedural flaw.
Mobil filed its application to mine fresh groundwater for secondary and tertiary enhanced oil recovery on February 13, 1979; the Board conducted a hearing on Mobil’s application on August 16, 1979, and issued its temporary permit on January 8, 1980. It was admitted by the Board’s counsel, at oral argument, and it is reflected in the *57record, that prior to 1979, the Board had failed to adopt and publish any rules concerning the use of fresh water for enhanced oil recovery. On April 12, 1979, two months after Mobil applied for a temporary permit, the Board adopted Rules 820 and 820.15 pertaining to secondary oil recovery. On March 11, 1980, three months after the Board issued the temporary permit, the Board adopted new definitions 6 and revised Rules 820 and 820.1 to include tertiary recovery. At the time of the hearing, no rules existed on the subject of the rights of the parties or the procedures to be followed before the Board regarding tertiary oil recovery. In any event, 75 O.S.1981 § 304(b)(1) indicates that the rules could not have been in effect prior to March 31, 1980.7
The Board falls within the definition of a state agency as characterized by the Administrative Procedures Act, 75 O.S.1981 § 302.8 As such, it is required to promulgate and to file its rules and regulations with the Secretary of State and the State Librarian and Archivist. Any rule or regulation of the Board is void unless it is filed and published in compliance with 75 O.S. *581981 § 252.9 The agency has no authority to conduct hearings until proposed rules have been promulgated in accordance with the Act.10
Administrative rules include any agency statement of general applicability and future effect which implements, interprets, or governs substantial law or policy, or which prescribes the procedure or practice requirements before the agency.11 Procedural rules delineate the format for the agency to discharge its assigned duties and the guidelines for litigants to follow in order to deal effectively with the agency. Generally, these rules concern forms, instructions, and the availability for public inspection of all agency rules and policy.12 Substantive rules affect individual rights and obligations and .constitute the administrative equivalent of statutes.13 The tardily promulgated rules for the use of fresh water for enhanced oil recovery are substantive because the rules require, inter alia, an easement or lease from the surface right owners, an economic study which requires an analysis of the cost of fresh water versus the cost of salt water, and the value of fresh water for the purposes measured against the value of the oil recovered— these rules are more than forms and instructions.
Substantive rules must be published to avoid the inherently arbitrary nature of published ad hoc determinations.14 An unpublished substantive regulation cannot be given legal effect by the courts. The rationale for requiring administrative rule-making is to protect both the public interest and the rights of the parties.15 In Adams v. Professional Comm’n., 524 P.2d 932, 934 (Okla.1974), this Court quoted with approval the language from Boller Beverage Inc. v. Davis, 38 N.J. 138, 183 A.2d 64, 71 (1962), the New Jersey Supreme Court said:
“... The object is not legislation ad hoc or after the fact, but rather.the promulgation, through the basic statute and the implementing regulations taken as a uni*59tary whole, of a code governing action and conduct in the particular field of regulation so those concerned may know in advance all the rules of the game, so to speak, and may act with reasonable assurance. Without sufficiently definite regulations and standards administrative control lacks the essential quality of fairly predictable decisions. Persons subject to regulation are entitled to something more than a general declaration of statutory purpose to guide their conduct before they are restricted or penalized by an agency for what it then decides was wrong from its hindsight conception of what the public interest requires in the particular situation.”
Just as we are required to take judicial notice of the rules filed and published under 75 O.S.1981 § 252,16 we must take official notice that at the time of the hearing, there were no rules in existence concerning the use of fresh groundwater in tertiary oil recovery operations. The Oklahoma Water Resources Board possesses only the authority conferred upon it by statute.17 All orders and rules promulgated by the Board must conform with the statutes to be valid. Because no rules had been adopted by the Board, it had no authority to conduct a hearing, to take evidence, to make findings of fact, or to issue temporary permits to mine fresh groundwater for use in tertiary oil recovery. The issuance of the permit is void, invalid, and of no effect.
THE RULES OF THE BOARD VIOLATE THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS, THEREFORE, ANY RE-VALIDATION OF A TEMPORARY PERMIT UNDER RULE 840.4 IS NULL AND VOID
In Lowrey v. Hodges, 555 P.2d 1016 (Okla.1976), this Court held that the issuance of a temporary permit is not tantamount to the issuance of a regular permit,18 stating that the requirement of reva-lidation constituted a statutory safeguard which prevented a holder of a temporary permit or the Board from circumventing the need for hydrologic surveys and determination of annual yields.19 The annual review of the temporary permit is the only protection against the temporary use of water becoming a permanent use of water.
However, in direct contravention of the Lowrey teaching, on April 12, 1979, the *60Board adopted Rule 840.4.20 This Rule provides that a temporary permit will be reva-lidated automatically on an annual basis during the twenty-year minimum basin or subbasin life-span unless revalidation is protested. The rule exceeds the Board’s statutory authority21 and denies due process of law to parties whose rights are affected by the rule. Procedural due process of law contemplates a fair and open hearing prior to agency action with notice and an opportunity to present evidence and arguments.22 The rule is facially defective because (1) revalidation is automatic,23 (2) no procedure is established to initiate a protest, (3) parties whose rights will be affected receive no notice of the pending revalidation, (4) the rule protects neither the public interest nor the rights of the parties,24 and (5) the rule does not afford interested parties due process of law.
