A&B Irrigation Dist., Burley Irrigation Dist., Milner Irrigation Dist., N. Side Canal Co. v. State, United States, Am. Falls Reservoir Dist. No. 2, Aberdeen-American Falls Ground Water Dist., Aberdeen-Springfield Canal Co. (In re Srba)
| Decision Date | 04 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 40974,40975.,s. 40974 |
| Citation | 157 Idaho 385,336 P.3d 792 |
| Parties | In re SRBA, Case No. 39576, Subcase 00–91017 (Basin–Wide Issue 17—Does Idaho Law Require a Remark Authorizing Storage Rights to ‘Refill’, Under Priority, Space Vacated for Flood Control). A & B Irrigation District, Burley Irrigation District, Milner Irrigation District, North Side Canal Company, Twin Falls Canal Company, Minidoka Irrigation District, American Falls Reservoir District No. 2 and Boise Project Board of Control, Appellants, v. State of Idaho, United States of America, American Falls Reservoir District No. 2, Aberdeen–American Falls Ground Water District, Aberdeen–Springfield Canal Company, Bingham Ground Water District, Bonneville–Jefferson Ground Water District, Jefferson–Clark Ground Water District, Madison Ground Water District, Magic Valley Ground Water District, North Snake Ground Water District, Black Canyon Irrigation District, New York Irrigation District, Big Wood Canal Company, Ballentyne Ditch Company, Boise Valley Irrigation Ditch Company, Canyon County Water Company, Eureka Water Company, Farmers' Co–Operative Ditch Company, Middleton Irrigation Association, Inc., Middleton Mill Ditch Company, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, New Dry Creek Ditch Company, Pioneer Ditch Company, Settlers Irrigation District, South Boise Water Company, Thurman Mill Ditch Company, Idaho Power Company, Fremont–Madison Ground Water District, Idaho Irrigation District, United Canal Company, City of Pocatello, United Water Idaho, Inc., Pioneer Irrigation District, Respondents. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Barker, Rosholt & Simpson, LLP, Twin Falls, for appellants. Travis L. Thompson argued in case number 40974 for appellant Surface Water Coalition and Albert P. Barker argued in 40975 for appellant Boise Project Board.
Fletcher Law Office, Burley, for appellants American Falls Irrigation District # 2 and Minidoka Irrigation District.
Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for respondent State of Idaho. Michael C. Orr, Deputy Attorney General argued.
U.S. Department of Justice, Colorado, for respondent United States.
Arkoosh Law Offices, Boise, for respondent American Falls Reservoir District No. 2.
Racine Olson Nye Budge & Bailey, Chtd., Pocatello, for respondent Aberdeen–Springfield Canal Company, Bingham Ground Water District, Bonneville–Jefferson Ground Water District, Jefferson–Clark Ground Water District, Madison Ground Water District, Magic Valley Ground Water District, North Snake Ground Water District.
McDevitt & Miller, Boise, for respondent Black Canyon Irrigation District, New York Irrigation District.
Hobdey & Hobdey, Gooding, for respondent Big Wood Canal Company.
Sawtooth Law Offices, PLLC, Boise, for appellants in 40975 and respondents in 40974. Ballentyne Ditch Company, Boise Valley Irrigation Ditch Company, Canyon County Water Company, Eureka Water Company, Farmers Co-operative Ditch Company, Middleton Irrigation District, Middleton Mill Ditch Company, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, New Dry Creek Ditch Company, Pioneer Ditch Company, Settlers Irrigation District, South Boise Water Company, Thurman Mill Ditch Company. S. Bryce Farris argued for appellant in 40975.
James Tucker, Boise, for respondent Idaho Power.
Rigby, Andrus & Rigby, Rexburg, for respondents Fremont–Madison Ground Water District, Idaho Irrigation District, United Canal Company. Jerry R. Rigby argued in 40974.
Beeman & Associates, P.C., Boise, for respondent City of Pocatello.
Givens Pursley, Boise, for respondent United Water Idaho, Inc. Christopher H. Meyer argued.
Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett & Rock, Boise, for respondent Pioneer Irrigation District. Andrew J. Waldera argued in 40974.
