City of Blackfoot v. Gary Spackman, 396 P.3d 1184

City of Blackfoot applied for groundwater permit (App. No. 27-12261) to replace surface diversions and sought to mitigate injury by using seepage credited to Water Right No. 01-181C (181C).
181C’s purpose-of-use element, as decreed, lists: Irrigation Storage; Irrigation from Storage; Diversion to Storage; Recreation Storage; and Irrigation — it does not list recharge.
A Settlement Agreement is incorporated by reference in 181C’s “other provisions” and states the City must file an appropriate application if it wishes to use 181C for groundwater recharge/mitigation.
IDWR (Director) and the SRBA district court concluded 181C does not authorize recharge and the City must file a transfer to add recharge before using 181C as mitigation; Director denied App. 27-12261 without prejudice. District court affirmed; City appealed.
The court treated incidental seepage from 181C as incidental recharge (statutorily distinct from an authorized recharge use) and held such incidental seepage cannot be claimed as separate mitigation absent an approved transfer authorizing recharge.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (City)	Defendant's Argument (IDWR / Coalition)	Held
May City use 181C for recharge/mitigation without a transfer?	181C’s seepage effectively provides mitigation; no transfer needed.	Recharge is a beneficial use and must be listed in purpose-of-use; transfer required to change nature/use.	Held: Transfer required; 181C’s decree does not authorize recharge.
Does the Settlement Agreement incorporated in 181C add recharge as an authorized use?	The Settlement Agreement contemplates recharge and thus expands 181C’s authorized uses.	A private settlement cannot add or alter decretal elements; it only imposes conditions between parties.	Held: Settlement Agreement cannot enlarge a judicial decree’s purpose-of-use element.
Can incidental seepage from 181C be used as mitigation irrespective of purpose-of-use?	The undisputed seepage into the aquifer (ESP A) should serve as mitigation.	Incidental recharge is not a separate/expanded water right and cannot be used as mitigation absent approved transfer.	Held: Seepage is incidental recharge and cannot be used as mitigation without a transfer authorizing recharge.
Are attorney fees warranted?	N/A (City nonprevailing)	Coalition seeks fees under I.C. § 12-117(1) and § 12-121 for unreasonable appeal.	Held: Fees awarded to Coalition under § 12-117(1); City’s continued arguments lacked reasonable legal basis.

Rangen, Inc. v. Idaho Dep’t of Water Res., 160 Idaho 251 (Idaho 2016) (standard of review and deference to agency factual findings; finality of SRBA partial decrees)
Clear Springs Foods, Inc. v. Spackman, 150 Idaho 790 (Idaho 2011) (decreed water rights as property rights and Director’s duty to administer according to decrees)
City of Pocatello v. Idaho, 152 Idaho 830 (Idaho 2012) (elements of a water right and requirement to apply for transfer to change nature/use)
Idaho Ground Water Assoc. v. Idaho Dep’t of Water Res., 160 Idaho 119 (Idaho 2016) (limits on collateral attacks to SRBA decrees and importance of finality)
State v. Nelson, 131 Idaho 12 (Idaho 1998) (finality of adjudication decrees)