Opinion ID: 874027
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Did the District Court Err in Upholding the Condition Attached to Pocatello's Ground Water Rights?

Text: Pocatello contended that each of the wells in its two interconnected water distribution systems had become an alternate point of diversion for all water rights associated with that system pursuant to Idaho Code section 42-1425(2). That statute provides, insofar as is relevant, as follows: Any change of place of use, point of diversion, nature or purpose of use or period of use of a water right by any person entitled to use of water or owning any land to which water has been made appurtenant either by decree of the court or under the provisions of the constitution and statutes of this state, prior to November 19, 1987, the date of commencement of the Snake River basin adjudication . . . may be claimed in the applicable general adjudication even though the person has not complied with sections 42-108 and 42-222, Idaho Code, provided no other water rights existing on the date of the change were injured and the change did not result in an enlargement of the original right. IDWR recommended that each well could be an alternate point of diversion for all water rights associated with an interconnected system only if the water rights had an attached condition stating, To the extent necessary for administration between points of diversion for ground water, and between points of diversion for ground water and hydraulically connected surface sources, ground water was first diverted under this right from Pocatello well [description] in the amount of ___ cfs. IDWR asserted that the condition was necessary to avoid injury to other water rights and to assist in the administration of water rights in times of shortage. The district court agreed, writing: Specifically, injury to an existing water right is not limited to the circumstance where immediate physical interference occurs between water rights as of the date of the change. Injury also includes the diminished effect on the priority dates of existing water rights in anticipation of there being insufficient water to satisfy all rights on a source (or in this case a discrete region of the aquifer) and priority administration is sought. Even though the priority administration may occur at some point in the future, injury to the priority date occurs at the time the accomplished transfer is approved. The court also noted, The very fact that Pocatello contests the condition is an acknowledgment that without the condition the priorities of existing water rights will be diminished in favor of the alternative point of diversion for one of Pocatello's more senior rights. i.e. injury. Pocatello claims that the district court erred in requiring the condition in order to prevent injury to any existing water rights, where no actual injury to any other water right was shown. According to Pocatello, [N]o injury analysis should even be triggered under § 42-1425 unless there has been a third party objection filed to a claim and Future injury is also not a proper concern under the terms of § 42-1425, as only injuries to the other water right holders on the date of the change could justify denial of a claim. Pocatello is wrong on both counts. Pocatello's water distribution system consists of twenty-two wells that each pump water into an interconnected distribution system, allowing the entire distribution system to be the place of use for each well. When each well began diverting water, it had an associated water right with a specific priority date and a specific quantity of water that could be pumped from the well. Idaho Code section 42-1425 does not permit Pocatello to change the priority date of the water right associated with any well or the quantity of water that can be pumped from the well. It validates [a]ny change of place of use, point of diversion, nature or purpose of use or period of use of a water right . . . [that was accomplished] prior to November 19, 1987,. . . provided no other water rights existing on the date of the change were injured and the change did not result in an enlargement of the original right. I.C. § 42-1425(2). Proceeding under section 42-1425 a water user cannot obtain a transfer that constitutes either an enlargement of the water right or otherwise injures water rights existing on the date of the change. Fremont-Madison Irrigation Dist. and Mitigation Group v. Idaho Ground Water Appropriators, Inc., 129 Idaho 454, 458, 926 P.2d 1301, 1305 (1996). An increase in the volume of water diverted is an enlargement and is not allowed under I.C. § 42-1425. Id. Likewise, there is per se injury to junior water rights holders anytime an enlargement receives priority. A & B Irrigation Dist. v. Aberdeen-American Falls Ground Water Dist., 141 Idaho 746, 753, 118 P.3d 78, 85 (2005). 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. Idaho Dept. of Water Res., 103 Idaho 384, 388, 647 P.2d 1256, 1260 (1982). The limitations in section 42-1425 protect other water users from injury to their rights resulting from a recognition of the transfers that are memorialized in the adjudication. Fremont-Madison, 129 Idaho at 458, 926 P.2d at 1305 (emphasis added). If Pocatello could have each well be an alternate point of diversion for each water right without the attached condition, as stated by IDWR in its supplemental Director's Report, the City would be allowed to withdraw water under its most senior priority water right from any well location. Recognizing the transfers without the attached condition would injure junior water rights holders by diminishing their priorities. The district court did not err in upholding the attached condition.