Case Title: In re: SRBA

Citation: 

Docket Number: 40974

State: idaho

Court: Idaho Supreme Court (civil)

Date: 2014-08-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
1 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO   
Docket No. 40974/40975 
IN RE SRBA, CASE NO. 39576, SUBCASE 
00-91017 (BASIN-WIDE ISSUE 17 – DOES 
IDAHO LAW REQUIRE A REMARK 
AUTHORIZING STORAGE RIGHTS TO 
‘REFILL’, UNDER PRIORITY, SPACE 
VACATED FOR FLOOD CONTROL). 
-------------------------------------------------------- 
A&B IRRIGATION DISTRICT, BURLEY 
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, MILNER 
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, NORTH SIDE 
CANAL COMPANY, TWIN FALLS CANAL 
COMPANY, MINIDOKA IRRIGATION 
DISTRICT, AMERICAN FALLS 
RESERVOIR DISTRICT NO. 2 and BOISE 
PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL, 
 
       Appellants, 
 
v. 
 
STATE OF IDAHO, UNITED STATES OF 
AMERICA, AMERICAN FALLS 
RESERVOIR DISTRICT NO. 2, 
ABERDEEN-AMERICAN FALLS GROUND 
WATER DISTRICT, ABERDEEN-
SPRINGFIELD CANAL COMPANY, 
BINGHAM GROUND WATER DISTRICT, 
BONNEVILLE-JEFFERSON GROUND 
WATER DISTRICT, JEFFERSON-CLARK 
GROUND WATER DISTRICT, MADISON 
GROUND WATER DISTRICT, MAGIC 
VALLEY GROUND WATER DISTRICT, 
NORTH SNAKE GROUND WATER 
DISTRICT, BLACK CANYON 
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, NEW YORK 
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, BIG WOOD 
CANAL COMPANY, BALLENTYNE 
DITCH COMPANY, BOISE VALLEY 
IRRIGATION DITCH COMPANY, 
CANYON COUNTY WATER COMPANY, 
EUREKA WATER COMPANY, FARMERS' 
CO-OPERATIVE DITCH COMPANY, 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Boise, January 2014 Term 
 
2014 Opinion No.  78 
 
Filed:  August 4, 2014 
 
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk 
2 
 
MIDDLETON IRRIGATION 
ASSOCIATION, INC., MIDDLETON MILL 
DITCH COMPANY, NAMPA & MERIDIAN 
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, NEW DRY 
CREEK DITCH COMPANY, PIONEER 
DITCH COMPANY, SETTLERS 
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, SOUTH BOISE 
WATER COMPANY, THURMAN MILL 
DITCH COMPANY, IDAHO POWER 
COMPANY, FREMONT-MADISON 
GROUND WATER DISTRICT, IDAHO 
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, UNITED CANAL 
COMPANY, CITY OF POCATELLO, 
UNITED WATER IDAHO, INC., PIONEER 
IRRIGATION DISTRICT, 
 
       Respondents. 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 
 
Appeal from the Snake River Basin Adjudication, State of Idaho.  Hon. Eric J. 
Wildman, District Judge. 
Snake River Basin Adjudication Court’s decision, vacated. 
Barker, Rosholt & Simpson, LLP, Twin Falls, for appellants.  Travis L. 
Thompson argued in case number 40974 for appellant Surface Water Coalition 
and Albert P. Barker argued in 40975 for appellant Boise Project Board. 
Fletcher Law Office, Burley, for appellants American Falls Irrigation District #2 
and Minidoka Irrigation District. 
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for respondent State 
of Idaho.  Michael C. Orr, Deputy Attorney General argued.  
U.S. Department of Justice, Colorado, for respondent United States. 
Arkoosh Law Offices, Boise, for respondent American Falls Reservoir District 
No. 2. 
Racine Olson Nye Budge & Bailey, Chtd., Pocatello, for respondent Aberdeen-
Springfield Canal Company, Bingham Ground Water District, Bonneville-
Jefferson Ground Water District, Jefferson-Clark Ground Water District, Madison 
Ground Water District, Magic Valley Ground Water District, North Snake 
Ground Water District. 
 McDevitt & Miller, Boise, for respondent Black Canyon Irrigation District, New 
York Irrigation District. 
Hobdey & Hobdey, Gooding, for respondent Big Wood Canal Company. 
3 
 
