State v. Hagerman Water Right Owners, Inc.
| Decision Date | 15 October 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. 39576-O,39576-O |
| Citation | 947 P.2d 409,130 Idaho 736 |
| Parties | In re: SRBA Caserder Adopting Special Master's Recommendation on Summary Judgment Entered |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Alan G. Lance, Attorney General; Cheri C. Copsey, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for appellant State of Idaho.
Betty H. Richardson, U.S. Attorney, Boise; William B. Lazarus (argued), Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellant United States of America.
Givens, Pursley & Huntley, Boise, for intervenor-appellants Idaho Ground Water Appropriators, Inc. and Cranney Bros. Jeffrey C. Fereday argued.
Beeman & Hofstetter, P.C., Boise, for intervenor-appellants North Snake Ground Water District, May Farms, Ltd., Sand Springs Ranch Partnership, and Faulkner Land and Livestock Co. Dana L. Hofstetter argued.
Hepworth, Lezamiz & Hohnhorst, Twin Falls, for respondent Hagerman Water Right Owners, Inc. Patrick D. Brown argued.
Rosholt, Robertson & Tucker, Chtd., Twin Falls, for intervenor-respondents Idaho Power Co., Twin Falls Canal Co. and North Side Canal Co. James C. Tucker argued for Idaho Power and Norman Semanko argued for the canal companies.
Elam & Burke, P.A., Boise, for intervenor-respondents Pioneer Irrigation District, Settlers Irrigation District, Payette River Water Users Ass'n, Inc., Little Salmon River Water Users Ass'n, Inc., Thousand Springs Ranch, Newfoundland Partners, Sinclair Oil Corp., d/b/a Sun Valley Co., Thompson Creek Mining Co., and Bogus Basin Recreational Ass'n, Inc. Scott L. Campbell argued.
Ringert Clark, Chtd., Boise, for remaining intervenor-respondents. Daniel V. Steenson argued.
Hogue, Speck & Aanestad, Ketchum, for respondent Acequia, Inc. James P. Speck argued.
The State of Idaho appeals from the district court's decision adopting a special master's recommendation to reject part of the Director's Report related to twenty-four (24) subcases in Basin 36 1 and holding that previously decreed water rights may not be reduced on the basis of current non-application to beneficial use absent a showing of abandonment, forfeiture, adverse possession or estoppel and that the Director is obligated to accept prior decrees as conclusive proof of the nature of a water right.
The twenty-four (24) subcases at issue are a subset of a larger number of water claims in Basin 36 referred to as the "Hagerman subcases." The Hagerman subcases involve water right claims that are based on a decree entered upon stipulation of the parties to a private adjudication. New Int'l Mortgage Bank v. Idaho Power, In Equity No. 1602 (D.Idaho March 22, 1932) (unpublished opinion) ("New International decree"). The New International decree describes the required elements of the water rights under I.C. § 42-1409 except for consumptive use, period of use, amount of irrigated acreage and some lack of explicit purposes of use. Notwithstanding this decree, the Director of the Idaho Department of Water Resources ("Director") recommended a lesser quantity element in most of the subcases involved than the quantity set forth by the decree and that amount claimed by the water rights owners. The claimants objected to the Director's recommendations and initiated the subcases currently on appeal. See I.C. § 42-1412(1) (1996).
Each of the subcases was referred to a special master to make determinations regarding the claimants' rights to water. See I.C. § 42-1422; I.R.C.P. 53(a)(1); SRBA Administrative Order 1 (SRBA AO1) 9.a (amended 9/31/96). Subcases referred to a special master are to proceed in accordance with the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure ("I.R.C.P.") and the SRBA Rules of Procedure. SRBA AO1 9.a; see I.C. § 42-1411(5). Proceedings following an objection to the Director's Report are also "governed by ... the Idaho rules of evidence." I.C. § 42-1411(5).
Originally, the water right holders were informed that the reduced quantity contained in the Director's Report was based on "partial forfeiture" pursuant to I.C. § 42-222(2). Subsequently, the SRBA court issued its Memorandum Decision in Basin-Wide Issue 10 holding that partial forfeiture was not contemplated by I.C. § 42-222(2). Following that decision and during the course of the proceedings before the special master, the IDWR stated that the Director's recommendation was based on current non-application to "reasonable beneficial use." The IDWR stated that the concept of beneficial use allows for constant re-evaluation of whether the water is being used beneficially.