Mobil states “the attendance at the hearing and subsequent renewal hearings on this permit do not bespeak of more than limited protests to the permit.” This statement is self-evident because interested and affected parties do not receive any notice concerning a hearing upon revalidation. Revalidation pursuant to § 1020.11(B) does not mean that the Board is to approve routinely the application for renewal.25 The holder of the permit must substantiate the foundation for the original temporary permit and show that the fresh groundwater to be mined under the annual renewal will continue to be used beneficially and that waste has not, and will not, occur. To hold otherwise, would destroy the legislative intent that allocation of the groundwater resources of this State be based upon reasonable regulation premised upon meaningful agency oversight, including hydro-logic surveys of fresh groundwater basins and subbasins. This intent is plainly expressed in our water laws26 and there is no room for construction by this Court or by the Board.27 The statutory language that “a temporary permit must be revalidated” is not a mandate to the Board to renew automatically each temporary permit issued — its purpose is to place the burden upon the permit holder to substantiate the need to continue withdrawal of water on a temporary basis, while awaiting completion *61of water surveys and determination of annual yield. Automatic .renewal of a temporary permit, based only upon a statement of rate of consumption, circumvents the need for a regular permit based upon hy-drologic surveys, and the determination of the annual yield of a basin or subbasin to establish a minimum twenty-year life of a reservoir.28 Thus, the automatic revalida-tions since the adoption of Rule 840.4 are void and invalid for lack of due process.
Prior to April 12,1979, the Board had no rule, not even a defective one, promulgating the rights of interested parties concern-» ing revalidation of any temporary permit. Without rules of procedure concerning matters within the Board’s administrative expertise, it lacked authority to conduct a hearing, take evidence, make findings of fact or renew/revalidate temporary permits to mine fresh groundwater for use in secondary or tertiary oil recovery, or for any other purpose. Because of the absence of properly adopted and published rules, from 1973 to April 1979, the revalidation of any temporary permit, for whatever purpose is void and invalid.
III
REASONABLE DILIGENCE AND REASONABLE INTELLIGENCE MILITATE AGAINST THE USE OP FRESH GROUNDWATER IN ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY OPERATIONS
Beneficial use is defined in the Board’s Rules and Regulations as “the use of such quantity of stream or groundwater when reasonable intelligence and reasonable diligence are exercised in its application for a lawful purpose....”29 The Board has authority to issue three types of permits: regular, temporary, and special. A regular permit authorizes beneficial use of groundwater for non-domestic purposes, and can be granted only after completion of a hy-drologic survey and determination of the maximum annual yield for the appropriate basin or subbasin. A temporary permit may be issued for the same purposes as the regular permit, but it is not conditioned upon either a hydrologic survey or a determination of maximum annual yield of water to be allowed to each acre overlying the aquifer.30
*62All permits are allocated on the basis of acre-feet of water. One acre-foot of water is that amount of water which it takes to cover one acre of land with one foot of water and contains 325,850 gallons of water. As a matter of law, an applicant who secures a temporary permit is annually allocated “not less than two acre-feet” of water per acre. This allocation must be revalidated annually during its term, and it lapses either at the expiration of its term or upon the issuance of a regular permit, whichever occurs first.31 Under current Rule 840.4 once a temporary permit is granted, it is renewed automatically without further hearing. No term of years is mentioned in the statutes, except a prohibition against depletion of a water aquifer in less than twenty-years. Therefore, the Board allows the holder of a temporary permit twenty years within which to exhaust a water source without ever determining how much fresh water is present in the aquifer. The two acre-feet per year per acre overlying the aquifer is a minimum allotment; if the applicant seeks to extract more water, a hydrologic study must be submitted to the Board to support any request in excess of the statutory apportionment. Because of the statutory requirement that a temporary permit must be revalidated annually, it is unlikely that any applicant would go to the expense of providing a hydrologic study.32 Meanwhile, even though there was some evidence presented at oral argument that the recharge rate of the aquifer is no more than one inch per year, the maximum annual yield has not been determined. The “pie” is being divided without a determination of the size of the pie — yet everyone is consuming the pie.
Mobil adduced evidence at the hearing on the temporary permit that over the twenty-year life-span of the Ogallala aquifer Mobil's enhanced oil recovery program would consume 51,211 acre-feet of water — approximately 16 billion gallons of water. Mobil projected that its maximum use would occur in 1993, when 1.852 acre-feet of water per acre would be withdrawn, and its minimum use would occur in 1998, when .209 acre-feet of water per acre would be utilized. The average annual use calculated upon an expected but unproven twenty-year life-span of the aquifer is .744 acre-feet of water per acre. If Mobil uses the amount of water it says it will use, a lake the size of Lake Wister at normal level will disappear forever from the groundwater reservoir. If Mobil uses the amount of water it has the right to use under the terms of the temporary permit, (6,375.03 acre-feet of water per year for the next twenty-years at a rate not to exceed 15,214 gallons of water per minute) Mobil can fill a family-size swimming pool every minute; it can fill an Olympic-size swimming pool every twenty-three minutes; it can drain Lake Heyburn within a year; it can drain Lake Fort Supply within 2lk years; it can drain Lake Wister within seven years; or, it can exhaust Lake Canton within eighteen years.33 Although Mobil stated that it would use less water than the statute allowed, plaudits cannot be awarded to one who uses only half the permissible allocation, if an amount less than the allocation is recharged on an annual basis.
