US v. State, 25546.
| Decision Date | 22 February 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 25546.,25546. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | In re SRBA Case No. 39576, Fish And Wildlife Service, SRBA Subcase No. 02-10063. UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. STATE of Idaho; Pioneer Irrigation District, Newfoundland Partners, Payette River Water Users, Association, Inc., Sun Valley Co., Thousand Springs Ranch; J.R. Simplot Company; A & B Irrigation District, Falls Irrigation District, Burley Irrigation District, Aberdeen-Springfield Canal Company; Boise-Kuna Irrigation District, New York Irrigation District, Wilder Irrigation District, Big Bend Irrigation District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District; Twin Falls Canal Company, North Side Canal Company, Milner Irrigation District; Grindstone Butte Mutual Canal Co., Allen Noble Farms, Inc., Cottonwood Canal Co., Farm Development Corporation, G. Patrick Morris, FDC (SC and GBP), Allen T. Noble, Sailor Creek Water Company; Harrison Canal, Burgess Canal, Progressive Irrigation District, Enterprise Irrigation District, Peoples Canal & Irrigation Co., New Sweden Irrigation District, Snake River Valley Irrigation District, Idaho Irrigation District, Egin Bench Canals, Inc., North Fremont Canal Systems, Inc.; Idaho Cities of Ashton, Bliss, Buhl, Burley, Cascade, Chubbuck, Council, Declo, Donnelly, Eden, Emmett, Fairfield, Fruitland, Garden City, Glenns Ferry, Grand View, Hailey, Heyburn, Inkom, Kuna, MacKay, Meridian, Middleton, Minidoka, Mountain Home, Mud Lake, Nampa, New Plymouth, Oakley, Parma, Paul, Payette, Pocatello, Rigby, Ririe, Roberts, Rupert, St. Anthony, Sugar City, Ucon and Weiser, Eastern Western Corporation, Basic American, Inc., Lamb-Weston, North Snake Ground Water District; Idaho Ground Water Appropriators, Respondents. |
Hon. Betty H. Richardson, United States Attorney, Boise; United States Department of Justice, Denver, CO; United States Department of Justice, Washington DC, for appellant. Mark R. Haag, United States Department of Justice, Washington DC, argued.
Hon. Alan G. Lance, Attorney General, Boise, for respondent State of Idaho. Clive Strong, Deputy Attorney General, argued.
Elam & Burke, Boise, for respondents Pioneer Irrigation District, New Foundland Partners, Payette River Water Users, Sun Valley Co., and Thousand Springs Ranch. Did not participate in oral argument.
Terry T. Uhling, Boise, for respondent J.R. Simplot Company. Did not participate in oral argument.
Ling, Nielsen & Robinson, Rupert, for respondents A & B Irrigation District, Falls Irrigation District, Burley Irrigation District, and Aberdeen Springfield Canal Company. Roger Ling argued.
Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley, Boise, for respondents Boise Kuna Irrigation District, New York Irrigation District, Wilder Irrigation District, Big Bend Irrigation District, and Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. Did not participate in oral argument.
Rosholt, Robertson & Tucker, Boise, for respondents Twin Falls Canal Company, North Side Canal Company, and Milner Irrigation District. Did not participate in oral argument.
Ringert, Clark, Chtd., Boise, for respondent Cottonwood Canal Company. Did not participate in oral argument.
Rigby Thatcher Andrus Rigby Kam & Moeller, Chtd., Rexburg, for respondents Harrison Canal, et al. Did not participate in oral argument.
Beeman & Hofstetter, P.C., Boise, for respondents Idaho Cities of Ashton, et al. Did not participate in oral argument.
Givens Pursley, LLC, Boise, for respondent Idaho Ground Water Appropriators, Inc. Did not participate in oral argument.
This is an appeal from the Snake River Basin Adjudication (SRBA) district court decision denying the claim of the United States for reserved water rights in connection with approximately 94 islands distributed along 110 miles of the Snake River within the Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. The decision was made on cross motions for summary judgment. The decision of the SRBA district court is affirmed.
The Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge as it is known today is the product of the consolidation of the Snake River National Wildlife Refuge and the Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. The reservations at issue are distinct and involve two sets of islands, often referred to as "reaches." The upper reach spans from Swan Falls to Homedale and the lower reach spans from Homedale to Farewell Bend. Each reach has a separate history and was established by a separate reservation. In order to understand the nature of this controversy it is necessary to review the chain of land reservations that led to the present Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge.
The original "Deer Flat Reservation for the Protection of Wild Birds" was withdrawn from the public domain pursuant to Exec. Order No.1032 (February 25, 1909), which states in relevant part:
It is hereby ordered that the following reservoir sites ... Deer Flat and Minidoka, Idaho ... are hereby reserved, subject to Reclamation Service uses under the provisions of the act approved June 17, 1902 (32 Stat., 388) and to any other valid existing rights, and are set apart for the use of the Department of Agriculture as preserves and breeding grounds for native birds. It is unlawful for any person to hunt, trap, capture, willfully disturb or kill any bird of any kind whatever or take the eggs of such birds within the limits of these reservations, except under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Secretary of Agriculture. Warning is expressly given to all persons not to commit any of the acts herein enumerated and which are prohibited by law.
This reservation was located on Lake Lowell reservoir which was constructed pursuant to the Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902, ch. 1093, 32 Stat. 388.
Exec. Order No. 7655, 2 Fed.Reg. 1453 (1937),1 established the "Deer Flat Migratory Waterfowl Refuge" on the same land withdrawn in Exec. Order No. 1032 and states in relevant part:
The United States claims no federal reserved water rights to the land surrounding Lake Lowell reservoir.
Public Land Order No. 3016, 28 Fed.Reg. 3658 (1963), added the island sector to the land reserved under Exec. Order No. 7655. This order withdrew islands referred to as the "lower reach" islands. The Order states in relevant part:
Subject to valid existing rights, all islands owned by the United States within the exterior limits of the following described areas in the Snake River, Idaho, are hereby withdrawn from all forms of appropriation under the public land laws, including the mining laws and reserved for use of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, as an addition to the Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge, established by Executive Order No. 7655...
Exec. Order No. 7691, 2 Fed.Reg. 1422 (1937), established the Snake River Migratory Waterfowl Refuge. This order withdrew islands referred to as the "upper reach" islands. The Order states in relevant part:
in order to effectuate further the purposes of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (45 Stat. 1222), it is ordered that all islands in the Snake River within the exterior limits of the following-described area, owned or controlled by the United States, or of which the United States has the use for migratory bird refuge purposes, be, and they are hereby, withdrawn from settlement, location, sale, or entry, and reserved and set apart, subject to valid existing rights, for the use of the Department of Agriculture as a refuge and breeding ground for migratory birds and other wildlife ...
As a consequence of the executive orders, as of April 1963, there were two reservations containing islands within the Snake River— the Snake River National Wildlife Refuge and the island sector of the Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. Subsequently, Public Land Order No. 3110, 28 Fed.Reg. 6874 (1963), abolished the Snake River National Wildlife Refuge and consolidated it with the Deer Flat National Wildlife Refuge. In May of 1968 Goose Egg Island was added to the Deer Flat Wildlife Refuge. Public Land Order No. 4425, 33 Fed.Reg. 8275 (1968).
The United States filed its original claims for reserved water rights for the Snake River islands region of the Refuge in 1992 and filed amended claims in 1994 and 1997. The state of Idaho and other parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Objectors") objected to the claims of the United States. All parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The SRBA district court determined that it would consider the case in two stages, deciding first whether the United States was entitled to a reserved water right, and, if so, the second phase of the case would quantify that right. The SRBA district court held that the United...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Application for Water Rights of US
...a broad statutory mandate; had Congress intended otherwise, it would have created an express reserved right. In United States v. Idaho, 135 Idaho 655, 23 P.3d 117, 124-25 (2001), the Idaho Supreme Court considered the effect of congressional reclamation project approval on certain implied r......
-
U.S. & Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. State (In re Csrba Case No. 49576 Subcase No. 91-7755)
...federal reserved water rights."The existence or absence of a reserved water right is a matter of federal law." United States v. Idaho, 135 Idaho 655, 660, 23 P.3d 117, 122 (2001). The federal government "does not defer to state water law with respect to reserved rights." Agua Caliente Band ......