Clear Springs Foods, Inc. v. Spackman
150 Idaho 790
| Idaho | 2011Background
- Snake River aquifer in eastern Idaho hydraulically connects to river and tributaries; groundwater pumping impacts senior surface rights and springs in Thousand Springs area.
- Swan Falls Agreement limited Idaho Power's rights and set minimum flows; dispute whether it binds non-parties and affects curtailment decisions.
- Spring Users (surface rights) vs Groundwater Users (groundwater rights) dispute curtailment orders issued to protect senior rights.
- IDWR uses a calibrated groundwater model to assess effects of pumping on the aquifer and connected surface waters.
- Administrative orders in 2005 and final order in 2008 curtailed junior groundwater rights; district court upheld most rulings.
- Court affirms district court’s decision, finding curtailment consistent with law and conjunctive management rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did curtailment violate the Swan Falls Agreement? | Groundwater Users argue Swan Falls protects minimum Murphy flow. | Spring Users argue Swan Falls did not subordinate their rights; agreement concerned hydropower rights only. | No violation; Swan Falls does not subordinate spring rights or create enforceable delivery calls between parties absent compensation. |
| Does curtailment violate 42-226 full economic development? | Curtailment harms junior groundwater users; full economic development favors both growth and reasonable pumping. | Full economic development protects groundwater pumping levels, not senior surface-rights protections. | Statute does not shield junior groundwater from curtailment to protect surface rights; priority remains, with reasonable pumping levels. Police conjunctive management. |
| Did groundwater depletions cause material injury to Spring Users? | Evidence insufficient to show injury or marketable gain from extra water. | Depletions interfere with Spring Users’ vested rights and can be recognized as material injury regardless of profitability. | Substantial evidence supports material injury to Spring Users’ water rights. |
| Are Spring Users’ delivery calls futile? | Futile if additional water cannot be realized or delivered promptly. | Futile calls not required to be immediately effective; long-term relief may occur. | Futility not required; relief may take years; calls may be sustained where there is material injury. |
| Was reliance on the groundwater model proper? | Model uncertainties require broader curtailment. | Model is best available science; 10% margin acceptable. | District court did not abuse discretion; model reliance upheld; margin of error acknowledged and accepted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miles v. Idaho Power Co., 116 Idaho 635 (1989) (subordination and comprehensive planning context for surface vs groundwater rights)
- Idaho Power Co. v. State, Dept. of Water Resources, 104 Idaho 575 (1983) (state water plan and vested rights; minimum flows at Murphy gauge)
- Noh v. Stoner, 53 Idaho 651 (1933) (prior appropriation protection limits; need to pay for changing method of diversion)
- Parker v. Wallentine, 103 Idaho 506 (1982) (reasonable pumping levels; modification of historic pumping under 42-226)
- Baker v. Ore-Ida Foods, Inc., 95 Idaho 575 (1973) (constructive limits on senior rights to ensure full economic development)
- Mellen v. Great Western Beet Sugar Co., 21 Idaho 353 (1912) (sections 4-5 and canal owner distribution; not applicable to direct appropriators)
- American Falls Reservoir Dist. No. 2 v. Idaho Dept. of Water Resources, 143 Idaho 862 (2007) (material injury standard; balance between surface and ground water rights)
- Schodde v. Twin Falls Land & Water Co., 224 U.S. 107 (1912) (diversion reasonableness and restraint in using river current for junior rights)
- Van Camp v. Emery, 13 Idaho 202 (1907) (unreasonable means of diversion cannot be protected under senior rights)
- Nettleton v. Higginson, 98 Idaho 87 (1977) (importance of swift action in curtailment when public interest requires)