The High Plains (Ogallala) aquifer underlies 174,000 square mile area of flat to gently rolling terrain including part of the oil-producing states of Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. In some places, the water table has dropped more than 100 feet over the last forty years. The depletion of the aquifer presents the spectre of present and future severe water shortages. To combat this situation, federal legislation is being considered to study ways artificially to recharge the Ogallala *63by pumping surface water into the aquifer.34 While other states implement programs to conserve, protect from pollution, and guard with zeal the diminishing fresh water supplies, Oklahoma has initiated a program which by its very nature encourages complete consumption of its fresh groundwater within a twenty year span. Connecticut, North Carolina, New York, Wyoming, New Jersey, Florida, New Mexico, Nebraska, and Texas have established water quality goals for fresh water aquifers within their borders. As in Oklahoma, the portion of the Ogallala aquifer underlying Texas is being drained of water faster than it is being replaced. To combat this problem, Texas has developed a technique using satellite (landsat) imagery to allow precise estimates to be made of use and depletion of the water table.35 Relatively, we are doing nothing.
When alternative methods can be used or developed for enhanced recovery of hydrocarbons, it is not a reasonable exercise of reasonable intelligence and reasonable diligence to sanction a process which causes a loss of unestimated billions of gallons of fresh groundwater, while we search for some means to recharge the Ogallala’s source.36 The Dust Bowl was not a mirage.
IV
THE ISSUE OF WASTE WAS NOT CONSIDERED PROPERLY BY THE BOARD AND THE USE OF FRESH GROUNDWATER FOR ENHANCED OIL RECOVERY MAY MEET THE BENEFICIAL USE TEST WHILE CONSTITUTING WASTE BY POLLUTION AND BY DEPLETION OF THE AQUIFER
The Legislative policy requires that any beneficial use of groundwater be reasonable.37 The Board must determine whether the use to which an applicant intends to put the water is a reasonable and beneficial use. If it is, and if the Board finds that waste will not occur, the Board must approve the application by issuing the permit. Prior to the issuance of a permit whether— regular, temporary or special — the Board must make a finding that: the proposed use (1) is beneficial, as required by § 1020.-9;38 (2) the beneficial use is a reasonable *64use; and (3), waste will not occur. The trial court did not address directly the issue of waste, nor did the Board.
Assuming, arguendo, that flooding strata containing hydrocarbons with fresh groundwater to enhance recovery is beneficial, the use of the water for that purpose may be waste per se under the Board’s definition of waste when it is construed in conjunction with the statutory definition of pollution. The Board defines waste as any act permitting or causing the pollution of fresh water, or the use of such water in an inefficient manner of any means which is not beneficial39 — and the Board definition incorporates the definitions contained in 82 O.S.1981 § 1020.15. Pollution, in this instance, means contamination or other alteration of the physical, chemical or biological proportions of any natural waters of the state which will, or is likely to create a nuisance, or to render such waters harmful, detrimental or injurious to public health, safety, or welfare, or to threaten domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational or other legitimate beneficial uses or to livestock, wild animals, birds, fish or other aquatic life.40
On appeal, the Board took the position that “the concepts of beneficial and non-wasteful use relate solely to the nature, type, or purposes of the use.” The Board completely ignored its own definition of waste by pollution. The recovery process proposed by Mobil is one where detergent additives and polymers are mixed with fresh water to reduce surface tension, allowing the production of oil residue from primary recovery. The specific chemical additives were neither identified, nor was evidence presented as to whether they were harmful, or whether the contaminated water could later be reclaimed and placed back into the water cycle. Neither the Board nor the trial court were presented with any evidence that the chemicals added for enhanced recovery would not contaminate, alter the chemical or biological structure of the water, or render it harmful, detrimental, or injurious to the environment or to the public health, safety or welfare. The order sustaining the application for the temporary permit is not based upon any reasonably competent evidence that waste by pollution will not occur.41
*65Waste by pollution is not the only type of waste which the water laws mandate the Board to prevent. The Board must also safeguard groundwater against waste by depletion. Evidence was presented by Mobil to the Board and trial court indicating that it would mine and extract from the Ogallala 51,211 acre-feet of water over a twenty-year period, that more than 16 billion gallons of water would be contaminated with chemicals, placed into a structure containing hydrocarbons and removed from the water cycle. The waste of water by depletion prevents, or at a minimum drastically reduces the recharge rate of the aquifer. This loss of water may be waste per se under § 1020.15(3) which provides, “The Board shall not permit any fresh groundwater user to commit waste by ... taking or using fresh groundwater in any manner so that the water is lost for beneficial use.”
