Opinion ID: 874314
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Director Bias/Depriving Water Rights Holders of the Opportunity to Provide Meaningful Input

Text: Thompson Creek argues that the Director believed that the WSRA obligated him to create WD170, and that the Director was statutorily precluded from creating a water district solely based upon the WSRA. Thompson Creek further asserts that this false belief violated due process in rendering the Director a biased decision-maker, and in depriving water rights holders the opportunity to provide meaningful input regarding the creation of WD170. IDWR responds that this argument should be deemed waived as Thompson Creek failed to seek the Director's disqualification under I.C. § 67-5252. IDWR argues, alternatively, that the Director was aware that the WSRA was not binding upon him and that he based his decision to create WD170 upon substantial evidence in the record, not upon the WSRA. Ultimately, the claim of director bias and the claim of depriving water rights holders of an opportunity to provide meaningful input are the same claim, and shall be treated as such.
Idaho Code § 67-5252(2) provides, inter alia: Any party may petition for the disqualification of a person serving or designated to serve as presiding officer: (a) within fourteen (14) days after receipt of notice indicating that the person will preside at the contested case; or (b) promptly upon discovering facts establishing grounds for disqualification, whichever is later. (Emphasis added). Thompson Creek argues that it was unaware of the Director's bias until it reviewed the administrative record, subsequent to the hearing. Idaho Code § 67-5252 does not require that a biased decision-maker claim be raised prior to an agency hearing. Turning to the Mountainview analysis, the issue becomes whether Thompson Creek raised the issue of director bias for the first time on appeal. See Mountainview Landowners Coop. Ass'n v. Cool, 142 Idaho 861, 866, 136 P.3d 332, 337 (2006). This Court has held that when an issue is not formally raised but is actually considered below, it will be deemed to have been raised below. Manookian v. Blaine County, 112 Idaho 697, 700, 735 P.2d 1008, 1011 (1987) (The distinction must be made between an issue not formally raised below and an issue that was never raised below. Where an issue never surfaced below, it is not proper for it to be raised on appeal.). Thompson Creek did not specifically couch its argument before IDWR as one of director bias. Rather, Thompson Creek argued that the Director believed that the State of Idaho had bound him to create WD170 when the State signed the WSRA, or at a minimum, that the Director's knowledge of the WSRA improperly predisposed him to create WD170. Ultimately, Thompson Creek's argument regarding the WSRA's influence on the Director is the basis for their claim that the Director was biased. Therefore, we find Thompson Creek's argument of director bias was not waived.
The Due Process Clause entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal. Eacret v. Bonner County, 139 Idaho 780, 784, 86 P.3d 494, 498 (2004) (citing Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 100 S.Ct. 1610, 64 L.Ed.2d 182 (1980)). This requirement applies not only to courts, but also to state administrative agencies. Id. (citing Stivers v. Pierce, 71 F.3d 732 (9th Cir.1995)). In Marcia T. Turner, L.L.C. v. City of Twin Falls, this Court further examined what makes a decision-maker biased, holding: In the context of due process, it does not mean `lack of preconception in favor of or against a particular legal view. This sort of impartiality would be concerned, not with guaranteeing litigants equal application of the law, but rather with guaranteeing them an equal chance to persuade the court on the legal points in their case.' It also does not mean having `no preconceptions on legal issues, but [being] willing to consider views that oppose his preconceptions, and remain[ing] open to persuasion, when the issues arise in a pending case.' Impartiality under the Due Process Clause does not guarantee each litigant a chance of changing the judge's preconceived view of the law. 144 Idaho 203, 209, 159 P.3d 840, 846 (2007) (alterations in original) (citations omitted) (quoting Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U.S. 765, 122 S.Ct. 2528, 153 L.Ed.2d 694 (2002)). A decision maker is not disqualified simply because he has taken a position, even in public, on a policy issue related to the dispute, in the absence of a showing that the decision maker is `not capable of judging a particular controversy fairly on the basis of its own circumstances.' Turner, 144 Idaho at 209, 159 P.3d at 846 (quoting Eacret, 139 Idaho at 785, 86 P.3d at 499). Thompson Creek argues that the Director of IDWR believed he was bound by the WSRA to create WD170, and that the Director presented slides at the public hearing stating that IDWR must establish WD170. The Director responds that the SRBA court, in authorizing the WSRA, specifically excluded IDWR from being bound by that agreement as a non-signatory party, and that the Director was capable of judging the controversy fairly. Thompson Creek counters that the Attorney General for the State of Idaho was a signatory party, signing for the State of Idaho, including the Idaho Water Resources Board, and that the Attorney General, as an agent for the State, may bind the State and all of the State's administrative agencies. Thompson Creek's argument is misguided. The Director was certainly entitled to consider the WSRA as contextual information in determining whether the creation of WD170 was necessary, particularly as the WSRA is the reason the State of Idaho filed a motion for interim administration of water rights, pursuant to I.C. § 42-1417. It is true that the WSRA anticipated that IDWR would create WD170. The slide Thompson Creek points to as evidence that the Director had pre-determined that WD170 would be created is, in fact, a bullet-point summarizing provisions of the WSRA itself. In approving the proposed WSRA, the SRBA court specifically decreed that the provisions of the WSRA addressing administration of water rights shall not be binding on this Court or non-signatory parties with regard to administration of water rights by IDWR.  Whether or not the Attorney General, as an agent for the State of Idaho, may bind a State agency, the SRBA court made it clear that in this instance IDWR was not bound. The Director believed that the creation of WD170 was necessary for the proper administration of water rights within the district area, which is the reason the public hearing was convened. His preliminary belief that WD170 should be created does not mean that the Director was not capable of judging that particular controversy fairly on the basis of its own circumstances. See Turner, 144 Idaho at 209, 159 P.3d at 846. The Director's Amended Final Order demonstrates that he considered Thompson Creek's arguments opposing the creation of WD170, and considered a broad range of other factors in coming to the decision that the creation of WD170 was necessary. The record shows that IDWR treated Thompson Creek fairly throughout the process of deciding to create WD170. IDWR listened to Thompson Creek's concerns, but in the end simply disagreed with Thompson Creek's conclusions. In fact, 17 of 26 paragraphs of the Conclusions of Law in the Amended Final Order were devoted to responding to concerns raised by Thompson Creek. Therefore, we find that the Director was not biased in the creation of WD170. [3]