Miles v. Idaho Power Co. Ex Rel. Evans

MILES, Individually Harold and C. on Ratepayers

Behalf of all of the Idaho Company, Plaintiff-Appellant, COMPANY, IDAHO POWER a Maine Corporation, Idaho, and the State of Acting By Through and the Honorable Evans, Governor, Acting

John Y. By Through Legislators Idaho;

State of and the State of Idaho Acting By Through the Idaho Pub Commission,

lic Utilities and Commis High, Perry sioners Richard Swisher Conley Ward in Their Official Ca pacities; Idaho, Acting and the State of By Through Department the Idaho Resources,

of Water the Idaho Water Board, Resources and its Di Executive rector, Dunn, Ken in his Official Ca pacity, Defendants-Respondents.

No. 16614. Supreme Court of Idaho.

Aug. Nevin, Boise, plaintiff-ap-

Seiniger & Jr., argued. pellant. Seiniger, Breck Nelson, Falls, Thomas G. Twin for defen- Idaho Co. Thomas dant-respondent, Nelson, argued. G. Jones, Atty. John McMa- Gen. and J.

Jim Boise, hon, Gen., Deputy Atty. defen- J. dant-respondent, of Idaho. John State McMahon, rehearing. argued on JOHNSON, Justice. REHEARING

ON agreement case between This involves Com- and Idaho Power the State Idaho Power), (Idaho commonly referred pany (the Agreement agree- as the Swan Falls subsequent ment). attempted re- implementing legislation competing water concerns over solve brief, River. around the Snake agreement provided for the subordina- by Ida- rights claimed certain tion of water subsequent upstream to those ho Power pro- users. Idaho vided, things, that the among other (IPUC) when Utilities Commission Public require- reviewing revenue “setting or utility accept multiple litigation ment of ... shall To avoid between it- [the water-permit self agreement] public and thousands holders as reasonable and River, rights in of water the Snake Idaho purposes____” interest for all sought compromise with Power the State. 14, 3, p. appel- ch. Sess.Laws 20. The § ensuing par- The discussions between the lant, Miles, declaratory Harold C. filed a agreement. ties in the resulted Subse- judgment action on behalf of and himself legislature quently, legislation our enacted all similarly ratepay- Idaho situated Power agreement. implement to the See 1985 Ida- ers, seeking part to implement- have of the Sess.Laws, 1, 3, 4; 14-17; ch. ch. ing legislation §§ declared unconstitutional. 20-31, pp. pur- ch. 514. The appeal This dis- followed order of the pose agreement of the resolve the dismissing trict pursuant court the case continuing surrounding controversies wa- 12(b)(6)(1980) I.R.C.P. for failure to state a rights agree- ter on the Snake The River. claim granted. which relief could be ment, among things, other for Idaho called The district court did not reach the merits rights Power’s claim to Snake water River challenge, finding Miles’ that instead hydroelectric facility its Swan standing Miles lacked and that the contro- 8,400 (measured Murphy gaug- c.f.s. at the versy ripe judicial was not resolution. station) ing to be subordinated down to an 12(b)(6) Our reviewing standard for a Rule 3,900 average daily April flow of c.f.s. from judg- dismissal is the as our summary same 5,600 and October c.f.s. from Walker, ment standard. Tomchak v. purpose 1 to March November 31. The (1985). Idaho 700 P.2d 68 non- agreement concerning subordination moving party is infer- entitled to have all was to make water available more for fu- ences from the record viewed in favor his appropriators ture and to in the assist ex- may and question then asked be pansion of other beneficial uses the wa- whether a claim for relief has been stated. ter in Snake River. See I.C. 42-203B court, We affirm the decision of the trial (Supp.1988). litigation The focus of this is grounds. but on different We hold 1005, (the on sections and 3 of No. S.B. the controversy justiciable. reject We implementing legislation), enacted respondents’ arguments regarding po- signed gov- into law the question, standing litical ripeness doc- Sess.Laws, ernor in 1985. 1985 Idaho ch. trines. We also hold that 20, (not p. codified). 2 and These §§ legislation is equal pro- not violative of the jurisdiction sections limit of the IPUC tection clause or due by prohibiting considering clause it from fourteenth amendment to the Constitution could protected Idaho Power have its water rights hydroelectric United States. We to ad- generation decline in a dress appellant’s argument agreement. the manner inconsistent with the They required IPUC, violates state also when review- constitution’s proscription ing requirements Power, against special legislation revenue of Idaho be- question accept cause as reasonable and presented was not public interest. district court below. 2 and 3 Sections read as follows: SECTION PUBLIC UTILITIES I. COMMISSION-JURISDICTION. public Idaho utilities commission shall THE BACKGROUND AND PRIOR any have no to consider in PROCEEDINGS. proceeding, whether instituted before or This involving is another case water act, any after the effective date of this rights in the Snake River at A Swan Falls. utility, to whether any issue as electric complete and extensive discussion of the including Company, Idaho Power should history controversy of this is included in preserved, could have or have maintained State, Company Idaho Power Idaho protected hydro- its water generation electric in a manner inconsist- essentially by the rendered valueless and the contract entered into ent with the first four turbines Company useless because governor and the Idaho flow, yet reduced can handle most 25, 1984. on October Agreement Legisla- the “Swan Falls EFFECT OF AGREE- SECTION 3. unit in the leave the rate tion” would any proceeding before the MENT. require con- base and includ- public utilities commission thereon. pay a rate-of-return tinue to to, proceeding ing, but limited alleged: He also setting or re- which the commission requirement charges viewing revenue The excess and unconstitutional including imposed upon the Idaho Power* utility, Idaho Power to be electric many mil- Company ratepayers will total accept as Company, the commission shall effect of per year. lions dollars public in the interest for reasonable and by agree-; propounded scheme by into purposes, all the contract entered money take ment and governor the Idaho Power Com- and ratepayer give it to future from the and 25,1984, including pany with- on October with-, water) (in appropriators the form of implementa- limitation, the effects out ratepayers. compensation to the out utility’s of such on the reve- tion contract hydroelectric gen- requirements nue and court requested the district eration. that: declare (1) implementing legislation limiting ratepayer a and Miles is customer declared null the IPUC be brought complaint He Idaho Power. void; pursuant to the Uniform De- district court Act, claratory Judgment 10-1201 to (2) I.C. to allow a mechanism be established §§ (1979) compensation challenging the constitution- for to Idaho Power 10-1217 Spe- increased legislation. ratepayers for all new and ality sys- alleged from the Snake River cifically, complaint leg- diversions July occurring or after tem on taking from precludes islation the IPUC 1985; account, setting rate when base for into Power, wa- company’s Idaho diminished (3) Department of Water Resources resulting ter reduced value of required to condition all the water be generating facilities on the l,1 Idaho Power’s July or permits issued on after alleged Consequently, Miles Snake River. 1985,by requiring appropriator complaint (either combined effect of purchase in his “the payment make Agreement’ rental) and the ‘Swan compensate the ‘Swan Falls Power to Idaho capacity Legislation’ generating for decreased electricity diversion; required pay be rates caused (for facilities) Power on a rate base Idaho Commission' (4) the Idaho Public Utilities substantially longer no or is exists appropriate rate required to make be value, constituting thus diminished Idaho rate adjustments to the Power pro- without due deprivation property compensate the necessary to base as compensa- just cess of law and without fully for increased tion.” diversion. rates occasioned following illustration in Miles included the brought State Power and the Idaho complaint: his 12(b) pursuant to I.R.C.P. to dismiss motion relief a claim on which for failure to state ILLUSTRATION hearing, the granted. After a could originally had an extensive memoran- Company court issued Idaho trial Miles’claims. Dam. which dismissed the Brownlee dum decision four turbines merits, discussing the the' trial years it added the several Without Within the last controversy $62,000,- “the case or considered at a cost court Brownlee No. 5 unit standing, 5,600 ripeness requirements” flows 000. Under the reduced question The trial' political doctrines. 3,900 unit would c.f.s. 5th c.f.s. and court concluded that standing, matter, Miles lacked lar would be substituting judg generalized griev- because he stated a ment for that of another coordinate branch ance suffered all ratepay- Idaho Power government, when the matter was one ers, and that the ripe issue was not properly entrusted to that other branch. adjudication present- because Miles was not Gallet, 51 Idaho Diefendorf v. ly being deprived any protectable prop- (1932); P.2d Ransom v. Gar cf. erty interest. polit- The court ruled that no (1987). City, den 113 Idaho 743 P.2d 70 question ical presented because of our deciding questions, In such we have relied holding in State Leroy, AFL-CIO v. 110 upon the considerations described in Baker (1986). Relying P.2d 1129 See, v. e.g., Carr. Idaho State AFL-CIO on ripeness the lack of standing, Leroy, trial court determined that it did not have to rule on the merits and rendered summa- Gallet, challenge had been made to ry judgment in favor of the defendants and governor’s finding that “an extraordi- ordered dismissal. Miles moved the court nary occasion” existed and his invocation of to alter or judgment. amend the The mo- power the legislature to convene the tion appeal was denied. This followed. special pursuant 4, session to art. 9 of § the urged Idaho Constitution. We were

