State v. United States

• Decision Date: 27 October 2000
• Docket Number: No. 25139., No. 25136
• Citation: 12 P.3d 1284,134 Idaho 940
• Parties: In re SRBA, Case No. 39576, Re: Sawtooth National Recreation Area Claims, Consolidated Subcase No. 65-20766, Encompassing Subcase Nos. 65-20766, 37-19833, 63-30428, 71-10761 and 72-46272. STATE of Idaho and Hecla Mining Company, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

12 P.3d 1284

134 Idaho 940

In re SRBA, Case No. 39576, Re: Sawtooth National Recreation Area Claims, Consolidated Subcase No. 65-20766, Encompassing Subcase Nos. 65-20766, 37-19833, 63-30428, 71--46272.

STATE of Idaho and Hecla Mining Company, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.

Nos. 25136, 25139.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, February 2000 Term.

October 27, 2000.

Hon. Alan G. Lance, Attorney General, Boise, for appellants. Peter J. Ampe, Deputy Attorney General, argued.

Hon. Betty H. Richardson, United States Attorney, Boise; United States Department of Justice Washington, DC, for respondent. Sean H. Donahue, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued. Root & Schindler, P.C., Denver, Colorado, for appellant Hecla Mining Company. Ronald I. Schindler argued.

TROUT, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal by the State of Idaho and Hecla Mining Company (Hecla) from a Snake River Basin Adjudication district court judgment involving federal reserved water rights in the Sawtooth National Recreation Area (Sawtooth NRA), which includes the Sawtooth Wilderness Area.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 1972, Congress passed legislation establishing the Sawtooth NRA "to assure the preservation and protection of the natural, scenic, historic, pastoral, and fish and wildlife values and provide for the enhancement of the recreational values associated therewith." Pub.L. No. 92-400 §§ 1-15, 86 Stat. 612, (codified at 16 U.S.C. §§ 460aa et seq.). Prior to its adoption, the Act was intended to create two entirely separate land units, a wilderness area and a recreation area. In its final form, however, the Act established one large land reservation consisting of a wilderness section and non-wilderness section.

The non-wilderness portions of the Sawtooth NRA were created primarily from existing federal lands and the Act provides they are to be administered in such a manner as will best provide for (1) the protection and conservation of fisheries; (2) the conservation and development of scenic, natural, historic, pastoral, wildlife and other values contributing to, and available for, public recreation and enjoyment; and (3) the management, utilization, and disposal of natural resources on federally owned lands. See Sawtooth National Recreation Area Act § 2(a), 16 U.S.C. § 460aa-1(a). Additionally, the wilderness portion of the Sawtooth NRA, designated as the Sawtooth Wilderness Area, is to be administered in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1131, et. seq., whichever is more restrictive. See Sawtooth National Recreation Area Act § 2(b), 16 U.S.C. § 460aa-1(b).

In 1997, the United States filed a claim in the SRBA district court pursuant to I.C. § 42-1411A, seeking a federal reserved water right to the entire unappropriated flow of the waters within the Sawtooth NRA. The SRBA district judge granted a motion by the United States to amend its claim to "the entire unappropriated flow of all natural water sources as of the date of designation, specifically, August 22, 1972, except for water necessary to fulfill existing and future uses as contemplated by the Act." The State and Hecla filed objections to the federal claim.

After considering cross-motions for summary judgment on whether the Act provided a basis for implying a federal reserved water right, the district judge issued an order in September, 1998, granting in part and denying in part the United States' motion for summary judgment. The Order granted the United States an implied federal reserved water right for the entire Sawtooth NRA, including the Wilderness Area. The district judge held the implied water right consisted of all unappropriated flows for the Wilderness Area with a priority date of 1972, as well as all water necessary to fulfill the purposes of the Act with regard to the non-wilderness portions of the Sawtooth NRA. The district judge then found a genuine issue of material fact remained regarding the minimum amount of water necessary to fulfill the purposes of the Act with regard to the non-wilderness area and denied the United States' motion for summary judgment as to the quantity of water for that claim. The State and Hecla appealed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a summary judgment motion, we employ "the same standard properly employed by the district court when originally ruling on the motion." Lamb v. Manweiler, 129 Idaho 269, 271, 923 P.2d 976, 978 (1996). Summary judgment is proper "if the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." I.R.C.P. 56(c). In applying this standard, we liberally construe the record in favor of the non-moving party, and will draw all reasonable inferences and conclusions supported by the record in favor of the party opposing the motion. McKay v. Owens, 130 Idaho 148, 152, 937 P.2d 1222, 1226 (1997). This appeal does not involve factual disputes. Whether the Sawtooth National Recreation Area Act establishes a federal reserved water right is purely a question of law. See, e.g., United States v. City of Challis, 133 Idaho 525, 529, 988 P.2d 1199, 1203 (1999).