V
USE OF FRESH GROUNDWATER FOR ENHANCED RECOVERY OF OIL AND GAS IS UNREASONABLE UNDER THE BOARD’S RULES
Rule 820.1 of the Water Resources Board Rules, Regulations and Modes of Procedure is designed to determine whether use of fresh water for secondary recovery of oil is reasonable under the circumstances. This rule requires that the applicant, in addition to other requirements, submit to the Board an economic study.42 To meet this requirement, Mobil presented evidence of comparative economic benefits of fresh water for other purposes measured against the overall value of the oil recovered. The comparison was made between the value of certain agricultural crops and enhanced oil recovery. Although Mobil contended that salt water flooding was economically unattractive, salt water flooding is only one alternative to the use of fresh groundwater.43 Commercially feasible desalinization plants are being developed to provide suitable water for irrigation of the San Joaquin Valley in California by 1990. If this kind of water can be used for growing crops, it surely can be used to recover oil.
At a recent general session of the Society of Petroleum Engineers/Department of Energy, Enhanced Oil Recovery Symposium, political and technological effects upon enhanced oil recovery programs were discussed. Special tax exemptions have been provided to the oil industry for oil recovered through tertiary programs, a positive factor which encourages tertiary recovery. The oil recovered in the primary, secondary, and tertiary mining process has been in place for eons, and it will remain trapped in the strata while alternatives to fresh water flooding are further developed. Low cost polymer flooding (mixing fresh water with polymer chemicals) is attractive to the oil industry purely upon a cost basis. Thermal recovery programs appear to be in use and are very successful; other alterná-*66tives include CO2 and chemical flooding.44 While viable alternatives to fresh water flooding exist for enhanced oil recovery, there exists no viable usable alternative to fresh groundwater. If the cost factor of fresh water flooding increases sharply, advances in alternatives will be implemented rapidly for enhanced recovery. The cost of fresh water for flooding may be increased when those who own fresh water rights learn of its true value.'45
The irrigation of land for growing food and fiber is a beneficial use specifically mentioned by the Legislature in its declaration of public policy to utilize groundwater resources. However, before a temporary permit for a non-domestic use can be issued, the applicant must show what method of irrigation is intended; that the method is the best available; and that waste will not result.46 Until recently, the greatest non-domestic use of fresh water from the Ogallala aquifer has been for irrigation. In some areas, this demand alone has dropped the water table 100 feet in the last forty years. With the new burden of enhanced recovery of oil being placed upon the aquifer, no one can predict a twenty-year life-span for the Ogallala, or any other fresh groundwater basin or subbasin. The alarming facts are: one flood project by one company will use 16 billion gallons of fresh water; Mobil is not the only oil producer to use, or to desire to use the water; nor is the field to be flooded Mobil’s only oil field or the only oil field which will be developed; nor is Oklahoma the only oil producing state that overlies the aquifer.
In Texas County Irrigation v. Cities Service Oil Co., 570 P.2d 49 (Okla.1977) this Court stamped its imprimatur on the use of fresh groundwater in secondary oil recovery. Because this Court determined that the use of fresh groundwater in secondary flooding operations was not waste per se, Mobil is seeking to extend the holding to include tertiary recovery operations. I disagree with the extension of the Texas County doctrine for two reasons: 1) At the time the opinion was promulgated the Board had not complied with the Administrative Procedures Act and all permits were invalid; and 2) the issuance of the permit may constitute waste by depletion and by pollution.47
*67The dissenters conclude that no affirmative relief can be granted to the Association because it did not cross-appeal. I disagree.48 If questions of a general public nature are involved,49 the people of the state become indirect parties, and their interests must be protected to prevent a possible “practical injustice” — even if those who might have objected are silent.50 The urgency of the problem demands our immediate attention. Any further delay will only beg the question, and compound the damage to our most precious natural resource.
*68APPENDIX A
*69
*70APPENDIX B
*71APPENDIX C
. The New York Times, “Canada Fears U.S. Use of Great Lakes Water", June 14, 1984. The Sunday Oklahoman "State's Future Hinges on Cool, Clear Water," December 16, 1984.
. This has happened before. See R. Kerr, Land, Wood & Water, Ch. 3, p. 44 (Fleet Publishing Co. 1960).
. See note 1, supra.
. See 75 O.S.1981 § 312, majority opinion, note 5 supra.
.The Oklahoma Water Resources Board Rules 820 and 820.1 promulgated on April 12, 1979 provide:
"820. USE OF FRESH WATER FOR SECONDARY OIL RECOVERY
820.1 USE OF FRESH WATER FOR SECONDARY OIL RECOVERY. Applicants filing for the use of fresh water for secondary oil recovery, in addition to all other requirements shall be required to furnish the following:
(a) A copy of the easements or lease from the surface right owners giving the applicant the right to develop and use the fresh groundwater for secondary oil recovery;
(b) An estimated schedule for use showing the amount of fresh water used each year in the recovery process;
(c) An economic study containing:
(1) The relative cost of obtaining salt water versus the relative cost of obtaining fresh water;
(2) The amount of oil expected to be recovered and the value expected to be realized;
(3) The estimated value of fresh water for other purposes as measured against the overall estimated value of the oil to be recovered, and
(4) The additional expense per barrel for oil recovered if the applicant is required to use salt water;
(d) An inventory of all wells, fresh water, salt water, oil, gas, disposal, injection, both active and abandoned, within two (2) miles of the proposed unitization; and
(e) The permeability, thickness, and estimated porosity of the injection zone. The appli-. cant may also be required to furnish other relevant material upon request which may include the following:
(a) A copy of the unitization plan on file with the Corporation Commission;
(b) A copy of each injection well application and the approval of such application by the Corporation Commission; and
(c) A copy of all logs of each injection well showing the name of each zone containinng salt water."