II. hold that emergency no such existed and JUSTICIABILITY. governor’s convocation was con- request Miles’ for relief is in the trary to noting law. After that the Idaho declaratory form of a judgment. A prereq expressly Constitution responsibili- left the uisite declaratory to a judgment action is ty and governor discretion with the for justiciable actual or controversy. Har determining the existence of “extraordi- 513, ris v. Cassia County, 106 Idaho 681 occasions,” nary we declined the invitation P.2d 988 Justiciability generally is second-guess his decision: divided into subcategories advisory opin — unprecedented It would be an proceed- ions, feigned cases, and collusive standing, ing for the court to entertain a controver- ripeness, mootness, political questions, and sy proof wherein is offered to ascertain questions. administrative Wright, 13 Mil judicially whether an extraordinary occa- Cooper, ler & Federal Practice and Proce sion gravity existed of sufficient to au- Jurisdiction, (2nd 1984). dure: 3529 ed. § governor legis- thorize the to convene the categories Three considered the district lature extra session. The character of implicated court and appeal this are the the to be considered the political question, standing ripeness by the constitution left to doctrines. governor, and a review of such a discretionary governor act of the should Separation A. of Powers. not be done the courts. respondents argue that Gallet, 638, 315, 51 Idaho at 10 P.2d at agreement, having been endorsed quoting Pfost, Utah Power Light & Co. v. legislative executive and branches of this 226, (D.Idaho 1931). 52 F.2d government, improper state’s is an subject Similarly, in Leroy we were judicial for asked argument review. The is akin legislative political emergen- review declaration of question abstention doctrine cy pursuant to art. system, of the federal court of the Idaho which is out § Carr, noting “textually lined in Constitution. After Baker v. U.S. (1962). However, S.Ct. 7 L.Ed.2d 663 demonstrable constitutional commitment” the issue correctly legislature, is more under and the viewed separation the doctrine powers, judicially “lack of which discoverable manageable embraced art. 1 of the resolving standards” for § question problem Constitution. The is whether this of what conditions must exist to Court, by entertaining particu- review of a emergency,” constitute a “case of said: we domestic, manufacturing, agri- emergency tional Whether actual exists] [an expand. judiciously uses will cultural

not, legislature’s deter- we hold that the in an act is a emergency mination of an Sess.Laws, ch. exclusively within the am- policy decision then, inappropriate it Clearly would be for judi- legislative authority, and bit second-guess the merits of this Court second-guess that decision. ciary cannot agreement. of a invasion of legislative In the absence However, question now before the protected rights, judi- constitutionally agreement is wise Court is respect must and defer cial branch Rather, question before this policy. decisions. legislature’s policy exclusive legisla- is whether the Court very tripartite of our Such is the nature equal tion violates due government. representative form of guarantees of our constitution protection Constitution. and of the United States 110 Idaho at 718 P.2d at 1136. Leroy, distinguish- Leroy are therefore Gallet Here, advisability case, here it from the instant able subject proper judicial delibera- is not constitutionally protected alleged that poli- “an initial question involves tion. legis- and that the rights have been invaded non- clearly of kind cy determination lature has acted in contravention Carr, 369 judicial discretion.” Baker v. and federal constitutions. state Determining 82 S.Ct. at 710. U.S. constitutionality Passing on the our scarce water resources best how enactments, statutory even enactments state, agri- the increased serve overtones, political is a fundamental with generation power use or increased cultural and has been responsibility judiciary, the legis- use, peculiarly the is a matter within Madison, (1 5 U.S. Marbury so since v. execu- executive lative and branches. See, 137, (1813). Cranch) 2 e.g., L.Ed. 60 branch, agree- by entering into the tive 586, Cenarrusa, 106 682 Heller v. branch, ment, by enact- legislative and (1984) protection); and (equal 539 P.2d implementing legislation, have each ing Products, 108 Ida Bint v. Creative Forest subordi- given approval water denied, 116, 818, 474 appeal 697 P.2d declared plan. Both branches have nation 35, (1985) 803, L.Ed.2d 28 106 S.Ct. 88 U.S. Furthermore, are (due we not process). Agreement] Swan reviewing [the from the constitution precluded including, public purposes interest for merely all proposed of action ality of a course to, legislative under purposes not limited all and but both executive law, happen supporting it. Imple- to concur branches public utilities as amended. rights, as well this Constitutional of the settlement will resolve mentation duty faithfully interpret our con Court’s utili- continuing controversy over electric constitution, the federal do stitution and rights in River Basin ty the Snake water legis efforts of the before united not wane gauging station. Murphy above U.S.G.S. governor. and the lature controversy rendered the That has hydro- Therefore, precluded from of the water available are not amount we uncertain, reviewing appeal. at risk placing thus hydro- lowcost availability both B. STANDING. the state’s