III. DISCUSSION

A. The Sawtooth National Recreation Area Act does not provide a basis for federal reserved water rights.

In United States v. State of Idaho, 131 Idaho 468, 959 P.2d 449 (1998), we noted that the federal reserved water rights doctrine arises from the United States Supreme Court decision in Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564, 28 S.Ct. 207, 52 L.Ed. 340 (1908). In Winters, the Supreme Court held that when Congress created an Indian reservation, it also, by implication, reserved the water necessary to achieve the purposes of the reservation. Since the Winters decision, the doctrine has been extended "to include public lands reserved for a particular governmental purpose, such as the creation of parks, wildlife refuges, and national forests." State of Idaho, 131 Idaho at p. 470, 959 P.2d 449.

A federal reserved water right arises only from a reservation of land and may be either express or implied. United States v. New Mexico, 438 U.S. 696, 699-700, 98 S.Ct. 3012, 3013-14, 57 L.Ed.2d 1052, 1056-57 (1978). Thus, in order to determine whether the Sawtooth National Recreation Area Act provides a basis for federal reserved water rights, we "must assess (1) whether there has been a reservation of land, and, if so (2) whether the applicable acts of Congress contain an express reservation of water, and (3) if not, whether the applicable acts imply a reservation of water." City of Challis, 133 Idaho at 529-30, 988 P.2d at 1203-04 (1999). In deciding whether an implied reservation of water exists, we must determine whether Congress "intended to reserve" unappropriated waters. Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128, 139, 96 S.Ct. 2062, 2070, 48 L.Ed.2d 523, 534 (1976). An intent to reserve water is inferred if water is necessary for the primary purposes of the reservation and if, without water, the purposes of the reservation will be entirely defeated. New Mexico, 438 U.S. at 700, 98 S.Ct. at 3014, 57 L.Ed.2d at 1057. If, however, the water is only necessary for a secondary purpose of the reservation, the United States is left to "acquire water in the same manner as any other public or private appropriator." Id. at 702, 98 S.Ct. at 3015, 57 L.Ed.2d at 1058.

1. Reservation of land.

The State and Hecla argue the federal reserved water rights doctrine should not apply to this case because the Act did not reserve land as is required by the doctrine. They argue that because the Act does not use the word "reservation," and because most of the land in the Sawtooth NRA had previously been reserved for national forest purposes at the time the Sawtooth NRA was created, the Act did not create a reservation of land. Additionally, the State and Hecla argue the Act did not "re-reserve" those lands previously reserved as national forest lands. We do not find it necessary to address this element of the test for determining whether a federal reserved water right is present in this case. Even assuming, arguendo, the Act made such a reservation, the other two elements are not met and thus the assertion of a reserved water right must fail.

2. Express reservation.

It is undisputed the Act does not make an express reservation of water. However, the State and Hecla argue the Act expressly addresses a denial of federal reserved water rights. Specifically, the State and Hecla argue Section 9 of the Act expressly disclaims a federal reservation of water within the Sawtooth NRA. Section 9 of the Act states:

The jurisdiction of the State and United States over waters of any stream included in the recreation area shall be determined by established principles of law. Under the provisions of this Act, any taking by the United States of a water right which is vested under either State or Federal law at the time of enactment of this Act shall entitle the owner thereof to just compensation. Nothing in this Act shall constitute an express or implied claim or denial on the part of the Federal Government as to exemption from State water laws.

Sawtooth National Recreation Area Act § 9, 16 U.S.C. § 460aa-8 (emphasis added).

In another case involving federal reserved water rights issued by this Court today, Potlatch Corporation v. United States, 134 Idaho 916, 12 P.3d 1260 (2000), we held the "no claim or denial" language, as used in congressional legislation designating federal lands for particular federal purposes, "neither establishes a federal water right nor precludes the recognition of such a right if water is otherwise reserved." Id. at 922, 12 P.3d at 1266. Thus, we hold the Act did not create an express federal reservation of water, nor did it expressly disclaim federal reserved water rights in...