. The definition adopted provides that:
"ENHANCED RECOVERY OF OIL AND GAS means any process using fresh water to recover substantial quantities of additional oil or gas which would not be recoverable under ordinary primary methods. This definition applies to all non-primary forms of oil and gas recovery including but not limited to secondary, tertiary, or other enhanced recovery operations."
. Rules do not become effective until twenty days after proper filing pursuant to 75 O.S.1981 § 304(b)(1) which provides:
"304. Filing of rules — Effective date
(a) Each agency shall file copies of each rule adopted by it, including all rules existing on the effective date of this act, as required by 74 O.S. 1961 § 251.
(b) Each rule hereafter adopted is effective twenty (20) days after filing except that:
(1)If a later date is required by statute or specified in the rule, the later date is the effective date; ...
. It is provided by 75 O.S.1981 § 302:
“(a) In addition to other rule-making requirements imposed by law each agency shall:
(1) adopt as a rule a description of its organization, stating the general course and method of its operations and the methods whereby the public may obtain information or make submissions or requests;
(2) adopt rules of practice setting forth the nature and requirements of all formal and informal procedures available, including a description of all forms and instructions used by the agency;
(3) make available for public inspection all rules and all other written statements of policy or interpretations formulated, adopted, or used by the agency in the discharge of its functions;
(4) make available for public inspection all final orders, decisions and opinions."
. The rules must properly be filed pursuant to 75 O.S.1981 § 251. Failure properly to file results in the rule being void and of no effect under the provision of 75 O.S.1981 § 252:
"Any rule or regulation, amendment, revision, or revocation of an existing rule or regulation made by an agency prior to the effective date of this act shall be void and of no effect unless filed as required by Section 1 of this act and, except to the extent otherwise provided in Section 3 of this act, any rule or regulation, amendment, revision, or revocation of an existing rule or regulation made by an agency after the effective date of this act shall be void and of no effect unless filed and published as required by Sections 1 and 5 of this act. All provisions herein shall also apply to all agencies that may hereafter be created. All courts, boards, commissions, agencies, authorities, instrumentalities, and officers of the State of Oklahoma shall take judicial or official notice of any rule or regulation, amendment, revision, or revocation of an existing rule or regulation duly filed, or duly filed and published under the provisions of this act.”
. Adams v. Professional Practice Comm'n., 524 P.2d 932, 934 (Okla.1974); Cox, "The Oklahoma Administrative Procedures Act: Fifteen Years of Interpretation”, 31 Okla.L.Rev. 886, 891 (1978).
. It is provided by 75 O.S.1981 § 301(2) as follows:
"(2) ‘Rule’ means any agency statement of general applicability and future effect that implements, interprets or prescribes substantive law or policy, or prescribes the procedure or practice requirements of the agency. The term includes the amendment or repeal of a prior rule but does not include (A) the issuance, renewal or denial of licenses; (B) the approval, disapproval or prescription of rates; (C) statements concerning only the internal management of an agency and not affecting private rights or procedures available to the public; (D) interagency memoranda; or (E) declaratory rulings issued pursuant to Section 308 of this title; ...."
. State ex rel. Com’r of Ins. v. N.C. Rate Bur., 300 N.C. 381, 269 S.E.2d 547, 568 (1980).
. Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 301, 99 S.Ct. 1705, 1717, 60 L.Ed.2d 208 (1979). See also Schwartz, “Administrative Law”, p. 186-189, § 4.14 (2nd ed. 1984).
. Morton v. Ruiz, 415 U.S. 199, 232-236, 94 S.Ct. 1055, 1073-1075, 39 L.Ed.2d 270 (1974). See also Schwartz, "Administrative Law”, p. 188-189, § 4.14 (2nd ed. 1984).
. Mazza v. Cavicchia, 15 N.J. 498, 105 A.2d 545, 552 (1954), cited with approval in Adams v. Professional Practices Comm'n., note 10, supra.
. See note 9, supra.
. Boydston v. State, 277 P.2d 138, 142 (Okla.1954).
. Lowrey v. Hodges, 555 P.2d 1016 (Okla.1976). The definition of regular and temporary permit is found at 82 O.S.1981 § 1020.11(A) and (B):
“A. Regular Permit. A regular permit is an authorization to put groundwater to beneficial use for other than domestic purposes. The regular permit shall be granted only after completion of the hydrologic survey and determination of the maximum annual yield for the appropriate basin or subbasin. It can be revoked or canceled only as provided in Sections 1020.12 and 1020.15 of this title.
B. Temporary Permit. A temporary permit is an authorization for the same purposes as a regular permit but granted by the Board prior to completion of the hydrologic survey and the determination of the maximum annual yield of the basin or subbasin. Unless requested by a majority of the owners of the land, the water allocated by a temporary permit shall not be less than two (2) acre-feet annually for each acre of land owned or leased by the applicant in the basin or subba-sin; provided, however, if the applicant presents clear and convincing evidence that allocation in excess of two (2) acre-feet annually for each acre of land overlying the basin or subbasin will not exhaust the water thereunder in less than twenty (20) years, then the Board may issue temporary permits in such basin or subbasin in such amounts in excess of said limitation as will assure a minimum twenty-year life for such basin or subbasin. A temporary permit must be revalidated annually during its term. The permit shall lapse at expiration of its term or upon the issuance of a regular permit, whichever shall occur first. It is subject to revocation or cancellation as provided in Sections 1020.12 and 1020.15 of this title.”