power to increasingly manage scarce ability to an court held that lacked The district all of This settlement balances resource. only general- alleged standing because he insures that parties’ concerns and himself, grievance, particular ized existing hydropower-generating facilities public. The alike dis- shared with but useful, ratepayers will court, v. relying remain on Greer Lewiston trict costs, Club, Inc., 81 Idaho Country excessive burdened with & not be Golf Bopp v. City P.2d 719 for addi- 342 availability of water

641 citizens, large Sandpoint, 110 Idaho 716 P.2d 1260 class of that harm alone (1986), ratepayer, using a normally jur- ruled that a when does not warrant exercise of challenge declaratory judgment Seldin, action to isdiction.” Warth v. U.S. statute, allege validity of a must 95 S.Ct. 45 L.Ed.2d 343 other than one which is common to (1975). interest similarly ratepayers, all other situated A the Idaho central foundation of namely, to all of the same utili- Declaratory Judgment require Act is the

ty. parties. Whitney ment of adverse standing The doctrine of focuses Randall, (1937). party seeking on the relief on the and not parties For the to be in an adversarial party adjudi issues wishes to have personal position, they must have such a Valley Forge cated. College v. Americans controversy stake in the outcome of the United, 454 U.S. 102 S.Ct. meaningful representation that a and advo L.Ed.2d While the doctrine is cacy of the issues is ensured. The two stated, easily imprecise it is and difficult in leading generalized standing cases on White, application. F.2d O’Hair v. Bopp. Idaho are Greer (Former Cir.1982). However, 5th Greer, taxpayers and citizens of the major aspect standing has been ex city brought declaratory of Lewiston plained: judgment challenging city action ordi- standing inquiry The essence of the disannexing nance the Lewiston Golf party seeking whether the invoke Country did Club. Court not reach the “alleged court’s such a merits, holding plaintiffs did not have personal stake in the outcome of the themselves, particular an interest but controversy as to assure the concrete public instead had an interest shared sharpens presen- adversariness which generally. The Court further ruled that depends tation which the court so plaintiffs’ personal rights not af- were for illumination of difficult constitutional they fected and therefore could not main- questions.” subsequent As refined declaratory judgment tain a action. Final- reformation, requirement “per- of ly, taxpayers’ the noted that the Court sonal stake” has come to be understood referendum, by proper remedy way was require only palpable to not a “distinct provided city as in the charter. injury” plaintiff, “fairly to the but also a traceable” causal connection between the Bopp, plaintiff, In the a citizen of the injury challenged claimed and the con- city Sandpoint, brought declaratory a (Citations omitted.) duct. judgment seeking city a action to have Study Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Env. vacating right-of-way public ordinance a 2620, 2630, Group, 438 U.S. 98 S.Ct. bridge held over a declared invalid. We 57 L.Ed.2d 595 plaintiff could not contest the va- lidity ordinance he did not of the Thus, satisfy controversy to the case or bridge, any property adjacent to the own requirement standing, litigants general- therefore, special did not suffer a or ly allege injury an must demonstrate Any injury peculiar injury to himself. fact and a substantial likelihood that the generally shared all residents of the one judicial requested prevent or re- relief city Sandpoint. injury. 98 S.Ct. dress the claimed Id.

at 2633. Bopp proposi- stand for the Greer plaintiff taxpayer may citizen and not though

In cases even a tion that a some fact,” challenge governmental alleged “injury enactment where has shown or an citi- standing injury of other factors. the is one suffered alike all is denied because taxpayers jurisdiction. example, Supreme zens and the For the United States re- proper situations the forum to has held that “when the asserted those Court shape challenged governmental policy ‘generalized grievance’ shared in the harm is a through voting equal political or a is the arena the substantially measure all poli- challenges leg- parties aggrieved by implementing The that Miles the process. equal footing voting ratepayer, taxpay- islation as a cy stand on with not as a er, pub- attempt standing can to influence we hold that Miles has populace and bring change. pursue remedy This his opinion lic about the courts. essence of a democratic form of Finally, parties, including all the dis government. court, appear trict to concede that Miles par complaint is not the case here. his could have raised before This agreement allegedly injured by argued are ties IPUC and before IPUC as agreement and customers of Idaho his rates were a result of the Power, general populace and not the of the commis high. Subsequently, too after a gener bring ap ruling, state of Idaho. This is more than Miles could then sion grievance. specialized It is a and peal pursuant alized to this Court to I.C. although may 61-627, peculiar injury, it affect a constitutional is and raise the § large political Requiring of individuals. The class sues. I.C. 61-629. See § obviously begin will be more unkind to the IPUC this case anew before injured ratepayers seeking change legis appeal and to then from the decision affecting only lation the whole state of Idaho the resources IPUC would waste not injured taxpayers. judiciary, than to citizens and the IPUC’s re but also impact challenge is not felt When sources. The is not to rate set populace, only by IPUC, a select ting by the entire but but citizens, standing doctrine legislation, ed class which directed the IPUC to ac usurp and in cept should not be evoked as reasonable challenge alleged generally denial of constitution public interest. Courts are challenge legisla judicial proper al forum. forum in which to has not tive enactments. Nevertheless, respondents urge us to attempted to remove from the large the doctrine because of the invoke challenges to IPUC-relat of our trial courts ratepayers. They class of Idaho Power Const, 5, 2. legislation. art. ed See § Miles, argue one of thousands Const, art. 1 and art. But see Idaho § customers, generalized inju- suffered a Therefore, instant initiation of the which, ry, compared to the when benefits improper. not case in district court was peo- compromise afforded to all of longer by protract this action We will minimis and insubstan- ple of Idaho is de go the IPUC and requiring Miles to true, to see may tial. This but we fail begin anew. requires this factor a dismissal how standing standing. deny to lack of “To C. RIPENESS. injured simply persons who are in fact be- County held that injured, Harris v. Cassia many others are also would cause must raise declaratory judgment action injurious most and wide- a mean that concrete, and and ques- could issues that are definite spread actions Government contro must a real and substantial by nobody.” involve tioned United States advisory opinion 669, 687-88, opposed to an SCRAP, versy 93 S.Ct. as 412 U.S. Ripeness hypothetical facts. 37 L.Ed.2d 254 This based any need for court there is particularly true here. There asks whether statement is case, present time. this agreement impacts action at the question that the is no Miles’ claims court ruled that and the district ratepayers. State Idaho Power ripe presently he not Power, agreement, not because was part of their were property being any protectable good deprived faith” of “actively pledged have The district court reasoned implement- interest. support the to recommend and constitutionally ratepayers do not have a ratepayers legislation. Idaho Power ing of interest in the assets protected property to group most adverse therefore the are therefore, utilities, that no contro or the their agreement, not Idaho Power IPUC, acting pur- fact, versy exist until the fact and the Because of State. question, legislation, than we now’ to decide this implementing ei- are suant grants request presently ripe adjudi- a Ida- ther rate increase to we hold that it is Power, request decrease or denies a rate cation.” Duke Power Co. v. Carolina ratepayer. perceive that the trial to a We Group, 438 98 S.Ct. Study Env. U.S. at injury simply alleged court held that the at 2635. justify present too remote and uncertain to

