*1 921 P.2d

In re: Case No. 39576. SRBA HALL USERS

FORT WATER

ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff-

Appellant, STATES, Idaho, Sho-

UNITED State Tribes, and Falls

shone-Bannock Twin Companies, De- Canal

and North Side

fendants-Respondents.

No. 22163.

Supreme

Boise, Term. December 1995

July 1996.

Rehearing Sept. Denied Stein, PA., Hailey, appellant. for

Simms & argued. A. Richard Simms Richardson, Attor- Betty H. United States Boise; (argued), ney, B. Lazarus William Justice, Washington, Department of U.S. D.C., respondent States of Amer- for United ica. General; Lance, Attorney Alan

Hon. G. Attorney Strong (argued), Deputy Clive J. Boise, General, Ida- respondent State of for ho. Jackson, Hall, respon- for

Candy L. Fort Tribes. dent Shoshone-Bannock Tucker, Falls, Rosholt, Twin Robertson & respondents Twin Norman M. Semanko Companies. Canal Falls and North Side *2 40 entry quanti-

SILAK, until of a decree effective Justice. rights. fying the water appeal an from the district court’s This is appellant of the Fort Hall Water dismissal 31,1994, pursuant March to the former On objections Association’s Users 42-1411, the Director of the Idaho Rights Agreement Fort Hall Indian Water Department of Resources filed with Water a for lack of and for failure to state (SRBA) Adjudication the Snake River Basin upon granted. relief We which abstracting Report a district court Director’s affirm. Agreement containing proposed a the and Agreement. implementing decree the consent

I. Agreement proposed and consent decree The 25 different water addressed FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 31, 1994, appellant, Hall May On the Fort 1985, (“FHWUA”) legislature In the Idaho directed the Association Water Users Department rights of Water Resources to objections to 7 of the 25 water ad- adjudication general a of the interrelat- proposed seek in the consent decree. dressed 2,000 of the ed claims to the use of the waters The is an association the legislature also Snake River Basin. The Fort Hall Irri- non-Indian water users the directing adopted Project. February a resolution that the Gov- gation On the Attorney attempt States, ernor and to settle and General the state of Idaho the United (“the rights joint the the water claims of Shoshone- Tribes mov- Shoshone-Bannock ants”) Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Indian Res- filed seven motions to dismiss the through negotiations. objections ervation The Gover- motions of the FHWUA The 12(b) appointed Resource nor the Idaho Water to I.R.C.P. or were filed Attorney represent to Board and the General I.R.C.P. 56. negotiations. in the the state of Idaho Company Respondents Twin Falls Canal by Negotiations subsequently undertaken (“the Company North Canal Com- Side States, the the United the state were involved panies”), are water users who and the Commit Shoshone-Bannock Tribes by negotiations (represented the Com- in the (an advisory committee created tee of Nine Nine) culminated in the mittee of which represent to the non-Indian interests Wa Companies participated in Agreement. The 01), Fort ter District resulted the 1990 minimize the negotiations the in order to (“the Rights Agreement Hall Indian Water impact of the tribal claims on their water Agreement”). Agreement sets forth the joint movants filed their After the rights the

