Opinion ID: 874162
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Did the District Court Err in Failing to Order the Director to Curtail More Ground Water Pumping?

Text: After the hearing officer issued his recommendations, the Ground Water users filed objections with the Director contending, among other things, that the 10% margin of error should be disregarded because it was based upon the fact that the water gauges have a margin of error of plus or minus 10% and there is no way to know whether the error is high or low. Thus, they argued that all water users of hydraulically connected water sources must be administered based upon priority. The Director did not accept that argument. The Spring Users also raised the issue on their appeal to the district court. The court noted that former-Director Dreher's decision to exclude from administration water rights within margin of error was based in part upon the full economic development language in Idaho Code § 42-226. It also noted that the hearing officer upheld the prior Director's decision based upon the public interest considerations in Conjunctive Management Rule 020.03. In his final order, former-Director Tuthill adopted the findings of fact and conclusions of law of both Director Dreher and the hearing officer. Director Dreher wrote as a conclusion of law, `[W]hile the doctrine of first in time is first in right is recognized [and applies to ground water rights], a reasonable exercise of this right shall not block full economic development of underground water resources.' Idaho Code § 42-226. As explained above, that statute has no application to this case. The reference to full economic development in the statute refers to promoting full economic development of underground water resources by protecting a senior ground water appropriator only in the maintenance of reasonable pumping levels so that a senior appropriator with a shallow well could not block subsequent ground water appropriation. The Spring Users are surface water appropriators, not ground water appropriators. The hearing officer upheld the prior Director's decision based upon the public interest considerations in Conjunctive Management Rule 020.03, and Director Tuthill accepted that analysis in his final order. That Rule includes the statement: The policy of reasonable use includes the concepts of priority in time and superiority in right being subject to conditions of reasonable use as the legislature may by law prescribe as provided in Article XV, Section 5, Idaho Constitution, optimum development of water resources in the public interest prescribed in Article XV, Section 7, Idaho Constitution, and full economic development as defined by Idaho law. IDAPA 37.03.11.020.03. The district court did not affirm the final order based upon the above-quoted statements regarding Idaho Code § 42-226 and Conjunctive Management Rule 020.03. The district court held that the Court concludes that the use of a trim-line for excluding juniors within the margin of error is acceptable simply based on the function and application of a model. The court stated, The evidence also supports the position that the model must have a factor for uncertainty as it is only a simulation or prediction of reality. . . . Given the function and purpose of a model it would be inappropriate to apply the results independent of the assigned margin of error. The court concluded, Accordingly, the Director did not abuse discretion by applying the 10% margin of error `trim line.' The issue is whether the district court erred in upholding the Director on the ground that he did not abuse his discretion in not curtailing ground water appropriators who are within the model's margin of error. The Spring Users contend that the Director abused his discretion for several reasons. First, because the error in the stream gauges is plus or minus 10%, there is no way to know when administering water rights in a particular case whether the error is high or low. Second, the Director has described the groundwater model itself as the best available technology for determining the impact of junior ground water diversions on spring supplies. Third, there is no statute or administrative rule requiring 100% accuracy in measuring devices or in determining material injury, nor is there evidence showing that such level of accuracy could be achieved. The Director concluded that there was up to a 10% margin of error in the groundwater model due to the margin of error in the stream gauges, and he decided not to curtail appropriators who were within that margin of error when deciding whether they were causing material injury to the Spring Users' water rights. The Director perceived the issue as discretionary, he acted within the outer limits of his discretion and consistently with the legal standards applicable to the available choices, and he reached his decision through an exercise of reason. The district court did not err in upholding the Director's decision in this regard. In American Falls Reservoir District No. 2 v. Idaho Department of Water Resources, 143 Idaho 862, 878, 154 P.3d 433, 449 (2007), we stated, Once the initial determination is made that material injury is occurring or will occur, the junior [appropriator] then bears the burden of proving that the call would be futile or to challenge, in some other constitutionally permissible way, the senior's call. The Spring Users argue that the Director's decision not to curtail appropriator's within the margin of error results in a shifting of the burden of proof from the junior appropriator to the senior appropriator. The Spring Users have not pointed to anything in the record indicating that this argument was raised in the district court, so we will not consider it on appeal. Houston v. Whittier, 147 Idaho 900, 911, 216 P.3d 1272, 1283 (2009).