Sawtooth Law Offices, PLLC, Boise, for appellants in 40975 and respondents in 
40974. Ballentyne Ditch Company, Boise Valley Irrigation Ditch Company, 
Canyon County Water Company, Eureka Water Company, Farmers Co-operative 
Ditch Company, Middleton Irrigation District, Middleton Mill Ditch Company, 
Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, New Dry Creek Ditch Company, Pioneer 
Ditch Company, Settlers Irrigation District, South Boise Water Company, 
Thurman Mill Ditch Company.  S. Bryce Farris argued for appellant in 40975. 
James Tucker, Boise, for respondent Idaho Power. 
Rigby, Andrus & Rigby, Rexburg, for respondents Fremont-Madison Ground 
Water District, Idaho Irrigation District, United Canal Company.  Jerry R. Rigby 
argued in 40974 .  
Beeman & Associates, P.C., Boise, for respondent City of Pocatello.  
Givens Pursley, Boise, for respondent United Water Idaho, Inc.  Christopher H. 
Meyer argued.  
Moffatt, Thomas, Barrett & Rock, Boise, for respondent Pioneer Irrigation 
District.  Andrew J. Waldera argued in 40974.  
__________________________________ 
BURDICK, Chief Justice 
This appeal arises out of the Snake River Basin Adjudication (SRBA) court’s decision on 
the following basin-wide issue: Does Idaho law require a remark authorizing storage rights to 
“refill,” under priority, space vacated for flood control? The SRBA court concluded that a 
remark was not necessary because a storage water right that is filled cannot refill under priority 
before affected junior appropriators satisfy their water rights once. The court declined to address 
when the quantity element of a storage water right is considered filled. Seven Magic Valley 
irrigation districts and canal companies (collectively the “Surface Water Coalition”) appeal this 
decision in Docket No. 40974. The Boise Project Board appeals this decision in Docket No. 
40975. Because both cases appeal the same decision of the SRBA court and have significant 
overlap, we address them together in this opinion.  
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
The basis of this appeal, Basin-Wide Issue 17, arose from several individual SRBA 
subcases that involved the question of how filling a reservoir after the release of flood control 
waters should be addressed on the face of partial decrees for storage water rights in the Palisades 
and American Falls Reservoirs. Both the State and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) 
4 
 
took the position that a remark is necessary on the face of a water right to authorize the right to 
refill. Reclamation wanted the following remark under the quantity element of its water right: 
“This water right includes the right to refill under the priority date of this water right to satisfy 
the United States’ storage contracts.” The State disagreed with the language of Reclamation’s 
proposed refill remark. It proffered the following alternate remark, arguing that it more 
accurately reflects Idaho law on storage refill: 
This right is filled for a given irrigation season when the total quantity of water 
that has been accumulated to storage under this right equals the decreed quantity. 
Additional water may be stored under this right but such additional storage is 
incidental and subordinate to all existing and future water rights. 
As a result of the remarks proposed by Reclamation and the State, a dispute arose over 
Idaho law on storage refill. Several irrigation districts in the Treasure Valley, whose storage 
water rights were already decreed without a remark on refill rights, were concerned that the 
outcome of the storage refill issue might affect their right to the use of storage water. Therefore, 
Reclamation, the Surface Water Coalition, and the Boise Project Board, among others, filed a 
petition to designate a basin-wide issue arguing that the issue of storage refill was an issue of 
basin-wide significance and should be resolved in a basin-wide proceeding. In addition, the 
Surface Water Coalition asserted that the following two issues should also be addressed as part 
of the basin-wide proceeding to clarify and guide administration of storage water rights: 
(1) 
[Whether] [t]he storage right holder determines when to divert water to 
storage in order to maximize the beneficial use of water under this right. 
(2) 
[Whether] [t]he beneficial use under this right is fully satisfied when the 
water stored and available for beneficial use equals the capacity of the 
reservoir. 
The SRBA court entered an order granting the petition and designating the following 
issue as Basin-Wide Issue 17: “Does Idaho law require a remark authorizing storage rights to 
‘refill,’ under priority, space vacated for flood control?” The court recognized that the issue was 
fundamentally an issue of law, noting that “[w]hen asked if the issue could be addressed in a 
basin-wide setting without the need to develop factual records specific to individual reservoirs, 
the Petitioners represented that little, if any, factual record development would be necessary.”  
Accordingly, the court limited the scope of the basin-wide proceeding as follows: 
[T]he Court will not consider the specific factual circumstances, operational 
history, or historical agreements associated with any particular reservoir in 
conjunction with this basin-wide issue. Such specific factual inquiries do not lend 
5 
 