water Shoshone-Bannock objections, to dismiss the FHWUA’s motions Dam, Canyon upstream of Hells the Tribes participate to Companies filed a motion the Affairs, Fort rights of the of Indian Bureau joint motions and the disposition of the the Agency, and the water Hall protect their own inter- order Project, Irrigation the latter of Fort Hall participate was not ob- The motion to ests. by users are exercised Indian water subsequently granted. jected to and was 2,000 non-Indian water users.1 On and some setting the motions for hear- 16, 1990, ap In an order Agreement the was November resetting 2, 1991, subsequent order ing, it by Congress. April proved On date, it court indicated hearing the district by legislature, and approved was the Idaho summary judg- motions as 31, 1991, ap would treat May Agreement was on However, I.R.C.P. 56. motions under general membership of the ment proved by 11, 1995, granted May the district Agreement on Tribes. The Shoshone-Bannock Reservation, well as on lands initially as Irrigation Project Fort Hall Indian was 1. The Fort Hall 5, 1894, August 28 Stat. the Act of the Shoshone-Bannock authorized had been ceded that Secretary of the Inte- 305. The Act directed Irriga- inception, its the Fort Hall Tribes. From of canals to contract for the construction rior non- Project combined Indian and was a tion develop- acquisition for the project. Indian irrigation project on lands within ment of an 12(b)(6) ruling Thus, not con- because the district court did the motions under I.R.C.P. pleadings, we any matter FHWUA did not have sider outside that the ruling grant of a Agreement, and that the court’s as a fide review dismiss, summary scope than beyond the rather FHWUA’s motion jurisdiction. judgment. of the SRBA court’s *3 filed a alter or then motion to

FHWUA order of this Court reviews an When judgment court amend the of the district dismissing court an action the trial which was denied. 12(b)(6), is non-moving party the to I.R.C.P. (1) appeal, argues that it On the FHWUA rec to have all inferences from the entitled standing objections Agree- has to file to the Idaho in its v. ord viewed favor. Orthman (2) ment; the not and be- 561, Co., 960, 962, P.2d 126 Idaho 895 Power yond scope of the the SRBA. Co., (1995); 116 563 Miles Idaho Power (1989). 637, 757, 635, 778 759 Idaho P.2d II. of Only drawing all in favor after inferences non-moving party question be OF the STANDARD REVIEW the been claim for relief has asked whether argument to the motions on the Prior Orthman, 126 at 895 P.2d stated. Idaho dismiss, appeared to it that the district court Miles, 563; at at 778 P.2d at summary intended to treat the motions as judgment motions under 56 rather I.R.C.P. 12(b). than motions to dismiss under I.R.C.P. 12(b) pertinent provides, part:

Rule III.

