Potlatch Corp. v. US, No. 25153

• Decision Date: 27 October 2000
• Docket Number: No. 25154., No. 25153
• Citation: 12 P.3d 1256,134 Idaho 912
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: In re SRBA Case No. 39576, Re Wild & Scenic Rivers Claims: 75-13316, 77-11941, 78-10668, 78-11961, 81-10472, 81-10472, 81-10513, 81-10625. POTLATCH CORPORATION and Hecla Mining, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.

12 P.3d 1256

134 Idaho 912

In re SRBA Case No. 39576, Re Wild & Scenic Rivers Claims: 75-13316, 77-11941, 78-10668, 78-11961, 81-10472, 81-10472, 81-10513, 81-10625.

POTLATCH CORPORATION and Hecla Mining, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.

Nos. 25153, 25154.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, January 2000 Term.

October 27, 2000.

Givens Pursley, LLC, Boise, for appellant Potlatch Corporation. Jefferey C. Fereday argued.

Root & Schindler, P.C., Denver, for appellant Hecla Mining Company. Thomas C. Root argued.

Hon. Betty H. Richardson, United States Attorney's Office, Boise; United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent; Sean H. Donahue, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued.

SCHROEDER, Justice.

This case arises from the Snake River Basin Adjudication in which the district court granted in part and denied in part the United States' motion for partial summary judgment on claims the United States makes for reserved water rights pursuant to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The United States claims federal reserved water rights for the following rivers pursuant to the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968¹: the Middle Fork of the Salmon, the Middle Fork of the Clearwater (including its two tributaries: the Lochsa River and the Selway River), the Rapid River and the main stem of the Salmon.² The district court agreed with the United States that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act expressly reserves water for the rivers designated under the Act and granted this portion of the United States' motion for summary judgment.

The United States also requested the rights to all unappropriated flows for the Rapid River and the main stem of the Salmon.³ Alternatively, the U.S. requested that enough water be reserved to protect the fish, wildlife, scenic and recreational values on the main stem of the Salmon and that enough water be reserved to protect the fish, wildlife and scenic values on the Rapid River. The district court denied the United States' motion for all unappropriated flows, limiting the United States to the amount necessary to fulfill the purposes of the act. That amount has not been determined.

When the United States filed its initial motion for summary judgment, the State of Idaho, Thompson Creek Mining Company, and Potlatch Corporation filed their opposition to the motion. This opposition was supported by numerous other interested parties.⁴ The United States and the Thompson Creek Mining Company entered into a stipulation regarding their respective water rights. The appellants in this case are the Potlatch Corporation and the Hecla Mining Company. The State of Idaho and other parties who opposed the claim of the United States have not appealed the district court ruling.

II.

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT: AN OVERVIEW

Congress enacted the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968 to protect and preserve the scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, and cultural aspects of various designated rivers. 16 U.S.C. § 1271. Rivers were classified into three categories: (1) wild rivers (`vestiges of primitive America'), (2) scenic rivers (`free of impoundments' and `largely undeveloped') and (3) recreational rivers (`accessible by road or railroad' and `may have some development'). 16 U.S.C. § 1273.

When Congress passed the Act, it designated eight rivers to be protected (`instant rivers') and listed twenty-seven rivers as potential additions to the Act. Five of the eight instant rivers are located in the West. Rivers can be added in a number of ways: (1) Congress can designate a river, (2) Congress can designate a river after an agency studies the river and recommends its inclusion in the Act, or (3) a State may protect a river under its law and then seek the Secretary of Interior's approval that the river meets the Act's criteria.⁵

A critical section for reserved water rights is section 13(c) of the Act which provides the following:

(c) Reservation of waters for other purposes or in unnecessary quantities prohibited

Designation of any stream or portion thereof as a national wild, scenic or recreational river area shall not be construed as a reservation of the waters of such streams for purposes other than those specified in this chapter, or in quantities greater than necessary to accomplish these purposes.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In an appeal from an order granting summary judgment, this Court's standard of review is the same standard used by the district court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment. See, e.g., First Security Bank v. Murphy, 131 Idaho 787, 790, 964 P.2d 654, 657 (1998); Richards v. Idaho State Tax Comm'n, 131 Idaho 476, 478, 959 P.2d 457, 459 (1998). Summary judgment is appropriate only when the pleadings, depositions, affidavits and admissions on file show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See First Security Bank v. Murphy, 131 Idaho at 790, 964 P.2d at 657

. Aberdeen-Springfield Canal Co. v. Peiper (1999), 133 Idaho 82, 85, 982 P.2d 917, 920.