themselves to review in a basin-wide proceeding involving many parties and 
many reservoirs. Rather, the basin-wide issue will be limited to the above-
identified issue of law. 
 
The SRBA court declined to address either of the Surface Water Coalition’s additional 
proposed issues pertaining to how a storage right is initially filled, finding that these issues were 
not well situated for resolution in a basin-wide proceeding. In declining to address the Surface 
Water Coalition’s issues regarding fill, the court reasoned:  
An on-stream reservoir alters the stream affecting the administration of all rights 
on the source. Accordingly, some methodology is required to implement priority 
administration of affected rights. Addressing the issue of reservoir fill may require 
factual inquiries, investigation and record development specific to a given 
reservoir, including how the State accounts for fill in each individual reservoir 
under its accounting program. As stated above, such factually specific inquiries 
do not lend themselves to review in a basin-wide setting involving multiple 
reservoirs. Furthermore, unlike the issue of priority refill which is directly related 
to the quantity element of a water right, the issue of fill is purely an issue of 
administration. 
Thus, the SRBA court explicitly stated that its designation of Basin-Wide Issue 17 did not 
include the question of when a water right is initially filled. 
 
After briefing and oral argument, the SRBA court entered its Memorandum Decision on 
March 20, 2013. In this decision, the court concluded that a remark was not necessary because a 
storage water right that is filled cannot refill under priority before affected junior appropriators 
satisfy their water rights once. The court declined to address when the quantity element of a 
storage water right is considered filled. The Surface Water Coalition and the Boise Project Board 
timely appealed this decision.  
II. ANALYSIS 
 
The rights at issue in this case are storage water rights. Storage water is water held in a 
reservoir and intended to assist the holders of the water right in meeting their decreed needs. Am. 
Falls Reservoir Dist. No. 2 v. Idaho Dep’t of Water Res., 143 Idaho 862, 878, 154 P.3d 433, 449 
(2007). “One may acquire storage water rights and receive a vested priority date and quantity, 
just as with any other water right.” Id.; I.C. § 42-202. Historically, water rights have been 
appropriated in one of two ways in Idaho:  
Under the constitutional method of appropriation, appropriation is completed 
upon application of the water to the beneficial use for which the water is 
appropriated. When following the constitutional method, one must depend upon 
actual appropriation, that is to say, actual diversion and application to beneficial 
6 
 