If, num- asserting on a motion the defense (6) to bered dismiss for failure of the THE CORRECTLY DISTRICT COURT pleading upon to state a relief which THAT DID RULED THE FHWUA granted, plead- can be the matters outside FILE NOT HAVE STANDING TO ing presented to are and not excluded THE AGREE- OBJECTIONS TO court, the the motion shall be treated as MENT summary judgment disposed one and 42, Chapter 14 the Idaho Title of 56____ provided of as Rule adjudication provides for the of water Code Thus, the had district court considered right In order to a water assert the affida- pleadings, matters outside such as SRBA, must be the a notice of claim within depositions, have vits and the motions should § 42-1412 filed with the SRBA court. I.C. under In its order been decided I.R.C.P. 56. objections may provides the means motions, court, granting the the district how- made to the assertion of water ever, clearly decided under the motions (1) provides: § of I.C. 42-1412 Subsection 12(b)(6). The “[T]he I.R.C.P. court stated: I Any object parts to party who desires to to Dismiss record Motions are based on the report II of the shall file the or director’s court, presently before the which consists party’s with the district (Notices Claim, solely pleadings the of specified notice of the time in the within Rights Agree- Indian 1990 Fort Hall Water report. filing the of Objections Responses ment Agreement).” explic- The district court also added.) (Emphasis denying itly in its stated order 42-1401A(7) “... “party” § as I.C. defines motion to FHWUA’s alter or amend claimant, director, any person who is a judgment that the motions to dismiss were joined.” any person who served or or solely to pleadings pursuant decided on the 42-1401A(l) added.) § de- (Emphasis I.C. 12(b) under and were not decided I.R.C.P. as fines “claimant” follows: adjudica- 56 standards. In a water I.R.C.P. asserting person presently any such means proceeding, tion as the one “Claimant” Court, ownership use of water types of documents of before the pleadings. the state of Idaho or on whose comprise above do within mentioned “briefly your ownership jecting describe interest use behalf right.” responded: water is asserted. this water The FHWUA contracts with the for the deliv- “[H]ave U.S. added.) (Emphasis ery of 3.5 acre feet of water and have had our issue this ease revolves guarantee land encumbered to the U.S. to statutory interpretation of around the payment delivery.” response shows 42-1401A(l) meaning and the of “claim that the is aware that its FHWUA interest ant.” The FHWUA asserts that it meets the only the water is contractual and not an requirements being a claimant ownership interest. SRBA, claiming it is own because itself Thus, we hold that because ership rights, but because the Unit does not have file the claim on its ed States the notice of *4 rights Agree- water described behalf to the second half of the ment, properly granted the district court § 42- definition of “claimant” under I.C. joint movants’ motions to dismiss. The 1401A(1).2 disagree. We FHWUA is not a claimant within the defini- undisputed It is that the FHWUA did not 42-1401A(l) § not tion of I.C. because it is rights file a that notice of for the water asserting ownership rights and because subject Agreement. are the of the The ownership did not United States assert FHWUA contends that the notices of claim rights merely on is its behalf. The FHWUA by filed the United States were for the bene- contractually permitted to have use of the fit of or on of within the behalf the FHWUA water. 42-1401A(l). § meaning agree of I.C. We nothing in with the district court that there is IV. the record to establish this fact. The notices by of claim for the at water issue filed CONCLUSION the United States as the “claimant.” The hold that the FHWUA did not have We ownership United States did not assert standing Agreement. to file rights the water on behalf of the FHWUA. does not have be- Rather, the “remarks” section of the notices cause it is not a claimant the SRBA within provides: of claim 42-1401A(l). § meaning of I.C. THE ARE WATER RIGHTS CLAIMED Because we hold that the FHWUA does BY THE UNITED STATES FOR USE case, standing in not have this we need BY ON LAND OWNED NON-INDIAN reach the issue of whether the FHWUA’s INDIVIDUALS WHICH ARE SERVED scope are within the of the SRBA. BY THE HALL FORT IRRIGATION PROJECT. Accordingly, the order of the district added.) Thus, (Emphasis it is clear that the is affirmed. claiming ownership is United States respondents. appeal Costs on behalf, rights

water on its and that the own by non-Indian individuals that are served McDEVITT, C.J., and JOHNSON and Project Irrigation may only Fort Hall have TROUT, JJ., concur. use of the water The United States Justice, SCHROEDER, Specially respect the claimant with is therefore Concurring. these water only might appear that this case is Further evidence that the FHWUA On its face it Boundary rights and not an owner- inconsistent with the decision has use the water Backpackers Boundary County, 128 Idaho ship interest is found in the (1996), general infor- 913 P.2d 1141 which this Court by the FHWUA. Under the section, adjudicate party standing to an issue when mation the form asks the ob- found argument rights expressly water claimed in this case. 2. The FHWUA stated at oral Court that it is not the owner of the before this conclusory only plaintiff one stated a potential injury.

speculative It is obvious very large body that

this ease a have a interest that

users clear events place they

have taken and that adversely impacted by those

have incongruous appears It that this

events. opened vaguely has its doors certainly possible injury that

defined almost Boundary occur in Backpackers

will not its in this ease

closed doors to water users

whose contract are well-defined clearly futures

whose are threatened.

apparent discrepancy explained by is the fact

that in this ease determined 42-1401A(l),

statute, policy not the I

this Court. concur in this case because precluded

water users are from statute heard,

being though their clear- interests are

ly at stake. similar limited the No statute

plaintiff Boundary Backpackers. P.2d 743 CROOKS,

Daniel R. Claimant-

Respondent, PARTNERSHIP,

INLAND 465 LIMITED

Employer, Defendant-Appellant, Department Employment,

Defendant. 22155.

No.

Supreme

Lewiston, May 1996 Term.

July

Randall, Cox, Lewiston, appel- Blake & lant.