adjudication. III. Fundamentally, complaint attacks agency statute which dictates to an a cer- CONSTITUTIONALITY. of There is no to tain course action. reason that the will fail or refuse to believe IPUC A. PROCESS. DUE follow the mandates of the statute when agreement Miles that the contends either to increase request faced with process related violate the due If rates or to decrease rates. we were to provisions to of the fourteenth amendment ripeness, lack of dismiss this action for four- the United Constitution. The States simply request Miles could a rate reduction amendment, one, provides teenth section IPUC, relying on before IPUC. The part: statute, required deny to would be decrease, appeal precipitating Miles any No make or law State shall enforce pursuant to I.C. Court 61-627. abridge privileges or im- which shall No new facts would be introduced and the States; of citizens of the munities United presented legal unchanged issues would be deprive any person nor shall State present challenge. only con- from the life, property, pro- due liberty, or without pur- here is tingency whether Miles would law; deny any person cess nor his claim the IPUC. Miles has sue before equal protection within its prosecuted his in the district court claim the laws. vigor. and this Court with We can argues effect of Specifically, he proceed he assume that also likewise would legis- implementing and the before IPUC. If the IPUC denied his him require lation will and other reduction, requests for a rate Miles would pay property on the rates based value presenting be back before us the same production electricity, not used in the issue, brought sharper into focus deprived jurisdic- since IPUC will be being sidetracked to an administrative presented those rates tion lower when body. Deferring adjudication would add complaint. contends with valid nothing material the resolution the four- due clause of would, legal presented, and it issues ways: teenth amendment is violated in two fact, delay implementation agree- (1) legislation requires determining “Generally, ment. payment rates which excessive grant declaratory judgment, the crite- taking property amounts to a without clarify it ria is whether will settle the just compensation; issue, legal relations and whether such procedure a in to are not afforded which will a leave from uncer- declaration afford challenge legislature. the action of giving rise tainty controversy to the Miles’ as- At the heart of attack is an Bk., Am. proceeding.” Sweeney v. Nat’l sumption protected a that have Here, 544, (1941). P.2d 109 62 Idaho 115 they pay in the property interest rates delaying nothing gained by adjudica- can be way, Miles their utilities. Stated another the issue. clear that this issue tion of It is agreement of the effect contends that now or in the will be before us either be to and the will future, a now of the vari- declaration him, future, money he from in the take certainly af- parties ous of the pay for increased rates required will be uncertainty and contro- a relief from ford upon assumption electricity. It is per- we are versy in the future. “Since inquiry. focus our initial position in no better which we must suaded that ‘we bewill 644 requirements for the establishment such as state or law—rules under- property standings in- constitutionally protected

of a secure certain benefits support and that of oft-quoted pas- terest are set forth in the claims entitlement to sage Roth, those benefits. Regents of Board v. 408 U.S. of 2701, (1972): 92 S.Ct. 33 L.Ed.2d 548 Roth, 408 at 92 at 2709. U.S. S.Ct. proce- The Fourteenth Amendment’s argues I.C. 61-523 protection property dural of is a safe- gives protected property ratepayers a inter guard security of the of interests that a est. This section states: person benefits____ acquired specific in already has 61-523. commission Valuation. —The power shall have to ascertain the value benefit, property To have a interest a every public utility in property of person clearly a must have more than an which, every this state and fact abstract need or desire for it. He must judgment, may any or bear- does have expectation have more than a unilateral ing1 on such The commission value. must, instead, legit- of it. He have power shall have to make re-valuations of it. It is a imate claim entitlement to from time to .time and to ascertain all purpose of the ancient institution construction, new extensions and addi- protect property those claims property every public tions to the utili- lives, people rely daily in their which ty. arbitrarily reliance that must not be un- interpreted We have never this statute to purpose dermined. It is a of the consti- gives ratepayer hold that it an entitle- hearing provide tutional utility possi- ment to service at the lowest opportunity person for a to vindicate gives simply ble rates. The statute those claims. power IPUC the to determine the value of 576-77, 92 S.Ct. at 2708-09. Id. utility’s property. does City Burley, 110 Idaho power See Harkness In not alter this of the IPUC. (1986). event, legislature Roth discussed plenary has property rights in relation to the notice and limit its over IPUC and can hearing requirements procedural authority. many due As we have stated However, process. we are convinced that instances: “The Idaho Public Utilities Com- authority property applies same mission has no other than that determination granted legislature. to it It exercis- taking issue raised Miles. See nothing jurisdiction, limited es a Royster v. Bd. Trustees Anderson presumed jurisdiction.” of its Ida- Sch., (4th Cir.1985), favor F.2d 618 Cty. cert. Washington ho State Homebuilders v. denied, 475 U.S. 106 S.Ct. 415, 418, Power, 690 P.2d (school Water superintendent’s L.Ed.2d 184 (1984). Generally, commission constitutionally protected property interest may consider all relevant criteria when set- in his contract was satisfied full com rates, ting but the can define pensation under contract after his re due criteria. what are relevant Grindstone Thus, hearing). our deter moval without P.U.C., 102 Idaho Butte v. Idaho mination centers on whether Miles now P.2d “property” “legit a sufficient interest in electrical imate claim of entitlement” disclosed no case Our research has protection so as to invoke the rates supports proposition of an law that Miles’ process clause of the constitution. due possible rates. entitlement to the lowest interests, course, Property fact, suggest are not cre- contrary authority there they property Rather by ated the Constitution. do not have process protected by dimensions are de- the due are created and their interest understandings paid electricity. existing rules or clause the rates See fined Pub. independent City Pittsburgh Pennsylvania source v. from an that stem "hearing.” “hearing" "bearing” Ida- instead of 1913 the word instead word § 1. I.C. 61-523 uses 61, 45, Sess.Laws, enacted, p. ch. 275. "bearing.” § the statute uses the As

