Opinion ID: 880166
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: SRBA Decree of A&B’s water right 36-2080

Text: The district court found that the “way in which the 36-2080 water right was licensed and ultimately decreed in the SRBA is not typical.” The partial decree does not define or limit the place of use for any individual point of diversion. Rather, the partial decree lists the place of use as “within the boundary of A & B irrigation district service area, pursuant to section 43-323, Idaho Code. This right is limited to the irrigation of 62,604.3 acres within the A & B irrigation district boundary in a single irrigation season.” The district court held that the legal effect of the SRBA partial decree “is that water diverted from any one of the points of diversion is appurtenant to and therefore can be used on any and all of the 62,604.3 acres within the defined place of use.” As mentioned above, this arrangement was intentional. In a response to IDWR regarding the original permitting for the project, USBR stated that “[w]e emphasize that the project is one integrated system, physically, operationally, and financially. . . . Therefore it is impractical and undesirable to designate precise land areas within the project served by each of the specific wells on the list.” Additionally, the SRBA partial decree notes the total quantity of the right, 1,100 cubic feet per second (cfs) with a limitation of 250,417.20 acre feet per year (afy), but it does not provide any specific rates of diversion from any of the individual wells. A plain reading of the SRBA partial decree in conjunction with the Hearing Officer’s findings provides ample support to the Director’s Final Order. Therefore, we find that the Director’s decision to analyze A&B’s water right on a system-wide basis was not arbitrary and capricious, but rather it was based on a reasoned analysis of water right 36-2080 as it was permitted and partially decreed. 2. Whether the Director unconstitutionally applied the CM Rules by finding that A&B must interconnect individual wells or well systems across the project before a delivery call can be filed. In his recommendations, the Hearing Officer found that “there is an obligation of A&B to take reasonable steps to maximize the use of [interconnection] to move water within the system before it can seek curtailment or compensation from juniors.” The Director accepted this finding in his Final Order. A&B argues that Idaho law does not require A&B to interconnect its separate points of diversion as a condition to administer junior priority ground water rights. 19 The argument advanced by A&B has four parts. First, that a mandate of interconnection as a prerequisite of administration is an unconstitutional application of the CM Rules. Second, that the actions of the Director contradict the plain language of A&B’s water right decree from the SRBA. Third, that there is no mention in the Idaho Code or in the CM Rules of a senior right holder’s need to interconnect as a condition of administration with juniors. And fourth, that the act of interconnection of the A&B project will not address the problem of diminishing groundwater supply. a. A&B’s argument that a mandate of interconnection is unlawful. A&B argues that Idaho is a prior appropriation state, and that the denial of its delivery call on the basis of a new condition to administration unlawfully diminishes A&B’s priority. See Idaho Const. art. XV, § 3 (“Priority of appropriation shall give the better right as between those using the water . . . .”). “Priority in time is an essential part of western water law and to diminish one’s priority works an undeniable injury to that water right holder.” Jenkins v. State, Dept. of Water Res., 103 Idaho 384, 388, 647 P.2d 1256, 1260 (1982). This argument has two sub-parts. i. A&B’s argument that the actions of the Director contradict the SRBA partial decree. In this argument, A&B claims that the Director violated the plain terms of the SRBA partial decree by reading into the decree a condition that is not spelled out. A decree entered in a general adjudication shall be conclusive as to the nature and extent of all water rights in the adjudicated water system. I.C. § 42-1420(1). [A] provision is to be included in a decree if it is necessary to define or for the efficient administration of a water right, and it is not necessary that the provision apply to all water rights. Therefore, if the provision is necessary for the efficient administration of a water right, we hold that the provision should be included in the decree, and remand for further factual findings as to the necessity of this provision either to the definition or the administration of these water rights. State v. Nelson, 131 Idaho 12, 16, 951 P.2d 943, 947 (1998) (internal citation omitted). A&B argues that absent a limitation or condition on the decree, the Director had no authority to deny A&B’s request for administration on the basis of interconnection. Ultimately the answer to this argument is the same as the answer in the following subpart ii. That is, whether the Director’s discretion includes the ability to require reasonable methods of diversion and application by a senior right holder. 