Opinion ID: 880166
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Analysis of Applicable Case Law.

Text: a. American Falls Reservoir District No. 2 v. Idaho Department of Water Resources Although mainly focused on issues of burden shifting, this Court’s decision in American Falls touched on the issue of evidentiary standards. In American Falls, the American Falls Reservoir District and others sought a declaratory judgment that the CM Rules were unconstitutional. 143 Idaho at 867–68, 154 P.3d at 438–39. This Court ultimately concluded that the CM Rules were facially constitutional. Id. at 881, 154 P.3d at 452. To reach that conclusion, this Court touched on the topic of applicable evidentiary standards. Id. at 876–77, 154 P.3d at 447–48. However, this Court did not rule on whether the CM Rules were constitutional “as applied,” since administrative remedies were not exhausted. Id. at 870–71, 24 154 P.3d at 441–42. Thus, American Falls did not provide any exact insight into the proper evidentiary standards for the CM Rules, although the opinion noted that “[r]equirements pertaining to the standard of proof and who bears it have been developed over the years and are to be read into the CM Rules.” Id. at 874, 154 P.3d at 445. As part of this analysis in American Falls, this Court also pointed out an important distinction: [T]he water rights adjudications neither address, nor answer, the questions presented in delivery calls; thus, responding to delivery calls, as conducted pursuant to the CM Rules, do not constitute a re-adjudication. For example, the SRBA court determines the water sources, quantity, priority date, point of diversion, place, period and purpose of use. However, reasonableness is not an element of a water right; thus, evaluation of whether a diversion is reasonable in the administration context should not be deemed a re-adjudication. Moreover, a partial decree need not contain information on how each water right on a source physically interacts or affects other rights on that same source. Id. at 876–77, 154 P.3d at 447–48 (internal citations omitted). Additionally, this Court held that the CM Rules cannot be read as burden shifting provisions that would require the senior right holder to re-adjudicate his right. Id. at 877–78, 154 P.3d at 448–49. The distinction between the adjudication of a water right and an administration of that water right is a critical element in this analysis.