use. Under the statutory method of appropriation, the appropriation is not 
complete and a license will not issue until there is proof of application to 
beneficial use for the purpose for which it was originally intended. Under either 
the constitutional or statutory method of appropriation, the appropriator must 
apply the water to a beneficial use in order to have a valid water right in Idaho. 
Since 1971 a party seeking a surface water right must file an application with the 
IDWR, obtain a permit, and perfect that right by obtaining a license.  
United States v. Pioneer Irr. Dist., 144 Idaho 106, 110, 157 P.3d 600, 604 (2007) (internal 
quotations and citations omitted). 
A storage water right entitles the appropriator to divert, impound, and control water from 
a natural watercourse by means of a diversion structure such as a dam. See Washington Cnty. Irr. 
Dist. v. Talboy, 55 Idaho 382, 385, 43 P.2d 943, 945 (1935) (holding that when water is stored, it 
becomes “the property of the appropriators . . . impressed with the public trust to apply it to a 
beneficial use”). A water right is defined in terms of the priority, amount, season of use, purpose 
of use, point of diversion, and place of use. Olson v. Idaho Dep’t of Water Res., 105 Idaho 98, 
101, 666 P.2d 188, 191 (1983); see I.C. § 42-1410. The purpose of use element of a storage 
water right generally contains at least two authorized purposes of use. The first authorizes the 
storage of water for a particular purpose (i.e., “irrigation storage,” or “power storage”). The 
second authorizes the subsequent use of that stored water for an associated purpose, which is 
often referred to as the “end use” (i.e., “irrigation from storage,” or “power from storage”). Each 
purpose of use is assigned its own quantity and period of use, which may or may not differ from 
one another. With respect to storage rights for irrigation, for example, it is typical for the 
“irrigation storage” purpose of use to be a year-round use (January 1 to December 31), and the 
“irrigation from storage” purpose of use to be limited to the irrigation season (e.g., March 15 to 
November 15).  
 
Water diverted and stored pursuant to a storage water right need not be put to the end use 
immediately, but may be stored for a period of time prior to the end use: 
There is a fundamental difference with regard to the diversion and use of water 
from a flowing stream and a reservoir. In a stream if a user does not take out his 
water, it may be diverted by the other appropriators, because otherwise it flows on 
and is dissipated. But the very purpose of storage is to retain and hold for 
subsequent use, direct or augmentary, hence retention is not of itself illegal nor 
does it deprive the user of the right to continue to hold. 
Rayl v. Salmon River Canal Co., 66 Idaho 199, 208, 157 P.2d 76, 80 (1945).   
7 
 
 
This case arose out of disputes over the effect flood control releases have on storage 
water right holders; specifically, whether a remark authorizing storage water rights to refill space 
vacated for flood control should be included in storage water right decrees. In answering this 
question, the SRBA court concluded that a remark was not necessary because a storage water 
right that has been filled or satisfied cannot refill under priority before affected junior 
appropriators satisfy their water rights once. While the parties raise numerous issues with the 
court’s decision on this basin-wide issue, two predominate: (1) whether the district court 
incorrectly held that the basin wide issue, as designated, involved only a question of law; and (2) 
whether the district court erred in failing to define “fill.”  
 
Before addressing the correctness of the SRBA court’s decision, it is necessary to clarify 
what exactly was decided. From the outset, the question the Surface Water Coalition and the 
Boise Project Board wanted answered was whether flood control releases count against a storage 
water right. As the SRBA court noted, “[T]he crux of the issue [is] whether Idaho law authorizes 
the refill of a storage water right, under priority, where water diverted under that right is released 
for flood control.” The court then went on to designate the basin-wide issue as: “Does Idaho law 
require a remark authorizing storage rights to ‘refill,’ under priority, space vacated for flood 
control?” While it may have seemed that the SRBA court was going to answer the question of 
whether flood control releases count towards the fill of a water right, the court specifically 
declined to address the issue of fill—an issue the court found would require factually specific 
inquiries not well situated for resolution in a basin-wide proceeding. The SRBA court intended 
Basin-Wide Issue 17 to be a purely legal question and stated that it would not consider “specific 
factual circumstances, operational history, or historical agreements associated with any particular 
reservoir.” Accordingly, the court struck the Shelley Davis affidavit that the Boise Project Board 
submitted because the affidavit sought to develop a factual record.  
 
The SRBA court ultimately held that a remark was not necessary under Idaho law 
because under the prior appropriation doctrine, a storage water right holder could not refill its 
right under priority once that right had already been satisfied once. Again, it may have seemed 
that the SRBA court answered the underlying question the parties wanted answered. However, 
the court went on to clarify that it was not answering the “more important” question of whether 
“water that is diverted and stored under a storage right counted towards the quantity of that right 
if it is used by the reservoir operator for flood control purposes.” Thus, the SRBA court simply 
8 
 
held that where flood control releases already count towards the fill of a water right, that water 
right cannot be filled a second time following those flood control releases.  
 