This appeal arises out of the Snake River Basin Adjudication (SRBA) court's decision on the following basin-wide issue: Does Idaho law require a remark authorizing storage rights to "refill," under priority, space vacated for flood control? The SRBA court concluded that a remark was not necessary because a storage water right that is filled cannot refill under priority before affected junior appropriators satisfy their water rights once. The court declined to address when the quantity element of a storage water right is considered filled. Seven Magic Valley irrigation districts and canal companies (collectively the "Surface Water Coalition") appeal this decision in Docket No. 40974. The Boise Project Board appeals this decision in Docket No. 40975. Because both cases appeal the same decision of the SRBA court and have significant overlap, we address them together in this opinion.
The basis of this appeal, Basin–Wide Issue 17, arose from several individual SRBA subcases that involved the question of how filling a reservoir after the release of flood control waters should be addressed on the face of partial decrees for storage water rights in the Palisades and American Falls Reservoirs. Both the State and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) took the position that a remark is necessary on the face of a water right to authorize the right to refill. Reclamation wanted the following remark under the quantity element of its water right: "This water right includes the right to refill under the priority date of this water right to satisfy the United States' storage contracts." The State disagreed with the language of Reclamation's proposed refill remark. It proffered the following alternate remark, arguing that it more accurately reflects Idaho law on storage refill:
This right is filled for a given irrigation season when the total quantity of water that has been accumulated to storage under this right equals the decreed quantity. Additional water may be stored under this right but such additional storage is incidental and subordinate to all existing and future water rights.
As a result of the remarks proposed by Reclamation and the State, a dispute arose over Idaho law on storage refill. Several irrigation districts in the Treasure Valley, whose storage water rights were already decreed without a remark on refill rights, were concerned that the outcome of the storage refill issue might affect their right to the use of storage water. Therefore, Reclamation, the Surface Water Coalition, and the Boise Project Board, among others, filed a petition to designate a basin-wide issue arguing that the issue of storage refill was an issue of basin-wide significance and should be resolved in a basin-wide proceeding. In addition, the Surface Water Coalition asserted that the following two issues should also be addressed as part of the basin-wide proceeding to clarify and guide administration of storage water rights:
The SRBA court entered an order granting the petition and designating the following issue as Basin–Wide Issue 17: "Does Idaho law require a remark authorizing storage rights to ‘refill,’ under priority, space vacated for flood control?" The court recognized that the issue was fundamentally an issue of law, noting that "[w]hen asked if the issue could be addressed in a basin-wide setting without the need to develop factual records specific to individual reservoirs, the Petitioners represented that little, if any, factual record development would be necessary." Accordingly, the court limited the scope of the basin-wide proceeding as follows:
[T]he Court will not consider the specific factual circumstances, operational history, or historical agreements associated with any particular reservoir in conjunction with this basin-wide issue. Such specific factual inquiries do not lend themselves to review in a basin-wide proceeding involving many parties and many reservoirs. Rather, the basin-wide issue will be limited to the above-identified issue of law.
The SRBA court declined to address either of the Surface Water Coalition's additional proposed issues pertaining to how a storage right is initially filled, finding that these issues were not well situated for resolution in a basin-wide proceeding. In declining to address the Surface Water Coalition's issues regarding fill, the court reasoned:
An on-stream reservoir alters the stream affecting the administration of all rights on the source. Accordingly, some methodology is required to implement priority administration of affected rights. Addressing the issue of reservoir fill may require factual inquiries, investigation and record development specific to a given reservoir, including how the State accounts for fill in each individual reservoir under its accounting program. As stated above, such factually specific inquiries do not lend themselves to review in a basin-wide setting involving multiple reservoirs. Furthermore unlike the issue of priority refill which is directly related to the quantity element of a water right, the issue of fill is purely an issue of administration.
Thus, the SRBA court explicitly stated that its designation of Basin–Wide Issue 17 did not include the question of when a water right is initially filled.
After briefing and oral argument, the SRBA court entered its Memorandum Decision on March 20, 2013. In this decision, the court concluded that a remark was not necessary because a storage water right that is filled cannot refill under priority before affected junior appropriators satisfy their water rights once. The court declined to address when the quantity element of a storage water right is considered filled. The Surface Water Coalition and the Boise Project Board timely appealed this decision.
The rights at issue in this case are storage water rights. Storage water is water held in a reservoir and intended to assist the...
To continue reading
Request your trial