.Title 82 O.S.1981 § 1020.5 provides: "The maximum annual yield of each fresh groundwater basin or subbasin shall be based upon a minimum basin or subbasin life of twenty (20) years from the effective date of this act.”
. Oklahoma Water Resources Board Rule 840.4 provides:
“840.4 ANNUAL REVALIDATION AND EXPIRATION OF TEMPORARY GROUND WATER PERMITS: A temporary ground water permit must be revalidated annually during its term. Water use report forms will be mailed in January to each temporary permit holder. Return of the completed, signed, and dated water use report form to the Board within thirty (30) days of receipt will automatically revalidate a temporary ground water permit whose revalidation is not protested. If revalidation is protested, the temporary permit will not be automatically revalidated but will be submitted to the Board for consideration. The temporary permit shall lapse at expiration of its term, revocation, cancellation, suspension, or upon the issuance of a regular permit, whichever shall occur first."
. Adams v. Professional Practices Comm’n., note 10, supra.
. Jackson v. Independent School Dist No. 16, 648 P.2d 26 (Okla.1982).
. Lowrey v. Hodges, note 18, supra.
. Mazza v. Cavicchia, note 15, supra.
. Plain words are to be considered in their ordinary and common use. State ex rel. Western State Hospital v. Stoner, 614 P.2d 59 (Okla.1980); Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines validate as “to corroborate or support in a sound basis or authority.”
. The intent of the legislature is found at 82 O.S.1981 § 1020.2 which reads:
“It is hereby declared to be the public policy of this state, in the interest of the agricultural stability, domestic, municipal, industrial and other beneficial uses, general economy, health and welfare of the state and its citizens, to utilize the groundwater resources of the state, and for that purpose to provide reasonable regulations for the allocation for reasonable use based on hydrologic surveys of fresh groundwater basins or subbasins to determine a restriction on the production, based upon the acres overlying the groundwater basin or subbasin. The provisions of this act shall not apply to the taking, using or disposal of salt water associated with the exploration, production or recovery of oil and gas or to the taking, using or disposal of water trapped in producing mines.”
. Estate of Kasishke v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, 541 P.2d 848, 851 (Okla.1975).
. See Appendices A and B.
. Revised Rules and Regulations, § 125.1(g), April 12, 1979, states:
“‘Beneficial Use’ is the use of such quantity of stream or groundwater when reasonable intelligence and reasonable diligence are exercised in its application for a lawful purpose and as is economically necessary for that purpose. Beneficial uses include but are not limited to municipal, industrial, agricultural, irrigation, recreation, fish and wildlife, etc."
. Determination of maximum yield is found at 82 O.S.1981, § 1020.5, and provides:
“After making the hydrologic survey, the Board shall make a determination of the maximum annual yield of fresh water to be produced from each groundwater basin or subba-sin. Such determination must be based upon the following:
1. The total land area overlying the basin or subbasin;
2. The amount of water in storage in the basin or subbasin;
3. The rate of natural recharge to the basin or subbasin and total discharge from the basin or subbasin;
4. Transmissibility of the basin or subbasin; and
5.The possibility of pollution of the basin or subbasin from natural sources.
The maximum annual yield of each fresh groundwater basin or subbasin shall be based upon a minimum basin or subbasin life of twenty (20) years from the effective date of this act.” Also, 82 O.S.1981 § 1020.6 states:
“Once such hydrologic survey has been completed and the Board has set a tentative maximum annual yield for the basin or subbasin, the Board shall call and hold hearings at centrally located places within the area of the basin or subbasin. Prior to such hearings being held, the Board shall make copies of such hydrologic survey available for inspection and examination by all interested persons and, at such hearings, shall present evidence of the geological findings and determinations upon which the tentative maximum annual yield has been based. Any interested party shall have the right to present evidence in support or opposition thereto.
After such hearings are completed, the Board shall then proceed to make its final determination as to the maximum annual yield of water which shall be allocated to each acre of land overlying such basin or subbasin. The Board may, in subsequent basin or subbasin hearings, and after additional hydrologic sur*62veys, increase the amount of water allocated but shall not decrease the amount of water allocated.”
.See note 18, 82 O.S.1981 § 1020.11(B) supra.
. Tensen, "The Allocation of Percolating Water Under the Oklahoma Ground Water Law of 1972”, 14 Tulsa LJ. 437 (1972).
. See Appendix C for Corps of Engineer Lake Data, “Normal Pool Storage (acre-feet).”
. The Sunday Oklahoman, “Experts Study Ways To Assure Future Resources for Ogallala Aquifer", January 23, 1984. Unfortunately, a comprehensive water program was defeated in the closing hours of the last Congressional session. Currently, only one cent of every federal dollar is spend on natural resources and environmental purposes. One-third of this goes to water projects, and this amount is going down. The Journal Record, "States’ Cities Face Larger Fiscal Share for Water Projects, December 13, 1984. Apparently, total reliance on federal action is misplaced.”