On appeal, the parties ask this Court, in various ways, to answer the question of whether 
flood control releases count towards the fill of a water right. The Boise Project Board, the Ditch 
Companies, and the Surface Water Coalition all argue that the question of whether and when a 
storage water right is satisfied or filled when storage space is vacated for flood control purposes 
is integral to answering Basin-Wide Issue 17. They also acknowledge that this question is at least 
in part factual in nature. Accordingly, the Boise Project Board argues that the SRBA court erred 
in precluding the development of a factual record.  
It is clear from the record and how the SRBA court framed Basin-Wide Issue 17 that the 
court intended the issue to be purely legal. The SRBA court framed the issue as being whether 
“Idaho law require[s] a remark authorizing storage rights to ‘refill,’ under priority, space vacated 
for flood control.” The question deals with the quantity element of a water right and essentially 
asks whether a water right includes the right to refill in priority following flood control or other 
releases. In its designation order, the court specifically declined to address the issue of fill, an 
issue which the court noted, would require a factual inquiry.   
The only way the basin-wide issue in this case could be interpreted to include a question 
of fact is if defining “refill” requires a factual determination. The SRBA court took the literal 
meaning of refill (to fill again), which assumes a right has already been filled or satisfied once. 
Appellants argue that in the context of storage water rights “refill” has a more nuanced definition 
that requires first defining when the water right is actually filled or satisfied. The SRBA court 
believed the issue of when a water right is initially filled was a factual question and explicitly 
declined to address it as a basin-wide issue.1 On the other hand, the question of whether Idaho 
law requires a remark regarding “refill” presents only a question of law, which is in line with the 
Surface Water Coalition’s argument at the hearing on the Petition to Designate Basin-Wide 
                                                 
1 In its Order Designating Basin Wide Issue, the court stated that in its view, “the Surface Water Coalition’s 
proposed issues, which both pertain to how a storage right is initially filled, are not well situated for resolution in a 
basin-wide proceeding.” These two issues were: 
[Whether] [t]he storage right holder determines when to divert water to storage in order to 
maximize the beneficial use of water under this right. 
[Whether] [t]he beneficial use under this right is fully satisfied when the water stored and 
available for beneficial use equals the capacity of the reservoir. 
Then in its Memorandum Decision, the court stated that the question of whether “water that is diverted and stored 
under a storage right counted towards the quantity of that right if it is used by the reservoir operator for flood control 
purposes,” is “an accounting issue which this basin-wide proceeding does not address.”  
9 
 
Issue. The Coalition assured the judge that the proposed issue was “a fundamental legal 
question.” Thus, the Coalition completely changed its tune once the issue was designated as a 
basin-wide issue. While the Boise Project Board never claimed that the issue was purely a legal 
question, it did assert that the issue could be decided “on a statewide basis rather than a 
reservoir-by-reservoir basis.”  
The parties’ arguments on appeal—that the basin-wide issue presents a question of fact—
ignores their previous assertions regarding the nature of the issue and the court’s intent to 
designate the issue as strictly a legal question. From the outset the court explicitly declined to 
address the issue of whether water released for flood control purposes counts towards the initial 
fill of a water right. Thus, the argument that the court should have determined how the fill of a 
water right is calculated essentially amounts to an argument that the court erred in how it framed 
the basin-wide issue.  
A. Whether the SRBA court erred in its designation of Basin-Wide Issue 17. 
 
The Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure (I.R.C.P.), Idaho Rules of Evidence (I.R.E.), and the 
Idaho Appellate Rules (I.A.R.) govern litigation in the SRBA. SRBA Administrative Order 1 
(AO1) provides procedures to supplement the I.R.C.P., I.R.E., and I.A.R. “to the extent 
necessary to allow for the fair and expeditious resolution of all claims or issues in the SRBA.” 
AO1 (1)(b). These procedural rules define a basin-wide issue as: “An issue designated by the 
Presiding Judge as potentially affecting the interests of a large number of claimants to the use of 
water within the SRBA and the resolution of which will promote judicial economy.” AO1 (2)(c).  
 
SRBA Administrative Order 1 (16)(a)(l) sets forth what should be included in a motion to 
designate a basin-wide issue and provides that any party to the adjudication “may file a Motion 
to Designate Basin-Wide Issue if that party believes an issue materially affects a large number of 
parties to the adjudication.” Id. It further states that once a motion has been filed, “the motion to 
designate shall be decided by the Presiding Judge or a Special Master by Special Order of 
Reference.” Id. The next section states that “[t]he Presiding Judge may enter a Notice of Intent to 
Designate Basin-Wide Issue.” AO1 (16)(a)(2). The presiding judge is not required to designate 
an issue as basin-wide. Thus, the designation of a basin-wide issue is within the SRBA court’s 
discretion. 
 
The question the SRBA court designated and answered was the relatively straightforward 
question of whether a storage water right holder whose right has been satisfied once may refill 
10 
 
that right in priority following flood control releases. By declining to address the issue of fill, the 
SRBA court framed the basin-wide issue to only address the circumstance where water that is 
stored under a water right, but ultimately released for flood control purposes, counts against the 
fill of the storage water right. The question of whether in that circumstance, the water right 
holder may satisfy its water right a second time following the flood control release was not a 
question anyone appears to have wanted answered.2 Given that Basin-Wide Issue 17 as 
designated was not the question the parties actually sought to have answered, addressing this 
issue in a basin-wide proceeding does not promote judicial economy. Accordingly, the SRBA 
court abused its discretion in designating the question of whether “Idaho law require[s] a remark 
authorizing storage rights to ‘refill,’ under priority, space vacated for flood control” as Basin-
Wide Issue 17.  
To clarify, we are not holding that the SRBA court abused its discretion in declining to 
designate the question of whether flood control releases count toward the “fill” of a water right 
as a basin-wide issue. Nor will this Court answer that question on appeal. We agree with the 
Boise Project Board and the SRBA that the question of when a storage water right is filled 
presents a mixed question of fact and law. Indeed, the complex and historically dense contents of 
the Shelley Davis affidavit, along with the parties’ attempts to prove when a storage water right 
is filled by using reservoir-specific historical practices, support the conclusion that determining 
when a water right is filled requires the development of a factual record. There is an 
administrative procedure for fleshing out these factual interpretations if the SRBA court chooses 
to address the issue of fill on remand. This Court must be especially circumspect when deciding 
water law issues of first impression with potentially far-reaching consequences. Without a 
complete factual record and no injury alleged we decline to issue an advisory opinion on whether 
                                                 
2 Indeed, the SRBA court’s summary of the parties’ arguments indicates the court understood that the question the 
parties wanted answered was whether flood control releases count towards the initial fill of a water right: 
The Petitioners assert that Idaho law permits a storage right holder to refill his storage right, under 
priority, when water diverted and stored under that right is used by the reservoir operator for flood 
control purposes. They assert the right to priority refill is inherent in the nature of a storage water 
right. Since they assert this is the state of Idaho law, it is their position that no remark is necessary 
on the face of a storage right to authorize such priority refill. The Petitioners contend that a storage 
right holder is entitled to put to the storage right’s end use that volume of water set forth in the 
quantity element of the right. If water diverted and stored under a storage right is used for flood 
control purposes by the reservoir operator, then it is the Petitioners’ position that the storage 
holder is entitled to refill that space, under priority, to ensure a sufficient quantity of storage water 
to complete the right’s end use. 
11 
 