IV.

THE WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT CREATES AN EXPRESS RESERVATION OF WATER TO FULFILL THE PURPOSES OF THE ACT.

Potlatch Corporation and Hecla Mining Company maintain that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not expressly reserve water, maintaining that the language contained in Chapter 13(c) is a negative limitation of a water right, not an affirmative legislation reservation of water for purposes of the Act. They argue that Congress debated the issue of reserving water but failed to act. According to Potlatch Corporation and Hecla Mining Company, Congress merely set an upper limit on any water that a court might find Congress to have implicitly reserved. They also maintain that the Reserved Water Rights Doctrine can only be applied where there is an urgent need for water, and there has been no demonstration of that need in this case. Additionally, they argue that the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not reserve land to which the Reserved Water Rights Doctrine might apply. Potlatch Corporation asserts that the primary purpose of the Act was to prevent dam construction, not create federal water rights. Hecla Mining Company characterizes the bill as an environmental statute intended to address water pollution, but not intended to reserve water.

Whether there has been a federal reservation of water, and the quantity of water reserved, are questions of legislative intent. United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696, 699, 98 S.Ct. 3012, 3013, 57 L.Ed.2d 1052, 1056 (1978). Legislative intent is reflected first and foremost in the language of the statute itself. See Peasley Transfer & Storage Co. v. Smith, 132 Idaho 732, 742, 979 P.2d 605, 615 (1999)

: "We interpret statutes according to the plain, express meaning of a provision in question, and we will resort to judicial construction only if the provision is ambiguous, incomplete, absurd, or arguably in conflict with other laws." There is no need to go beyond the language of the statute, when that language is clear and unambiguous. State v. Hagerman Water Right Owners, Inc., 130 Idaho 727, 732, 947 P.2d 400, 405 (1997).

The legislative intent is awkwardly stated in the negative in section 13(c) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, but it is clear that Congress intended to reserve water to fulfill the purposes of the Act:

(c) Reservation of waters for other purposes or in unnecessary quantities prohibited

Designation of any stream or portion thereof as a national wild, scenic or recreational river area shall not be construed as a reservation of the waters of such streams for purposes other than those specified in this chapter, or in quantities greater than necessary to accomplish these purposes.

Section 13(c) makes little sense unless the legislation reserves water to fulfill the purposes of the Act. It would be anomalous to logic to say that the Act which was expressly created to preserve free-flowing rivers failed to provide for the reservation of water in the rivers. Such a result would run contrary to the language of section 13(c) and the Congressional declaration of policy:

16 U.S.C. § 1271 reads:

Congressional declaration of policy

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that certain selected rivers of the nation which, with their immediate environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, or other similar values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Congress declares that the established national policy of dam and other construction at appropriate sections of the rivers of the United States needs to be complemented by a policy that would preserve other selected rivers or sections thereof in their free-flowing condition to protect the water quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes. (emphasis added).

A fundamental principle of statutory construction is that a provision should not be construed to make surplusage of provisions included within the act. Ada County Assessor v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise, 123 Idaho 425, 849 P.2d 98 (1993). Standard rules of statutory interpretation require this Court to give effect to the legislature's intent and purpose, and to every word and phrase employed. Sweitzer v. Dean, 118 Idaho 568, 571, 798 P.2d 27, 30 (1990).

While it is not necessary to look to legislative history in this case, that legislative history overwhelmingly supports the idea that Congress intended a reservation of water to fulfill the purposes of the Act. During floor debate on the original wild and scenic rivers legislation, which contained language that is substantially identical to section 13(c), Frank Church, the sponsor of the bill, answered...