645 341, 181, Comm’n, Property 144 interests Pa.Super. 187 at 627 P.2d at Utils. Roth, 408 by state law. U.S. (1958); are defined Georgia Project Power v. A.2d 648 577, To the extent that at 2709. Co., (N.D. 92 S.Ct. F.Supp. 332 Georgia Power 409 interest in reasonable any property Ga.1975) law); there (applying Georgia and Pub Idaho, limita- subject it is rates in lic Service Co. v. Public Utilities legislature. placed on it the tions (Colo.1982). Comm’n, As 653 P.2d 1117 Georgia Project: the court stated in EQUAL B. PROTECTION. plaintiffs “proper- have no sufficient implement argues that the given utility in- ty” interest in a rate equal protection ing legislation violates the procedural protec- crease to invoke the the fourteenth amendment to clause of tions of the due clause of the three United States Constitution. Of Undoubtedly, Amendment. Fourteenth equal protection analysis, categories of product plaintiffs as consumers of a scrutiny” clearly apply. not “strict does paying interest in a lesser rate have an legislation implicates suspect neither a high- electricity opposed to a for their right. Ar classification nor fundamental indeed er rate. It would be the rare bird guably, standard —“means the intermediate And interest would otherwise. whose be leg applies since focus”— islation can in rates in the sense that an increase perhaps characterized as be monetary deprivation means a of a discriminatory blatantly on its face or dis perhaps purchase sum needed to sum—a criminatory. Telephone v. See Gen. Co. interest other necessities of life—the 942, 946, Util., 109 Idaho 712 Idaho Public plaintiffs have here is more than an (1986); 643, P.2d 647 Jones v. State Bd. of rates. “abstract need or desire” for lower Medicine, 859, 97 F.Supp. 409 at 340-41. denied, (1976), cert. 431 U.S. S.Ct. (1977). this L.Ed.2d 223 Under adopt Miles has asked us to the rationale judicial scrutiny, standard of Knight ex rel v. Public intermediate State Service not Comm’n, right equal protection of laws is 245 S.E.2d 144 the W.Va. “substantially (1978). Knight Virginia In court violated if the classification West legis specifically some identifiable concluded that “there is a common law furthers Jones, 867, 555 any monopo- rates from 97 Idaho at reasonable lative end.” state, scrutiny— right, at 407. The lowest level ly created and this P.2d requires only that having adoption our “rational existed before the basis”— constitution, rationally legit related encompassed would be within classification be objectives. Tarbox v. concept property protected by governmental imate W.Va. 957, 960, Const., Comm'n, 695 P.2d 10.” art. 245 S.E.2d at 149. Tax § (1984). minimal stan Under this reject concept property for Ida- We dard, not statutory discrimination will 73-116 ho. I.C. states: “[a] may facts if statement of be set aside 73-116. law in force.—The Common justify it.” reasonably conceived to England, as it is common law of so far Jones, 97 Idaho at 555 P.2d at with, to, repugnant not or inconsistent 366 U.S. Maryland, quoting McGowan the United the constitution or laws of 420, 425-56, 6 L.Ed.2d 81 S.Ct. States, provided in all cases not laws, compiled the rule of deci- these in all courts of this state. sion deciding split hairs We will in- issue falls within the legislation at implementing legislation the Through the judicial scruti- or lowest level of termediate prescribed factors that legislature has find that ny we setting rates for may not consider IPUC requirements of the interme- satisfies electricity sold Idaho Power. Grind- Thus, requirements leg- acknowledged diate test. stone Butte we are a fortiori fulfilled. test rational basis to circumscribe islature has important is an this arid state The water of authority to consider “all rele- of the IPUC farmers, industry but Not setting 102 Idaho resource. vant criteria” rates. in in case would result three standards this depend upon it. Fa- residential users and affirming district court’s decision. competing cilitating the settlement is an supply scarce of water claims to our I don’t point only out that I write objective. It is important governmental prop- complaint in this case believe very this moment an un- important that at argument equal protection an erly raises judicial proceeding is under- precedented analyze really no need to there is and thus way adjudicate all the water standards any of the three this case under agreement and the The decisions of the United Snake River. The set out above. and the Courts legislation impor- Supreme Court is likewise States a state Appeals make it clear that when major to this state because it settles tant is attacked on the statute or state action signifi- long-standing dispute over a equal protection un- ground that it denies The cant of water. volume amendment to the Unit- der the fourteenth objective of set- substantially related to the Constitution, the courts must ed States tling adverse claims to water. It “substan- (1) three-part analysis to determine make a specifically identifiable tially furthers some plaintiff differ- whether the law treats end,” therefore does not legislative others, (2) plaintiff ently than equal protection of the violate others, “similarly to those situated” laws. (3) differ- only then determine whether appro- under the justified ent treatment is IV. applicable standard —“strict scruti- priate “means-focus,” basis.” ny,” or “rational CONCLUSION. 305, 86 S.Ct. Yeager, v. 384 U.S. Rinaldi find the foregoing For the reasons we (1966); City 16 L.Ed.2d 577 Desris justiciable. (7th We hold that present Kenosha, Wisconsin, action 687 F.2d 1117 not vio- implementing legislation Cir.1982). proper- does complaint Miles’ protection equal equal protection claim. While ly late the due raised an points, ante opinion or Idaho’s guarantees of the United States the Court’s “similarly situated” not address whether Milesis constitutions. We do P.2d one, he is special implementing legislation was the other of Idaho and agreement between the State constitution, legislation in of our violation Company does not treat Miles Idaho Power the trial question was not before since any other rate- any differently than it does court. view, Accordingly, my there is payers. dismissal of Miles’ The district court’s in this case equal protection issue raised no declaratory judgment action is affirmed. unnecessary to make either a it is attorney appeal. on costs or fees No “means-focus,” scrutiny,” or a “ra- “strict analysis. tional basis” Tem., WALTERS, J., Pro concurs. BISTLINE, Justice, concurring and BAKES, C.J., specially concurs. concurring in result. reasoning and result of in the I concur sat, SHEPARD, J., did not but I majority opinion, Parts and II. As to opinion to his participate in the due arguments contained the constitutional untimely death. result, III, I in the but not Part concur BAKES, Justice, concurring Chief analysis of that section. in the rationale or specially: majority totally mischaracterizes the that there majority opinion concludes argu- constitutional point critical Miles’ equal protection no violation of the writes the follow- ment. Justice Johnson the three standards ing: clause under “At the heart Miles’ attack is (1) scruti- analysis: assumption pro- “strict have a equal protection (2) “means-focus,” they pay “rational interest the rates to their tected ny,” utilities.” any of those agree applying I Idaho at basis.” 778 P.2d at furnished, the dimin- argues which is not since “Miles that I.C. 61-523 765. generating capacity ished must not be gives ratepayers property a inter- protected base, pursuant the rate P.2d deducted 116 Idaho at at est.” from mandate; legislative has to “Our research disclosed no case law supports proposition of en- an effect, ap- (5)In legislation takes possible titlement to the rates.” lowest compensa- pellants money just without P.2d at 766. at law, tion since PUC or due ignore reality setting required is to petition in support Miles’ brief of his for legislatively rates. mandated arbi- rehearing objected majority’s to the cre- trarily disguised pur- high rates are a this straw man: ation of rights chase of the subordinated water petition has a Appellant filed herewith from for of all Idaho Power the benefit rehearing. respectfully for It is sub- general, agricultural in-' taxpayers mitted that this Court misconceived ratepay- particular, terests which appellant the interests which claims are paying ers for. does this are What question. legislation violated agreement pur- come down if not a apparently unimpressed was This Court rights chase of water of Idaho Power to appellant’s constitutional attack the Snake River? Idaho Power loses legislation, upon the ‘Swan Falls’ be- nothing by agreement, the Swan Falls appellant it cause believed that charge since it can include rates which contending (and ratepay- all other he rights the lost water the full former ers) possible was entitled to the ‘lowest hydro-electric plant value of its forever. electric rates.’ This mischaracterization Rehearing, in Support Petitioner’s Brief appellant’s position inevitably, led pp. 2-4. rejection understandably, the constitutional claims. succinctly key issue unad- Stated majority ratepay- must be the appel-