At the time the Director's recommendations pertaining to the twenty-four subcases were originally filed, the Director was designated by statute as a "party" in the SRBA. I.C. § 42-1401A(7) (1986). However, the Idaho Legislature later amended the water The claimants filed motions for summary judgment in all twenty-four subcases, arguing, inter alia, that the New International decree determined the "extent of beneficial use as to the original appropriation" and that res judicata and collateral estoppel prevented finding any lesser amount of water than was contained in the decree. The State of Idaho filed a motion to participate in all twenty-four subcases, arguing that the issues involved weighed significantly on the State's proprietary and sovereign interests. The State's motion to participate was granted in part and denied in part. The Order set forth the following:
code, removing the Director as a "party" and altering the status of his Report from a "pleading" to "prima facie evidence" of the facts contained therein. I.C. §§ 42-1401B, -1411 (1994). As a result of these amendments, the claimants were left as the only "party" in any given subcase.
The State seeks to present legal arguments in response to the summary judgment motions filed by individual members of Hagerman Water Rights Owners, Inc. ("HWRO"). The State also seeks to present factual evidence in the individual subcases if the motions for summary judgment are denied.
Because the legal issues raised by the HWRO motions will have a significant impact [on] the State's interests, the State's Motion to Participate is GRANTED, in part. The State will be permitted to present legal arguments in response to the HWRO motions. However, the factual evidence presented during any subsequent subcase hearings will speak for itself.
The special master determined that absent a claim of forfeiture, abandonment, adverse possession, or estoppel, a reduction in beneficial use after a water right vests is not a basis upon which a water right may be reduced. As to the conclusiveness of the prior decree, the special master held that res judicata did not apply to bar re-evaluation of the amount of a water right because "the parties and cause of action under the New International Mortgage Decree are not identical to the parties and cause of action in the SRBA." The special master also determined that collateral estoppel did not apply in one-party cases but that the IDWR was, nevertheless, "obligated to accept prior decrees as being conclusive proof of the nature of a water right." The special master concluded:
Therefore, where a claimed element matches a previously decreed element, regardless of whether the Director's Report states a different element, the court finds that there is no question of material fact and summary judgment will be granted to those elements as a matter of law.
As to the elements of the water rights which were not described in the New International decree, the special master: (1) withheld ruling on the issue of consumptive use, (2) denied summary judgment on the issue of number of irrigated acres, (3) decided that "other purposes" enumerated in the decree would be recognized provided the claimants properly amended their claims and presented sufficient foundation regarding uses, and (4) determined as a matter of law the period of use for irrigation was the "irrigation season." HWRO opposes the adverse ruling as to these elements arguing that it should have been granted summary judgment because no evidence capable of showing that a genuine issue of material fact had been presented. The claimants allege that the Director's Report does not meet the requirements of I.R.C.P. 56 and additional reports filed by the IDWR are not based on personal knowledge. Therefore, the claimants argued that these Reports cannot constitute the type of evidence which gives rise to a genuine issue of fact. The special master disagreed stating:
While the Director's Report is not an affidavit, deposition, or admission and does not constitute any of the types of evidence contemplated under I.R.C.P. 56, the Director's Report does constitute prima facie evidence of a water right and exists independently of any evidence offered by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mulder v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Co.
...should not be interpreted as encompassing an area already covered by one which is more specific. See State v. Hagerman Water Right Owners, Inc., 130 Idaho 736, 947 P.2d 409 (1997). Additionally, when choosing between alternative constructions of a statute, this Court presumes that the statu......
-
State v. Robinson
...not be interpreted to encompass an area already covered by a special or more specific statute. State v. Hagerman Water Right Owners, Inc., 130 Idaho 736, 743, 947 P.2d 409, 416 (1997). A specific statute will prevail over a general statute to the extent of any repugnancy between them or if ......
-
State v. Young
...The interpretation of the rules of evidence is a question of law over which we exercise free review. State v. Hagerman Water Right Owners, Inc., 130 Idaho 736, 947 P.2d 409 (1997). The district court ruled that Rule 519 of the Idaho Rules of Evidence barred admission of Young's psychologica......
-
In Re Srba, s. 35217, 35943.
...9(b), (11)(d); see also In re SRBA Case, No. 39576, 128 Idaho 246, 258, 912 P.2d 614, 625 (1995). State v. Hagerman Water Right Owners, Inc., 130 Idaho 736, 740, 947 P.2d 409, 413 (1997). The procedures in AO1 “supplement the I.R.C.P., I.R.E., I.A.R. and any other applicable laws or orders ......