. State Government News (July, 1984); Dallas Morning News, "A Water Survey.” Aug. 19, 1984; The New York Times "Some Texans Need Water More Than Oil,” Nov. 25, 1984.
. On August 10, 1984, the United States Senate passed legislation to provide $20.5 million for study and construction of groundwater "recharge" projects in Western states (the projects include Oklahoma and the Ogallala Aquifer). In Texas, alone, 4 million to 6 million acre-feet of water are withdrawn while the aquifer is recharged at a rate of only 200,000 acre-feet per year. Groundwater depletion directly reflects upon the ability of farmers to earn a living and in some cases the survival of rural towns and communities are dependent upon groundwater. Saturday Oklahoman and Times, "Sinking Groundwater Supplies Get Senate Boost”, August 11, 1984. In Texas, the Ogallala groundwater is pumped and used at a rate of 20 to 30 times its recharge. ⅜
. This policy is found at 82 O.S.1981 § 1020.2, see note 26, supra.
. The requirement is provided in 82 O.S.1981 § 1020.9:
"At the hearing, the Board shall determine from the evidence presented by the parties interested, from the hydrologic surveys and from other relevant data available to the Board and applicant, whether the lands owned or leased by the applicant overlie the fresh groundwater basin or subbasin and whether the use to which the applicant intends to put the water is a beneficial use. If so, and if the Board finds that waste will not occur, the Board shall approve the application by issuing a regular permit. A regular permit shall allocate to the applicant his proportionate part of the maximum annual yield of the basin or subbasin. His proportionate part shall be that percentage of the total annual *64yield of the basin or subbasin, previously determined to be the maximum annual yield as provided in Section 5, which is equal to the percentage of the land overlying the fresh groundwater basin or subbasin which he owns or leases. The permit shall specify the location of the permitted well or wells. A regular permit shall not be granted for less than the remaining life of the basin or subba-sin as previously determined by the Board.”
. Waste is defined in Revised Rules and Regulations § 125.1(yyy) (April 12, 1979):
“Waste or Waste of Water means any act permitting or causing the pollution of fresh water or the use of such water in an inefficient manner or any manner that is not beneficial and is further defined in 82 O.S.Supp. 1972, § 1020.15."
. Pollution is defined by 82 O.S.1981 § 926.1:
“ 'Pollution' means contamination or other alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties of any natural waters of the state, or such discharge of any liquid, gaseous, or solid substance into any waters of the state as will or is likely to create a nuisance or render such waters harmful or detrimental or injurious to public health, safety, or welfare, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural, recreational or other legitimate beneficial uses, or to livestock, wild animals, birds, fish or other aquatic life.”
.It was reported in The Sunday Oklahoman, “Don’t Drink the Water; Brine Pollution Blamed on Oil Wells”, July 29, 1984, that unpublished (at time of press) U.S. Geological Survey Study reveals pollution of the Vamoos-Ada aquifer by brine water and a possible source of the pollution may be improperly constructed or maintained oil and gas wells.
Farmers in Jackson, Greer and Harmon counties have expressed concern of loss of water for irrigation purposes when drillers drill through approximately 100 feet of impervious rock which separates the Blaine Dog Creek aquifer (suitable for irrigation) from the Flower Pot formation (unsuitable for irrigation) which allows water from the Flower Pot formation to pollute the water of the Blaine Dog Creek aquifer. The Daily Oklahoman, "Farmers Face Losing Irrigation Water to Drilling" July 3, 1984. Several tests were made in Sasakwa, Oklahoma and excessive salt water was found in the groundwater. Studies show that there is little doubt that this pollution is the result of past oilfield operations in the area. The Oklahoma *65Observer, "Tainted Water, Oil & Government”, August 10, 1984.
. According to Rule 820.1 the economic study must contain:
"(1) A detailed analysis of the relative cost of obtaining salt water versus the relative cost of obtaining fresh water,
(2) Total project costs and the amount of oil or gas expected to be recovered and the value expected to be realized,
(3) The estimated value of fresh water for other purposes [purposes or uses common to the area or vicinity subject of the application] as measured against the overall estimated value of the oil or gas to be recovered,
(4) The additional expense per barrel recovered if the applicant is required to use or treat salt water instead of fresh water in the recovery process, and
is) A summary evaluation of other recovery methods or alternatives considered and why recovery requiring the use of fresh water was deemed to be necessary or the most feasible
. See Dace, “Oil and Gas: Water and Water Courses: The Right to Use Fresh Groundwater in Waterflood Operations”, 35 Okla.L.Rev. 158 (1982), which states:
"Another possible problem with the application process is the nature of the evidence itself. Most of the evidence required to be submitted with the application involves a purely economic analysis of data. Although the use of fresh water in a secondary recovery project may produce more profits than the same water will produce if used for irrigation or for sustaining life, the value of water cannot be measured in monetary terms alone.
. Tulsa World, "Enhanced Oil Recovery Methods in Infant Stages, Oil Group Told”, April 17, 1984.
. Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations asked "How is it that water, which is so very useful that life is impossible without it, has such a low price — while diamonds, which are quite unnecessary have such a high price?” Modern economists answer by using the microeconomic concept of utility, the theory that explains value according to the degree to which the thing valued contributes to man’s most urgent necessities. The total relative marginal utility and cost of the last little bit of water determine its price. Since we have an abundant supply of water today, the price is low. As water becomes scarce, its price will rise dramatically. See P. Samuelson, Economics: An Introductory Analysis, p. 424 (McGraw-Hill, 7th ed., 1967).