It understood that dressed is this—if legisla- required lant contends that: ers can this state’s be ture to rate on a that is pay plant a (1) appellant property has a inter- useful, used and has an unconstitutional funds, they est in his own his taking occurred? savings earnings; his future (2) The State of require Idaho cannot argument legislature, I have no that the pay ratepayer money utility his having created the Idaho Public Utilities given unless he is in the value form Commission, may limit its consideration; service or other can it may relevant define the criteria rate require ratepayer pay more than the however, making. majority, I Unlike worth; reasonably are services recognize despite power of plenary IPUC, (3) legisla- The Swan man- over the if unconstitutionally ture even in dates PUC allow Power to cannot act with, here, branch charge concert the executive which point This provided state-regulated monopoly. full and a will not be when subordina- opinion in a recent of our tion of water on the Snake River was well-stated substantia] court: portion highest nation’s renders useless; (this rate present base occurs seriously It cannot be contended that prohibited the PUC from con- prevents legisla- state Constitution sidering the of usefulness of reduction specific giving tures instructions to from hydro-electric plant resulting from utility their have nev- commissions. We Idaho Power’s to subordinate legislatures er that state are doubted (give away) major portion of its Snake competent utility bodies set rates. rights); River water Pennsylvania essentially And PUC legislature. arm of the Charging electrical rates on a non- administrative See, PUC, functionally existing equiva- e.g., Pennsylvania Barasch rate base is lent charging for electrical service Pa. [142], 532 A.2d ^[325] at 648 study may (‘The University of the of Idaho an instru- tions

339 Commission is but realistic: not be mentality legislature for the of the state it, making]’); essential- performance legislature of Minne- The had before [rate 352, 433, Cases, regarding the like- experts of ly, sota Rate U.S. a battle (1913)(‘The Agreement. impact ly 57 L.Ed. 1511 of Swan S.Ct. (‘H study L’ Lyman & The Hamilton & rate-making power legislative power is a coun- University from the of Idaho was implies range legis- necessarily Boise study from discretion’). tered the McGrath in Permi- lative We stated study cal- University. The H & L State Rate that an Basin [Area coses] generation million in lost culated free, $14 within the commission ‘must be ratepayers, assumption on its that based by pertinent imposed limitations constitu- 195,000 would new acres of farmland commands, de- statutory tional and irrigation by year under 2000.2 come regulation capable of methods of vise contrast, study reconciling By and conflict- the McGrath before equitably diverse legislature [747], at asserted: ing interest.’ 390 U.S. [1344], at 1360 L.Ed.2d fact, brought