water stored under a storage right counts toward the fill of that right if it is used by the reservoir 
operator for flood control purposes. 
B. Determining when a water right is satisfied is within the Director’s discretionary 
functions.  
Next, the Surface Water Coalition and the Boise Project Board argue that the Idaho 
Department of Water Resources (IDWR) Director’s discretionary functions do not include the 
ability to determine when a water right is satisfied. The IDWR uses an accounting methodology 
to determine when a storage water right has been filled. In its Order Designating Basin-Wide 
Issue, the SRBA court determined that this accounting methodology was an administrative 
function which should be addressed on a case-by-case basis on a fully developed factual record 
and where the IDWR is a party. The Order also noted that “unlike the issue of priority refill 
which is directly related to the quantity element of a water right, the issue of fill is purely an 
issue of administration.” Thus, the court stated that the IDWR’s methodologies for determining 
when a water right is filled were beyond the scope of the basin-wide issue.  
Appellants contend that the IDWR cannot decide whether a storage water right is 
satisfied using the IDWR’s “accounting methodologies” because water rights are property rights 
and administration should only be governed by water right decrees. They are correct that a water 
right is a property right. Clear Springs Foods, Inc. v. Spackman, 150 Idaho 790, 797, 252 P.3d 
71, 78 (2011). Storage water rights are entitled to the same protection as any other type of 
property right. Am. Falls Reservoir Dist. No. 2 v. Idaho Dep’t of Water Res. (AFRD#2), 143 
Idaho 862, 878, 154 P.3d 433, 449 (2007). Thus, the main issue is whether the Director is 
determining water rights, and therefore property rights, when he determines that a water right is 
“filled,” or if the Director is just distributing water. 
The IDWR has a statutory duty to allocate water. The Idaho legislature gave the IDWR’s 
Director the power to make appropriation decisions in Idaho Code section 42-602: “[t]he director 
of the department of water resources shall have direction and control of the distribution of water 
from all natural water sources within a water district to the . . . facilities diverting therefrom.” 
The Director also “shall distribute water in water districts in accordance with the prior 
12 
 
appropriation doctrine.” 3 Id.  This means that the Director cannot distribute water however he 
pleases at any time in any way; he must follow the law.  
Idaho Code section 42-602 gives the Director broad powers to direct and control 
distribution of water from all natural water sources within water districts. In re Idaho Dep’t of 
Water Res. Amended Final Order Creating Water Dist. No. 170, 148 Idaho 200, 211, 220 P.3d 
318, 329 (2009). That statute gives the Director a “clear legal duty” to distribute water. Musser v. 
Higgonson, 125 Idaho 392, 395, 871 P.2d 809, 812 (1994) (abrogated on other grounds by 
Rincover v. State Dep’t of Fin., 132 Idaho 547, 976 P.2d 473 (1999)). However, “the details of 
the performance of the duty are left to the director’s discretion.” Id. Therefore, from the statute’s 
plain language, as long as the Director distributes water in accordance with prior appropriation, 
he meets his clear legal duty. Details are left to the Director.  
This Court has recognized the Director’s discretion to direct and control the 
administration of water in accordance with the prior appropriation doctrine. In Arkoosh v. Big 
Wood Canal Co., 48 Idaho 383, 283 P. 522 (1929), downstream natural flow water users sued to 
enjoin upstream users with junior storage water rights from interfering with the downstream 
users’ rights. The downstream users claimed that they had the right to receive their decreed water 
whenever they chose and that the upstream users had to fulfill the downstream users’ right from 
the stored water. Arkoosh, 48 Idaho at 388, 283 P. at 523. The original decree made the 
downstream users the judges of when they could use the water, which the Court noted was too 
broad in that “their right to receive water at any time they may demand it is a matter finally 
adjudicated.” Id. at 395, 283 P. at 525. At the time the Commissioner of Reclamation occupied a 
similar position to the current Director, and the Court noted that this was a matter that should be 
determined by the Commissioner’s department.4 Id. at 395, 283 P. at 526. Similarly, this Court 
has stated that the Director “is charged with the duty of direction and control of distribution of 
the waters from the streams to the ditches and canals.” DeRousse v. Higginson, 95 Idaho 173, 
179, 505 P.2d 321, 327 (1973). More recently, this Court further articulated the Director’s 
discretion: “Somewhere between the absolute right to use a decreed water right and an obligation 
not to waste it and to protect the public’s interest in this valuable commodity, lies an area for the 
                                                 
