A & B Irrigation District v. Idaho Department of Water Resources
153 Idaho 500
| Idaho | 2012Background
- A&B Irrigation District seeks delivery of groundwater from the ESPA and designation of the ESPA as a GWMA; IDWR denied the request and the district court affirmed with some remand.
- A&B’s senior water right 36-2080 (license from 1965) covers 62,604.3 acres from 177 points of diversion; SRBA partial decree allows 188 points but does not specify place-by-point use.
- CM Rules govern delivery calls and require considering the system as a whole and interconnection between wells; Director issued Final Order finding no material injury and denying GWMA.
- The district court held the Director erred by not applying clear and convincing evidence standard for material injury; remanded for application of that standard.
- This appeal affirms the district court; cross-appeals challenge the evidentiary standard and interconnection requirements under CM Rules.
- The Idaho Supreme Court ultimately holds that the GWA applies to A&B’s 36-2080, the Director’s determination of no specific pumping level was supported by substantial evidence, system-wide analysis is proper, and the clear and convincing standard applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| GWA application to pre-1951 rights | A&B: GWA does not apply to 36-2080 as pre-1951 right. | IDWR: GWA applies to administration of all groundwater rights unless specifically excepted. | GWA applies to 36-2080 |
| Reasonable pumping level requirement | Director erred by not setting a specific pumping level; failure to identify violates law. | Director may determine reasonableness without a defined pumping level; discretion allowed. | No specific pumping level required; substantial evidence supports discretion |
| System-wide vs. well-by-well analysis | A&B insists on analyzing individual wells; interconnection requirement unjustified. | CM Rules allow system-wide analysis and interconnection to move water within the system. | System-wide analysis and interconnection requirement proper |
| Burden of proof standard | District court erred by applying clear and convincing standard to injury determination. | Clear and convincing standard rightly applied to protect decreed rights. | Clear and convincing standard applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. Ore-Ida Foods, Inc., 95 Idaho 575 (1973) (reasonable pumping levels protect senior rights)
- Parker v. Wallentine, 103 Idaho 506 (1982) (retroactivity of amendments; domestic rights distinction)
- Musser v. Higginson, 125 Idaho 392 (1994) (treatment of pre-enactment rights; context-specific dicta)
- American Falls Reservoir District No. 2 v. Idaho Dept. of Water Resources, 143 Idaho 862 (2007) (CM Rules constitutional; administration vs. adjudication; burden-shifting cautions)
- Moe v. Harger, 10 Idaho 302 (1904) (clear and convincing standard for junior withdrawal to not injure senior)
- Josslyn v. Daly, 15 Idaho 137 (1908) (diversion must prove non-injury by clear and convincing evidence)
- Cantlin v. Carter, 88 Idaho 179 (1964) (continued use of clear and convincing standard in groundwater disputes)
- Nebraska v. Wyoming (Nebraska II), 507 U.S. 584 (1993) (distinguishes enforcement vs. modification; high evidentiary threshold for changes)