S.Ct. 312] [20 new land will be added). say (emphasis This is not irrigation profitable if it is to do under applied system ratemaking any assumption that of low so. If H & L’s commission, including high a utilities farm farm costs revenues true, just it has received specific instructions until 2000 were to hold it is necessarily argue will net new legislature, plausible that from case, system if the fails In that entry might But be zero. constitutional. muster, pass it not be because economicbenefits and costs subordi- part disappear____ of the nation legislature performed has A, (em- work. p. 15 study, Appendix McGrath added). — phasis Barasch, U.S. Duquesne Light Co. of contention between A second area 618-19, 102 -, L.Ed.2d 646 109 S.Ct. experts was before added). (emphasis on con- impact any rate increase legislature, The nor other branch study H L assumed sumption. The & private property government, may not take ‘inelastic,’i.e., usage electricity is compen- paying just public use without same amount people consume the Amend.; Const., 5th sation. U.S. The regardless price increases. See, Const., rel. State ex art. study severely criticized this as- McGrath Click, 791, 554 P.2d Andrus v. sumption: formerly assumed that the de- it was However, re- respondent’s brief on electricity and other forms of mand for Deputy hearing, by Chief Attor- authored experi- The energy price inelastic. was McMahon, persuasive is ney General John years 10 or 15 past ence “taking” has not likelihood that a inaccuracy of that as- taught us the fig- million in this case. $14 occurred that, sumption. Secondly, it obvious by Miles is derived from advanced ure elasticity of price whatever University of Idaho. study produced at the is, greater it electricity demand will be by another ema- study countered This long-run, possibility since the over the University. Each nating Boise from State grows or substitution of conservation assumptions. upon' certain study is based time. over McGrath, Appendix A at 4. McGrath’s Attorney Deputy General’s The Chief regard- assump- study ran different scenarios key two several points out that brief study gener- $14 calculates million in lost H & L $14 derivation of the understands the 2. Miles 195,000 study. ating capacity assumption The num- H & L on the number million draw- from an assumed irrigation not derived ber was of land will come under acres 3,300 Murphy at the river to c.f.s. down of the Agreement. of the Swan Falls Instead, R., 7.) (Miles p. Complaint, gage. No. 19673 Order Commission rate increases and ing likely reactions to c/kwh. 1985).3 (May concluded: is not to this discussion point by both point The main illustrated resolving disputed into long-run the Court if the entice A and B is that Cases to ask fact. Nor it of material electricity demand in issues price elasticity of Court, hindsight, to determine greater than something Idaho is crys- experts had the better which of the seriously L over-esti- then H & have Rather, place simply it is subordinating tal ball.4 mated both the cost of portion of the a small before the Court hydroelectric power water at weighed by the Idaho that was the rate increase nec- evidence Swan Falls and dealt with Legislature. That evidence new essary replacement to cover of as: the likelihood such difficult issues generation costs. development; agricultural future McGrath, Appendix (emphasis A at 10 irrigation (gravity vs. of future methods added). lift); high per-acre water demand importance in A final factor of critical along the crops; different the location experts the battle of the before the Idaho market likely development; river power Legislature was the cost of the general health of crops produced; for gen- replace allegedly ‘lost needed to ability economy and its to con- the U.S. erating capacity.’ H L assumed in & inflation; on policies trol and federal study replace- their 1983 that the cost programs, com- such matters as set-aside per ment would be 6.353 cents levels, incen- modity price support tax R., p. kilowatt hour. 130. It was this weapon in tives and the use of food as a genera- times the lost number assumed Leg- diplomacy. The Idaho international 224,100 tion of hours of million kilowatt weighed the information avail- islature electricity re- that led to the estimated it and that the Swan able to concluded $14,237,000. placement cost of Table Agreement public ‘is in the interest 4-8, R., p. 131. ’ purposes 1985 Idaho Sess. for all ... point that McGrath made the obvious Laws, 1, p. 20. ch. § power surplus Idaho Power was Rehearing, Brief 38-41. Respondent’s on ‘currently sells for resale about 31% addition, respondent’s In brief details generation’ (not counting its total electric accruing payers to the rate several benefits unit, Yalmy II due which was legislation: of the Swan Falls as a result following year). come on line the McGrath, result, Appendix legislature keenly A The of the at 16. was aware course, ratepayers. expressly It was that Idaho Power’s avoid- interest significantly ed cost less than the 6.4 stated that the was by arriving controversy assumed H L in were an effort to resolve a & <t/kwh fact, availability of by put their million number. In at risk ‘the low- $14 session, legislative hydropower ratepayers.’ Idaho had cost to the laws, payment p. ch. filed to lower its avoided cost 1985 Idaho Sess. added). settlement, (emphasis ac- number and the PUC soon thereafter cording legislature: the avoided cost number to 4.4 lowered year figures publish- number now stands at 3.9 the last for which are 3. The avoided cost No; C/kwh, ed, 13,800,000. by acreage dropped again Order as set Commission (December 1987). Agriculture, Department of See Idaho 1988 Ida- must, figures Agricultural Statistics 10. The fact, crystal In McGrath had the better ball. course, they be viewed with caution since do production The number of acres in farm acreage irrigated not break out between every year in Idaho each and since the declined Still, non-irrigated land. it is clear that Agreement signed. In Swan Falls was rapid development of new farmland that Hamil- 14,700,00 farming acres were devoted to in Ida- Lyman predicted ton and would result from the 14,500,000. acreage dropped In ho. Agreement pass. Swan Falls has not come to 14,200,000. acreage dropped to In In so, parties’ ny. doing balances all of the concerns created existing hydropower- and ensures that orderly adjudication pro- Snake River generating cess, facilities will remain useful allowing money thus to be ratepayers will not be bur- effort, spent just [and] once in a coordinated ... excessive costs dened with Power, not three times—once added). (emphasis reading 7,500 defendants, Id. A careful once and once legislative history demonstrates party. the state itself as an interested current, received A second benefit to the quid pro quo exchange concrete the concession made Idaho Power that they might the detriment suffer from public gain sale utili- ‘[t]he hydropower production diminished under ty’s generation water used speculative hypothetical a series of electricity shall accrue to the of benefit possibly conditions that could lead to fu- Idaho ratepayers.’ Code of potential ture rate increases of mil- $14 (Supp.1988). Testifying 61-502B be- § lion.5 fore the Senate Resources and Environ- First, forget we must not the condi- January ment on Committee prevailed tions that in 1985. Idaho Pow- High, PUC Commissioner Richard re- 7,500 Company irriga- er had sued some minutes, ported in committee stated: carry tors in an effort to out this Court’s legislation extremely This I feel is es- court, remand, decision that the trial on sential because in effect it clarifies the company determine whether had legal gains status of of sales and dedi- rights abandoned or forfeited its water cates the benefits of these sales to the estopped or was otherwise from assert- company customers of the rather than ing rights. larg- said The result was the It, company. the shareholders of the history. scope est lawsuit in Idaho’s Its fact, in in sets the title of the water paralleled adjudication the Snake River ratepayers rather than the share- itself, which the had estimat- happens holders. Whatever to the oth- $27,369,000. ed would cost a total of See bills, pass. er that one should Minutes, House Resources and Conserva- Dedicating gains from future water Committee, 17, January tion 1985. Un- ratepayers major sales to was a conces- principles ratemaking, der traditional of rights carry high sion since water do legal expenses by utility incurred in prior market value and because Idaho carrying out a court order or in an effort apparently provided law that such sales protect property, to are a valid rate- stockholders, inure payer expense. to benefit of not legislature’s ap- See, ratepayers. proval put Corp. Boise Water Swan Falls settlement Comm’n., belonged: that cost where it Idaho Public 99 Ida- on the own- Utilities (1978) rights, (gain ers water on sale not on affected stockholders).6 belongs ratepayers Compa- Idaho Power of real estate to mistakenly mately years year 5. Miles $14 assumed the million im- after or until the earliest, pact immediately upon passage would be felt at the Rather, legislation. the Swan Falls the H & L brief, study timing According rehearing runs three different scenarios for 6. to Miles’ ‘Water 195,000 (1) rights part upon acres: immediate- additional are the rate base which Idaho (2) return,' and, (3) ly, year by year again, Power earns ‘Present mar- 4-8, R., p. may proper 2000. See Table 131. The Court ket value the water element judicial ascertaining also take notice of the fact that the to be taken into consideration ‘staged plant rate-making purposes.' Swan Falls endorses a devel- value water fact, Reh.Br., opment policy’ limiting proposed development p. (emphasis original). (20,000) ‘twenty per year part utility’s to thousand acres water are of an not electric (80,000) eighty ascertaining plant acres in element thousand four value for rate- II, year period.’ making purposes. Idaho Code 42-203C. Under As discussed in section ‘cap agricultural development,’ supra, on State- the cases Miles relies for his asser- Intent, Journal, Legislative contrary ment of the era when 1985 Senate tions date back to cost, 195,000 p. development plants reproduction acres of new at their were ‘valued’ irrigated approxi- approximately years, land could not stan- occur until For the last 50 stressed, contrary to legisla- It must also A third issue identified ratepayers in assumption, that Miles’ ture as a benefit all no plateau place not on a with ‘controversy 1985were resolution [that] contrary, the utili- up. On the go but avail- rendered amount of water ’ yet been nightmare had ultimate ty’s hydropower able for uncertain ... nightmare That Sess.Laws, 14, p. adjudicated. ch. It must Idaho 20. —shared the 1928 alert that when the Swan be remembered —was provisions to the water law amendment litigation commenced yet never had sought permission from the of the Idaho Constitution PUC Supreme major by the Idaho embargo on all been construed institute an Ida- upstream states that hookups Falls. Court. That amendment from Swan first-in-time-first-in-right constitu- exemption utility’s ‘duty This from a ho’s rare subject system is to the con- Order tional water serve’ was authorized PUC may regulate and- April dition that ‘the state No. issued pur- primarily the use therefor resulting hardship affected irri- limit ‘7,500 poses.’ gators, large resi- Parties to lawsuit’ but threatened scale prepared argue that that lan- developments as well after com- were dential self-enacting ‘7,500 guage was and should be mencement of the lawsuit.’ utility’s to mean that the wa- construed upon A fourth conferred benefit power subject were a state ter ‘pub- imposition was the of a Similarly, ‘regulate and limit.’ in upon lic test all future water interest’ Counter-claim, Amended Answer and right ap- appropriations. Future water argument that Idaho Power was made plications against must measured be estopped had waived and was assert public’s in interest the: irriga- rights against upstream its water impact proposed use economic had any arguments tors. these utility have electric rates If would prevailed, its company Idaho, in the state of and the availabili- protec- have had no would ty, foreseeability and cost of alterna- at tion all. energy tive sources to ameliorate such Agreement and accom- The Swan Falls impact. legislation puts panying an end to all 42-203C(l)(ii) (Supp.1988). Idaho Code § uncertainty. As matter state such Thus, first in for the time Idaho’s histo- policy, it the minimum stream raises ry, a forum was created which the 3,300 Falls from c.f.s. flow Swan competing irrigation hy- interests .s., 3,900/5,600c.f which willhave ‘minimal dropower rationally weighed could flows at effect on summer Swan Falls.’ represents to which better the beneficial R., p. good ratepay- This is news for use of water. good It news for environ- ers. is also beneficiary of the Yet another new mentalists, surely which Mr. Miles is criterion, is ‘public interest’ the small Henceforth, as one. omitted.] [Footnote It family farmer. is not clear whether policy matter state endorsed both group among Miles would rank this Resources Board and the Idaho Water co-conspirators who created the Swan Legislature, larg- a much the Idaho State legislation, Agreement Falls guaranteed flow supply er of water is among ranked they would be through Canyon Hells and down Co- oppressed ratepayers. fellow River, part Ida- doing its to aid lumbia criterion, case, ‘public for interest’ anadromous fish runs. ho’s time, ‘promotion of the first endorses Respondent’s Rehearing, Brief on 24-28. considering family farming tradition’ high regard capa- for the new admitted appropriation applications. rate Ida- With 203C(2)(iii). foregoing, bilities of the author of Code § 42— up right, replaced by ratemaking does not show as an dard been based on water utility company’s no original-cost-Iess-depreciation. books and thus forms Since the asset on the part nothing filing company’s pay for rate base. stockholders but fee Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett, Fields, study being well aware of the research and Rock & Boise, Barrett, making dispassionate respondent. W. made in that fair and John presentation, persuaded I am presently argued. “taking”