20 The CM Rules provide a list of the factors that the Director may consider in his determination of a senior right holder’s material injury. 10 The most pertinent provision is IDAPA Rule 37.03.11.042(g) which allows the Director to consider “[t]he extent to which the requirements of the holder of a senior-priority water right could be met with the user’s existing facilities and water supplies by employing reasonable diversion and conveyance efficiency and conservation practices.” This Court’s holding in American Falls touched on this very topic. The CM Rules “give the Director the tools by which to determine ‘how the various ground and surface water sources are interconnected, and how, when, where and to what extent the diversion and use of water from one source impacts [others].’” American Falls, 143 Idaho at 878, 154 P.3d at 449 (quoting A & B Irrigation Dist. v. Idaho Conservation League, 131 Idaho 411, 422, 958 10 IDAPA Rule 37.03.11.042 states in pertinent part: 01. Factors. Factors the Director may consider in determining whether the holders of water rights are suffering material injury and using water efficiently and without waste include, but are not limited to, the following: a. The amount of water available in the source from which the water right is diverted. b. The effort or expense of the holder of the water right to divert water from the source. c. Whether the exercise of junior-priority ground water rights individually or collectively affects the quantity and timing of when water is available to, and the cost of exercising, a senior-priority surface or ground water right. This may include the seasonal as well as the multi-year and cumulative impacts of all ground water withdrawals from the area having a common ground water supply. d. If for irrigation, the rate of diversion compared to the acreage of land served, the annual volume of water diverted, the system diversion and conveyance efficiency, and the method of irrigation water application. e. The amount of water being diverted and used compared to the water rights. f. The existence of water measuring and recording devices. g. The extent to which the requirements of the holder of a senior-priority water right could be met with the user’s existing facilities and water supplies by employing reasonable diversion and conveyance efficiency and conservation practices; provided, however, the holder of a surface water storage right shall be entitled to maintain a reasonable amount of carry-over storage to assure water supplies for future dry years. In determining a reasonable amount of carry-over storage water, the Director shall consider the average annual rate of fill of storage reservoirs and the average annual carry-over for prior comparable water conditions and the projected water supply for the system. h. The extent to which the requirements of the senior-priority surface water right could be met using alternate reasonable means of diversion or alternate points of diversion, including the construction of wells or the use of existing wells to divert and use water from the area having a common ground water supply under the petitioner’s surface water right priority. 21 P.2d 568, 579 (1997)). The Director did not impose a new condition, but rather he used his discretion to analyze A&B’s delivery call using his statutory authority in the manner governed by the CM Rules. ii. A&B’s argument that there is no mention in Idaho law of a senior right holder’s need to interconnect as a condition of administration. A&B argues that there is no language in I.C. §§ 42-602, 607, or CM Rule 40 that would require A&B to interconnect its system as a condition to administration. A&B believes that this precondition to administration shifts a burden onto A&B in violation of this Court’s opinion in American Falls. See 143 Idaho at 877–78, 154 P.3d at 448–49 (“The Rules should not be read as containing a burden-shifting provision to make the petitioner re-prove or re-adjudicate the right which he already has.”). The answer here is the same as that in the subsection directly above. Idaho law does not explicitly state that interconnection is a condition of administration, but the CM Rules allow the Director to consider reasonable diversion in his determinations. b. A&B’s argument that interconnection of their water system will not address the issue of diminishing groundwater supply. Finally, A&B argues that interconnection will not solve the ultimate problem of diminishing water supply and would negatively impact the district’s landowners: “Attempting to move water from one well system to another . . . would only further reduce the amount of water available for delivery to all landowners served by those wells.” In the Hearing Officer’s findings presented above, it appears that there is no issue of diminishing ground water supply, as there was a specific finding that the aquifer is not being mined. Absent findings that A&B has exceeded a reasonable pumping level, there does not appear to be any evidence to support A&B’s argument. Additionally, IDWR points out that A&B seeks to curtail junior users while it simultaneously irrigates junior and enlargement acres. If water supply was an issue for A&B, it seems