SCHWEITZER BASIN WATER CO v. SCHWEITZER FIRE DIST
44249
| Idaho | Nov 28, 2017Background
- Schweitzer Basin Water Co. (Company) operates a private water system serving Schweitzer Mountain; homeowners may install and maintain private hydrants under contract since the 1990s.
- Schweitzer Fire District (District) issued a May 3, 2014 Order to Repair and Remedy alleging hydrant flow-rate deficiencies and sought to compel remedial action.
- Company sought a writ of prohibition in district court to prevent the District from enforcing the Order; the district court granted an alternative writ, held a hearing, and ultimately issued a peremptory writ prohibiting enforcement under Idaho Code § 41-259.
- District appealed the writ and the district court’s award of attorney fees to Company; the State Fire Marshal filed amicus briefing proposing a broader statutory interpretation.
- The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed statutory interpretation of § 41-259, whether the administrative appeal process under § 41-260 was an adequate remedy, and whether attorney fees under I.C. § 12-117 were properly awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Company) | Defendant's Argument (District) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Idaho Code § 41-259 authorizes District to order repairs to Company’s private water system/hydrants | § 41-259 does not apply to a private water system or hydrants owned by homeowners; system is not a "building or other structure" | § 41-259 and related IDAPA/International Fire Code give District authority to enforce fire-flow requirements and compel repairs | Held: § 41-259 does not authorize the District to order repairs to the Company’s water system/hydrants; writ of prohibition affirmed |
| Whether Company must exhaust administrative remedies (hearing board → State Fire Marshal → judicial review) before seeking writ | Administrative process is not required where the agency/board has no jurisdiction; exhaustion is not required when agency is palpably without authority | Company should pursue the administrative appeal process under § 41-260 before relief in court | Held: Administrative process is not a plain, speedy, adequate remedy because District lacked jurisdiction; exhaustion not required here |
| Whether district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees to Company under I.C. § 12-117 | Fees proper because District acted without reasonable basis in fact or law and continued to press jurisdiction despite warning | District’s actions were reasonable; no statute prohibits its actions | Held: No abuse of discretion; fees affirmed. Alternative statutory basis (I.C. § 7-312) also supports fees |
| Whether Court may consider amicus curiae arguments not raised by parties or below | Amicus arguments should not expand issues on appeal when not raised by parties or decided below | Amicus (State Fire Marshal) urged broader reading of statutory scheme | Held: Court will not consider new arguments raised only by amicus; decision limited to issues presented by parties |
Key Cases Cited
- Henry v. Ysursa, 148 Idaho 913 (2008) (defining "jurisdiction" for writs of prohibition as statutory power or authority)
- Chandler’s-Boise LLC v. Idaho State Tax Comm’n, 162 Idaho 447 (2017) (statutory interpretation begins with plain meaning of the text)
- Wasden v. State Board of Land Comm’rs, 150 Idaho 547 (2010) (writs of prohibition are extraordinary; availability of plain, speedy, adequate remedy bars writ)
- Murray v. State, 156 Idaho 159 (2014) (issues waived on appeal if argument or authority is lacking)
- Syringa Networks, LLC v. Idaho Dept. of Admin., 159 Idaho 813 (2016) (agency action without authority constitutes action without reasonable basis in fact or law for fee-shifting purposes)