Diminishing supplies of fresh groundwater pose a severe threat to Oklahoma’s future growth. A projected water shortage in Central Oklahoma may reduce industrial output by $293 million by 1990, in 1977 constant dollars, reduce personal income by $79.7 million and net governmental receipts by $21.2 million. The reductions will accelerate rapidly and are projected to result in loss of $2,508 million in industry output, $771 million in personal income, and $205.2 million in government receipts by the year 2040. The Oklahoma Digest "Oklahoma’s Fast Depleting Water Reserves”, August 27, 1984.
. It has been suggested that ”[t]he flexibility of the concept of beneficial use ... does not permit a court to declare that a particular use is not a beneficial use because of the circumstances if the use is one specified in the statutory declaration of policy. Thus, it would be inappropriate for the Oklahoma Water Resources Board to deny a permit for irrigation purposes in an area which is short of water on the grounds that insufficient water made irrigation a non-beneficial use. On the other hand, it might not be inappropriate for the Board to deny a permit for irrigation on those grounds if the method of irrigation proposed was wasteful.” Jensen, "The Allocation of Percolating Water Under the Oklahoma Ground Water Law of 1972”, 14 Tulsa L.J. 437, 472-73 (1979).
. During Oklahoma's 38th Legislature (1981-82) Senate Bill 288 and House Bill 1332 were introduced. Each bill was designed to amend 82 O.S.1981 § 1020.15. The section defines waste of fresh groundwater to include "the injection or discharge of fresh groundwater into a geologic formation where it will be lost for reuse or resulting in contamination by petrole*67um hydrocarbons or alteration of the physical, chemical or biological properties of such water by gaseous substances encountered in such formation.” Each bill failed to pass.
.Generally, errors which affect a party who does not appeal will not be reviewed; however, in the exercise of its discretion the Supreme Court may in a proper case consider cross-assignments of error even if there is no cross-appeal. This is especially so if the issue involves issues of compelling public interest.1 To demonstrate that the appellant is not entitled to the relief sought2 the appellee may be permitted to present and urge exceptions taken below for the purpose of sustaining the judgment. The absence of a cross-appeal does not preclude the appellee from urging any sound reason for af-firmance even though the reason is not the same one assigned by the trial court for the decision.3 Although the appellee failed to cross-appeal, the record and briefs are sufficient to present its arguments and contentions. The issues in an administrative proceeding are formed by the evidence.4 The successful party may, without cross-appealing or assigning error, preserve the judgment by showing that errors were committed which, if corrected, would result in sustaining the trial court’s disposition.5 Evidence, introduced at the trial level to which no objection is offered, and which would be inadmissible as being not within the framework of the pleadings, may be considered on appeal. The pleadings may then be amended to conform to the proof.6
See Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 82, 58 S.Ct. 817, 824, 82 L.Ed. 1188, 114 A.L.R. 1487, 1495 (1938). Alamo Irrigation v. United States, 81 Nev. 390, 404 P.2d 5, 7 (1965).
Peterson v. City of Norwalk, 150 Conn. 366, 190 A.2d 33, 41 (1963).
Gourley v. Northwestern Nat'l Life Insur. Co., 94 Okl. 46, 220 P. 645, 647 (1923); Gilchrist v. Lowry 195 Okl. 537, 159 P.2d 261, 263 (1945).
See note 4, Majority opinion.
Woolfolk v. Semrod, 351 P.2d 742, 745 (Okla.1960).
Rosser-Moon Furniture Co. v. Harris, 191 Okla. 607, 131 P.2d 1004, 1006-1007, (1942); L.C. Jones Trucking Company v. Jenkins, 313 P.2d 530, 533 (Okla.1957).
. The philosophy of public juris was recognized and utilized in State ex rel. Poulos v. State Board of Equalization, 552 P.2d 1134, 1137 (Okla. 1975). The Court said:
"The matter presented is public juris, and of immediate concern to all taxpayers. It is apparent from the exhibits presented before this Court that the assessments made by the Board do not meet the constitutional and statutory requirements as to equalization. Any further delay will only compound the failures of the past. Under such circumstances, this Court will not be saddled by the usual statutory procedures of administrative remedies. The exigency of time demands our immediate action. In awarding or delaying writs of mandamus, courts exercise judicial discretion and are governed by what seems unnecessary and proper to be done under the facts of each case for the attainment of justice.”
. Murdock v. Ward, 178 U.S. 139, 149, 20 S.Ct. 775, 779, 44 L.Ed. 1009, 1013 (1899); In Re Initiative Petition No. 315, Etc., 649 P.2d 545, 553 (Okla.1982); Lipscomb v. State Ind. Comm., 199 Okl. 597, 188 P.2d 841, 842 (1948); In Re Initiative Petition No. 10 of Oklahoma City, 186 Okl. 497, 98 P.2d 896, 897 (1940); Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. State, 175 Okl. 11, 52 P.2d 81, 83 (1935); Massachusetts Nat. Bank v. Shinn, 163 N.Y. 360, 57 N.E. 611, 612 (1900).