unlikely that they would continue this practice. Given the language in the CM Rules, we find that the Director did not act arbitrarily or violate Idaho law when he found that A&B must work to reasonably interconnect some individual wells or well systems before a delivery call can be filed, and we affirm the district court’s finding in this regard. D. The district court did not err in imposing the “clear and convincing” evidence standard on the Director’s determination of material injury in a delivery call. 22 In its Memorandum and Order on Petition for Judicial Review, the district court held that “clear and convincing” was the proper evidentiary standard to determine material injury in a delivery call. Pocatello and IGWA both appeal, arguing that the application of a higher evidentiary standard is not supported by Idaho law. As Pocatello argues, the clear and convincing evidence standard has only been applied in the context of adjudications or readjudications which serve to permanently deprive a water right holder of a decreed property right. This Court has free review over questions of law. Rahas v. Ver Mett, 141 Idaho 412, 414, 111 P.3d 97, 99 (2005). In State v. Kimball, this Court held that “[c]lear and convincing evidence is generally understood to be ‘evidence indicating that the thing to be proved is highly probable or reasonably certain.’” 145 Idaho 542, 546, 181 P.3d 468, 472 (2008) (quoting In re Adoption of Doe, 143 Idaho 188, 191, 141 P.3d 1057, 1060 (2006)). In Idaho, “[a] subsequent appropriator attempting to justify his diversion has the burden of providing that it will not injure prior appropriations.” Cantlin v. Carter, 88 Idaho 179, 186, 397 P.2d 761, 765-66 (1964) (superseded by statute, I.C. § 42-103 (1971)). Idaho law also provides that the burden of establishing waste is on the junior appropriator. Gilbert v. Smith, 97 Idaho 735, 739, 552 P.2d 1220, 1224 (1976). Pocatello argues that no evidentiary standard, “no matter how strict or relaxed,” can change the allocation of burden of persuasion in administrative law, since the burdens are defined in the rules. IDAPA Rule 37.03.11.042, which is stated in its entirety in Part IV.C.2 above, governs the Director’s determination of material injury and reasonableness of water diversions.
The district court stated that the clear and convincing evidence standard applied to a finding of injury “based on the way in which the right is structured and in giving proper legal effect to the decree . . . .” Such a standard, according to the district court, gives the “proper presumptive weight to a decree.” In assigning an evidentiary standard, the district court focused on the presumptions and burdens of proof found in the CM Rules and applicable case law. The reasoning behind the district court’s decision can be summed up in the following excerpt: The application of the clear and convincing standard of proof only makes sense from a common sense perspective. If the Director determines that a senior can satisfy the decreed purpose of use on less than the decreed quantity reflected, 23 he needs to be certain to a standard of clear and convincing evidence. In making a determination of whether or not to regulate juniors, the Director is required to evaluate whether the quantity available meets or exceeds the quantity the senior can put to beneficial use. If the Director regulates juniors to satisfy the senior’s decreed quantity there is no risk of injury to the senior. However, if the Director regulates juniors to satisfy a quantity less than decreed, there is risk to the senior that the Director’s determination is incorrect. There is no remedy for the senior if the Director’s determination turns out to be in error and the senior comes up short of water during the irrigation season. Any burden of this uncertainty should be borne by the junior . . . . [I]f the Director’s determination is only based on a finding ‘more probable than not.’ The senior’s right is put at risk and the junior is essentially accorded the benefit of uncertainty. The requisite high standard accords appropriate presumptive weight to the decree. The district court also noted several opinions from this Court that use the clear and convincing standard in connection with water rights. Forfeiture or abandonment of a water right must be established by clear and convincing evidence. See Crow v. Carlson, 107 Idaho 461, 467, 690 P.2d 916, 922 (1984). That same standard is used when establishing prescriptive title to the water right of another. See Gilbert, 97 Idaho at 739, 552 P.2d at 1224. Significantly, these cases deal with the actual modification of a water right. In its decision, the district court held that the futile delivery call defense was similar and “requires a showing of clear and convincing evidence that diversions by a junior appropriator will not injure the rights of a senior appropriator.” Additionally, the district court held that a “determination that a portion of a decreed water right is being wasted (or is not being put to beneficial use) is a diminishment of a property right. The decreed quantity is reduced by the amount determined not being put to beneficial use.”
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.