that a has occurred as claimed. Therefore, JOHNSON, I concur the result Justice. holding majority reached compensation This is a worker’s case. Swan survives consti- Industrial We affirm the decision of the scrutiny. tutional denying to the claim- Commission benefits

ant, John W. Swander.

I.

THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT THE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT DECISION THE OF COMMISSION. injury Swander filed a notice of SWANDER, John W. claiming claim for benefits that he suffered Claimant-Appellant, injured an accident and his back while working Following Boise Cascade. CORPORATION, hearing, findings the Commission made BOISE CASCADE employer, Defendant-Respondent. following fact that included the informa- tion: No. 17608. 1. Swander worked for Boise Cascade

Supreme Court of Idaho. years. for fourteen and one-half At alleged injury time of his that is Aug. 1989. case, subject of this he was em- mill, ployed plywood at the Emmett utility where he per- worked as a man forming jobs various as needed. He also on a farm worked owned his father, operated where he farm trac- tors and fed cattle. history preexisting

2. Swander had a injured back conditions. 1975 he his operating back while a tractor on his reinjured father’s He later him- farm. stepped self when he a hole while into at work. When he was examined physician in it was the doctor’s impression proba- that Swander had a herniated The doctor ble disc. advised rest, needed, gave Swander to him medication. Swander lost no time mill, although from his work at the him at back bothered times. experienced pain 3. Swander more back orthopedic He was seen physician, Dr. Rudd. Dr. Rudd noted spasm muscle A Swander’s back. disc on CT scan disclosed a herniated Greenfield, Boise, John F. for claimant- the left side at the L4-5 sufficient level appellant. symptoms to cause root at the nerve

Case Details

Case Name: Miles v. Idaho Power Co. Ex Rel. Evans

Court Name: Idaho Supreme Court

Date Published: Aug 8, 1989

Citation: 778 P.2d 757

Docket Number: 16614

Court Abbreviation: Idaho