Rangen, Inc. v. Idaho Department of Water Resources
159 Idaho 798
| Idaho | 2016Background
- Rangen, Inc. filed a delivery call alleging injury from junior groundwater pumping in the ESPA to its water rights, with IDWR director presiding over an evidentiary hearing and issuing curtailment orders limiting junior pumping and constraining Rangen to the mouth of the Martin-Curren Tunnel within a ten-acre tract.
- Rangen’s two partially decreed senior rights (36-02551 and 36-07694) list source as Martin-Curren Tunnel and Triburrial: Billingsley Creek, with a ten-acre point of diversion; Bridge Diversion lies outside this tract.
- IDWR used ESPAM 2.1 and a regression analysis to allocate a portion of the model cell’s water between the Curren Tunnel and other springs; Sullivan’s 63/37 regression was adopted after corrections to underlying data.
- Rangen argued the source included the entire spring complex and that it should be allowed to divert via the Bridge Diversion; the Director held the decrees are unambiguous and limit diversion to the Curren Tunnel within the ten-acre tract.
- Rangen and IGWA petitioned for judicial review; the district court affirmed; the Idaho Supreme Court upheld the district court, concluding the Director properly interpreted the decrees, the Sullivan 63/37 analysis was supported by substantial evidence, and junior water users are using water efficiently and without waste; attorney fees were awarded to the Director.
- The decision affirms the district court and awards costs and attorney fees to the Director as prevailing party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Director correctly limited diversion to the mouth of the Martin-Curren Tunnel within the ten-acre tract | Rangen insists the source is the entire spring complex and seeks Bridge Diversion use | IDWR concluded the source is the Curren Tunnel and point of diversion within the ten-acre tract | Yes; limitations on source and location affirmed |
| Whether substantial evidence supports Sullivan’s 63/37 regression allocation | Rangen challenges the data and reliability of measurements | Director relied on Sullivan’s corrected data and regression as substantial evidence | Yes; Sullivan 63/37 supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether junior-priority groundwater users are using water efficiently and without waste | Rangen contends lack of specific efficiency evidence | IDWR found witnesses showing efficiency and monitoring of usage | Yes; substantial evidence supports finding of efficiency and no waste |
| Whether Rangen is entitled to attorney fees on appeal | Rangen seeks fees under §12-117(1) | Director prevailed and argues Rangen acted without reasonable basis | No for Rangen; yes for Director |
Key Cases Cited
- A&B Irrigation Dist. v. Idaho Dep’t of Water Res., 153 Idaho 500 (2012) (substantial evidence standard; agency findings binding if supported)
- Clear Springs Foods v. Spackman, 150 Idaho 790 (2011) (judicial review standard under IDAPA; deference to agency findings)
- Allen v. Reynolds, 145 Idaho 807 (2008) (quasi-estoppel analysis; mixed questions of law and fact)
- Castrigno v. McQuade, 141 Idaho 93 (2005) (attorney fees; unreasonable appeal)
- Floyd v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Bonneville Cnty., 137 Idaho 718 (2002) (sovereign function; quasi-estoppel limitations)
- Terrazas v. Blaine Cnty. ex rel. Bd. Of Comm’rs, 147 Idaho 193 (2009) (exigent circumstances for estoppel; government liability)
- Sprenger, Grubb & Assocs., Inc. v. City of Hailey, 127 Idaho 576 (1995) (quasi-estoppel against government discussed)
- Boise City v. Wilkinson, 16 Idaho 150 (1909) (early framing of governmental estoppel principles)
- Knipe Land Co. v. Robertson, 151 Idaho 449 (2011) (ambiguity determination; contract-like interpretation of decrees)
- Snoderly v. Bower, 30 Idaho 484 (1917) (latent ambiguity, extrinsic evidence)
- A&B Irrigation Dist. v. Idaho Conservation League, 131 Idaho 411 (1997) (conjunctive management; SRBA objectives)