Opinion ID: 874371
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: We decline to grant Harvey's request to reverse and instruct the district court to establish the boundary between the parties' property at the location of channel B.

Text: Harvey contends that the Reads have failed to meet their burden of proving that the boundary lies in the location of channel A because they have failed to prove the existence of channel C in 1972, thus failing to prove that channel A carried water from Little Gold Creek via channel C in 1972. Harvey did not present this claim to the district court, and thus we will not address it. Johannsen, 146 Idaho at 429, 196 P.3d at 347. In conjunction with this argument, Harvey requests that we not only reverse the district court but instruct it to set the boundary in the location of channel B. The request that this Court instruct the district court to set the boundary in the location of channel B is made without reference to any evidence in the record that would support the conclusion that water flowed in channel B in 1972. Thus, the request is made without reference to evidence in the record that would support a finding that Harvey has succeed[ed] on the strength of [her] own title, and not on the weakness of that of [the Reads], Pincock v. Pocatello Gold and Copper Min. Co., Inc., 100 Idaho 325, 331, 597 P.2d, 211, 217 (1979), despite the fact that Harvey herself recognizes that this is the standard that must be met for success in a quiet title action. We decline to grant Harvey's request.