3 The legislature also provided for the Director to accomplish water distributions with watermasters who act in 
accordance with prior appropriation and are supervised by the Director. I.C. § 42-602.  
4 The Court also stated that “[t]he action of the commissioner in determining when water may be first beneficially 
used and in delivering or refusing to deliver water may be reviewed and controlled” in an action by an aggrieved 
party. Id. at 395–96, 283 P. at 526.  
13 
 
exercise of discretion by the Director.” AFRD#2, 143 Idaho at 880, 154 P.3d at 451. Thus, the 
Director’s clear duty to act means that the Director uses his information and discretion to provide 
each user the water it is decreed. And implicit in providing each user its decreed water would be 
determining when the decree is filled or satisfied.  
This Court has also recognized the need for the Director’s specialized expertise in certain 
areas of water law. For example, when analyzing the Director’s duties in the context of 
groundwater pumping levels, this Court stated, “Because of the need for highly technical 
expertise to accurately measure complex ground water data the legislature has delegated to the 
IDWA the function of ascertaining reasonable pumping levels.” Baker v. Ore-Ida Foods, Inc., 95 
Idaho 575, 584, 513 P.2d 627, 636 (1973). This Court also recognized the Director’s broad 
powers and expertise in administering water rights in the context of granting applications for 
extensions of time. When holding that the Director properly granted a water right extension 
application, the Court noted that “[h]e cannot, in other words, be made to predict the future with 
powers other than his own reason and judgment” and “we ordinarily must vest the findings of the 
state engineer with the presumption of correctness.” 5 Keller v. Magic Water Co., 92 Idaho 276, 
282, 441 P.2d 725, 731 (1968). The Court further explained that: 
[T]he state engineer is the expert on the spot, and we are constrained to realize the 
converse, that judges are not super engineers. The legislature intended to place 
upon the shoulders of the state engineer the primary responsibility for a proper 
distribution of the waters of the state, and we must extend to his determinations 
and judgment, weight on appeal.  
Id. at 283, 441 P.2d 725, 732 (internal citations and quotations omitted). 
Additionally, the Legislature has recognized the need for the Director’s expertise. For 
instance, the Legislature provided that the Director “shall be: a licensed civil or agricultural 
engineer,” a registered geologist, or a hydrologist holding a hydrology degree from an accredited 
college or university. I.C. § 42-1701(2). The legislature specified that the Director shall have 
“not less than five (5) years of experience” in one of those professions “and shall be familiar 
with irrigation and other water use practices in Idaho.” Id. This reaffirms the need for the 
Director to have the technical expertise to properly administer water rights.  
Here, the Director’s duty to administer water according to technical expertise is governed 
by water right decrees. The decrees give the Director a quantity he must provide to each water 
                                                 
5 At the time, the Director was known as the “State Engineer.” 
14 
 
user in priority. In other words, the decree is a property right to a certain amount of water: a 
number that the Director must fill in priority to that user. However, it is within the Director’s 
discretion to determine when that number has been met for each individual decree. In short, the 
Director simply counts how much water a person has used and makes sure a prior appropriator 
gets that water before a junior user. Which accounting method to employ is within the Director’s 
discretion and the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act provides the procedures for challenging 
the chosen accounting method.   
III. CONCLUSION 
 
We hold that the SRBA court abused its discretion in designating the question of whether 
“Idaho law require[s] a remark authorizing storage rights to ‘refill,’ under priority, space vacated 
for flood control” as Basin-Wide Issue 17. The SRBA court did not abuse its discretion by 
declining to address when the quantity element of a storage water right is considered filled or in 
stating that such a determination was within the Director’s discretion.  
 
Justices EISMANN, J. JONES, HORTON and SCHROEDER, Pro tem, CONCUR.